Document No. 59
ILO, Handbook of procedures relating to international
labour Conventions and Recommendations, 2019
International
Labour
Standards
Department
Handbook of procedures
relating to international
labour Conventions
and Recommendations
Centenary Edition 2019
Handbook of procedures relating to
international labour Conventions
and Recommendations
International Labour Standards Department
International Labour Office Geneva
Copyright © International Labour Organization 2019
First published 2019
Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright
Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the
source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications (Rights
and Licensing), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The
International Labour Office welcomes such applications.
Libraries, institutions and other users registered with a reproduction rights organization may make copies in
accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction rights
organization in your country.
ISBN 978-92-2-133254-1 (print)
ISBN 978-92-2-133255-8 (Web pdf)
ISBN 978-92-2-133256-5 (epub)
The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the
presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their
authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions
expressed in them.
Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the
International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a
sign of disapproval.
Information on ILO publications and digital products can be found at: www.ilo.org/publns.
Printed by the International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx iii
Contents
Page
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
I. Adoption of international labour standards ............................................................................. 3
Nature and constitutional basis of Conventions and Recommendations ................................ 3
Placing an item on the Conference agenda ............................................................................. 3
Double discussion procedure .................................................................................................. 3
Single discussion procedure .................................................................................................... 5
Review of international labour standards ................................................................................ 5
Revision of Conventions and Recommendations.................................................................... 6
Abrogation or withdrawal of Conventions and Recommendations ........................................ 6
Languages ............................................................................................................................... 7
Special circumstances taken into account ............................................................................... 7
Flexibility devices ................................................................................................................... 7
Conventions and Recommendations as minimum standards .................................................. 8
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations ......................................................... 9
II. Submission to the competent authorities ................................................................................. 10
Constitutional obligations ....................................................................................................... 10
Governing Body Memorandum .............................................................................................. 11
Office procedures .................................................................................................................... 13
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations ......................................................... 14
Communication to representative organizations and observations received from them ......... 14
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 14
Office assistance ..................................................................................................................... 14
III. Ratification of Conventions and acceptance of obligations .................................................... 16
Procedure ................................................................................................................................ 16
Form of communication of ratifications ................................................................................. 16
Compulsory declarations to be included in or accompany the instrument of ratification ....... 16
Optional declarations to be included in or to accompany ratifications ................................... 17
Optional declarations concerning the scope of a Convention ................................................. 19
Ratification of Protocols ......................................................................................................... 19
Inadmissibility of reservations ................................................................................................ 20
Registration of ratifications and acceptances of obligations ................................................... 20
Entry into force ....................................................................................................................... 20
Obligations arising out of ratification ..................................................................................... 20
Incorporation in internal law ................................................................................................... 20
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations ......................................................... 21
iv Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Contents
Page
Non-metropolitan territories .................................................................................................... 21
Effect of withdrawal from the ILO ......................................................................................... 21
Information on ratifications ..................................................................................................... 21
IV. Reports on ratified Conventions .............................................................................................. 22
Obligation to report ................................................................................................................. 22
Reporting system ..................................................................................................................... 22
Detailed reports ....................................................................................................................... 25
Simplified reports .................................................................................................................... 26
Addressing failure to report .................................................................................................... 27
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations ......................................................... 28
Communication of reports to employers’ and workers’ organizations ................................... 28
Observations of employers’ and workers’ organizations ........................................................ 28
Office procedures for requesting reports ................................................................................. 28
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 29
V. Reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations – General Surveys ................. 31
Obligation to report on unratified Conventions ...................................................................... 31
Obligation to report on Recommendations ............................................................................. 31
Federal States .......................................................................................................................... 31
Choice of instruments for reports under article 19 (General Surveys) ................................... 31
Report forms............................................................................................................................ 32
Office procedures for requesting reports ................................................................................ 32
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations ......................................................... 32
Communication of reports to employers’ and workers’ organizations ................................... 32
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 33
VI. Reports on the follow-up of the 1998 Declaration .................................................................. 34
VII. Regular machinery for supervising the observance of obligations deriving from
Conventions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 35
Regular supervisory bodies ..................................................................................................... 35
A. Committee of Experts ................................................................................................... 35
B. Conference Committee on the Application of Standards .............................................. 37
VIII. Role of employers’ and workers’ organizations ..................................................................... 40
Communication of reports and information to employers’ and workers’ organizations ......... 40
Consultation of representative organizations .......................................................................... 40
Transmission of observations by employers’ and workers’ organizations ............................. 40
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx v
Contents
Page
Participation in the Conference ............................................................................................... 41
IX. Interpretation of Conventions and Recommendations ........................................................... 42
Constitutional provisions ........................................................................................................ 42
Informal opinion of the International Labour Office .............................................................. 42
Opinions and recommendations of the supervisory bodies ..................................................... 43
X. Revision of Conventions and Recommendations.................................................................... 44
Nature of revision of Conventions .......................................................................................... 44
Method and effect of revision of Conventions ........................................................................ 44
Revision of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 45
XI. Denunciation of Conventions .................................................................................................. 46
Conditions for denunciation .................................................................................................... 46
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations ......................................................... 46
Form of communication of denunciation ................................................................................ 46
Office procedures .................................................................................................................... 47
Effect of denunciation ............................................................................................................. 47
XII. Special procedures .................................................................................................................. 48
A. Representations as to the observance of ratified Conventions ...................................... 48
Constitutional provisions .............................................................................................. 48
Procedure for the examination of representations ........................................................ 48
B. Complaints as to the observance of ratified Conventions ............................................. 50
Main constitutional provisions ...................................................................................... 50
Other constitutional provisions ..................................................................................... 50
Commission of Inquiry procedure ................................................................................ 51
C. Complaints as to the infringement of freedom of association ...................................... 51
1. Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association ...................................... 51
2. Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association .............. 53
XIII. Assistance available from the International Labour Office in relation to international
labour standards ...................................................................................................................... 54
International labour standards and technical assistance ......................................................... 54
Informal advisory services ...................................................................................................... 54
Direct contacts ......................................................................................................................... 54
vi Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Contents
Page
Appendices
I. Model instrument (ratification) ............................................................................................... 57
II. Regular reporting cycle under article 22 of the ILO Consititution ......................................... 58
III. Simplified reports to be sent under article 22 of the ILO Constitution ................................... 60
IV. Model electronic form for the submission of a representation under article 24
of the ILO Constitution ........................................................................................................... 61
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 1
Introduction
This Handbook describes the procedures operating within the International Labour
Organization in relation to the adoption and implementation of Conventions and
Recommendations. The present edition takes account of the adjustments to the system for
the supervision of international labour standards decided on by the Governing Body of the
International Labour Office up to its October–November 2018 session. 1
The Handbook is designed in the first place to help officials of national administrations
responsible within their governments for the discharge of obligations under the ILO
Constitution relating to international labour standards, by setting out the provisions laying
down the procedures to follow and the practice established within the Organization for
giving effect to those provisions. It is also intended for use by organizations of workers and
employers, which have their own distinct roles to play in the procedures.
The International Labour Office’s functions include that of providing information and
training for officials of governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations on all
aspects of the procedures described in this Handbook. This is done in part through seminars
held in the various regions, at ILO headquarters in Geneva, at the ILO’s International
Training Centre in Turin (Italy), and in members States, as well as through advisory missions
carried out by officials of the International Labour Standards Department and the standards
specialists in the field. The Office is in any event at the disposal of the governments and
organizations for further explanations of any of the matters dealt with here. This Handbook
is issued and further assistance and advice are given by the International Labour Office on
the understanding that the Office has no special authority under the ILO Constitution to give
interpretations of the Constitution or instruments adopted by the Conference. 2
The International Labour Standards website (www.ilo.org/normes) contains numerous
information and links to relevant documents. In particular, it hosts the NORMLEX database,
which brings together information on the ILO standards system (such as the list of standards,
information on ratification and on reporting obligations, comments of the ILO’s supervisory
bodies, etc.) as well as information on national labour legislation.
1 See GB.334/INS/5 and GB.332/INS/5(Rev.), as well as GB.334/INS/PV.
2 See Chapter VIII of this Handbook.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 3
I. Adoption of international labour standards
Nature and constitutional basis of Conventions
and Recommendations
1. Conventions are instruments which on ratification create legal obligations.
Recommendations are not open to ratification, but give guidance as to policy, legislation and
practice. Both kinds of instrument are adopted by the International Labour Conference, 1 and
article 19 of the Constitution provides:
1. When the Conference has decided on the adoption of proposals with regard to an item
on the agenda, it will rest with the Conference to determine whether these proposals should take
the form: (a) of an international Convention, or (b) of a Recommendation to meet circumstances
where the subject, or aspect of it, dealt with is not considered suitable or appropriate at that time
for a Convention.
2. In either case a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast by the delegates present shall be
necessary on the final vote for the adoption of the Convention or Recommendation, as the case
may be, by the Conference.
Placing an item on the Conference agenda
2. The agenda of the Conference is settled by the Governing Body (Constitution, article 14). In
cases of special urgency or other special circumstances (this has been the case, for example,
where a draft Protocol is being considered) the Governing Body may decide to refer a
question to the Conference with a view to a single discussion (Standing Orders (SO), 2
article 34(5)); but otherwise there will be a double discussion (i.e. discussion at two sessions
of the Conference) (SO, article 34(4)). The Governing Body may also decide to refer a
question to a preparatory technical conference (Constitution, article 14(2); SO, articles 34(3)
and 36). The Conference itself may also, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the delegates
present, decide to include a subject on the agenda of the following session (Constitution,
article 16(3)).
Double discussion procedure
3. These are the stages in a double discussion: 3
(a) The Office prepares a report on law and practice in the different countries, together
with a questionnaire. The report and questionnaire request governments to consult the
most representative organizations of employers and workers before finalizing their
1 As, occasionally, are Protocols, which are partial and optional revisions or amendments of earlier
Conventions.
2 Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference, incorporating relevant Standing Orders of
the Governing Body.
3 The normal time limits for the various stages in this procedure may be varied where a question has
been included on the agenda less than 18 months before the opening of the session at which the first
discussion is to take place or where less than 11 months separate the two sessions concerned (SO,
article 39(5) and (8)).
4 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
replies and are communicated to governments at least 18 months before the relevant
session of the Conference (SO, article 39(1)).
(b) To be reflected in the report, governments’ replies must reach the Office not less than
11 months before the relevant session (SO, article 39(2)). In the case of federal
countries and countries where it is necessary to translate questionnaires into the national
language, the period of seven months allowed for the preparation of replies shall be
extended to eight months if the government concerned so requests.
(c) The Office prepares a further report on the basis of replies received, indicating the
principal questions for consideration by the Conference. This report is communicated
to governments normally not less than four months before the relevant session
(SO, article 39(3)).
(d) These reports are considered by the Conference – usually in committee – and if the
Conference decides the matter is suitable for a Convention or Recommendation it
adopts conclusions and either decides to include the question on the agenda of its
following session or asks the Governing Body to include it on the agenda of a later
session (SO, article 39(4)(a), (b)).
(e) On the basis of both the replies and the first Conference discussion, the Office drafts
Conventions or Recommendations and communicates them to governments within two
months of the end of the Conference session (SO, article 39(6)). 4
(f) Governments are again asked to consult the most representative organizations of
employers and workers and have three months to suggest amendments and make
comments (SO, article 39(6)).
(g) On the basis of further government replies, a final report containing the amended text
of Conventions or Recommendations is communicated to governments at least three
months before the session of the Conference at which they are to be discussed
(SO, article 39(7)).
(h) The Conference decides whether to base its second discussion on the Conventions or
Recommendations drafted by the Office and how to consider them – usually in
committee in the first place. Each clause of a Convention or Recommendation is placed
before the Conference for adoption, and the drafts thus adopted are referred to the
Drafting Committee for preparation of final texts. 5 Texts of instruments approved by
the Drafting Committee are submitted to the Conference for final adoption in
accordance with article 19 of the Constitution (see paragraph 1 above and
SO, article 40).
(i) The Conference may, if it rejects a Convention contained in the report of a committee,
refer it again to the committee for transformation into a Recommendation
(SO, article 40(6)).
4 If there is less than 11 months between the two sessions, a programme of reduced intervals may be
approved by the Governing Body or its Officers (SO, article 39(8)). At the same time as it asks
governments for their comments on proposed Conventions and Recommendations, the Office consults
the United Nations and other specialized agencies as to any proposed provisions affecting their
activities and brings any comments they make before the Conference together with the government
replies (SO, article 39bis).
5 See SO, article 6.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 5
(j) If a Convention fails on a final vote to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority but does
obtain a simple majority, the Conference decides whether to refer it to the Drafting
Committee for redrafting as a Recommendation (SO, article 41).
Single discussion procedure
4. These are the stages in a single discussion: 6
(a) The Office prepares a summary report on law and practice in the different countries,
together with a questionnaire with a view to the preparation of Conventions or
Recommendations, 7 for communication to governments at least 18 months before the
relevant Conference session. Governments are requested to consult the most
representative organizations of employers and workers (SO, article 38(1)). 8
(b) Governments’ replies must reach the Office not less than 11 months before the relevant
session (SO, article 38(1)).
(c) On the basis of governments’ replies, a final report containing the text of Conventions
or Recommendations 9 is communicated to governments at least four months before the
opening of the Conference session (SO, article 38(2)).
(d) If the question has been considered at a preparatory technical conference, the Office
may either, according to Governing Body decision, communicate to governments a
summary report and questionnaire (see (a) and (b) above); or, on the basis of the work
of the preparatory technical conference, draft a final report (see (c) above – SO,
article 38(4)).
(e) The final consideration and adoption of Conventions and Recommendations under the
single-discussion procedure follow paragraph 3(h) to (j) above.
Review of international labour standards
5. The Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM TWG) was established
in 2015 with a mandate to review the international labour standards to ensure that the body
of standards is robust and responsive to the constantly changing patterns of the world of
work, for the purpose of the protection of workers and taking into account the needs of
sustainable enterprises.10 Its initial programme of work is composed of 235 international
6 The normal time limits for the various stages in this procedure may be varied where a question has
been included on the agenda less than 26 months before the opening of the session at which the
discussion is to take place, and a programme of reduced intervals may be approved by the Governing
Body or its Officers (SO, article 38(3)).
7 Or a Protocol.
8 At the same time as it asks governments for their comments on proposed Conventions and
Recommendations, the Office consults the United Nations and other specialized agencies as to any
proposed provisions affecting their activities and brings any comments they make before the
Conference together with the government replies (SO, article 39bis).
9 Or Protocols.
10 See the terms of reference of the SRM TWG: GB.325/LILS/3.
6 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
labour standards, 11 68 of which were referred to the Special Tripartite Committee
established for addressing matters relating to the Maritime Labour Convention
(MLC, 2006). 12 Pursuant to its terms of reference, the SRM TWG’s mandate is to review
standards with a view to making recommendations to the Governing Body on: 13
(a) the status of the standards examined, including up-to-date standards, standards in need
of revision, outdated standards, and possible other classifications;
(b) the identification of gaps in coverage, including those requiring new standards;
(c) practical and time-bound follow-up action, as appropriate.
Revision of Conventions and Recommendations 14
6. Separate procedures for the revision of Conventions and Recommendations are included in
articles 43–45 of the Standing Orders. However, they are substantially the same as those
described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, and in practice reference is made to the same articles
of the Standing Orders.
Abrogation or withdrawal of Conventions
and Recommendations
7. At its 85th Session (June 1997), the Conference adopted amendments to the Constitution of
the Organization adding a ninth paragraph to article 19 and to the Standing Orders of the
Conference (a new article 11 and a new article 45bis of the Standing Orders). A Convention
is considered as being obsolete “if it appears that the Convention has lost its purpose or that
it no longer makes a useful contribution to attaining the objectives of the Organisation”
(article 19, paragraph 9, of the Constitution). 15 The abrogation procedure applies to
Conventions that are in force. Withdrawal applies to Conventions that are not in force and
to Recommendations. Abrogation and withdrawal are covered by the same procedural
guarantees and have the same legal effect of removing the standard in question from the
body of international labour standards. 16
11 Note that the number of instruments included in the SRM TWG’s initial programme of work was
amended from 231 to 235 at the second meeting of the SRM TWG.
12 GB.326/LILS/3/2.
13 Para. 9 of the terms of reference of the SRM TWG.
14 See also Chapter IX of this Handbook.
15 See also section 5.4 of the Standing Orders of the Governing Body establishing the procedure for
the placing of an item on the agenda of the Conference concerning the abrogation or withdrawal of
instruments.
16 For information on abrogation and withdrawal of specific instruments, see NORMLEX.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 7
Languages
8. French and English authentic texts of Conventions and Recommendations 17 are adopted.
Official translations may be drawn up by the Office and considered by governments
concerned as authoritative (SO, article 42).
Special circumstances taken into account
9. Article 19 of the Constitution also provides:
3. In framing any Convention or Recommendation of general application the Conference
shall have due regard to those countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development
of industrial organization, or other special circumstances make the industrial conditions
substantially different and shall suggest the modifications, if any, which it considers may be
required to meet the case of such countries.
For this reason the law and practice reports and questionnaires, prepared by the Office in
accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 above, request governments to indicate national
particularities which might make practical application of instruments envisaged difficult;
and to suggest ways of dealing with this. Employers’, workers’ and governments’ delegates
at the Conference are also able to draw attention to special national conditions which should
be taken into account when new standards are drafted.
Flexibility devices
10. Various means have been used by the Conference to ensure the flexibility of international
labour standards. For example:
(a) clauses laying down modified standards for named countries. 18 These have not been
used recently by the Conference;
(b) adoption of a Convention laying down principles together with (or later supplemented
by) a Recommendation giving guidance on technical and practical details of
implementation;
(c) definition of standards in broad wording – for example, fixing aims of social policy –
which leaves it to national conditions and practices, often after consultation of
employers’ and workers’ organizations, to determine the methods of application (laws,
regulations, collective agreements, etc.);
(d) division of Conventions into Parts or Articles, the obligations of only some of which
need to be accepted at the time of ratification, thus allowing future extension of
obligations as social legislation and ability to implement improve; 19
17 And Protocols.
18 See, for example, Articles 9 to 13 of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1).
19 See, for example, Article 2 of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952
(No. 102).
8 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
(e) division of Conventions into alternative Parts, the extent or level of obligation varying
according to which Parts are accepted; 20
(f) clauses allowing (sometimes temporarily) acceptance of a specified lower standard by
countries where, for example, no legislation on the subject in question existed prior to
ratification or where the economy or administrative or medical facilities are
insufficiently developed; 21
(g) clauses allowing exclusion of, for example, specified categories of occupations or
enterprises or sparsely populated or undeveloped areas; 22
(h) clauses allowing separate acceptance of obligations in respect of persons employed in
specified economic sectors; 23
(i) clauses designed to keep abreast of advances of medical science by referring to the
most recent edition of a reference work, or keeping a matter under review in the light
of current knowledge; 24
(j) adoption of an optional Protocol to a Convention, either enabling ratification of the
Convention itself with increased flexibility or extending the obligations of the
Convention; 25
(k) clauses in a Convention which partially revise an earlier Convention, by introducing
alternative and more modern obligations, while leaving the Convention open to
ratification still in its unrevised form. 26
Conventions and Recommendations
as minimum standards
11. Article 19 of the Constitution further provides:
8. In no case shall the adoption of any Convention or Recommendation by the
Conference, or the ratification of any Convention by any Member, be deemed to affect any law,
award, custom or agreement which ensures more favourable conditions to the workers
concerned than those provided for in the Convention or Recommendation.
20 See, for example, Article 2 of the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (Revised),
1949 (No. 96).
21 See, for example, Article 2 of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138).
22 See, for example, Article 17 of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95).
23 See, for example, Article 3 of the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957
(No. 106).
24 See, for example, Guideline B4.1.1, paragraph 2, of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as
amended (MLC, 2006).
25 See, for example, the Protocol of 1982 to the Plantations Convention, 1958 and the Protocol of
1995 to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947.
26 See, for example, Article 3(6) and (7) of the Protection of Workers’ Claims (Employer’s
Insolvency) Convention, 1992 (No. 173).
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 9
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
12. In addition to the provisions of the Standing Orders referred to under paragraphs 3 and 4
above, Article 5(1)(a) of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards)
Convention, 1976 (No. 144) and Paragraph 5(a) of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of
the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), provide that
consultations of employers’ and workers’ representatives should be held on government
replies to questionnaires concerning items on the agenda of the Conference and government
comments on proposed texts to be discussed.
Calendar of action – Adoption of Conventions and Recommendations
(this describes the double-discussion procedure and will be simplified in cases of single discussion)
Period ILO action Action by national administrations
November (year 1) and
March (year 2)
ILO Governing Body considers and decides
agenda of ILO Conference in year 4
November–December (year 2)
By 30 June (year 3)
ILO circulates report on law and practice, with
questionnaire on content of possible new
instrument
Consult employers’ and workers’ organizations
on replies (articles 38 and 39 of Conference
Standing Orders and – for States parties to it –
C.144)
Prepare replies to questionnaire and send to
the ILO by 30 June (year 3), at the latest
January–February (year 4) ILO circulates report analysing replies, with
proposed conclusions
Prepare position for Conference discussion
June (year 4) International Labour Conference – first
discussion of item
Participate in work of technical committee, as
appropriate
August–September (year 4)
By 30 November (year 4)
ILO circulates draft texts on basis of first
discussion
Consult employers’ and workers’ organizations
on comments (articles 38 and 39 of the
Conference Standing Orders and – for States
parties to it – C.144)
Send any comments to the ILO by
30 November (year 4), at the latest
February–March (year 5) ILO circulates revised texts, in light of
comments received
Prepare position for Conference discussion
June (year 5) International Labour Conference – second
discussion and adoption
Participate in work of technical committee, as
appropriate
10 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
II. Submission to the competent authorities
Constitutional obligations
13. Conventions come into force for any State only through an act of ratification duly registered
by the Director-General of the ILO. However, all member States have an obligation to
submit Conventions and Recommendations 27 to the competent national authorities. The
relevant provisions of article 19 of the Constitution are as follows:
5. In the case of a Convention:
(a) the Convention will be communicated to all Members for ratification;
(b) each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from
the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional
circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable
moment and in no case later than 18 months from the closing of the session of the
Conference, bring the Convention before the authority or authorities within whose
competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action;
(c) Members shall inform the Director-General of the International Labour Office of the
measures taken in accordance with this article to bring the Convention before the said
competent authority or authorities, with particulars of the authority or authorities regarded
as competent, and of the action taken by them;
...
6. In the case of a Recommendation:
(a) the Recommendation will be communicated to all Members for their consideration with a
view to effect being given to it by national legislation or otherwise;
(b) each of the Members undertakes that it will, within a period of one year at most from the
closing of the session of the Conference or if it is impossible owing to exceptional
circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable
moment and in no case later than 18 months after the closing of the Conference, bring the
Recommendation before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter
lies for the enactment of legislation or other action;
(c) the Members shall inform the Director-General of the International Labour Office of the
measures taken in accordance with this article to bring the Recommendation before the
said competent authority or authorities with particulars of the authority or authorities
regarded as competent, and of the action taken by them;
...
7. In the case of a federal State, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) in respect of Conventions and Recommendations which the federal government regards
as appropriate under its constitutional system for federal action, the obligations of the
federal State shall be the same as those of Members which are not federal States;
(b) in respect of Conventions and Recommendations which the federal government regards
as appropriate under its constitutional system in whole or in part, for action by the
constituent states provinces, or cantons rather than for federal action, the federal
government shall –
(i) make, in accordance with its Constitution and the Constitutions of the states,
provinces or cantons concerned, effective arrangements for the reference of such
Conventions and Recommendations not later than 18 months from the closing of the
27 And Protocols in as much as they constitute partial revisions of and can thus be assimilated to
Conventions.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 11
session of the Conference to the appropriate federal, state provincial or cantonal
authorities for the enactment of legislation or other action;
(ii) arrange, subject to the concurrence of the state, provincial or cantonal governments
concerned, for periodical consultations between the federal and the state, provincial
or cantonal authorities with a view to promoting within the federal State coordinated
action to give effect to the provisions of such Conventions and Recommendations;
(iii) inform the Director-General of the International Labour Office of the measures taken
in accordance with this article to bring such Conventions and Recommendations
before the appropriate federal state, provincial or cantonal authorities with
particulars of the authorities regarded as appropriate and of the action taken by
them. 28
…
Governing Body Memorandum
14. In order to facilitate the uniform presentation of information supplied by governments as to
measures taken to comply with the provisions cited in paragraph 12 above, the Governing
Body adopted a Memorandum concerning the obligation to submit Conventions and
Recommendations to the competent authorities. A revised version of the Memorandum was
adopted by the Governing Body in March 2005. 29 The Memorandum recalls the relevant
provisions of the Constitution and cites extracts from reports of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards intended to clarify the aims and objectives of submission,
the nature of the obligation and a series of requests for information. The tripartite
consultations that should be held in relation to the obligation of the submission to national
competent authorities of the instruments adopted by the Conference are also recalled. The
content of the Memorandum 30 is as follows:
I. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF SUBMISSION
(a) The main aim of submission is to promote measures at the domestic level for the
implementation of Conventions and Recommendations. Furthermore, in the case of
Conventions, the procedure also aims to promote ratification.
(b) Governments remain entirely free to propose any action which they may judge appropriate
in respect of Conventions or Recommendations. The aim of submission is to encourage a
rapid and responsible decision by each member State on instruments adopted by the
Conference.
(c) The obligation of submission is a fundamental element of the standards system of the ILO.
One purpose of this obligation was, and still is, that the instruments adopted by the
Conference are brought to the knowledge of the public through their submission to a
parliamentary body.
(d) The obligation of submission reinforces the relations between the Organization and the
competent authorities and stimulates tripartite dialogue at the national level.
28 In addition, article 35, para. 4, of the Constitution provides: “Where the subject-matter of the
Convention is within the self-governing powers of any non-metropolitan territory the Member
responsible for the international relations of that territory shall bring the Convention to the notice of
the government of the territory as soon as possible with a view to the enactment of legislation or other
action by such government ...”.
29 GB.292/LILS/1(Rev.) and GB.292/10(Rev.), Appendix I.
30 Memorandum concerning the obligation of submission to the competent authorities, ILO, Geneva
2005.
12 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
II. NATURE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
(a) The competent authority is the authority which, under the Constitution of each State, has
power to legislate or to take other action in order to implement Conventions and
Recommendations.
(b) The competent national authority should normally be the legislature.
(c) Even in cases where, under the terms of the Constitution of the Member, legislative power
is held by the executive, it is in conformity with the spirit of the provisions of article 19 of
the Constitution of the ILO and of practice to arrange for the examination of the
instruments adopted by the Conference by a deliberative body, where one exists.
Discussion in a deliberative assembly, or at least information of the assembly, can
constitute an important factor in the complete examination of a question and in a possible
improvement of the measures taken at the domestic level to give effect to the instruments
adopted by the Conference. With respect to Conventions, it could lead to a decision as to
their ratification.
(d) In the absence of a parliamentary body, informing a consultative body makes it possible
to carry out a full examination of the issues addressed by the Conference. This process
ensures that the instruments are widely disseminated among the public, which is one of
the purposes of the obligation of submission.
III. EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO SUBMIT
(a) Article 19 of the Constitution lays down the obligation to place before the competent
authorities all instruments adopted by the Conference without exception and without
distinction between Conventions and Recommendations.
(b) Governments have complete freedom as to the nature of the proposals to be made when
submitting the instruments and on the effect that they consider it appropriate to give to the
instruments adopted by the Conference. The obligation to submit the instruments does not
imply any obligation to propose the ratification of Conventions or to accept the
Recommendations.
IV. FORM OF SUBMISSION
(a) Since article 19 of the Constitution is clearly aimed at obtaining a decision from the
competent authorities, the submission of Conventions and Recommendations to these
authorities should always be accompanied or followed by a statement or proposals setting
out the Government’s views as to the action to be taken on the instruments.
(b) The essential points to bear in mind are: (a) that, at the time of or subsequent to the
submission of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative authorities,
Governments should either indicate what measures might be taken to give effect to these
instruments or propose that no action should be taken or that a decision should be
postponed; and (b) that there should be an opportunity to take up the matter for debate
within the legislature.
V. TIME LIMITS
(a) In order that the competent national authorities may be kept up to date on the standards
adopted at the international level which may require action by each State to give effect to
them at the national level, submission should be made as early as possible and in any case
within the time limits set by article 19 of the Constitution.
(b) In virtue of the formal provisions of article 19 of the Constitution, the submission of texts
adopted by the Conference to the competent authorities must be effected within one year
or, in exceptional circumstances, not longer than 18 months from the close of the session
of the Conference. This provision applies not only to non-federal but also to federal States;
in the case of the latter, the period of 18 months is applicable only in respect of
Conventions and Recommendations which the federal Government considers to be
appropriate for action by the constituent states, provinces or cantons. In order that it may
be possible to ascertain that States Members have respected the prescribed time limits, the
Committee considers that it would be advisable for the date on which the decisions of the
Conference have been submitted to the competent authorities to be indicated in the
communication to the Director-General.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 13
VI. OBLIGATIONS OF FEDERAL STATES
As regards federal States, the Committee wishes to point out that under article 19 of the
Constitution, paragraph 7(b)(i), whenever action by the constituent states, provinces or cantons
is considered “appropriate”, the Government must make effective arrangements for the
reference of Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the Conference to the “appropriate
authorities” of the constituent states, provinces or cantons for the enactment of legislation or
other action.
VII. TRIPARTITE CONSULTATIONS
(a) For those States which have already ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International
Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), effective consultations have to be held on
the proposals made to the competent authorities when submitting the instruments adopted
by the Conference (Article 5, paragraph 1(b), of Convention No. 144).
(b) The representative organizations of employers and workers must be consulted beforehand.
The effectiveness of consultations presupposes that the representatives of employers and
of workers have at their disposal sufficiently in advance all the elements necessary for
them to reach their opinions before the Government finalizes its definitive decision.
(c) Members which have not ratified Convention No. 144 may refer to the relevant provisions
of that Convention and to those of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the
International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152).
(d) The representative organizations of employers and workers will be requested to make
known their point of view on the action to be taken with regard to new instruments
independently. Fulfilment of the submission procedure is an important moment of
dialogue among government authorities, the social partners and parliamentarians.
VIII. COMMUNICATION TO THE REPRESENTATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
OF EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS
(a) Under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, the information communicated to the
Director-General on submission to the competent authorities must be sent also to the
representative organizations of employers and workers.
(b) This provision is designed to enable the representative organizations of employers and
workers to formulate their own observations on the action that has been taken or is to be
taken with regard to the instruments in question.
Office procedures
15. (a) Copies of Conventions and Recommendations are sent to governments, immediately
after the Conference adopts them, by letter or email communication recalling the
obligations as to submission under article 19 of the Constitution. The Governing Body
Memorandum is attached to this communication. Copies of the same documents are
also transmitted to the most representative organizations of employers and workers.
(b) One year after the close of the session of the Conference at which the instruments were
adopted, a reminder is addressed to all governments which have not supplied the
information requested.
(c) When 18 months have elapsed since the close of the relevant session of the Conference
and the information has still not been supplied, a further reminder is sent.
(d) In response to the Committee of Experts’ request, the Office, when it receives
information as to submission of instruments to the competent authorities, checks to see
whether the information and documents requested in the Governing Body
Memorandum – including replies to any observations or direct requests of the
Committee of Experts or to observations made by the Conference Committee – have
been supplied. If they have not been transmitted, the Office will, as a routine
14 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
administrative step, request the government concerned to convey the requested
information. The information supplied is then examined by the relevant supervisory
bodies.
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
16. Article 5, paragraph 1(b), of Convention No. 144 and Paragraph 5(b) of Recommendation
No. 152 require consultation of representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations on
the proposals to be made to the competent authorities in connection with the submission of
Conventions and Recommendations. Part V of the questionnaire at the end of the revised
Memorandum asks the governments concerned to indicate whether prior consultations took
place and, if applicable, the nature and scope of those consultations.
Communication to representative organizations
and observations received from them
17. Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that all governments must communicate
to the most representative organizations of employers and workers copies of the information
supplied under article 19. Moreover, under Part VI of the questionnaire at the end of the
Governing Body’s Memorandum, governments should inform the Office of the
organizations to which copies of the information have been transmitted. The Memorandum
also requests governments to provide information concerning any observations received
from employers’ or workers’ organizations as to the effect given or to be given to the
instruments submitted.
Summary
18. Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Constitution provides for summaries of the information
supplied under article 19 to be presented to the next meeting of the Conference. Those
summaries appear in Appendices IV, V and VI to Report III (Part A).
Office assistance
19. Governments and representative organizations of employers and workers may, on request,
obtain from the International Labour Office information and sample documents showing the
manner in which other countries fulfil their submission obligation.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 15
Calendar of action – Submission of Conventions, Protocols,
and Recommendations to the competent authorities
Period ILO action Action by national administrations
August
By June (or, exceptionally,
December) of following year
ILO circulates newly adopted standards, with
Governing Body Memorandum on submission
to the competent authorities
Study instruments and compare national
legislation and practice. States parties to
C.144: consult employers’ and workers’
organizations on the proposals to be made
Prepare document summarizing the position
and proposals for further national action (if
appropriate) and on possible ratification of
Conventions
Submit to the competent legislative authorities
by June (or, exceptionally, December) of
following year
Report to the ILO, in accordance with
questionnaire in Governing Body
Memorandum, on measures taken to submit
the instruments to the competent authorities.
Send copies to employers’ and workers’
organizations
16 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
III. Ratification of Conventions and
acceptance of obligations
Procedure
20. Article 19 of the Constitution provides:
5.
…
(d) if the Member obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence
the matter lies, it will communicate the formal ratification of the Convention to the
Director-General and will take such action as may be necessary to make effective the
provisions of such Convention.
Form of communication of ratifications 31
21. No specific requirements as to form are laid down in the Constitution. Each State will have
its own constitutional provisions and practice. In order to be registered, an instrument of
ratification must nevertheless:
(a) clearly identify the Convention being ratified;
(b) be an original document (on paper, not a facsimile or photocopy) signed by a person
with authority to engage the State (such as the Head of State, Prime Minister, Minister
responsible for Foreign Affairs or Labour);
(c) clearly convey the Government’s intention that the State should be bound by the
Convention concerned and its undertaking to fulfil the Convention’s provisions,
preferably with a specific reference to article 19(5)(d) of the ILO Constitution.
An instrument of ratification must always be communicated to the Director-General of the ILO, in order for
the ratification to become effective in international law. If this is not done, it may be that a Convention is regarded
by a State as “ratified” in its internal legal system, but this will be of no effect in the international legal system. An
instrument of ratification might thus contain the following statement: “The Government of ... hereby ratifies the ...
Convention and undertakes, in accordance with article 19, para. 5(d), of the Constitution of the ILO, to fulfil its
obligations in this respect”.
Compulsory declarations to be included in or
accompany the instrument of ratification
22. Several Conventions require declarations to be made either in the instrument of ratification
itself or in an accompanying document. If no such declaration is received by the Office, the
ratification cannot be registered. In some cases, a compulsory declaration will define the
scope of the obligations accepted or give other essential specifications. In all these cases, the
substance of the declaration has to be considered before the instrument of ratification is
prepared and the necessary indications either included in or attached to the instrument of
ratification. The Conventions in question that are open for ratification are as follows:
31 See Appendix I for a model instrument.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 17
(i) Convention No. 102: Social Security (Minimum Standards), 1952 – Article 2(b);
(ii) Convention No. 115: Radiation Protection, 1960 – Article 3, paragraph 3(c);
(iii) Convention No. 118: Equality of Treatment (Social Security), 1962 – Article 2,
paragraph 3; 32
(iv) Convention No. 123: Minimum Age (Underground Work), 1965 – Article 2,
paragraph 2;
(v) Convention No. 128: Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefit, 1967 – Article 2,
paragraph 2;
(vi) Convention No. 132: Holidays with Pay (Revised), 1970 – Article 3, paragraphs 2
and 3, and Article 15, paragraph 2;
(vii) Convention No. 138: Minimum Age, 1973 – Article 2;
(viii) Convention No. 160: Labour Statistics, 1985 – Article 16, paragraph 2;
(ix) Convention No. 173: Protection of Workers’ Claims (Employer’s Insolvency), 1992 –
Article 3, paragraph 1;
(x) Convention No. 183: Maternity Protection, 2000 – Article 4, paragraph 2;
(xi) Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006) – Standard A4.5,
paragraph 10.
Optional declarations to be included
in or to accompany ratifications
23. In the case of some Conventions (and Protocols) a declaration is needed only where the
ratifying State wishes to make use of permitted exclusions, exceptions or modifications.
When this applies, the declaration must be included in or attached to the instrument of
ratification: if the instrument of ratification is received by the Office without any qualifying
declaration, the ratification will be duly registered as it stands and the exclusion, exception
or modification will no longer be available. The Conventions in question that are open for
ratification are as follows:
(i) Convention No. 77: Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry), 1946 –
Article 9, paragraph 1;
32 (a) When a member State ratifies this Convention, it should also communicate to the Office a
confirmation in terms of Article 2, para. 1, that it has “in effective operation legislation covering its
own nationals within its own territory” in the branch or branches of social security in respect of which
it is accepting the obligations of the Convention. A similar confirmation should be given in the case
of a notification of acceptance of further obligations under Article 2, para. 4. (b) Each Member
accepting the obligations of the Convention in respect of any branch of social security which has
legislation providing for benefits of the type indicated in Article 2, para. 6(a) or (b), must at the time
of ratification communicate to the Office a statement indicating such benefits. Under Article 2,
para. 7, a similar statement should be made on any subsequent notification of acceptance of the
Convention’s obligations under Article 2, para. 4, or within three months of the adoption of relevant
legislation. Though such statements are compulsory, they are for information purposes and failure to
make them does not invalidate the ratification or notification.
18 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
(ii) Convention No. 78: Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial
Occupations), 1946 – Article 9, paragraph 1;
(iii) Convention No. 79: Night Work of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations),
1946 – Article 7, paragraph 1;
(iv) Convention No. 81: Labour Inspection, 1947 – Article 25, paragraph 1; Protocol of
1995 – Article 2, paragraph 1;
(v) Convention No. 90: Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) (Revised), 1948 –
Article 7, paragraph 1;
(vi) Convention No. 97: Migration for Employment (Revised), 1949 – Article 14,
paragraph 1;
(vii) Convention No. 102: Social Security (Minimum Standards), 1952 – Article 3,
paragraph 1;
(viii) Convention No. 106: Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices), 1957 – Article 3,
paragraph 1;
(ix) (a) Convention No. 110: Plantations, 1958 – Article 3, paragraph 1(b);
(b) Protocol to Convention No. 110 – Article 1;
(x) Convention No. 119: Guarding of Machinery, 1963 – Article 17, paragraph 1;
(xi) Convention No. 121: Employment Injury Benefits, 1964 – Article 2, paragraph 1, and
Article 3, paragraph 1;
(xii) Convention No. 128: Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits, 1967 – Article 4,
paragraph 1, Article 38 and Article 39;
(xiii) Convention No. 130: Medical Care and Sickness Benefits, 1969 – Article 2,
paragraph 1, Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 4, paragraph 1;
(xiv) Convention No. 138: Minimum Age, 1973 – Article 5, paragraph 2;
(xv) Convention No. 143: Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions), 1975 –
Article 16, paragraph 1;
(xvi) Convention No. 148: Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration),
1977 – Article 2;
(xvii) Convention No. 153: Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport), 1979 –
Article 9, paragraph 2;
(xviii) Convention No. 168: Employment Promotion and Protection (Unemployment),
1988 – Article 4, paragraph 1, and Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2;
(xix) Convention No. 173: Protection of Workers’ Claims (Employer’s Insolvency), 1992 –
Article 3, paragraph 3;
(xx) Convention No. 185: Seafarers’ Identity Documents (Revised), 2003 – Article 9.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 19
Optional declarations concerning the
scope of a Convention
24. For all the cases referred to in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, a Member which has made use
of the option to limit the scope of the Convention’s application to it may subsequently
modify, cancel or withdraw such limitation: this is done by a further declaration, notification
or statement of renunciation in a report under article 22 of the Constitution, as the case may
be according to each Convention. In addition, the following provide for declarations to
extend the scope of the Convention’s application by the State concerned either at the time of
ratification or at any subsequent time: 33
(i) Convention No. 129: Labour Inspection (Agriculture), 1969 – Article 5, paragraph 1;
(ii) Convention No. 146: Seafarers’ Annual Leave with Pay, 1976 – Article 2,
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6;
(iii) Convention No. 172: Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants), 1991 – Article 1,
paragraphs 2 and 3;
(iv) Protocol of 1996 to Convention No. 147: Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards),
1976 – Article 3;
(v) Convention No. 176: Safety and Health in Mines, 1995 – Article 2;
(vi) Convention No. 181: Private Employment Agencies, 1997 – Article 2, paragraph 5;
(vii) Convention No. 183: Maternity Protection, 2000 – Article 2, paragraph 3;
(viii) Convention No. 184: Safety and Health in Agriculture, 2001 – Article 3;
(ix) Convention No. 188: Work in Fishing, 2007– Article 3.
Ratification of Protocols
25. A Protocol is an instrument which partially revises a Convention. It is open to ratification
by a State already bound by or simultaneously ratifying and becoming bound by the
Convention in question. Two Protocols so far adopted by the Conference effectively
introduce greater flexibility into the two respective Conventions. They are:
(i) P089 – Protocol of 1990 to the Night Work (Women) Revised Convention, 1948;
(ii) P110 – Protocol of 1982 to the Plantations Convention, 1958.
Four other Protocols extend the obligations under the corresponding Conventions:
(iii) P081 – Protocol of 1995 to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947;
(iv) P147 – Protocol of 1996 to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention,
1976;
33 This does not include cases where determinations by a member may have the effect of extending
the obligations of a Convention, although there is no provision for a formal declaration, such as in
the case of Convention No. 111, Article 1, para. 1(b).
20 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
(v) P155 – Protocol of 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981;
(vi) P029 – Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930.
Inadmissibility of reservations
26. Conventions contain various provisions ensuring flexibility (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above),
including some specifically enabling ratifying States to limit or qualify the obligations
assumed on ratification (paragraphs 21–24). However, no limitations on the obligations of a
Convention other than those specifically provided for (i.e. no reservations) are possible.
Registration of ratifications and
acceptances of obligations
27. The final provisions of all Conventions contain Articles on the registration of ratifications
by the Director-General, their notification to member States and the communication of
particulars to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with
article 102 of the United Nations Charter. All ratifications are reported to the Governing
Body and are notified to member States through publication in the Official Bulletin.
Declarations and other acts accepting or modifying obligations referred to in
paragraphs 21–24 above are dealt with in the same way.
Entry into force
28. Each Convention contains a provision as to how it comes into force. Most often, since 1928,
Conventions come into force 12 months after registration of the second ratification and
afterwards for each State 12 months after its ratification. Several maritime and some other
Conventions contain different provisions. For instance, to come into force, the MLC, 2006,
had to be ratified by at least 30 member States with a total share in the world gross tonnage
of ships of 33 per cent. Until a Convention comes into force, it can have no effect in
international law.
Obligations arising out of ratification
29. The obligation under article 19, paragraph 5(d), of the Constitution is to “take such action as
may be necessary to make effective the provisions” of a ratified Convention. 34 This means
ensuring their implementation in practice, as well as giving them effect in law or other means
that are in accordance with national practice (such as court decisions, arbitration awards or
collective agreements).
Incorporation in internal law
30. In some countries, the Constitution gives the force of internal law to ratified Conventions.
In those cases, it will still be necessary to take specific measures:
34 See also the obligation to report under article 22 of the Constitution (paras 35–46 below). With
regard to the termination of obligations under a ratified Convention through denunciation, see
paras 79–83 below.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 21
(a) to eliminate any conflict between the provisions of the Convention and earlier national
law and practice;
(b) to give effect to any provisions of the Convention which are not self-executing
(e.g. provisions requiring given matters to be prescribed by national laws or regulations
or determined by the competent authorities, or requiring special administrative
arrangements);
(c) to prescribe penalties, where appropriate;
(d) to ensure that all interested persons and authorities (e.g. employers, workers, labour
inspectors, courts, tribunals, other administrative bodies) are informed of the
incorporation of the Convention into internal law and where necessary given guidance.
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
31. Paragraph 5(c) of Recommendation No. 152 provides for consultation of representatives of
employers’ and workers’ organizations, subject to national practice, on the preparation and
implementation of legislative or other measures to give effect to Conventions – especially
when ratified – and Recommendations. This applies in particular as regards measures
implementing provisions as to consultation and collaboration with employers’ and workers’
representatives.
Non-metropolitan territories
32. Article 35 of the Constitution provides for declarations to be made by member States as to
the application of Conventions to non-metropolitan territories for whose international
relations they are responsible.
Effect of withdrawal from the ILO
33. Article 1, paragraph 5 (last sentence), of the Constitution provides:
... When a Member has ratified any international labour Convention, ... withdrawal (from
the Organization) shall not affect the continued validity for the period provided for in the
Convention of all obligations arising thereunder or relating thereto.
Information on ratifications
34. Regularly updated information on ratifications and denunciations is available on the Office’s
website (NORMLEX database).
22 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
IV. Reports on ratified Conventions
Obligation to report
35. Article 22 of the Constitution provides: 35
Each of the Members agrees to make an annual report to the International Labour Office
on the measures which it has taken to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which it is
a party. These reports shall be made in such form and shall contain such particulars as the
Governing Body may request.
Reporting system
36. Over the years, 36 the Governing Body has approved the following arrangements for the
submission of article 22 reports:
(a) Types of reports. Detailed reports drawn up in accordance with the report form
approved by the Governing Body of the ILO for each Convention are required in the
following cases: 37
(i) in the case of the first report which is requested the year following the entry into
force of a Convention for a particular country;
(ii) at member States’ own initiative if there have been significant changes in the
application of a ratified Convention (for example, the adoption of substantial new
legislation or other changes affecting the application of a Convention); and
(iii) where they are explicitly requested by the supervisory bodies, in particular the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(by means of a footnote in an observation or direct request) 38 or the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards (when adopting its conclusions).
35 The obligation under article 22 to report on the application of ratified Conventions is distinct from
various other obligations laid down by individual Conventions, requiring information (such as
statistics or labour inspection reports) to be regularly supplied to the International Labour Office. The
obligations under individual Conventions are independent and remain unaffected by changes in the
article 22 reporting system described here.
36 The most recent Governing Body decisions on the reporting system were adopted in November
2018 (see GB.334/INS/5 and GB.332/INS/5(Rev.), as well as GB.334/INS/PV, para. 288). For
previous decisions, see in particular: GB.310/LILS/3/2 and GB.310/11/2(Rev.) (2011);
GB.298/LILS/4 and GB.298/9(Rev.) (2007); and GB.282/LILS/5, GB.282/8/2 and GB.283/LILS/6
(2001 and 2002).
37 For the content of a detailed report, see para. 37 below.
38 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
Report III (Part A), General Report, International Labour Conference, 108th (Centenary) Session,
Geneva, 2019, paras 75–79.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 23
Except where a detailed report is expected, simplified reports can be submitted in accordance
with the report form for simplified reports adopted by the Governing Body at its November
2018 session (see Appendix II of GB.334/INS/5). 39
(b) Reporting cycle. 40 Reports are requested periodically on one of the following bases, on
the understanding that the supervisory bodies may request reports outside the regular
reporting cycle:
(i) Three-year cycle. Reports are requested every three years for the following
12 Conventions, which are considered to be fundamental or governance
Conventions. 41
Fundamental Conventions:
freedom of association and collective bargaining: Conventions Nos 87
and 98;
abolition of forced labour: Convention No. 29 and its Protocol, and
Convention No. 105;
equality of opportunity and treatment: Conventions Nos 100 and 111;
child labour: Conventions Nos 138 and 182.
Governance Conventions:
employment policy: Convention No. 122;
labour inspection: Convention No. 81 and its Protocol, and Convention
No. 129;
tripartite consultations: Convention No. 144.
(ii) Six-year cycle. Reports are requested every six years for the other Conventions, in
accordance with their arrangement by subject matter:
freedom of association (agriculture, non-metropolitan territories):
Conventions Nos 11, 84 and 141;
industrial relations: Conventions Nos 135, 151 and 154;
protection of children and young persons: Conventions Nos 5, 6, 10, 33, 59,
77, 78, 79, 90, 123 and 124;
employment promotion: Conventions Nos 2, 88, 96, 159 and 181;
vocational guidance and training (skills): Conventions Nos 140 and 142;
39 For the content of a simplified report, see para. 38 below.
40 See Appendix II (reporting cycle, as adopted in November 2018).
41 The Governing Body may periodically review the list of Conventions for which reports are
required every three years.
24 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
security of employment: Convention No. 158;
social policy: Conventions Nos 82, 94 and 117;
wages: Conventions Nos 26, 95, 99, 131 and 173;
working time: Conventions Nos 1, 14, 30, 47, 52, 89, 101, 106, 132, 153, 171
and 175;
workers with family responsibilities: Convention No. 156;
migrant workers: Conventions Nos 97 and 143;
occupational safety and health: Conventions Nos 13, 45, 62, 115, 119, 120,
127, 136, 139, 148, 155, 161, 162, 167, 170, 174, 176, 184 and 187;
social security: Conventions Nos 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 42, 102, 118, 121,
128, 130, 157 and 168;
maternity protection: Conventions Nos 3, 103 and 183;
labour administration: Conventions Nos 63, 85, 150 and 160;
seafarers: Conventions Nos 7, 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 53, 55, 56, 58, 68, 69, 71, 73,
74, 92, 108, 133, 134, 145, 146, 147, 163, 164, 165, 166, 178, 179, 180, 185
and the MLC, 2006;
fishers: Conventions Nos 112, 113, 114, 125, 126 and 188;
dockworkers: Conventions Nos 27, 32, 137 and 152;
indigenous and tribal peoples: Conventions Nos 107 and 169;
other specific categories of workers: Conventions Nos 110, 149, 172, 177
and 189.
(iii) Non-periodic reports. Reports on the application of a ratified Convention may be
requested outside of the regular reporting cycle in the following cases:
– when the Committee of Experts (by means of a footnote in an observation or direct
request) 42 or the Conference Committee (when adopting its conclusions) so
requests;
– when the Governing Body so requests, following proceedings instituted under
articles 24 or 26 of the Constitution or before the Committee on Freedom of
Association; 43
– when a report requested is not submitted or when no reply is provided to
comments made by the supervisory bodies (it should be noted that compliance
with reporting obligations is supervised by the Committee of Experts and the
Conference Committee and that failure to supply reports or information does not
42 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
op. cit., paras 75–79.
43 In this respect, see paras 84–95 below.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 25
prevent examination of the application of ratified Conventions by the supervisory
bodies, as explained in paragraph 38 below).
(c) Exemption from reporting. The following Conventions are not subject to reporting
under article 22 of the Constitution: Conventions which have been abrogated
(Conventions Nos 4, 15, 21, 41, 50, 64, 65, 67, 86 and 104); Conventions which have
been withdrawn (Conventions Nos 31, 46, 51, 61 and 66); Conventions which have not
entered into force (Conventions Nos 54, 57, 70, 72, 75, 76, 93 and 109); and
Conventions on the final Articles (Conventions Nos 80 and 116). Moreover, subject to
the conditions and safeguards laid down by the Governing Body, 44 no reports are
requested on certain Conventions, particularly those which have been shelved. 45
Detailed reports
37. A detailed report should be in the form approved by the Governing Body for each
Convention. The form sets out the substantive provisions of the Convention, information on
which has to be supplied. It includes specific questions as to some of the substantive
provisions, designed to aid in the preparation of information which will enable the
supervisory bodies to appreciate the manner in which the Convention is applied. A typical
report form also contains questions on the following matters:
(a) Laws, regulations, etc. All relevant legislation or similar provisions should be listed
and – unless this has already been done – copies supplied.
(b) Permitted exclusions, exceptions or other limitations. Several Conventions allow given
categories of people, economic activities or geographical areas to be exempted from
application, but require a ratifying State which intends to make use of such limitations
to indicate in its first article 22 report the extent to which it has recourse to them. It is
therefore essential for the first report to include indications in this respect, since, if it
does not, the limitations will no longer be possible. The same Conventions may call for
information to be included in subsequent article 22 reports indicating the extent to
44 In March 1996, the Governing Body confirmed the suspension of requests for reports on certain
Conventions which no longer appeared to be up-to-date, subject to the conditions and safeguards
established at its 229th Session (February–March 1985). Para. 4 of document GB.229/10/9 reads as
follows:
“(a) Should circumstances change so as to give renewed importance to any of the Conventions
concerned, the Governing Body could again require detailed reports to be presented on their
application.
(b) Employers’ and workers’ organizations would remain free to present comments on problems
encountered in the fields covered by the Conventions concerned. In accordance with established
procedures, these comments would be considered by the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which could request such information
(including a detailed report) as it might deem appropriate.
(c) On the basis of information given in the general reports or otherwise at its disposal (for example,
legislative texts), the Committee of Experts would be free at any time to make comments and
to request information concerning the application of the Conventions concerned, including the
possibility to ask for a detailed report.
(d) The right to invoke the constitutional provisions relating to representations and complaints
(articles 24 and 26) in respect of the Conventions concerned would remain unaffected.”
45 The following Conventions have been shelved and reports are no longer requested on them on a
regular basis: Conventions Nos 20, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 48, 49, 60 and 91. The
shelving of Conventions is without incidence as to their effects on the legal systems of the member
States which have ratified them.
26 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
which effect is nevertheless given to the Convention in respect of the excluded persons,
activities or areas.
(c) Implementation of the Convention. Detailed information should be given for each
Article on the provisions of legislation or other measures applying it. Some
Conventions ask for particular information to be included in reports (as to the practical
application of the Convention or certain Articles).
(d) Effect of ratification. Information is asked for as to any constitutional provisions giving
the ratified Convention the force of national law and any additional measures taken to
make the Convention effective.
(e) Comments by the supervisory bodies. The report must contain replies to any comments
regarding the application of the Convention which have been made by the Committee
of Experts (observations or direct requests) or by the Conference Committee (in its
conclusions). Where follow-up to other supervisory procedures (articles 24 or 26 of the
Constitution; CFA) is sent to the Committee of Experts, the requested information
should also be provided.
(f) Enforcement. Governments are asked to indicate the authorities responsible for
administration and enforcement of the relevant laws, regulations, etc., and to supply
information on their activities. Copies of the authorities’ own reports may be appended
or – if they have already been supplied – referred to.
(g) Judicial or administrative decisions. Governments are asked to supply either a copy or
a summary of relevant decisions.
(h) General appreciation. Governments are asked to give a general assessment of how the
Convention is applied, with extracts from any official reports, statistics of workers
covered by the legislation or collective agreements, details of contraventions of the
legislation, prosecutions, etc.
(i) Observations by employers’ and workers’ organizations. Any observations made by or
received from these organizations should be provided with any government response.
(j) Communication of copies of reports to employers’ and workers’ organizations. The
names of the organizations to which copies of the report are sent should be given.
Simplified reports
38. In November 2018, the Governing Body adopted a new report form for simplified reports. 46
Simplified reports will contain only:
(a) Replies to the comments of the supervisory bodies. The report must contain replies to
any comments regarding the application of the Convention which have been made by
the Committee of Experts (observations or direct requests) or by the Conference
Committee (in its conclusions). Where follow-up to other supervisory procedures
(article 24 or 26 of the Constitution; CFA) is sent to the Committee of Experts, the
requested information should also be provided.
(b) Laws, regulations, etc. Information on whether any changes have occurred in
legislation and practice affecting the application of the Convention and on the nature
46 See Appendix III.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 27
and effect of such changes (if the changes are significant, a detailed report should be
provided).
(c) Implementation of the Convention. Statistical or other information and
communications prescribed by the Convention in question (including required
information on any permitted exclusions).
(d) Communication of copies of reports to employers’ and workers’ organizations. The
names of the employers’ and workers’ organizations to which copies of the simplified
report have been addressed should be given.
(e) Observations of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Any observations made by
or received from these organizations should be provided with any government
response.
Addressing failure to report
39. Both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee supervise the respect by
member States of their reporting obligations.
40. Each year, based on the information contained in the report of the Committee of Experts, as
updated at the time of the Conference, the Conference Committee examines cases of failure
to comply with reporting obligations, with particular reference to:
– failure to supply reports for the past two years or more on the application of ratified
Conventions;
– failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions;
– failure to supply information in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts;
– failure to submit to the competent authorities the instruments adopted by the
Conference during at least seven sessions;
– failure to supply reports for the past five years on unratified Conventions and
Recommendations.
41. During its 88th (2017) and 89th (2018) sessions, the CEACR examined the way in which
the question of serious failure to report was being addressed with a view to strengthening
the supervision of ratified Conventions. The Committee decided to implement a new practice
of “urgent appeals” where reports are not sent for a number of years. In all cases where
article 22 reports have not been received for three consecutive years, the Committee of
Experts will be issuing urgent appeals to the governments concerned. As a result, repetitions
of previous comments will be limited to a maximum of three years, following which the
Convention’s application will be examined in substance by the Committee on the basis of
publicly available information, even if the government has not sent a report, thus ensuring a
review of the application of ratified Conventions at least once within the regular reporting
cycle. 47 The Conference Committee will have its attention drawn to the serious reporting
failure and the urgent appeal when examining compliance with reporting obligations in June.
47 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
op. cit., para. 10.
28 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
42. Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of Convention No. 144 and Paragraph 5(e) of Recommendation
No. 152 provide for consultation of representatives of employers’ and workers’
organizations on questions arising out of reports to be made on ratified Conventions.
Communication of reports to employers’
and workers’ organizations
43. Under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, copies of all reports on the application of
ratified Conventions should be communicated to representative organizations of employers
and workers. This may be done either prior to finalization of the report, inviting comments
which can yet be taken into account, or at the same time as the reports are sent to the ILO.
In any event, when forwarding their reports to the ILO, governments should indicate the
organizations to which communication has been made. Those organizations may make any
observations they wish on the application of ratified Conventions.
Observations of employers’ and workers’ organizations
44. Where observations from employers’ and workers’ organizations on the application of
ratified Conventions are received by a government, full details – including, normally, a copy
of the observations – should be sent in the government’s report, together with the
government’s response, if any. Employers’ and workers’ organizations may also send
observations directly to the Office for submission to the Committee of Experts; in this case,
the Office acknowledges receipt and simultaneously forwards a copy to the government
concerned, so that it might respond. Detailed information on the treatment of observations
from employers’ and workers’ organizations received directly by the Office can be found in
the General Report of the Committee of Experts. 48
Employers’ and workers’ organizations wishing to transmit their observations directly to the Office should
use the following contact: [email protected].
Office procedures for requesting reports
45. (a) At the beginning of each year (usually in February/March), the Office sends a
communication to each government requesting the reports due on the application of
ratified Conventions for the year in question, clearly indicating whether the reports due
are detailed or simplified reports. Copies of the requests for reports are also sent to
national organizations of employers and workers.
Detailed reports should follow the report form adopted for each individual Convention. In November 2018,
the Governing Body adopted a new report form for simplified reports.
48 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
op. cit., paras 94–104.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 29
(b) In accordance with the Governing Body decision, reports are requested to reach the
Office between 1 June and 1 September at the latest each year. 49 Reminders are sent to
governments which do not transmit their reports on time. ILO field offices and
standards specialists in the field may also be asked to assist by contacting governments
concerned. With a view to reinforcing the deadlines for receipt of article 22 reports, the
Committee of Experts decided to distinguish more clearly between article 22 reports
received after the 1 September deadline, the examination of which might be deferred
due to the late arrival, and reports received by this deadline, the examination of which
might be deferred for other reasons (for example, need for translation into the ILO
working languages). 50
Reports should be sent to the following contact: [email protected].
(c) When it receives governments’ reports, the Office verifies whether reports are
accompanied by copies of relevant legislation or other documentation and, if not and
these are not otherwise available, asks them to send such documentation. The same
applies in case of failure to indicate the names of the employers’ and workers’
organizations to which copies of the report have been addressed, pursuant to article 23,
paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The substantive content of the report is examined by
the Committee of Experts.
Summary
46. Under article 23, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, a summary of reports on the application
of ratified Conventions has to be laid before the next meeting of the Conference. Such
summary appears in an abbreviated, tabular form in Report III (Part A). In addition, the
Office (through the secretariat of the Committee on the Application of Standards) makes
copies of reports on ratified Conventions available for consultation at the Conference, if
required.
Calendar of action – Reports on ratified Conventions
Period ILO action Action by national administrations
February/March ILO sends request for reports due that year
From March
Between 1 June and
1 September
Prepare reports
States parties to C.144: consult employers’
and workers’ organizations on questions
arising out of reports to be made
Send copies of reports to employers’ and
workers’ organizations
Send reports to reach the ILO between 1 June
and 1 September at the latest
November–December Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations meets
49 Governments may transmit their reports all together or in batches. The reports should cover the
period up to the time when they are transmitted.
50 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
op. cit., para. 11.
30 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Period ILO action Action by national administrations
February/March of the
following year
30 days before Conference
Publication of the report of the Committee of
Experts
Publication of preliminary list of cases
Study with a view to initiating measures
needed to ensure compliance, as well as in
preparation for Conference Committee
Prepare information (as appropriate) for
Conference Committee, in writing or to be
given orally
June
Following CAS
Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards meets
Participate in proceedings and, as
appropriate, in discussion of any cases
concerning own country selected for
consideration
If case examined by the Conference
Committee, review conclusions with a view to
considering any action called for, including
reporting to the CEACR
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 31
V. Reports on unratified Conventions and on
Recommendations – General Surveys
Obligation to report on unratified Conventions
47. Under article 19, paragraph 5(e), of the Constitution, a member State undertakes, in respect
of any Convention which it has not ratified, to:
… report to the Director-General of the International Labour Office, at appropriate
intervals as requested by the Governing Body, the position of its law and practice in regard to
the matters dealt with in the Convention, showing the extent to which effect has been given, or
is proposed to be given, to any of the provisions of the Convention by legislation, administrative
action, collective agreement or otherwise and stating the difficulties which prevent or delay the
ratification of such Convention.
Obligation to report on Recommendations
48. Under article 19, paragraph 6(d), of the Constitution, member States undertake to:
… report to the Director-General of the International Labour Office, at appropriate
intervals as requested by the Governing Body, the position of the law and practice in their
country in regard to the matters dealt with in the Recommendation, showing the extent to which
effect has been given or is proposed to be given, to the provisions of the Recommendation and
such modifications of these provisions as it has been found or may be found necessary to make
in adopting or applying them.
Federal States
49. Special provisions in respect of federal States as to the obligation to report on unratified
Conventions and on Recommendations are laid down in article 19, paragraph 7(b)(iv)
and (v), of the Constitution.
Choice of instruments for reports under article 19
(General Surveys) 51
50. Article 19 reports submitted by member States are the basis for the preparation by the
Committee of Experts of annual General Surveys which are then discussed by the
Conference Committee. The General Surveys and the results of their examination by the
Conference Committee are helpful in many respects, including when drawing up the
Organization’s programme of work, particularly in relation to the adoption of any new or
revised standards, in assessing the impact and continuing usefulness of the instruments to be
reviewed and in providing governments and the social partners with the opportunity to
review their policies and implement other measures in areas of major interest, as well as
deciding on new ratifications, where appropriate. The Governing Body selects the
instruments on which reports are to be requested each year. Following the adoption of the
51 In practice, the article 19 reporting procedure described here has been used by the Governing Body
rather than the separate clause included in the final provisions of all Conventions, whereby the
Governing Body may at any time present to the Conference a report on the working of the Convention
and examine the desirability of placing on the Conference agenda the question of its revision in whole
or in part.
32 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization and the setting up of
recurrent item discussions on the ILO strategic objectives on the agenda of the Conference,
the Governing Body aims at aligning the topic of the General Survey with that of the
corresponding recurrent item discussion so as to ensure that General Surveys and the related
discussion by the Committee on the Application of Standards contribute to the recurrent
discussions as appropriate.
51. In the framework of the Standards Initiative, the Governing Body has been examining the
use of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the Constitution. In November 2018, it decided
to continue to explore concrete and practical measures to improve the use of this, including
with the purpose of enhancing the functions of General Surveys and improving the quality
of their discussion and follow-up. 52
Report forms
52. When deciding the theme for the annual General Survey, the Governing Body also adopts a
specific questionnaire for reports on the instruments selected.
Office procedures for requesting reports
53. Upon the Governing Body’s decision on the General Survey and the adoption of the
corresponding report form, the Office sends a communication to governments requesting the
reports due under article 19. Copies of the requests are sent to national organizations of
employers and workers. By decision of the Governing Body, reports are requested to reach
the Office by the end of February of the year of their examination by the Committee of
Experts, at the latest. Reminders are sent to governments which do not transmit their reports
by the due date.
Reports should be sent to the following contact: [email protected].
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
54. Paragraph 5(e) of Recommendation No. 152 calls for consultation of representatives of
employers’ and workers’ organizations on questions arising out of reports to be made on
unratified Conventions and on Recommendations. In addition, Article 5, paragraph 1(c), of
Convention No. 144 and Paragraph 5(d) of Recommendation No. 152 provide for tripartite
consultations at appropriate intervals to consider what measures might be taken to promote
implementation and ratification as appropriate of Conventions which have not been ratified
and Recommendations to which effect has not been given.
Communication of reports to employers’
and workers’ organizations
55. Under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, governments have to communicate copies
of all reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations to representative
organizations of employers and workers and indicate, when forwarding their reports to the
ILO, the organizations to which communication has been made. Those or any other
employers’ or workers’ organizations may make any observations they wish on the subjects
52 See GB.334/INS/5 and GB.332/INS/5(Rev.), as well as GB.334/INS/PV, para. 288.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 33
in question. Employers’ and workers’ organizations may send observations directly to the
Office for submission to the Committee of Experts; in this case, the Office acknowledges
receipt and simultaneously forwards a copy to the government concerned.
Summary
56. Under article 23, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, a summary of reports on unratified
Conventions and on Recommendations has to be laid before the next meeting of the
Conference. Such summary appears in an abbreviated form in Report III (Part A), as a list
of reports received. In addition, the Office (through the secretariat of the Committee on the
Application of Standards) makes copies of the reports available for consultation at the
Conference, if required.
Calendar of action – Reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations
Period ILO action Action by national administrations
July
By end of February of the
following year
ILO sends request for reports, with report
forms
Prepare reports
Send copies to employers’ and workers’
organizations
Send report to ILO by end of February of the
following year, at the latest
November–December Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations prepares
General Survey
February/March of the
following year
Publication of Committee of Experts’ General
Survey
Study, in preparation for discussions in
Conference Committee and consideration of
general issues and comments
June Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards discusses the General Survey
Participate in proceedings
34 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
VI. Reports on the follow-up of the
1998 Declaration
57. The follow-up of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,
adopted by the International Labour Conference on 19 June 1998, is based on reports
requested from member States under article 19, paragraph 5(e), of the Constitution. The
forms for these reports are designed to obtain information on any changes in their law and
practice from governments which have not ratified one or more of the fundamental
Conventions, including the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention. 53 The
organizations of employers and workers may voice their opinions on the reports. The
information received is examined by the Governing Body and published in the Introduction
to the Annual Review of reports, focusing on new developments and trends.
58. In the framework of the Standards Initiative, the Governing Body has been examining the
use of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the Constitution, including in relation to the
Annual Review under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work. 54
53 The eight fundamental Conventions concern freedom of association (Conventions Nos 87 and 98),
the abolition of forced labour (Convention No. 29 and its Protocol, and Convention No. 105), equality
of opportunity and treatment (Conventions Nos 100 and 111) and child labour (Conventions Nos 138
and 182). Member States which have ratified fundamental Conventions have to provide reports on
their application every three years under article 22 of the Constitution.
54 See GB.334/INS/5 and GB.332/INS/5(Rev.), as well as GB.334/INS/PV, para. 288.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 35
VII. Regular machinery for supervising the
observance of obligations deriving from
Conventions and Recommendations
Regular supervisory bodies
59. On the basis of a resolution adopted by the Eighth Session of the International Labour
Conference in 1926, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards were
given responsibility for regular supervision of the observance by member States of their
standards-related obligations.
A. Committee of Experts
Composition and terms of reference 55
60. The Committee of Experts is composed of 20 members appointed by the Governing Body
on the proposal of the Director-General for renewable periods of three years. Appointments
are made in a personal capacity among completely impartial persons of technical
competence and independent standing. They are drawn from all parts of the world, in order
that the Committee may enjoy first-hand experience of different legal, economic and social
systems. The Committee’s fundamental principles are those of independence, impartiality
and objectivity in noting the extent to which the position in each State appears to conform
to the terms of the Conventions and the obligations accepted under the ILO Constitution. In
this spirit, the Committee is called on to examine:
(i) the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on the measures taken by
Members to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which they are parties, and
the information furnished by Members concerning the results of inspection;
(ii) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
(iii) information and reports on the measures taken by Members in accordance with
article 35 of the Constitution.
Organization of the Committee’s work
61. (a) The Committee meets on dates determined by the Governing Body. 56
(b) The Committee meets in private. Its documents and deliberations are confidential.
(c) The Committee assigns to each of its members initial responsibility for groups of
Conventions or subjects. Their preliminary findings are then submitted to the
Committee as a whole in the form of draft observations and direct requests.
55 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
op. cit.
56 The meetings are held at the end of Nov.–beginning of Dec. each year.
36 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
(d) The Committee may appoint working parties to deal with general or especially complex
questions, such as General Surveys. Working parties include members with knowledge
of different legal, economic and social systems. Their preliminary findings are
submitted to the Committee as a whole.
(e) Documentation available to the Committee includes the information supplied by
governments in their reports or in the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards; relevant legislation, collective agreements and court decisions; information
supplied by States on the results of inspections; observations of employers’ and
workers’ organizations; reports of other ILO bodies (such as commissions of inquiry
or the Committee on Freedom of Association) and reports of technical assistance
activities.
(f) The comments of the Committee are traditionally adopted by consensus.
(g) The secretariat which is necessary to the work of the Committee is placed at its disposal
by the Director-General of the ILO.
The Committee’s report
62. The results of the work of the Committee of Experts are published in February/March on the
ILO website. The final findings take the form of: 57
– a general report (giving an overview of the Committee’s work and drawing the
attention of the Governing Body, the Conference and member States to matters of
general interest or special concern);
– individual observations on: 58 (i) the application of ratified Conventions in member
States; (ii) the fulfilment of reporting obligations; and (iii) the submission of
Conventions and Recommendations to the competent national authorities;
– a series of direct requests: 59 further individual comments addressed to governments by
the Committee of Experts;
57 The General Report (Part I) and the individual observations (Part II) appear in a single volume,
Report III (Part A), submitted to the subsequent session of the International Labour Conference.
58 Observations are generally used in more serious or long-standing cases of failure to fulfil
obligations (see para. 70 of the Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations, op. cit.).
59 Direct requests are available on NORMLEX. They are also listed in the Committee’s report, after
the individual observations for each group of Conventions, but their full texts do not appear in the
report of the Committee of Experts to the Conference. They allow the Committee to be engaged in a
continuing dialogue with governments often when the questions raised are primarily of a technical
nature. They can also be used for the clarification of certain points when the information available
does not enable a full appreciation of the extent to which the obligations are fulfilled. Direct requests
are also used to examine the first reports supplied by governments on the application of Conventions
(see para. 70 of the Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, op. cit.).
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 37
– a series of replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give
rise to further comments: 60 when a government has given a reply to a direct request
and there is no need for further comment;
– a General Survey of national law and practice in regard to the instruments on which
reports have been supplied on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations under
article 19 of the Constitution. 61
63. The report of the Committee of Experts is in the first place submitted to the Governing Body
for information (at its session in March). It is then submitted to the Conference (which
usually meets in June each year). 62
B. Conference Committee on the Application
of Standards
Composition and officers
64. The Committee is set up under article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference. It is
tripartite, consisting of representatives of governments, employers and workers. 63 The
Committee holds elections from among each of the three groups to the Chairperson and two
Vice-Chairpersons and to the office of the Reporter. 64
Terms of reference 65
65. (i) The Committee has to consider:
(a) the measures taken by Members to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to
which they are parties and the information furnished by Members concerning the
results of inspections;
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
(c) the measures taken by Members in accordance with article 35 of the Constitution.
60 Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments
are registered in NORMLEX. They are also listed in the Committee’s report after the observations
for each group of Conventions.
61 This forms a separate volume, Report III (Part B). The General Survey also covers information
received under article 22 from countries which have ratified the Conventions in question. General
Surveys allow the Committee, in addition to reviewing national law and practice in member States, to
examine difficulties raised by governments as standing in the way of the application of instruments,
clarify their scope and indicate possible means of overcoming obstacles to their implementation.
62 The Office posts on the ILO website the General Report of the Committee of Experts and its
observations on the application of Conventions. The entire findings of the Committee of Experts,
including direct requests, are accessible on the ILO website (NORMLEX database).
63 Any voting is weighted so as to yield equal strength for each group (SO, article 65, and the standing
practice of the Conference).
64 SO, article 57.
65 SO, article 7.
38 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
(ii) The Committee has to submit a report to the Conference.
Organization of the Committee’s work 66
66. Following the independent, technical examination of documentation carried out by the
Committee of Experts, the proceedings of the Conference Committee present an opportunity
for representatives of governments, employers and workers to meet and review the manner
in which States are discharging their obligations under and relating to Conventions and
Recommendations. Governments are able to amplify information previously supplied;
indicate further measures proposed; draw attention to difficulties met with in the discharge
of obligations; and seek guidance as to how to overcome such difficulties.
(a) Documents before the Committee. The Committee has to consider Report III (Parts A
and B), which is the report of the Committee of Experts. It may also receive written
information from the governments on the list of cases selected for examination. It also
takes into account information received by the Office since the meeting of the
Committee of Experts. 67
(b) General discussion. In an opening general discussion, the Committee reviews the
matters covered by the General Report of the Committee of Experts. It then discusses
the General Survey published in Report III (Part B). 68
(c) Consideration of individual cases
(i) The Officers of the Committee prepare a list of observations contained in the
Committee of Experts’ report, in respect of which they consider it desirable to
invite governments to supply information to the Committee. The list is submitted
to the Committee for adoption. 69
(ii) The governments concerned have an opportunity to submit written information to
the Committee.
(iii) The Committee invites representatives of the governments concerned to attend
one of its sittings to discuss the observations in question. Governments which are
not members of the Committee are kept informed of its agenda and the date on
which it wishes to hear statements from their representatives through the
Conference Daily Bulletin.
66 For detailed information, see document C.App./D.1 (Work of the Committee) reproduced in
Annex 1 of the report of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (107th Session
of the Conference, 2018).
67 In addition, subject to the decision of the Governing Body and the Conference, the Committee may
have before it a report of the Joint ILO–UNESCO Committee of Experts on the Application of the
Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers.
68 And, as the case may be, the report of the Joint ILO–UNESCO Committee.
69 Since 2006, an early communication to governments of a preliminary list of individual cases for
possible discussion by the Committee concerning the application of ratified Conventions has been
instituted. Since 2015, the preliminary list of cases has been made available 30 days before the
opening of the International Labour Conference.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 39
(iv) Following statements of government representatives, members of the Committee
may put questions or make comments, and the Committee may reach conclusions
on the case.
(d) Cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting and other
standards-related obligations: The Committee also examines cases of serious failure
to respect reporting or other standards-related obligations. The discussion of the
Committee, including any explanations of difficulties that may have been provided by
the governments concerned, and the conclusions adopted by the Committee under each
criterion are reflected in its report.
(e) Report of the Conference Committee: 70 the Committee’s report is submitted to the
Conference and discussed in plenary, which gives delegates a further opportunity to
draw attention to particular aspects of the Committee’s work. The report is published
in the Record of Proceedings of the Conference and as a separate publication.
70 The content and structure of the Committee’s report is being examined in the context of the
informal tripartite consultations on the working methods of the Committee on the Application of
Standards (see the summary of the discussions and decisions of the meeting held in November 2018:
GB.334/INS/12(Rev.), appendix).
40 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
VIII. Role of employers’ and workers’ organizations
Communication of reports and information
to employers’ and workers’ organizations
67. By virtue of the constitutional obligations on all member States, representative organizations
of employers and workers have to receive copies of:
(a) information communicated to the Office concerning measures taken to submit
Conventions and Recommendations to the competent national authorities;
(b) reports on the application of ratified Conventions;
(c) reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations.
In addition, the Office procedures in relation to these obligations endeavour to ensure that
national organizations receive copies of relevant comments of the supervisory bodies and
the requests for reports.
Consultation of representative organizations
68. Convention No. 144 and Recommendation No. 152 provide for tripartite consultations on:
(a) government replies to questionnaires and comments on proposed new instruments to
be discussed at the Conference;
(b) proposals to be made to the competent authorities when Conventions and
Recommendations are submitted to them;
(c) questions arising out of reports on ratified Conventions; 71
(d) measures relating to unratified Conventions and Recommendations; 72
(e) denunciation of Conventions.
Transmission of observations by employers’
and workers’ organizations
69. Any employers’ or workers’ organization, whether or not it has received copies of
government reports, may at any time transmit its observations on any of the matters arising
in connection with the implementation of international labour standards. The Committee of
Experts and the Conference Committee have emphasized the value of such contribution as
71 Under Recommendation No. 152, consultations should also take place on questions arising out of
article 19 reports (on submission to the competent authorities and on unratified Conventions and
Recommendations); and, subject to national practice, on questions of legislation to give effect to
Conventions (particularly when ratified) and Recommendations.
72 This question should be re-examined “at appropriate intervals”.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 41
a means of assisting them, in particular, in assessing the effective application of ratified
Conventions.
Participation in the Conference
70. Through their presence at the International Labour Conference, and particularly in the
Committee on the Application of Standards, representatives of employers’ and workers’
organizations may raise matters concerning the discharge of standards-related obligations.
42 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
IX. Interpretation of Conventions
and Recommendations
Constitutional provisions
71. The International Court of Justice is, by virtue of article 37, paragraph 1, of the Constitution,
considered to be the only body competent to give authoritative interpretations of ILO
Conventions and Recommendations. It reads as follows:
Any question or dispute relating to the interpretation of this Constitution or of any
subsequent Convention concluded by the Members in pursuance of the provisions of this
Constitution shall be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice.
72. Furthermore, according to article 37, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, the Governing Body
can, after approval of the Conference, set up a tribunal in order to settle a dispute related to
the interpretation of a Convention:
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article the Governing Body may
make and submit to the Conference for approval rules providing for the appointment of a
tribunal for the expeditious determination of any dispute or question relating to the interpretation
of a Convention which may be referred thereto by the Governing Body or in accordance with
the terms of the Convention. Any applicable judgement or advisory opinion of the International
Court of Justice shall be binding upon any tribunal established in virtue of this paragraph. Any
award made by such a tribunal shall be circulated to the Members of the Organization and any
observations which they may make thereon shall be brought before the Conference.
73. While no such tribunal has ever been set up, it should be noted that the possible
implementation of article 37, paragraph 2, of the Constitution is part of the Governing Body
discussions in the framework of the Standards Initiative. 73
Informal opinion of the International Labour Office
74. Governments which are in doubt as to the meaning of particular provisions of an ILO
Convention or Recommendation may request the Office to provide an informal opinion. The
Office, always with the reservation that it has no special authority under the Constitution to
interpret Conventions and Recommendations, has assisted governments when asked for an
opinion. 74 Where the request is for a formal or official opinion or the issue raised is likely
to be of general interest, a Memorandum by the International Labour Office will be published
in the Official Bulletin, containing the Office’s opinion. A simple letter of reply will
normally be sent by the Office in cases where a formal or official opinion is not specifically
requested.
73 See GB.334/INS/5 and GB.332/INS/5(Rev.), as well as GB.334/INS/PV, para. 288(7)(a).
74 In practice, the Office endeavours to assist employers’ and workers’ organizations similarly.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 43
Opinions and recommendations
of the supervisory bodies
75. When examining the application of international labour standards, the supervisory bodies
(Committee of Experts,75 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards,
commissions of inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution, committees
established under article 24 of the Constitution, Committee on Freedom of Association, Fact-
Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association) may be called upon to
express opinions on the scope and meaning of ILO standards. Their reports therefore contain
important guidance in this respect.
75 On the mandate of the Committee of Experts, see its Report of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations, op. cit., para. 32.
44 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
X. Revision of Conventions
and Recommendations
Nature of revision of Conventions
76. The formal revision (including the “partial” revision) of one, or sometimes several
Conventions, results in most cases in the adoption of an entirely new Convention. The
Conference may also undertake the partial revision of a Convention through the adoption of
a Protocol or of provisions in a new Convention, the acceptance of which brings to an end
the obligations under the corresponding provisions of an earlier Convention. 76 Certain
Conventions also provide for specific procedures for the amendment of annexes. 77 Finally,
without formally constituting a revision, the updating of certain technical or scientific data
is envisaged in certain Conventions through a technique of reference to the most recent data
published on the subject. 78
Method and effect of revision of Conventions
77. A Convention is not regarded as revising an earlier instrument unless the intention to revise
is explicitly or implicitly stated in the title, preamble or operative provisions of the later
Convention.
(a) Conventions Nos 1–26. These contain no provisions as to the consequences of the
adoption or ratification of a revising Convention. The adoption of a revising
Convention by the Conference in itself therefore neither closes the earlier one to further
ratifications nor involves automatic denunciation of it. 79
(b) Conventions Nos 27 and after. These contain a final Article specifying that, unless the
new revising Convention provides otherwise, the following are the consequences of the
ratification and coming into force of a later revising Convention:
(1) ratification by a Member of the revising Convention will involve the automatic
denunciation by it of the earlier Convention from the date on which the revising
Convention comes into force;
76 For example: following the ratification of Conventions Nos 121, 128 and 130, and where
appropriate the acceptance of certain parts of those Conventions, the corresponding provisions of
Convention No. 102 cease to apply; however, the term “revision” is not explicitly used in this context.
The Final Articles Revision Conventions (Nos 80 and 116) are other specific examples of partial
revisions.
77 See Conventions Nos 83, 97, 121 and 185. The procedure provided for in Convention No. 185
differs from that of the other Conventions.
78 See, for example, Conventions Nos 102, 121, 128 and 130, which refer to the International
Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, adopted by the Economic and Social
Council of the United Nations, “as at any time further amended”, and Convention No. 139, which
refers to “the latest information contained in the codes of practice or guides which may be established
by the International Labour Office”.
79 A revising Convention may provide that ratification, under given conditions, constitutes an act of
denunciation of the earlier Convention (e.g. Convention No. 138 (Article 10, para. 5), as regards
Conventions Nos 5, 7, 10 and 15, and Convention No. 179 (Article 9) in relation to Convention No. 9).
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 45
(2) from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, the earlier
Convention will be closed to further ratification;
(3) the earlier Convention, once it has come into force, will remain in force as it stands
for Members which have ratified it but not the later revising Convention.
(c) Alternative provisions. The final Articles of each Convention have to be referred to in
order to determine whether the above provisions apply.
Revision of Recommendations
78. The revision or replacement (the two terms have been used synonymously) of a
Recommendation, or sometimes several Recommendations, has given rise in almost all cases
to the adoption of a new Recommendation. Moreover, certain Recommendations envisage
specific procedures for the amendment of annexes. As Recommendations do not have the
binding force of Conventions, their revision or replacement has lesser consequences.
Nevertheless, a Recommendation which revises or replaces one or more earlier
Recommendations replaces the earlier instrument(s). In such cases, reference should only be
made to the new Recommendation.
46 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
XI. Denunciation of Conventions
Conditions for denunciation
79. Every Convention 80 contains an Article determining the conditions in which States which
have ratified it may denounce it (i.e. terminate their obligations). 81 Each Convention’s
precise terms have to be referred to, but in general:
(a) Conventions Nos 1–25. Denunciation is possible at any time after an initial period of
five or ten years (as indicated) of the Convention first coming into force;
(b) Conventions Nos 26 and after. Denunciation is possible after an initial period of five or
(more often) ten years (as indicated) of the Convention first coming into force, but only
during an interval of one year. Denunciation similarly becomes possible again after
subsequent periods of five or ten years, as indicated.
Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
80. (a) The Governing Body has stated as a general principle that, in any case in which the
denunciation of a ratified Convention may be contemplated, it is desirable for the
government, before taking a decision, fully to consult the representative organizations
of employers and workers on the problems encountered and the measures to be taken
to resolve them. 82
(b) Article 5, paragraph 1(e), of Convention No. 144 requires the consultation of
representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations on any proposals for the
denunciation of ratified Conventions. 83
Form of communication of denunciation
81. Denunciation, according to the relevant Article in each Convention, is effected by an act
communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.
The instrument of denunciation must:
(a) clearly identify the Convention being denounced;
(b) be an original document (on paper, not a facsimile or photocopy) signed by a person
with authority to engage the State (such as the Head of State, Prime Minister, Minister
responsible for Foreign Affairs or Labour);
(c) clearly indicate that it constitutes a formal denunciation of the Convention concerned.
80 Except the Final Articles Revision Conventions Nos 80 and 116.
81 Such an Article is additional to one providing for automatic denunciation by virtue of the
ratification of a revising Convention. In three cases (Conventions Nos 102, 128 and 148),
denunciation is possible also in respect of separate Parts only.
82 Minutes of the Governing Body, 184th Session (November 1971), pp. 95 and 210.
83 For States which have not ratified Convention No. 144, see Para. 5 of the Tripartite Consultation
(Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152).
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 47
Office procedures
82. (a) On becoming aware of any case in which the denunciation of a Convention is
contemplated, the Office will draw the attention of the government concerned to the
general principle as to consultation referred to in paragraph 70(a) above.
(b) In any case in which a government communicates the denunciation of a Convention
without any indication of the reasons which have led to its decision, the Office will
request the government concerned to provide such indications for the information of
the Governing Body. States which have ratified Convention No. 144 are under the
obligation to include information on the tripartite consultations held prior to a
denunciation in the reports provided under article 22 of the Constitution.
(c) Registration of denunciations. Every denunciation registered by the Director-General
is notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reported to the Governing
Body and published in the Official Bulletin.
Effect of denunciation
83. Denunciations take effect in accordance with the final Articles of each Convention (usually
one year after they are registered by the Director-General).
48 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
XII. Special procedures
A. Representations as to the observance
of ratified Conventions
Constitutional provisions
84. Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution read as follows:
Article 24
In the event of any representation being made to the International Labour Office by an
industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure
in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a
party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against
which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it
may think fit.
Article 25
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or
if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the
latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply
to it.
Procedure for the examination of representations
85. When adopting amendments to the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the
examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the
International Labour Organization in November 2004, the Governing Body decided that the
Standing Orders should be preceded by an Introductory note summarizing the various stages
of the procedure and indicating the options available to the Governing Body at each stage: 84
(a) the Office acknowledges receipt of communications submitted under article 24 of the
Constitution and informs the government concerned;
(b) the matter is brought before the Officers of the Governing Body;
(c) the Officers report to the Governing Body on the receivability of the representation; the
criteria for receivability, as contained in article 2 of the Standing Orders, provide that
the representation must:
(i) be communicated to the ILO in writing;
(ii) come from an industrial association of employers or workers;
(iii) make specific reference to article 24 of the Constitution;
84 Document GB.291/9(Rev.) contains the text of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for
the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the International
Labour Organization and the Introductory note referred to above. The Standing Orders and the
Introductory note are available on the ILO website. Offprints are also available.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 49
(iv) concern a Member of the ILO; 85
(v) refer to a Convention to which the Member in question is a party;
(vi) indicate in what respect it is alleged that that Member has failed to secure the
effective observance within its jurisdiction of that Convention;
(d) the Governing Body reaches a decision on the receivability without discussing the
substance of the matter;
(e) if the representation is receivable, the Governing Body either sets up a tripartite
committee to examine the matter according to rules laid down in the Standing Orders;
or, if the matter relates to a Convention dealing with trade union rights, it may refer it
to the Committee on Freedom of Association; if the representation relates to matters
and allegations similar to those which have been the subject of a previous
representation, the Governing Body may decide to postpone the appointment of the
committee to examine the new representation until the Committee of Experts has been
able to examine the follow-up to the recommendations that were adopted by the
Governing Body in relation to the previous representation;
(f) the Committee reports to the Governing Body, describing the steps taken to examine
the representation and giving its conclusions and recommendations for decisions to be
taken by the Governing Body;
(g) the government concerned is invited to be represented in the Governing Body
consideration of the matter;
(h) the Governing Body decides whether to publish the representation and any government
statement in reply and notifies the complainant organization and government
concerned.
86. In November 2018, the Governing Body approved a number of measures concerning the
operation of the representations procedure under article 24 of the Constitution, 86 including
arrangements to allow for optional voluntary conciliation or other measures at the national
level, leading to a temporary suspension for a maximum period of six months of the
examination of the merits of a representation by the ad hoc committee. The suspension would
be subject to the agreement of the complainant as expressed in the complaint form, 87 and
the agreement of the government. These arrangements would be reviewed by the Governing
Body after a two-year trial period.
85 Or a former Member which remains bound by the Convention in question.
86 GB.334/INS/PV, para. 288(1).
87 See Appendix IV.
50 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
B. Complaints as to the observance of
ratified Conventions
Main constitutional provisions
87. Article 26 of the Constitution reads as follows:
1. Any of the Members shall have the right to file a complaint with the International
Labour Office if it is not satisfied that any other Member is securing the effective observance
of any Convention which both have ratified in accordance with the foregoing articles.
2. The Governing Body may, if it thinks fit, before referring such a complaint to a
Commission of Inquiry, as hereinafter provided for, communicate with the government in
question in the manner described in article 24.
3. If the Governing Body does not think it necessary to communicate the complaint to the
government in question, or if, when it has made such communication, no statement in reply has
been received within a reasonable time which the Governing Body considers to be satisfactory,
the Governing Body may appoint a Commission of Inquiry to consider the complaint and to
report thereon.
4. The Governing Body may adopt the same procedure either of its own motion or on
receipt of a complaint from a delegate to the Conference.
5. When any matter arising out of article 25 or 26 is being considered by the Governing
Body, the government in question shall, if not already represented thereon, be entitled to send a
representative to take part in the proceedings of the Governing Body while the matter is under
consideration. Adequate notice of the date on which the matter will be considered shall be given
to the government in question.
Other constitutional provisions
88. The following articles of the Constitution deal with other aspects of the complaints
procedure:
Article 27: Members’ cooperation with a Commission of Inquiry;
Article 28: report of the Commission of Inquiry, embodying its findings and
recommendations;
Article 29: communication and publication of the report of a Commission of Inquiry,
indication of governments concerned whether they accept its recommendations, and possible
reference to the International Court of Justice (ICJ);
Article 31: decision of the ICJ to be final;
Article 32: power of the ICJ over the findings or recommendations of a Commission of
Inquiry;
Article 33: Governing Body recommendation as to action by the Conference in the event of
failure to carry out recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry or the ICJ;
Article 34: verification of compliance with recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry
or the ICJ and subsequent Governing Body recommendation as to discontinuance of action
by the Conference.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 51
Commission of Inquiry procedure
89. At present, there are no standing orders for the procedure of Commissions of Inquiry: the
Governing Body has in each case left the matter to the Commission of Inquiry itself, subject
only to the Constitution’s and its own general guidance. The reports of the respective
Commissions of Inquiry describe the procedure followed for the examination of complaints,
including the procedure for receiving communications from the parties and other interested
persons or organizations, and holding hearings. 88
90. However, it should be noted that, in the framework of the Standards Initiative, consideration
is being given to the possible codification of the article 26 procedure. 89
C. Complaints as to the infringement of
freedom of association
1. Governing Body Committee on
Freedom of Association 90
Composition and terms of reference
91. The Committee is a tripartite organ of the Governing Body, comprising nine of its members
and nine deputy members sitting in a personal capacity, plus an independent Chairperson.
Its sittings are private, its working documents confidential and, in practice, its decisions are
taken by consensus. The Committee examines complaints of infringement of freedom of
association and collective bargaining principles and submits its conclusions and
recommendations to the Governing Body. Complaints may be entertained regardless of
whether the country concerned has ratified any of the Conventions in the field of freedom of
association. 91
Receivability of complaints
92. (a) Complaints must be in writing, signed and supported by proof of allegations relating to
specific infringements of freedom of association and collective bargaining principles.
(b) Complaints must come from organizations of employers or workers 92 or from
governments. An organization may be:
88 See, for example, Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV (1991), Series B, Supplements 2 and 3.
89 See GB.334/INS/5 and GB.332/INS/5(Rev.), as well as GB.334/INS/PV.
90 The procedures of the Committee on Freedom of Association – in their most recent version
approved by the Governing Body at its 306th Session (2009) – are set out in Annex II of the
Compendium of rules applicable to the Governing Body of the ILO (“Special procedures for the
examination in ILO of complaints alleging violations of freedom of association”). These procedures
are also published as Annex I to the Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of
Association. Furthermore, the Committee regularly adopts decisions concerning its working methods
and reports to the Governing Body.
91 This is because of the obligation on all member States, by virtue of their adherence to the ILO
Constitution, to recognize the principle of freedom of association.
92 The Committee itself decides whether a complainant may be deemed an organization for this
purpose. The Office is authorized to request further information from a complainant organization in
order to ascertain its precise nature.
52 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
(i) a national organization directly interested in the matter;
(ii) an international organization of employers or workers which has consultative
status with the ILO; 93
(iii) another international organization of employers or workers, where the allegations
relate to matters directly affecting affiliated organizations.
93. The Committee has a full margin of appreciation to decide on the receivability of complaints
regarding the applicant. In fact, according to the special procedures for the examination of
complaints alleging violations of freedom of association, the Committee has full freedom to
decide whether an organization may be deemed to be an employers’ or workers’ organization
within the meaning of the ILO Constitution, and it does not consider itself bound by any
national definition of the term. The fact that a trade union has not deposited its by-laws, as
may be required by national laws, is not sufficient to make its complaint irreceivable since
the principles of freedom of association provide precisely that the workers shall be able,
without previous authorization, to establish organizations of their own choosing. Finally, the
fact that an organization has not been officially recognized does not justify the rejection of
allegations when it is clear from the complaints that this organization has at least a de facto
existence. 94
Organization of the Committee’s work
94. (a) The Committee meets three times a year.
(b) The Office may at any time ask a complainant to specify what infringements are
complained of, where a complaint is not sufficiently detailed.
(c) The Office informs complainants that they should supply any supplementary
information intended to substantiate their complaints within one month. 95
(d) The allegations are transmitted by the Office to the government concerned for reply
within a given period.
(e) In cases concerning enterprises, the Office requests governments to seek information
from the representative employers’ organization concerned.
(f) The Committee decides whether to examine the complaint and reach a conclusion or
ask the government concerned for additional information.
(g) The Committee may invite the Governing Body to draw the attention of the government
concerned to the Committee’s recommendations, which may include requests to take
remedial measures and to keep it informed of developments.
(h) The Committee issues “definitive” reports when it feels that the matters do not call for
further examination and are effectively closed, “interim” reports where it requires
93 At the time of printing, the International Organisation of Employers; the International Trade Union
Confederation; the Organization of African Trade Union Unity; and the World Federation of Trade
Unions.
94 Special procedures for the examination in the International Labour Organization of complaints
alleging violations of freedom of association.
95 Only new evidence which could not have been adduced within that month will subsequently be
receivable.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 53
further information from the parties to the complaint and “follow-up” reports where it
requests to be kept informed of developments. Follow-up cases are subsequently
“closed” when the matters have been resolved or the Committee considers that they do
not call for further examination.
(i) The Committee may also recommend referral to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation
Commission.
(j) The Committee’s Report is published in the Official Bulletin.
(k) The Committee may invite its Chairperson to hold consultations with a governmental
delegation, to draw their attention to the seriousness of some problems and to discuss
the various means that would allow their resolution.
(l) If a country has ratified the relevant Conventions on freedom of association, the
Committee can draw the legislative aspects of the case to the attention of the Committee
of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
(m) In the course of the procedure, it is possible to undertake various missions (direct
contacts, technical assistance, etc.) with the government’s consent.
(n) The Governing Body has instructed the Committee on Freedom of Association to
examine representations referred to it according to the procedures set out in the
Standing Orders for the examination of article 24 representations, to ensure that
representations referred to it be examined according to the modalities set out in the
Standing Orders. 96
2. Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of Association
Composition, terms of reference and procedure
95. The Commission is composed of nine independent persons appointed by the Governing
Body, who normally work in panels of three. It examines complaints of infringements of
freedom of association referred to it by the Governing Body, including on the request of a
government against which allegations are made. 97 The Commission’s procedure is
comparable to that of a Commission of Inquiry, and its reports are published.
96 See GB.334/INS/PV.
97 These may relate to: (i) Members which have ratified the Conventions on freedom of association;
(ii) Members which have not ratified the relevant Conventions and which consent to the referral;
(iii) non-members of the ILO which are member States of the United Nations, where the Economic
and Social Council of the UN has transmitted the matter to the ILO and the State has consented to the
referral.
54 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
XIII. Assistance available from the
International Labour Office in relation
to international labour standards
International labour standards and
technical assistance
96. The International Labour Office undertakes various kinds of activities designed to assist
governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations in fulfilling their obligations and
roles in the standard-setting and supervisory system.
Informal advisory services
97. The International Labour Standards Department of the International Labour Office in
Geneva works together with the regional and subregional offices, and especially the
specialists in international labour standards in those offices, in the field, to give all kinds of
training, explanations, advice and assistance on the matters dealt with in this Handbook.
These services are offered both in response to specific requests received from governments
or employers’ or workers’ organizations and through routine advisory missions and informal
discussions initiated by the Office. Matters which may be dealt with include questionnaires
on items on the agenda of the Conference for possible new standards; comments of the
supervisory bodies and measures they might call for; new legislation; government reports to
be drafted; documents prepared for submission to the competent authorities; arrangements
for consultations between governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations in
relation to labour standards and ILO activities; ways in which employers’ and workers’
organizations might fully participate in standard-setting and supervisory procedures.
Direct contacts
98. Direct contacts missions are undertaken in support of the procedures of the supervisory
bodies (Committee of Experts, Committee on the Application of Standards, Committee on
Freedom of Association and ad hoc committees established under article 24 of the
Constitution).
99. They consist of sending a representative of the ILO Director-General to a country involved
in a supervisory procedure with a view to seeking a solution to the difficulties encountered
in relation to the application of ratified Conventions or compliance with the
recommendations of the supervisory bodies. When the issues raised concern questions of
practice, the direct contacts mission focuses in particular on determining the situation in
practice. Direct contacts have also been used on many occasions to provide countries with
technical assistance in the form of advice on the type of measures to be taken and assistance
in the drafting of amendments to the national legislation, as well as in the establishment of
procedures to facilitate compliance with the obligations deriving from the ILO’s standardsrelated
activities.
100. The representative of the Director-General may be an ILO official or an independent person
appointed by the Director-General (magistrates of supreme courts, professors, a member of
the Committee of Experts, etc.) and her or his mission consists of ascertaining the facts, as
well as examining on the spot the possibilities for resolving the problems in question.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 55
101. The representative of the Director-General and the composition of the mission have to give
all the necessary guarantees of objectivity and impartiality and, following the completion of
the mission, a report has to be submitted to the corresponding supervisory body.
102. Direct contacts can only be established at the invitation of the government concerned, or at
least with its consent. The government may request them directly, or they may be proposed
by the supervisory bodies. The representative of the Director-General must be able to
interview freely all the parties concerned, so as to be fully and objectively informed of all
the aspects of the case or the situation in question. The principal counterpart of the mission
is normally the Ministry of Labour and the confederations of workers and employers,
although with a certain regularity, and depending on the nature of the problems raised, the
mission may interview the legislative authorities, the judicial authorities or even the Head
of State. The national organizations of employers and workers are also associated with this
process through interviews with the mission, as well as through tripartite meetings.
103. Direct contacts are an effective means of dialogue, negotiation and establishing the facts.
The objective is to create a climate of confidence so as to be able to find a rapid and positive
solution to the problems.
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 57
Appendix I
58 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Appendix II
Regular reporting cycle under article 22
of the ILO Consititution
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fundamental and governance Conventions (three-year reporting cycle)
C.87, C.98
(countries A–F)
C.87, C.98
(countries G–N)
C.87, C.98
(countries O–Z)
C.87, C.98
(countries A–F)
C.87, C.98
(countries G–N)
C.87, C.98
(countries O–Z)
C.87, C.98
(countries A–F)
C.100, C.111
(countries G–N)
C.100, C.111
(countries O–Z)
C.100, C.111
(countries A–F)
C.100, C.111
(countries G–N)
C.100, C.111
(countries O–Z)
C.100, C.111
(countries A–F)
C.100, C.111
(countries G–N)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries O–Z )
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries A–F)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries G–N)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries O–Z )
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries A–F)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries G–N)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries O–Z )
C.144
(countries A–F)
C.144
(countries G–N)
C.144
(countries O–Z)
C.144
(countries A–F)
C.144
(countries G–N)
C.144
(countries O–Z)
C.144
(countries A–F)
C.81, C.129
(countries O–Z)
C.81, C.129
(countries G–N)
C.81, C.129
(countries A–F)
C.81, C.129
(countries O–Z)
C.81, C.129
(countries G–N)
C.81, C.129
(countries A–F)
C.81, C.129
(countries O–Z)
C122
(countries G–N)
C.122
(countries A–F)
C.122
(countries O–Z)
C.122
(countries G–N)
C.122
(countries A–F)
C.122
(countries O–Z)
C122
(countries G–N)
Technical Conventions (six-year reporting cycle)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (A-B)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (G-K)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (O-S)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (C-F)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (L–N)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (T-Z)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (A-B)
Industrial
relations (A-B)
Industrial
relations (G-K)
Industrial
relations (O-S)
Industrial
relations (C-F)
Industrial
relations (L-N)
Industrial
relations (T-Z)
Industrial
relations (A-B)
Protection of
children (O–S)
Protection of
children (A–B)
Protection of
children (G–K)
Protection of
children (T–Z)
Protection of
children (C–F)
Protection of
children (L–N)
Protection of
children (O–S)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(G–K)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(O–S)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(A–B)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(L–N)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(T–Z)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(C–F)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(G–K)
Migrant workers
(G–K)
Migrant workers
(O–S)
Migrant workers
(A–B)
Migrant workers
(L–N)
Migrant workers
(T–Z)
Migrant workers
(C–F)
Migrant workers
(G–K)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(G–K)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(O–S)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(A–B)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(L–N)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(T–Z)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(C–F)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(G–K)
Other specific
categories of
workers (G–K)
Other specific
categories of
workers (O–S)
Other specific
categories of
workers (A–B)
Other specific
categories of
workers (L–N)
Other specific
categories of
workers (T–Z)
Other specific
categories of
workers (C–F)
Other specific
categories of
workers (G–K)
Working time
(T–Z)
Working time
(L–N)
Working time
(C–F)
Working time
(O–S)
Working time
(G–K)
Working time
(A–B)
Working time
(T–Z)
Wages (T–Z) Wages (L–N) Wages (C–F) Wages (O–S) Wages (G–K) Wages (A–B) Wages (T–Z)
OSH (T–Z) OSH (L–N) OSH (C–F) OSH (O–S) OSH (G–K) OSH (A–B) OSH (T–Z)
Maternity
protection
(T–Z)
Maternity
protection
(L–N)
Maternity
protection
(C–F)
Maternity
protection
(O–S)
Maternity
protection
(G–K)
Maternity
protection
(A–B)
Maternity
protection
(T–Z)
Social security
(T–Z)
Social security
(L–N)
Social security
(C–F)
Social security
(O–S)
Social security
(G–K)
Social security
(A–B)
Social security
(T–Z)
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 59
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Labour
administration
and inspection
(T–Z)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(L–N)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(C–F)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(O–S)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(G–K)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(A–B)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(T–Z)
Skills (L–N) Skills (C–F) Skills (T–Z) Skills (G–K) Skills (A–B) Skills (O–S) Skills (L–N)
Employment
policy (L–N)
Employment
policy (C–F)
Employment
policy (T–Z)
Employment
policy (G–K)
Employment
policy (A–B)
Employment
policy (O–S)
Employment
policy (L–N)
Employment
security (L–N)
Employment
security (C–F)
Employment
security (T–Z)
Employment
security (G–K)
Employment
security (A–B)
Employment
security (O–S)
Employment
security (L–N)
Social policy
(L–N)
Social policy
(C–F)
Social policy
(T–Z)
Social policy
(G–K)
Social policy
(A–B)
Social policy
(O–S)
Social policy
(L–N)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(C–F)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(T–Z)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(L–N)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(A–B)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(O–S)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(G–K)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(C–F)
Total number of reports requested
1 270 1 384 1 434 1 445 1 356 1 368 1 270
60 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Appendix III
Simplified reports to be sent under article 22
of the ILO Constitution for [name of country]
The present report form has been approved by the Governing Body of the International Labour
Office, in accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution, which reads as follows: “Each of the
Members agrees to make an annual report to the International Labour Office on the measures which
it has taken to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which it is a party. These reports shall
be made in such form and shall contain such particulars as the Governing Body may request.”
Every year, based on this report form, the Office sends to each member State a single request
for all the simplified reports which are due that year. In addition, the Office communicates to each
member State the list of detailed reports which may also be due the year in question.
(a) Please provide information on any new legislative or other measures affecting the application
of ratified Conventions; where this has not already been done, please forward copies of any
relevant texts to the International Labour Office with this report.
(b) Please reply to the comments which have been addressed to your government by the Committee
of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations or by the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards, as contained in the annex to this form. 1
(c) Insofar as it has not already been supplied in reply to question (b), please provide information
on the practical application of the Conventions concerned (for example, copies or extracts from
official documents including inspection reports, studies and inquiries, statistics); please also
state whether courts of law or other tribunals have given decisions involving questions of
principle relating to the application of the Conventions concerned. If so, please supply the text
of these decisions.
(d) Please indicate the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of
the present report have been communicated in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the
Constitution of the International Labour Organization. 2 If copies of the report have not been
communicated to representative organizations of employers and/or workers, or if they have been
communicated to bodies other than such organizations, please supply information on any
particular circumstances existing in your country which explain the procedure followed.
(e) Please indicate whether you have received from the organizations of employers or workers
concerned any observations, either of a general kind or in connection with the present or the
previous report, regarding the practical application of the provisions of the Conventions
concerned. If so, please communicate a copy of the observations received, together with any
comments that you consider useful.
1 The annex is established on the basis of the regular reporting cycle and any additional requests for
reports addressed to your country by the supervisory bodies for the year in question. It also includes
cases in which your country has failed to submit the simplified reports requested the previous year. It
does not cover any simplified report due under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006),
as amended, for which a specific form will be sent to your country, as appropriate.
2 Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution reads as follows: “Each Member shall communicate to
the representative organisations recognised for the purpose of article 3 copies of the information and
reports communicated to the Director-General in pursuance of articles 19 and 22.”
Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx 61
Appendix IV
Model electronic form for the submission of a
representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution
Information and further instructions on the article 24 procedure and its implications, as well as
on other available ILO supervisory mechanisms, may be found on the web page of NORMES. For
further support you may contact: for employers’ organizations – ACT/EMP ([email protected]) and
for workers’ organizations – ACTRAV ([email protected]).
(Please provide information on why you are submitting your allegations through an article 24 representation
procedure, as opposed to other procedures
Receivability
1. Please indicate the name of the industrial association of employers or workers making the
representation:
(Please provide information on the organization concerned, its statutes, contact details, etc.)
2. Please indicate the Member of the Organization against which the representation is made:
3. Please indicate the ratified Convention(s) of which non-observance is alleged:
(Please also specify the ratification date(s).)
4. Please use the [expandable] space below to inform the ILO Director-General in what respect it is
alleged that the Member against which the representation is made has failed to secure the effective
observance within its jurisdiction of the Convention(s) indicated above, making specific reference to
article 24 of the ILO Constitution. Please provide any relevant information in support of your
allegations:
62 Normes-Handbook-Updated Manual 2019-[NORME-130319-1]-En.docx
Other information
5. Please indicate whether the issue has already been examined by, or submitted to, the national
competent authorities (including national courts, social dialogue mechanisms or mechanisms to
resolve disputes before the ILO that may exist in the country) and provide any information on the
state and outcome of the procedures engaged. Exhaustion of national procedures is not a prerequisite
for the submission of a representation. However, in certain cases, the procedure to examine the
representation may allow for conciliation or other measures at the national level – see the following
question:
6. Please indicate if: (i) your organization would wish to explore the possibility of seeking conciliation
or other measures at the national level for a maximum period of six months from the date of the ad
hoc tripartite committee’s decision to suspend the examination of the merits of the representation in
order to address the allegations (subject to the agreement of the government; with the possibility for
your organization to request the procedure to resume at an earlier moment should the
conciliation/other measures fail; and with the possibility for the tripartite committee to decide on a
limited further extension of the suspension should the initial conciliation or other measures need a
further period of time to successfully resolve the issues raised in the representation); (ii) if so, please
indicate if you would wish to have recourse to the intervention or technical assistance of the Office
or the secretariats of the Employers’ or Workers’ groups in this regard.
7. Please indicate whether, to your knowledge, the allegations have already been examined by or
submitted to ILO supervisory bodies and, if so, in what respect any currently submitted allegations
are different from those already examined or submitted.
Document No. 60
ILO, Rules of the Game: An introduction to the
standards-related work of the International Labour
Organization, 2019
RULES OF THE GAME
An introduction
to the standards-related work
of the International Labour
Organization
CENTENARY EDITION
2019
1
THE RULES OF THE GAME
An introduction to the standards-related work
of the International Labour Organization
Copyright © International Labour Organization 2019
First published 2005
Fourth edition 2019
Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright
Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition
that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO
Publications (Rights and Licensing), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by
email: [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.
Libraries, institutions and other users registered with a reproduction rights organization may make copies
in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction
rights organization in your country.
Rules of the game: An introduction to the standards-related work of the International Labour Organization
International Labour Office, Geneva, 2019
ISBN 978-92-2-132185-9 (Print)
ISBN 978-92-2-132186-6 (Web pdf)
Also available in French: Les règles du jeu. Une introduction à l’action normative de l’Organisation internationale
du Travail (ISBN 978-92-2-132188-0(print); ISBN 978-92-2-132189-7 (pdf web)), Geneva, 2019 and
in Spanish: Las reglas del juego: Una introducción a la actividad normativa de la Organización Internacional
del Trabajo: ISBN 978-92-2-132191-0 (print); ISBN 978-92-2-132192-7 (Web pdf), Geneva, 2019.
The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and
the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with
their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the
opinions expressed in them.
Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the
International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is
not a sign of disapproval.
Information on ILO publications and digital products can be found at: www.ilo.org/publns.
This publication was produced by the Document and Publications Production,
Printing and Distribution Branch (PRODOC) of the ILO.
Graphic and typographic design, layout and composition,
printing, electronic publishing and distribution,
PRODOC endeavours to use paper sourced from forests managed
in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner
Code: CMD-SCR-SEP
3
CONTENTS
1 International labour standards:
Rules of the game for a global economy 6
Building a global economy with social justice 8
What are international labour standards? 18
How are international labour standards created? 20
How are international labour standards used? 25
2 Subjects covered by international labour standards 31
Freedom of association 33
Collective bargaining 36
Forced labour 39
Child labour 42
Equality of opportunity and treatment 45
Tripartite consultation 49
Labour administration 51
Labour inspection 53
Employment policy 56
Employment promotion 59
Vocational guidance and training 63
Employment security 65
Social policy 66
Wages 67
Working time 70
Occupational safety and health 73
Social security 79
Maternity protection 84
Domestic workers 86
Migrant workers 88
Seafarers 91
Fishers 95
Dockworkers 97
Indigenous and tribal peoples 99
Other specific categories of workers 101
4
Contents
3 Applying and promoting international labour standards 104
Regular supervisory system 106
Representations 110
Complaints 112
Freedom of association 114
Applicaton of unratified Conventions 117
Technical assistance and training 118
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
and its Follow-up (1998) 120
ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008) 121
Centenary Standards Initiative 123
4 Resources 124
Key ILO bodies and documents 126
Notes 129
5
The Rules of the Game: An introduction to the standards-related work of
the ILO provides a brief presentation of the ILO’s standards policy with a
view to facilitating understanding and ownership by the ILO’s traditional
constituents, as well as the United Nations system, non-specialists and the
broader public. In its first section, the publication recalls the underlying
reasons for and utility of the ILO’s standards-related action at both the
national level and in the current context of globalization. The content
of international labour standards is then presented thematically in the
second section. The third section consists of a description of the supervisory
mechanisms of the application of international labour standards by
ILO member States. The updating of this reference work, which was first
published in 2005 and the most recent edition of which is dated 2014,
bears witness to the dynamic nature of the ILO’s standards policy. The
new 2019 edition, which coincides with the ILO’s centenary, describes
recent developments, including the new instruments adopted, the launch
of the Standards Centenary Initiative, which is intended to strengthen
the supervisory system, and the establishment of the Standards Review
Mechanism. It also places in perspective the essential contribution of international
labour standards to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
adopted by the Member States of the United Nations in 2015, and the
more general reflection on the Future of Work. This edition, prepared by
Eric Gravel, of the International Labour Standards Department, contributes
to promoting the Organization’s standards-related action and disseminating
more broadly information on its standards-related mandate.
Corinne Vargha
Director, International Labour Standards Department,
ILO, Geneva
FOREWORD
1 Building a global economy with social justice
What are international labour standards?
How are international labour standards created?
How are international labour standards used?
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS:
RULES OF THE GAME FOR A GLOBAL ECONOMY
7
The ILO’s mandate to strive for a better future for all in the world of work
requires it […] to understand and anticipate the transformational drivers of
change which are already in operation; and to be ready to respond rapidly to
events and challenges which cannot reasonably be predicted. […] it seems
inconceivable that the ILO’s quest for social justice could be carried out
satisfactorily if the Organization did not continue to reach out to the most
vulnerable. […] the ILO […] will rightly be judged by what we do for the
weakest and most disadvantaged, for those in poverty, without work, without
opportunity, prospects or hope, for those suffering denial of fundamental rights
and freedoms.1
Guy Ryder, Director-General of the ILO, 2016
Since 1919, the International Labour Organization has established
and developed a system of international labour standards aimed
at promoting opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and
productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity.
In today’s globalized economy, international labour standards are an
essential component of the international framework for ensuring that
the growth of the global economy provides benefits for all.
The aspiration for social justice, through which every working man and
woman can claim freely and on the basis of equality of opportunity their
fair share of the wealth that they have helped to generate, is as great
today as it was when the ILO was created in 1919. As the ILO celebrates
its 100th anniversary in 2019, the importance of achieving social justice
is ever more pressing, with the rise in inequality and exclusion, which is
a threat to social cohesion, economic growth and human progress. With
climate change, demographic changes, technological development and,
more generally, globalization, we are witnessing a world of work that is
changing at an unprecedented pace and scale. How can these challenges
be addressed to offer possibilities for the achievement of social justice in
an ever more complex world of work?
Towards a fair globalization
The most salient characteristic of the global economy over recent years
has probably been globalization. New technology has meant that persons,
goods and capital are moving ever more rapidly between countries, giving
rise to an interdependent global economic network that is affecting almost
everyone on the planet. Globalization today means the internationalization
of production, finance, trade, and also migration.
The issue of whether contemporary globalization is a source of prosperity
or is aggravating inequality and injustice is still hotly debated. The
ILO has always occupied a prominent place in this debate in view of
its mission to promote a fairer and more equitable globalization. The
ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (see section 3
below), adopted by governments, workers and employers in June 2008,
is designed to strengthen the ILO’s capacity to promote the Decent Work
Agenda and to forge an effective response to the increasingly significant
challenges of globalization. The Decent Work Agenda, which is based
on four pillars (employment promotion, social protection, fundamental
rights at work and social dialogue), covers many of the challenges that the
Organization was already facing when it was first created, and is intended
to allow everyone to obtain decent work through the promotion of social
dialogue, social protection and employment creation, as well as respect
for international labour standards.
BUILDING A GLOBAL ECONOMY WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE
8
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
9
Globalization has certainly caused upheaval in global production structures,
with important effects on enterprises and employment. Global supply
chains, which account for one-in-five jobs throughout the world, show
the growing diversification of production. While they have created jobs
and opened up prospects for economic growth, employment relations
and the pace of production may have had in certain cases negative effects
on conditions of work. For example, following the fires in factories in
Pakistan and Bangladesh in 2012 and the collapse of the Rana Plaza building
in 2013, which cost the lives of over 1500 persons, voices were once
again raised, particularly in light of the local failings of surveillance and
good governance, calling for action at the global level. What is at stake
for the actors in the world of work is to improve the governance of supply
chains and ensure respect for international labour standards, and particularly
for fundamental rights. It was in this context that the 105th Session
of the International Labour Conference adopted a resolution concerning
“decent work in global supply chains”.
Another symbolic aspect of the contemporary economy lies in the financialization
of trade, with emphasis being placed on financial return to the
detriment of real investment. In the absence of appropriate regulation,
such financialization has the effect of increasing the volatility and vulnerability
of the economy and the labour market through the focus on shortterm
profit and has harmful effects on redistribution, with consequences
for employment creation, productivity and enterprise sustainability. The
reasons for the financial and economic crisis of 2008, and its devastating
effects on the real economy, are known, and include in particular shortcomings
in the governance and regulation of financial markets. But it is
still uncertain whether these lessons have really been heeded.
Vulnerability in the world of work
Despite its undeniable benefits, globalization has clearly not resulted in
a new era of prosperity for all. Some progress has been made in terms
of development and the recognition of rights: the reduction of extreme
poverty, the increased presence of women in the labour market, the development
of social protection systems, the creation of sustainable jobs in
the private sector, etc. But today’s globalized economy has also resulted
in major social upheavals, including high unemployment in certain parts
of the world, the delocalization of workers and enterprises, and financial
instability. The current situation on the global employment market
remains particularly fragile.
10
Despite several recessions, including the 2008 global financial and economic
crisis, the total number of jobs worldwide in 2016 was 3.2 billion
(or almost one billion more than in 1990), emphasizing the positive trend
of job creation. But unemployment rates remained high: in 2017, there
were around 198 million persons actively seeking employment throughout
the world, three quarters of whom lived in emerging countries. The
vulnerability of employment has also increased (nearly 1.4 billion workers
were engaged in vulnerable jobs in 2017, affecting three in four workers
in developing countries), as has income inequality, which has increased
dramatically in most regions of the world.2
The deepening of inequality seems to be becoming one of the principal
characteristics of the contemporary world. The distribution of wages at
the individual level has also become more unequal, with the gap growing
between the highest 10 per cent of the wage scale and the lowest 10
per cent. In practice, with the exception of Latin America, all the other
regions have experienced a widening of income inequality, accompanied
by a decline in the proportion of income from labour. Inequalities not only
lead to a fall in productivity, but also give rise to poverty, social instability
and even conflict. It was precisely for this reason that the international
community recognized the continued need to establish fundamental rules
of the game in order to ensure that globalization would give everyone the
same opportunity to achieve prosperity.
The Future of Work at stake
Since the 1980s, a series of global changes have profoundly transformed
employment and work: the accelerated globalization of trade, technological
change, the rise in the activity rate of women, the fragmentation
of value chains and subcontracting, changes in demand, individual aspirations,
the skills of the active population, etc. But today, with climate
change, demographic growth and technological transformation, new challenges
have emerged for everyone, and particularly for the world of work,
including: the diversification of types of employment, the development of
the digital economy, and particularly platforms, a new relationship with
the meaning of work, and the reconciliation of work and personal life.
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
11
One of the most symbolic controversies relating to the future of work lies
in the issue of whether technological progress will result in the destruction
or creation of jobs. The ILO is well versed in this debate, which
re-emerged throughout the XXth century in various forms, but which is
taking on a new dimension in the era of robotization and artificial intelligence.
Over and above the pessimistic and optimistic scenarios, the real
challenge to which technicological progress gives rise is to identify how,
in this transitional context, assistance can be provided to enterprises and
workers to help them adapt to new jobs (both physically and in terms of
skills) as this will likely be an ongoing and dynamic process throughout
a person’s professional life.
To understand and offer an effective response to these new challenges, the
ILO launched a “Future of Work Initiative” and in August 2017 set up the
Global Commission on the Future of Work. Six thematic clusters focus on
the main issues that need to be considered if work tomorrow is to provide
security, equality and prosperity: the role of work for individuals and society;
the pervasive inequality of women in the world of work at the global
level; technology for social, environmental and economic development;
skills development over the life cycle; new models of inclusive growth;
and the future governance of work. The Global Commision delivered its
report in January 2019.
The energy transition as an opportunity?
Action to combat climate change is now high on the international agenda,
with the long-term objective of the 2015 Paris Agreement to contain
the rise in the global temperature below 2°C in relation to pre-industrial
levels. The challenge for the ILO is to respond to the repercussions on
the world of work, where the negative effects are starting to make themselves
felt: the disturbance of trade, the destruction of workplaces and its
impact on the means of subsistence of individuals. A total of 1.2 billion
jobs currently depend directly on the effective management and sustainability
of a healthy environment.3 The potential impact of climate change
on enterprises and workers, labour markets, income, social protection
and poverty mean that attenuation of climate change and adaptation are
a major element of the ILO’s mandate and action. The transition to a
green economy will inevitably result in job losses in certain sectors, but
these losses will be more than compensated by new job opportunities,
12
on condition that policies are adopted that are conducive to decent work
and the redeployment of workers.
The ever crucial role of international labour standards
It is important to recall, in order to place the current challenges in perspective,
that in 1919 the signatory nations to the Treaty of Versailles created
the International Labour Organization (ILO) in recognition of the fact
that “conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and
privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the
peace and harmony of the world are imperilled.” To address this problem,
the newly founded Organization established a system of international
labour standards – international Conventions and Recommendations
drawn up by representatives of governments, employers and workers
from around the world – covering all matters related to work. What the
ILO’s founders recognized in 1919 was that the global economy needed
clear rules in order to ensure that economic progress would go hand in
hand with social justice, prosperity and peace for all. This principle has
not lost any of its relevance: in the future, even more than today, labour
standards will be a source of social cohesion and economic stability in an
era of great changes affecting work.
International labour standards were also developed to provide a global
system of instruments on labour and social policy, backed up by a system
of supervision to address all the types of problems arising in their application
at the national level. They are the legal component of the ILO’s
strategy for governing globalization, promoting sustainable development,
eradicating poverty and ensuring that everyone can work in dignity and
safety. The Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization emphasizes
that, in order to achieve the ILO’s objectives in the context of globalization,
the Organization must “promote the ILO’s standard-setting policy
as a cornerstone of ILO activities by enhancing its relevance in the world
of work, and ensure the role of standards as a useful means of achieving
the constitutional objectives of the Organization”.
The challenges of globalization have made international labour standards
more relevant than ever. What benefits do they provide today?
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
13
A path to full and productive employment and decent work for all:
The 2030 goals
International labour standards are first and foremost about the development
of people as human beings. In the Declaration of Philadelphia
(1944), the international community recognized that “labour is not a
commodity”. Labour is not an inanimate product, like an apple or a
television set, that can be negotiated for the highest profit or the lowest
price. Work is part of everyone’s daily life and is crucial to a person’s
dignity, well-being and development as a human being. Economic development
should include the creation of jobs and working conditions in
which people can work in freedom, safety and dignity. In short, economic
development is not undertaken for its own sake, but to improve the lives
of human beings. International labour standards are there to ensure that
it remains focused on improving the life and dignity of men and women.
Decent work resumes the aspirations of humans in relation to work. It
brings together access to productive and suitably remunerated work, safety
at the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects
for personal development and social integration, freedom for individuals
to set out their claims, to organize and to participate in decisions that
affect their lives, and equality of opportunity and treatment for all men
and women.
Decent work is not merely an objective, it is a means of achieving the specific
targets of the new international programme of sustainable development.
At the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, decent
work and the four pillars of the Decent Work Agenda – employment
creation, social protection, rights at work and social dialogue – became
the central elements of the new Sustainable Development Agenda 2030.
Goal 8 of the 2030 Agenda calls for the promotion of sustained, inclusive
and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and
decent work for all. Moreover, the principal elements of decent work are
broadly incorporated into the targets of a large number of the 16 Goals
of the United Nations new vision of development.
14
An international legal framework for fair and stable globalization
Achieving the goal of decent work in the globalized economy requires
action at the international level. The world community is responding
to this challenge in part by developing international legal instruments
on trade, finance, the environment, human rights and labour. The
ILO contributes to this legal framework by elaborating and promoting
international labour standards aimed at making sure that economic
growth and development go hand-in-hand with the creation of
decent work. The ILO’s unique tripartite structure ensures that these
standards are backed by governments, employers and workers alike.
International labour standards therefore lay down the basic minimum
social standards agreed upon by all the players in the global economy.
A level playing field for all
An international legal framework on social standards ensures a level
playing field in the global economy. It helps governments and employers
to avoid the temptation of lowering labour standards in the hope
that this could give them a greater comparative advantage in international
trade. In the long run, such practices do not benefit anyone.
Lowering labour standards can encourage the spread of low-wage,
low-skill and high-turnover industries and prevent a country from
developing more stable high-skilled employment, while at the same
time slowing the economic growth of trade partners. Because international
labour standards are minimum standards adopted by governments
and the social partners, it is in everyone’s interest to see these
rules applied across the board, so that those who do not put them into
practice do not undermine the efforts of those who do.
A means of improving economic performance
International labour standards have been sometimes perceived
as being costly and therefore hindering economic development.
However, a growing body of research has indicated that compliance
with international labour standards is often accompanied by improvements
in productivity and economic performance.
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
15
Minimum wage and working-time standards, and respect for equality, can
translate into greater satisfaction and improved performance for workers
and reduced staff turnover. Investment in vocational training can result in
a better trained workforce and higher employment levels. Safety standards
can reduce costly accidents and expenditure on health care. Employment
protection can encourage workers to take risks and to innovate. Social
protection, such as unemployment schemes, and active labour market
policies can facilitate labour market flexibility, and make economic liberalization
and privatization sustainable and more acceptable to the public.
Freedom of association and collective bargaining can lead to better
labour–management consultation and cooperation, thereby improving
working conditions, reducing the number of costly labour conflicts and
enhancing social stability.
The beneficial effects of labour standards do not go unnoticed by foreign
investors. Studies have shown that in their criteria for choosing countries
in which to invest, foreign investors rank workforce quality and political
and social stability above low labour costs. At the same time, there is
little evidence that countries which do not respect labour standards are
more competitive in the global economy. International labour standards
not only respond to changes in the world of work for the protection of
workers, but also take into account the needs of sustainable enterprises.
A safety net in times of economic crisis
Even fast-growing economies with high-skilled workers can experience
unforeseen economic downturns. The Asian financial crisis of 1997, the
2000 dot-com bubble burst and the 2008 financial and economic crisis
showed how decades of economic growth can be undone by dramatic
currency devaluations or falling market prices. For instance, during the
1997 Asian crisis, as well as the 2008 crisis, unemployment increased significantly
in many of the countries affected. The disastrous effects of these
crises on workers were compounded by the fact that in many of these
countries social protection systems, notably unemployment and health
insurance, active labour market policies and social dialogue were barely
developed.
16
The adoption of an approach that balances macroeconomic and employment
goals, while at the same time taking social impacts into account, can
help to address these challenges.
A strategy for reducing poverty
Economic development has always depended on the acceptance of rules.
Legislation and functioning legal institutions ensure property rights, the
enforcement of contracts, respect for procedure and protection from crime
– all legal elements of good governance without which no economy can
operate. A market governed by a fair set of rules and institutions is more
efficient and brings benefit to everyone. The labour market is no different.
Fair labour practices set out in international labour standards and applied
through a national legal system ensure an efficient and stable labour market
for workers and employers alike.
In many developing and transition economies, a large part of the workforce
is engaged in the informal economy. Moreover, such countries often
lack the capacity to provide effective social justice. Yet international
labour standards can also be effective tools in these situations. Most
ILO standards apply to all workers, not just those working under formal
employment arrangements. Some standards, such as those dealing with
homeworkers, migrant and rural workers, and indigenous and tribal peoples,
deal specifically with certain areas of the informal economy. The reinforcement
of freedom of association, the extension of social protection,
the improvement of occupational safety and health, the development of
vocational training, and other measures required by international labour
standards have proved to be effective strategies in reducing poverty and
bringing workers into the formal economy. Furthermore, international
labour standards call for the creation of institutions and mechanisms
which can enforce labour rights. In combination with a set of defined
rights and rules, functioning legal institutions can help formalize the
economy and create a climate of trust and order which is essential for
economic growth and development.4
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
17
The sum of international experience and knowledge
International labour standards are the result of discussions among governments,
employers and workers, in consultation with experts from around
the world. They represent the international consensus on how a particular
labour problem could be addressed at the global level and reflect knowledge
and experience from all corners of the world. Governments, employers’
and workers’ organizations, international institutions, multinational
enterprises and non-governmental organizations can benefit from this
knowledge by incorporating the standards in their policies, operational
objectives and day-to-day action. The legal nature of the standards means
that they can be used in legal systems and administrations at the national
level, and as part of the corpus of international law which can bring about
greater integration of the international community.
About the ILO
The International Labour Organization was founded in 1919 and became a
specialized agency of the United Nations in 1946. It currently has 187 member
States. The ILO has a unique “tripartite” structure, which brings together representatives
of governments, employers and workers on an equal footing to
address issues related to labour and social policy. The ILO’s broad policies are set
by the International Labour Conference, which meets once a year and brings
together its constituents. The Conference also adopts new international labour
standards and the ILO’s work plan and budget.
Between the sessions of the Conference, the ILO is guided by the Governing
Body, which is composed of 28 Government members, as well as 14 Employer
members and 14 Worker members. The ILO’s Secretariat, the International Labour
Office, has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, and maintains field offices
in more than 40 countries. On its 50th anniversary in 1969, the ILO was awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize. The current Director-General of the ILO is Guy Ryder, who
was re-elected in 2017 for a second five-year term. The ILO is celebrating its
100th anniversary in 2019.
18
International labour standards are legal instruments drawn up by the
ILO’s constituents (governments, employers and workers) setting out
basic principles and rights at work. They are either Conventions (or
Protocols), which are legally binding international treaties that can be ratified
by member States, or Recommendations, which serve as non-binding
guidelines. In many cases, a Convention lays down the basic principles to
be implemented by ratifying countries, while a related Recommendation
supplements the Convention by providing more detailed guidance on how
it could be applied. Recommendations can also be autonomous, i.e not
linked to a Convention.
Conventions and Recommendations are drawn up by representatives
of governments, employers and workers and are adopted at the annual
International Labour Conference. Once a standard is adopted, member
States are required, under article 19(6) of the ILO Constitution, to submit
it to their competent authority (normally Parliament) within a period of
twelve months for consideration. In the case of Conventions, this means
consideration for ratification. If it is ratified, a Convention generally
comes into force for that country one year after the date of ratification.
Ratifying countries undertake to apply the Convention in national law
and practice and to report on its application at regular intervals. Technical
assistance is provided by the ILO, if necessary. In addition, representation
and complaint procedures can be initiated against countries for violations
of a Convention that they have ratified (see section 3).
Fundamental Conventions
The ILO Governing Body has identified eight “fundamental” Conventions,
covering subjects that are considered to be fundamental principles and
rights at work: freedom of association and the effective recognition of
the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced
or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the
elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
These principles are also covered by the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work (1998) (see section 3). As of 1st January
2019, there were 1,376 ratifications of these Conventions, representing
92 per cent of the possible number of ratifications. At that date, a further
121 ratifications were still required to meet the objective of universal
ratification of all the fundamental Conventions.
WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS?
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
19
The eight fundamental Conventions are:
• the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
• the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
(No. 98)
• the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) (and its 2014 Protocol)
• the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
• the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
• the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
• the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
• the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. 111)
Governance (priority) Conventions
The ILO Governing Body has also designated another four Conventions
as governance (or priority) instruments, thereby encouraging member
States to ratify them because of their importance for the functioning of
the international labour standards system. The ILO Declaration on Social
Justice for a Fair Globalization, in its Follow-up, emphasizes the significance
of these Conventions from the viewpoint of governance.
The four governance Conventions are:
• the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) (and its Protocol of
1995)
• the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129)
• the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention,
1976 (No. 144)
• the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)
International labour standards evolve from a growing international concern
that action needs to be taken on a particular issue, such as providing
working women with maternity protection, or ensuring safe working conditions
for agricultural workers. The development of international labour
standards at the ILO is a unique legislative process involving representatives
of governments, workers and employers from throughout the world.
As a first step, the Governing Body agrees to put an issue on the agenda
of a future International Labour Conference. The International Labour
Office prepares a report that analyses the law and practice of member
States with regard to the issue at stake. The report is communicated to
member States and to workers’ and employers’ organizations for comments
and is then submitted to the International Labour Conference for a
first discussion. A second report is then prepared by the Office with a draft
instrument, which is also sent for comments and submitted for discussion
at the following session of the Conference, where the draft instrument is
discussed, amended as necessary and proposed for adoption. This “double
discussion” procedure gives Conference participants sufficient time
to examine the draft instrument and make comments on it. A two-thirds
majority of votes is required for a standard to be adopted.
20
HOW ARE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS
CREATED?
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
21
E W
G
E W
G
PROBLEM
IS
IDENTIFIED
GOVERNING
BODY PUTS
TOPIC ON
AGENDA
OF INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR
CONFERENCE
OFFICE
PREPARES LAW
AND PRACTICE
REPORT WITH
QUESTIONNAIRE
ON CONTENT OF
POSSIBLE NEW
INSTRUMENT
REPORT IS
SENT TO
GOVERNMENTS,
EMPLOYERS AND
WORKERS FOR
COMMENTS
OFFICE
ANALYSES
COMMENTS
AND PROPOSES
CONCLUSIONS
OFFICE
PREPARES REPORT
WITH
SUMMARY OF
DISCUSSION
AND DRAFT
INSTRUMENT
REPORT
SENT TO
GOVERNMENTS,
EMPLOYERS AND
WORKERS
FOR
COMMENTS
OFFICE
PREPARES
REVISED
DRAFT OF
INSTRUMENT
SECONDE DISCUSSION
SECOND DISCUSSION
OF DRAFT
INSTRUMENT AT THE
CONFERENCE
INSTRUMENT
IS ADOPTED BY
THE CONFERENCE
WITH A 2/3 MAJORITY
VOTE
FIRST DISCUSSION
OF PROPOSED
CONCLUSIONS
ÀT THE CONFERENCE
Adoption of an international labour standard
Who adopts international labour standards?
The International Labour Conference brings together delegations from all ILO member
States. Each delegation comprises:
2 Government delegates
1 Employer delegate
1 Worker delegate
Government, Employer and Worker delegates each have on vote in plenary.
22
Ratification of Conventions and Protocols
ILO member States are required to submit any Convention or Protocol
adopted by the International Labour Conference to their competent
national authority for the enactment of relevant legislation or other
action, including ratification. An adopted Convention or Protocol normally
comes into force 12 months after being ratified by two member
States. Ratification is a formal procedure whereby a State accepts the
Convention or Protocol as a legally binding instrument. Once it has ratified
a Convention or Protocol, a country is subject to the ILO regular
supervisory system, which is responsible for ensuring that the instrument
is applied. For more on the ILO supervisory system, see section 3.
Universality and flexibility
Standards are adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of ILO constituents
and are therefore an expression of universally acknowledged principles. At
the same time, they reflect the fact that countries have diverse cultural and
historical backgrounds, legal systems and levels of economic development.
Indeed, most standards have been formulated in a manner that makes
them flexible enough to be translated into national law and practice with
due consideration of these differences. For example, standards on minimum
wages do not require member States to set a specific minimum wage,
but to establish a system and the machinery to fix minimum wage rates
appropriate to their level of economic development. Other standards contain
so-called “flexibility clauses” allowing States to lay down temporary
standards that are lower than those normally prescribed, to exclude certain
categories of workers from the application of a Convention, or to
apply only certain parts of the instrument. Ratifying countries are usually
required to make a declaration to the Director-General of the ILO if they
exercise any of the flexibility options, and to make use of such clauses
only in consultation with the social partners. However, reservations to
ILO Conventions are not permitted.
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
23
Updating international labour standards
There are currently 189 Conventions and 205 Recommendations,
some dating back as far as 1919, and six Protocols. As may be
expected, some of these instruments no longer correspond to today’s
needs. To address this problem, the ILO adopts revising Conventions
that replace older ones, or Protocols, which add new provisions to
older Conventions.
Standards Review Mechanism (SRM)
The SRM is a mechanism that is integral to the ILO’s standards policy
with a view to ensuring that the ILO has a clear, robust and up-todate
body of standards that respond to the changing patterns of the world
of work, for the purpose of the protection of workers and taking into
account the needs of sustainable enterprises.
The SRM was set up by the Governing Body in November 2011, but
became operational later, in 2015, as a result of two decisions:
• a decision by the Governing Body in March 2015 to establish under the
SRM a tripartite working group composed of 32 members (16 representing
Governments, eight representing Employers and eight representing
Workers);
• a decision taken in November 2015 to approve the terms of reference of
the Tripartite Working Group of the SRM.
The Tripartite Working Group of the SRM is mandated to review the
ILO’s international labour standards with a view to making recommendations
to the Governing Body on:
• the status of the standards examined, including up-to-date standards,
standards in need of revision and outdated standards;
• the review of gaps in coverage, including those requiring new standards;
• practical and time-bound follow-up action, as appropriate.
24
The SRM Tripartite Working Group meets once a year and reviews the
different instruments based on a thematic approach. In parallel with
the launching of the SRM, the entry into force of the Instrument of
Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization
of 1997 reinforced the ILO’s efforts to ensure that it has a clear and
up-to-date body of international labour standards that can serve as a
global point of reference. With the entry into force of the Instrument of
Amendment of the Constitution, the Conference is now empowered, by
a majority of two-thirds and on the recommendation of the Governing
Body, to abrogate a Convention that is in force if it appears that the
Convention has lost its purpose or that it no longer makes a useful contribution
to attaining the objectives of the Organization. At its Session
in June 2017, the Conference held its first discussion following the entry
into force of the Instrument of Amendment and examined and decided
to abrogate two international labour Conventions. At its Session in June
2018, the Conference decided to abrogate six other Conventions and
withdraw three Recommendations. In addition, on the basis of the work
of the SRM, the Governing Body decided to place an item on the agenda
of the 2021 session of International Labour Conference regarding the
possibility of a new standard on apprenticeship in order the fill the gap at
the international level in this regard.
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
25
Models and targets for labour law
International labour standards are primarily tools for governments which,
in consultation with employers and workers, are seeking to draft and
implement labour law and social policy in conformity with internationally
accepted standards. For many countries, this process begins with a
decision to consider ratifying an ILO Convention. Countries often go
through a period of examining and, if necessary, revising their legislation
and policies in order to achieve compliance with the instrument they wish
to ratify. International labour standards thus serve as targets for harmonizing
national law and practice in a particular field; the actual ratification
may come further along the path of implementing the standard. Some
countries decide not to ratify a Convention but to bring their legislation
into line with it anyway; such countries use ILO standards as models for
drafting their law and policy. Others ratify ILO Conventions fairly quickly
and then work to bring their national law and practice into line after
ratification. The comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and technical
assistance (see section 3) can guide them in this process. For such countries,
ratification is the first step on the path to implementing a standard.
Sources of international law applied at the national level
In numerous countries, ratified international treaties apply automatically
at the national level. Their courts are thus able to use international labour
standards to decide cases on which national law is inadequate or silent, or
to draw on definitions set out in the standards, such as of “forced labour”
or “discrimination”. Alongside voluntary initiatives and non-statutory
rules, the legal system is one of the means through which international
standards are disseminated. The use of these standards by the highest
courts of certain countries, as observed by the ILO for over a decade,
bears witness to their increasing acceptance and use at the national level.
In this way, national and international systems for the regulation of labour
are a mutual source of inspiration. International labour standards there
appear to be a universal point of reference for an increasing number of
HOW ARE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS USED?
26
actors at the international level, thereby reinforcing international labour
law, which is becoming an essential resource in the denunciation of inequalities
in the world of work and the regulation of labour relations,
conditions and disputes, as reflected in more widespread respect for the
values defended by the ILO.
Guidelines for social policy
In addition to shaping law, international labour standards can provide
guidance for developing national and local policies, such as employment,
work and family policies. They can also be used to improve various
administrative structures, such as labour administration, labour inspection,
social security and employment services. Standards can also serve as
a source of good industrial relations applied by labour dispute resolution
bodies, and as models for collective agreements.
Other areas of influence
While ILO constituents are the main users of international labour standards,
other actors have also found them to be useful tools. Indeed, new
actors are using international labour standards and therefore participating
in their diffusion at the international level.
• Corporate social responsibility (CSR) – the promotion of inclusive, responsible
and sustainable practices in the workplace
The ILO defines CSR as a way in which enterprises give consideration
to the impact of their operations on society and affirm their principles
and values, both in their own internal methods and procedures and in
their interactions with other actors. Increasing consumer interest in the
ethical dimension of products and the working conditions in which they
are produced has led multinational enterprises to adopt voluntary codes
of conduct governing labour conditions in their production sites and supply
chains. The majority of the top 500 companies in the United States
and United Kingdom have adopted some sort of code of conduct, many
of them referring to principles derived from ILO standards. While these
codes are no substitute for binding international instruments, they play
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
27
an important role in helping to spread the principles contained in international
labour standards.
The ILO can play an important role in CSR through two main reference
points: the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work (1998) and the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (the “MNE Declaration”), a
revised version of which was adopted by the Governing Body in 2017 in
response to new economic realities, and particularly the increase in international
investment and trade, and the growth in global supply chains.
This revision reinforced the MNE Declaration through the inclusion of
principles addressing specific aspects of decent work, such as social security,
forced labour, the transition from the informal to the formal economy,
wages, the access of victims to remedies and compensation. It also contains
guidance on the process of “due diligence” for the achievement of decent
work, the creation of decent jobs, sustainable enterprises, more inclusive
growth and an improved sharing of the benefits of foreign direct investment
which are particularly relevant to the achievement of Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 8. Moreover, many initiatives that promote
inclusive, responsible and sustainable enterprise practices make reference
to ILO instruments, including the Guiding Principles for Business
and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect
and Remedy” Framework, the United Nations Global Compact and the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
In 2009, the ILO launched a Helpdesk that provides constituents and
enterprises with easy access to information, assistance, referral and advice
regarding CSR and the implementation of labour standards with a view to
aligning enterprise practices with international labour standards.5
• Other international organizations
The ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization emphasizes
that other international and regional organizations with mandates
in closely related fields can make an important contribution, especially
through the objectives of the Decent Work Agenda. Other international
institutions regularly use international labour standards in their activities.
Reports on the application of international labour standards are regularly
submitted to the United Nations human rights bodies and other international
entities. International financial institutions (IFIs), such as the
World Bank, Asian Development Bank and African Development Bank
(AfDB), have integrated certain aspects of labour standards into some
of their activities. For example, in 2013 the AfDB introduced into its
environmental and social safeguards policy an operational safeguard on
labour conditions and safety and health (Operational safeguard 5), setting
out the requirements of the AfDB in relation to its borrowers and
clients, which makes explicit reference to ILO international labour standards.
In so doing, the AfDB joins other international donors which have
adopted similar approaches in their safeguards policy or other strategy
documents, including: the World Bank in its Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers process and Performance Standard 2 of the International Finance
Corporation (IFC) (part of the World Bank Group), which recognizes that
the pursuit of economic growth through employment creation must also
comply with the protection of the basic rights of workers. Moreover, international
labour standards have a direct impact on such globalized sectors
as maritime transport. They are used not only for the design of national
maritime legislation in member States, but also as a reference for inspections
of ships by port States, and have a direct effect on the regulations
and codes of other international organizations, such as the International
Maritime Organization.
• Free trade agreements
A growing number of bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, as
well as regional economic integration arrangements, contain social and
labour provisions related to workers’ rights. Indeed, the number of free
trade agreements with labour provisions has increased significantly over
the past two decades: 70 trade agreements included labour provisions in
2016, compared with 58 in 2013, 21 in 2005 and four in 1995.6 Free
trade agreements increasingly refer to ILO instruments in their labour
clauses, and particularly the Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work (1998) and, in the case of recent European Union
agreements, also to ILO Conventions. Since 2013, 80 per cent of the
agreements which have entered into force contain such clauses, starting
with the agreements involving the European Union, the United States
and Canada. However, such clauses made their appearance very early.
For example, in the context of the European Union, the special incentive
arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (the
Generalized System of Preferences/GSP+) provides additional benefits
for countries implementing certain international standards in relation to
28
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
29
human and labour rights. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) was signed in 1992 and was supplemented in 1994 by the North
American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC) (this agreement
was completely renegotiated in October 2018), several free trade agreements
have been signed by the United States with countries such as Chile,
Jordan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, Singapore and Central American
countries. In these agreements, the signatory countries reaffirm their commitment
to the ILO, and particularly to the respect and promotion of the
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. More
recently, the free trade agreement between Japan and the European Union,
signed in 2017, makes reference to the Decent Work Agenda and the ILO
Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008) as standards
that are binding on the parties, which should also endeavour to ratify the
eight fundamental ILO Conventions. The agreement also contains clauses
on corporate social responsibility with references to the MNE Declaration.
• Civil society
Advocacy groups and non-governmental organizations draw on international
labour standards to call for changes in policy, law or practice.
The role of employers’ and workers’ organizations
Representative employers’ and workers’ organizations play an essential
role in the international labour standards system, not only as users
of the system, but also as constituents of the Organization. They participate
in choosing subjects for new ILO standards and in drafting the
texts, and their votes determine whether or not the International Labour
Conference adopts a newly drafted standard. If a Convention is adopted,
employers and workers can encourage a government to ratify it. If the
Convention is ratified, governments are required to report periodically
to the ILO on how they are applying it in law and practice (the same
applies to Protocols). Government reports must also be submitted to the
most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, which may
comment on their content. Employers’ and workers’ organizations can
also supply information on the application of Conventions directly to the
ILO under article 23(2) of the ILO Constitution. They can initiate representations
under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. As constituents of
the Organization, they also participate in the tripartite committees set up
to examine representations. Moreover, an Employer or Worker delegate
to the International Labour Conference can also file a complaint under
article 26 of the Constitution. If a member State has ratified the Tripartite
Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976
(No. 144), as 145 countries had done on 1st January 2019, it is required
to hold national tripartite consultations on proposed new instruments
to be dis-cussed at the Conference, the submission of instruments to the
competent authorities, reports concerning ratified Conventions,
measures related to unratified Conventions and to Recommendations,
and proposals regard-ing the denunciation of Conventions.
30
International labour standards: Rules of the game for a global economy
2
Freedom of association Collective bargaining Forced
labour
Child labour
Equality of opportunity and treatment Tripartite consultation
Labour administration
Labour inspection
Employment policy Employment promotion
Vocational guidance and training
Employment security
Social policy
Wages
Working time
Occupational safety and health Social security
Maternity protection Domestic workers
Migrant workers
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
Indigenous and tribal peoples
Other specific categories of worker
SUBJECTS COVERED
BY INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS
Subjects covered by international labour standards
32
International labour standards respond to the ever increasing needs and
challenges faced by workers and employers in the global economy.
This section presents the subjects covered by international labour standards
and introduces certain Conventions and Recommendations. It also
explains the problems that exist in a particular field today and how international
labour standards can help to provide solutions. Finally, some
examples are highlighted where the application of international labour
standards or of the principles they embody has made a positive contribution
in a particular situation.
This section summarizes a selection of relevant ILO Conventions and
Recommendations. The summaries are intended for information purposes
and do not replace consultation of the authoritative text. Numerous
other Conventions and Recommendations have not been summarized,
even though many are relevant and in force. The complete list of ILO
standards by subject and status may be consulted on the ILO website at
www.ilo.org/ normes. The examples have been selected for illustrative
purposes and are not intended to single out a specific country or situation.
33
The principle of freedom of association is at the core of the ILO’s values:
it is enshrined in the ILO Constitution (1919), the ILO Declaration of
Philadelphia (1944) and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work (1998). It is also a right proclaimed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The right to organize and form
employers’ and workers’ organizations is the prerequisite for sound collective
bargaining and social dialogue. Nevertheless, there continue to be
challenges in applying these principles in many countries. In some countries,
certain categories of workers (for example public servants, seafarers,
workers in export processing zones) are denied the right of association,
workers’ and employers’ organizations are illegally suspended or subject
to acts of interference, and in some extreme cases trade unionists are
arrested or killed. ILO standards, in conjunction with the work of the
Committee on Freedom of Association and the other supervisory mechanisms
(see section 3), contribute to resolving these difficulties and ensuring
that this fundamental human right is respected the world over.
Relevant ILO instruments
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
1948 (No. 87)
This fundamental Convention sets forth the right of workers and employers
to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous
authorization. Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall organize
freely and not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative
authority, and they shall have the right to establish and join federations
and confederations, which may in turn affiliate with international organizations
of workers and employers.
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
This fundamental Convention provides that workers shall enjoy adequate
protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including the requirement
that a worker not join a union or relinquish trade union membership
for employment, or the dismissal of a worker because of union membership
or participation in union activities. Workers’ and employers’ organizations
shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference
by each other, in particular the establishment of workers’ organizations
under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or the
support of workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Subjects covered by international labour standards
34
object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or
employers’ organizations. The Convention also enshrines the right to collective
bargaining (see also under collective bargaining).
Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135)
Workers’ representatives in an undertaking shall enjoy effective protection
against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their
status or activities as a workers’ representative or on union membership
or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with
existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements.
Facilities in the undertaking shall be afforded to workers’ representatives
as may be appropriate in order to enable them to carry out their
functions promptly and efficiently.
Rural Workers’ Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141)
All categories of rural workers, whether they are wage earners or selfemployed,
shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules
of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing
without previous authorization. The principles of freedom of association
shall be fully respected; rural workers’ organizations shall be independent
and voluntary in character and shall remain free from all interference,
coercion or repression. National policy shall facilitate the establishment
and growth, on a voluntary basis, of strong and independent organizations
of rural workers as an effective means of ensuring the participation
of these workers in economic and social development.
Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151)
Public employees as defined by the Convention shall enjoy adequate
protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their
employment, and their organizations shall enjoy complete independence
from public authorities, as well as adequate protection against any acts
of interference by a public authority in their establishment, functioning
or administration (see also under collective bargaining).
35
Freedom of association under fire7
Although freedom of association is recognized as a fundamental right at work,
unions and their members are still exposed to severe violations of their rights.
In its recent flagship publication on violations of trade unionists rights (2017),
the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) estimated that union
members faced violence in 59 out of 139 countries (for which information is
available). In 2017, trade unionists were murdered in the following 11 countries:
Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mauritania, Mexico,
Peru, Phillippines and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Also in 2017, freedom
of expression and freedom of assembly were severely restricted in 50 countries.
In addition, in 84 countries, certain categories of workers are excluded from
the labour legislation. In 2014, the ITUC launched a “Global Rights Index”
ranking 139 countries against 97 internationally recognized indicators to assess
where workers’ rights are best protected in law and practice. According to this
ranking, in 46 countries, compared with 32 in 2014, trade union rights are not
guaranteed, for example due to the absence of the rule of law, and workers are
exposed to unfair labour practices. Freedom of association is by no means just
an issue for workers. Employers have also lodged complaints over the years with
the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association regarding, for example, unlawful
interference with the activities of their organizations.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
36
Freedom of association ensures that workers and employers can associate
to negotiate work relations effectively. Combined with strong freedom of
association, sound collective bargaining practices ensure that employers
and workers have an equal voice in negotiations and that the outcome is
fair and equitable. Collective bargaining allows both sides to negotiate a
fair employment relationship and prevents costly labour disputes. Indeed,
some research has indicated that countries with highly coordinated collective
bargaining tend to have less inequality in wages, lower and less
persistent unemployment, and fewer and shorter strikes than countries
where collective bargaining is less established. Good collective bargaining
practices have sometimes been an element that has allowed certain
countries to overcome passing financial crises. ILO standards promote
collective bargaining and help to ensure that good labour relations benefit
everyone.
Relevant ILO instruments
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
This fundamental Convention provides that measures appropriate to
national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and
promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary
negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’
organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of
employment by means of collective agreements (see also under freedom
of association).
Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151)
The Convention promotes collective bargaining for public employees, as
well as other methods allowing public employees’ representatives to participate
in the determination of their conditions of employment. It also
provides that disputes shall be settled through negotiation between the
parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation,
conciliation and arbitration.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
37
Collective bargaining in the apparel sector in Jordan8
Some 65 000 workers are employed in the apparel sector in Jordan, three quarters
of whom are migrant workers, mainly from South and South-East Asia. Following
a series of collective disputes concerning living and working conditions, a sectoral
collective agreement was signed in May 2013. This two-year global agreement, the
first of its type in Jordan, which has ratified Convention No. 98, marked important
progress in the utilization of voluntary collective bargaining to determine working
conditions in the apparel sector. The collective agreement has been revised and
renewed twice, first in 2015 and then in 2017. Concluded between two employers’
associations (the Jordan Garments, Accessories and Textiles Association (JGATE)
and the Association of Owners of Factories, Workshops and Garments), and the
General Trade Union of Workers in the Textile, Garment and Clothing Industries,
the agreement has resulted in significant and tangible changes in the apparel
sector, including: the introduction of a seniority bonus, the harmonization of key
conditions of work and employment (wages, social security benefits and the
payment of overtime hours) between migrant workers and Jordanian nationals,
and the provision of emergency medical care. The inclusion in the agreement
of clauses allowing unions access to factories and dormitories has facilitated
the establishment of workers’ committees, the election of leaders and workers’
education and information on their rights and responsibilities. As a sectoral
agreement, it covers all workers and all enterprises in the apparel industry.9
Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154)
The Convention defines collective bargaining and calls for its promotion
in all branches of economic activity, including the public service.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
38
Right of association (agriculture) and rural workers’ organizations: Giving
voice to rural workers
In 2015, the General Survey prepared by the Committee of Experts covered
the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), and the Rural
Workers’ Organizations Convention (No. 141) and Recommendation (No. 149),
1975. By deciding to devote the General Survey to these instruments, the ILO
wished to recall that agricultural workers are often denied the right to organize
and to collective bargaining, and that rural workers are particularly vulnerable,
as they are inadequately protected by law and have limited access to machinery
for collective action. Despite the evident importance of agriculture and the rural
economy at the global level, in view of its nature, there is little reliable and comparable
information (and particularly data disaggregated by age and sex) on the
nature, economic importance and real situation, and indeed scope, of the sector.
In particular, definitions of the rural economy, agriculture and rural or agricultural
workers differ considerably from one country to another, with the result that
comparisons between countries are often not very reliable. According to ILO data,
around 40 per cent of the working age population lives in rural areas, with important
differences between countries.
Most of these workers are not engaged in salaried employment in the formal
economy, but work on their own account or are engaged in unpaid family work,
for example in agriculture, and particularly subsistence agriculture. In rural areas,
informal work represents 82.1 per cent of total rural employment, and 96 per
cent of agricultural employment. In comparison, only 24.5 per cent of workers in
urban areas are engaged in informal work. Almost eight out of ten poor workers
living on under US$ 1.25 a day are in rural areas, which shows that most jobs
in rural areas do not secure sufficient income for workers to feed their families
adequately, while the remuneration of salaried employees is generally lower than
in urban areas. Finally, fewer than 20 per cent of agricultural workers have access
to basic social protection.
39
Although forced labour is universally condemned, ILO estimates show
that 24.9 million people around the world are still subjected to it. Of the
total number of victims of forced labour, 20.8 million (83 per cent) are
exploited in the private economy, by individuals or enterprises, and the
remaining 4.1 million (17 per cent) are in State-imposed forms of forced
labour. Among those exploited by private individuals or enterprises, 8 million
(29 per cent) are victims of forced sexual exploitation and 12 million
(64 per cent) of forced labour exploitation. Forced labour in the private
economy generates some US$ 150 billion in illegal profits every year: two
thirds of the estimated total (or US$ 99 billion) comes from commercial
sexual exploitation, while another US$ 51 billion is a result from forced
economic exploitation in domestic work, agriculture and other economic
activities.10
Vestiges of slavery are still found in some parts of Africa, while forced
labour in the form of coercive recruitment is present in many countries of
Latin America, in certain areas of the Caribbean and in other parts of the
world. In numerous countries, domestic workers are trapped in situations
of forced labour, and in many cases they are restrained from leaving the
employers’ home through threats or violence. Bonded labour persists in
South Asia, where millions of men, women and children are tied to their
work through a vicious circle of debt. In Europe and North America, a
considerable number of women and children are victims of traffickers,
who sell them to networks of forced prostitution or clandestine sweatshops.
Finally, forced labour is still used as a punishment for expressing
political views.
For many governments around the world, the elimination of forced labour
remains an important challenge in the 21st century. Not only is forced
labour a serious violation of a fundamental human right, it is a leading
cause of poverty and a hindrance to economic development. ILO standards
on forced labour, associated with well-targeted technical assistance,
are the main tools at the international level to combat this scourge.
FORCED LABOUR
Subjects covered by international labour standards
40
Relevant ILO instruments
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
This fundamental Convention prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory
labour, which is defined as “all work or service which is exacted from any
person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person
has not offered himself voluntarily.” Exceptions are provided for work
required under compulsory military service, normal civic obligations, as
a consequence of a conviction in a court of law (provided that the work
or service in question is carried out under the supervision and control
of a public authority and that the person is not hired to or placed at the
disposal of private individuals, companies or associations), in cases of
emergency, and for minor communal services performed by the members
of the community in the direct interest of the community. The Convention
also requires the exaction of forced labour to be punishable as a penal
offence, and ratifying States to ensure that the relevant penalties imposed
by law are adequate and strictly enforced.
Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
This fundamental Convention prohibits forced or compulsory labour as
a means of political coercion or education, or as a punishment for holding
or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the
established political, social or economic system; as a method of mobilizing
and using labour for purposes of economic development; as a means of
labour discipline; as a punishment for having participated in strikes; and
as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination.
While these two instruments are among the most ratified, the persistence
of practices of forced labour on a large scale reveals the existence of
gaps in their implementation. This led the Governing Body to request the
International Labour Conference to hold a discussion in June 2014 to
examine the adoption of an instrument to supplement Convention No.
29. The result was the adoption of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced
Labour Convention, 1930; and the Forced Labour (Supplementary Measures)
Recommendation, 2014 (No. 203).
Forced labour in practice
The ILO supervisory bodies have emphasized on numerous occasions the importance
of adopting an overall national strategy to combat forced labour with a
view to ensuring that comprehensive and concerted action is taken by the various
responsible public agencies, with particular reference to labour inspection,
law enforcement and the investigation services. A clear national policy against
forced labour provides a fundamental point of departure for action to prevent
and suppress forced labour and protect its victims, with particular emphasis on
identifying priority sectors and occupations, raising public awareness, developing
institutional capacity and coordination, protecting victims and ensuring their
access to justice and compensation. All of these aspects were developed in the
Protocol of 2014 and States are beginning to report the measures taken in these
various areas. The Committee of Experts has already noted the initiatives taken in
a very large number of countries for the implementation of a coordinated multisectoral
approach, particularly to combat trafficking in persons, including:
– In El Salvador, the adoption of a special Act to combat trafficking in persons
(Decree No. 824 of 16 October 2014). The Act includes a broad definition of the
crime of trafficking in persons and provides that the national policy to combat
trafficking in persons shall be based on the following strategic elements: the
detection, prevention and punishment of the crime of trafficking in persons,
the comprehensive assistance and protection of victims and the restoration of
their rights, as well as coordination and cooperation.
– In the United Kingdom, the adoption in 2015 of the Modern Slavery Act, which
defines the elements that constitute the offences of slavery, servitude, forced
and compulsory labour, and human trafficking. The Act also provides for the
establishment of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner; it strengthens the
powers of the law enforcement authorities by allowing the courts to issue prevention
orders, confiscate property, and issue compensation orders requiring
offenders to pay compensation to victims; it requires businesses to publish an
annual statement on the steps taken to ensure that modern slavery does not
take place in their organization or their supply chains.
41
The Protocol of 2014 on forced labour is a legally binding instrument
that aims to advance prevention, protection and compensation measures,
and to intensify efforts to eliminate contemporary forms of slavery. The
Protocol entered into force in November 2016 and as of 30 November
2018 had already been ratified by 27 countries.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
42
Child labour is a violation of fundamental human rights and has been
shown to hinder children’s development, potentially leading to lifelong
physical or psychological damage. Evidence points to a strong link
between household poverty and child labour, and child labour perpetuates
poverty across generations by keeping the children of the poor out
of school and limiting their prospects for upward social mobility. This
lowering of human capital has been linked to slow economic growth and
social development. Recent ILO studies have shown that the elimination
of child labour in transition and developing economies could generate economic
benefits much greater than the costs, which are mostly associated
with investment in better schooling and social services. The fundamental
ILO standards on child labour are the two legal pillars of global action
to combat child labour.
Relevant ILO instruments
Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
This fundamental Convention sets the general minimum age for admission
to employment or work at 15 years (13 for light work) and the minimum
age for hazardous work at 18 (16 under certain strict conditions). It provides
for the possibility of initially setting the general minimum age at 14
(12 for light work) where the economy and educational facilities of the
country are insufficiently developed.
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
This fundamental Convention defines a “child” as any person under 18
years of age. It requires ratifying States to eliminate the worst forms of
child labour, including: all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery,
such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and
forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment
of children for use in armed conflict; child prostitution and pornography;
the use of children for illicit activities, in particular for the production
and trafficking of drugs; and work which is likely to harm the health,
safety or morals of children. The Convention requires ratifying States to
provide the necessary and appropriate direct assistance for the removal of
children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation
and social integration. It also requires States to ensure access to free basic
education and, wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training for
children removed from the worst forms of child labour.
CHILD LABOUR
On 1st January 2019, 171 countries had ratified Convention No. 138
and 182 countries had ratified Convention No. 182. Only five further
ratifications were therefore required to achieve the universal ratification
of Convention No. 182.
Child labour in numbers
The ILO estimates that 152 million children worldwide are engaged in child
labour, accounting for almost 10 per cent of the child population as a whole.
Approximately 73 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are
engaged in hazardous work: 35.4 million children between the ages of 5
and 14, and 37.1 million between the ages of 14 and 17. Child labour is
most prevalent in the agricultural sector, which accounts for 71 per cent of
all those in child labour, representing around 108 million children. While
much remains to be done, progress has been achieved: the number of child
labourers fell by over one-third between 2000 and 2016, with a reduction
of approximately 94 million children.11
The fight against child labour is by no means limited to the poorest countries.
While the incidence of child labour is highest in the poorer countries
(19.4 per cent of children in low-income countries are engaged in child
labour, compared with 8.5 per cent in lower middle-income countries,
6.6 per cent in upper middle-income countries and 1.2 per cent in higherincome
countries), middle-income countries account for the largest number
of child labourers.
The latest ILO estimates of global child labour rates show that middleincome
countries represent a total of 84 million child labourers, compared
with 65 million in low-income countries. These statistics show clearly that,
while poorer countries require particular attention, the fight against child
labour will not be won by focusing solely on the poorest countries.
43
By region, there remain:
72.1 million child labourers (between the ages of 5 à 17) in Africa
62.1 million in Asia and the Pacific
10.7 million in the Americas
1.2 million in the Arab States
5.5 million in Europe and Central Asia
Subjects covered by international labour standards
44
Child labour standards in practice:
Action to combat child labour in Uzbekistan and Brazil
Convention No. 182 constitutes a commitment to eliminating the worst
forms of child labour, including the use of children in armed conflict. In
2008, Uzbekistan ratified Convention No. 182. For several years, both the
Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application
of Standards had been drawing the Government’s attention to the situation
of children subjected to forced labour under hazardous conditions in
cotton production. In 2013, the Government adopted and implemented a
plan of supplementary measures for the implementation of Conventions
Nos 29 and 182. In 2015, the National Coordination Council on Child
Labour established a monitoring mechanism which receives and investigates
complaints. The employment of students under 18 years of age in
the cotton harvest was also prohibited by the Cabinet of Ministers at its
meeting in June 2016. The results of the joint monitoring and enterprise
supervision undertaken by the ILO and the Government of Uzbekistan
since 2013 show significant progress towards the full application of the
Convention. In general, there is no longer any child labour during the
cotton harvest. The Government of Uzbekistan has also undertaken to
remain particularly vigilant concerning this situation. Convention No.
182 has now almost achieved universal ratification, reflecting the overwhelming
consensus that certain forms of child labour demand urgent and
immediate action for their elimination.
Since ratifying Convention No. 182 in 2000 and Convention No. 138
in 2001, Brazil has made tremendous strides towards the elimination of
child labour. The rate of economic activity of children between the ages
of 7 and 17 years fell from 19 to 5 per cent between 1992 and 2015,
while school attendance rose from 80 to 95 per cent.12 This progress was
achieved through a systematic and integrated approach which encompassed
policy reforms, a successful cash transfer programme conditional
on school attendance and the strengthening of an equipped and trained
labour inspectorate, including the establishment of special mobile inspection
groups.
45
No society is free from discrimination. Indeed, discrimination in employment
and occupation is a universal and permanently evolving phenomenon.
Millions of women and men around the world are denied access
to jobs and training, receive low wages or are restricted to certain occupations
simply on the basis of their sex, skin colour, ethnicity or beliefs,
without regard to their capabilities and skills. In a number of developed
countries, for example, women workers still earn between 20 and 25 per
cent less than male colleagues performing equal work or work of equal
value, which shows how slow progress has been over recent years in this
regard. Freedom from discrimination is a fundamental human right and is
essential for workers to be able to choose their employment freely, develop
their potential to the full and reap economic rewards on the basis of merit.
Bringing equality to the workplace also has significant economic benefits.
Employers who practice equality have access to a larger, more diverse and
higher quality workforce. Workers who enjoy equality have greater access
to training and often receive higher wages. The profits of a globalized
economy are more fairly distributed in a society with equality, leading to
greater social stability and broader public support for further economic
development.13 ILO standards on equality provide tools to eliminate discrimination
in all aspects of work and in society as a whole. They also
provide the basis upon which gender mainstreaming strategies can be
applied in the field of labour.
Relevant ILO instruments
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
This fundamental Convention requires ratifying countries to ensure the
application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women
workers for work of equal value. The term “remuneration” is broadly
defined to include the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any
additional emoluments payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or
in kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker’s
employment.
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT
Subjects covered by international labour standards
46
Noting that many countries still retain legal provisions that are narrower
than the principle laid down in the Convention, as they do not give
expression to the concept of “work of equal value”, and that such provisions
hinder progress in eradicating gender-based pay discrimination, the
Committee of Experts again urged the governments of those countries to
take the necessary steps to amend their legislation.
Such legislation should not only provide for equal remuneration for equal,
the same or similar work, but should also address situations where men
and women perform different work that is nevertheless of “equal value”.
In order to determine whether two jobs are of equal value, it is necessary
to adopt some method to measure and compare their relative value taking
into account factors such as skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions.
The Convention does not prescribe, however, a specific method
to carry out this objective job evaluation.
In its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at
work in light of the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization,
the Committee of Experts reiterated the principles already set out in its 2007
General Observation on the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No, 100),
with respect to the concept of “work of equal value”, and recalled that: “While
equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value is a principle
that is widely accepted, the scope of the concept and its application in practice
have been more difficult to grasp and apply in some countries. […] The
Committee has noted that difficulties in applying the Convention in law and
practice result in particular from a lack of understanding of the concept of ‘work
of equal value’. […] The concept of ‘work of equal value’ lies at the heart of the
fundamental right of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal
value, and the promotion of equality.”
47
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
This fundamental Convention defines discrimination as “any distinction,
exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion,
political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has
the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment
in employment or occupation”. The Convention also provides for the
possibility of extending the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination
after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations,
and relevant bodies. National legislation has included, in recent
years, a broad range of additional prohibited grounds of discrimination,
including real or perceived HIV status, age, disability, sexual orientation
and gender identity. The Convention covers discrimination in relation to
access to education and vocational training, access to employment and to
particular occupations, as well as terms and conditions of employment. It
requires ratifying States to declare and pursue a national policy designed
to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice,
equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and
occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in these fields.
This policy and the measures adopted should be continually assessed and
reviewed in order to ensure that they remain appropriate and effective in
a regularly changing context.
In its General Survey of 2012, the Committee of Experts emphasized that
the “Convention requires the national equality policy to be effective. It
should therefore be clearly stated, which implies that programmes should
be or have been set up, all discriminatory laws and administrative practices
are repealed or modified, stereotyped behaviours and prejudicial
attitudes are addressed and a climate of tolerance promoted, and monitoring
put in place. Measures to address discrimination, in law and in
practice, should be concrete and specific. They should make an effective
contribution to the elimination of direct and indirect discrimination and
the promotion of equality of opportunity and treatment for all categories
of workers, in all aspects of employment and occupation and in respect
of all the grounds covered by the Convention. Treating certain groups
differently may be required to eliminate discrimination and to achieve
substantive equality for all groups covered by the Convention.”
Subjects covered by international labour standards
48
Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156)
With a view to creating effective equality of opportunity and treatment
for men and women workers, the Convention requires ratifying States to
make it an aim of national policy to enable persons with family responsibilities
who are engaged or wish to engage in employment to exercise their
right to do so without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent
possible, without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities.
The Convention also requires governments to take into account
the needs of workers with family responsibilities in community planning
and to develop or promote community services, public or private, such as
child-care and family services and facilities.
In addition to these standards, numerous other ILO standards include
provisions on equality in relation to the specific topic that they cover.
49
The ILO is based on the principle of tripartism – dialogue and cooperation
between governments, employers and workers – in the formulation
of standards and policies dealing with labour matters. International
labour standards are created and supervised through a tripartite structure
that makes the ILO unique in the United Nations system. The tripartite
approach to adopting standards ensures that they have broad support
from all ILO constituents.
Tripartism with regard to ILO standards is also important at the national
level. Through regular tripartite consultations, governments can ensure
that ILO standards are formulated, applied and supervised with the participation
of employers and workers. ILO standards on tripartite consultation
set forth the framework for effective national tripartite consultations.
Such consultations can ensure greater cooperation among the social partners
and stronger awareness and participation in matters relating to international
labour standards, and can lead to better governance and a greater
culture of social dialogue on wider social and economic issues.
Because of the importance of tripartism, the ILO has made the ratification
and implementation of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour
Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.144), a priority. The 2008 Declaration
on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization emphasizes the key role of this
instrument (together with Conventions Nos 81, 122 and 129) from the
viewpoint of governance.
TRIPARTITE CONSULTATION
Subjects covered by international labour standards
50
Relevant ILO instrument
Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976
(No. 144)
This governance Convention defines the concept of “representative organisations
of employers and workers” and requires ratifying States to operate
procedures that ensure effective consultations between representatives of
the government, of employers and of workers on matters concerning items
on the agenda of the International Labour Conference, the submission
to the competent national authorities of newly adopted ILO standards,
the re-examination of unratified Conventions and of Recommendations,
reports on ratified Conventions and proposals for the denunciation of
ratified Conventions. Employers and workers shall be represented on an
equal footing on any bodies through which consultations are undertaken,
and consultations shall take place at least once a year.
ILO standards in practice: social dialogue in Tunisia, Djibouti and the
Philippines
In February 2013, shortly after the adoption of its new Constitution and just over
a year after the signing of the social contract between the Government of Tunisia,
the Tunisian Union of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts (UTICA) and the Tunisian
General Labour Union (UGTT), Tunisia became the 136th ILO member State to
ratify Convention No. 144. A few years after the events of the “Arab Spring”, this
ratification foreshadowed the beginning of a new era for the development of tripartism
and social dialogue as a key element of democracy in the country.
Following tripartite consultations in 2016, the tripartite partners in Djibouti took
the decision unanimously to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC,
2006), and the Protocol of 2014 to the Foreced Labour Convention, 1930, which
were both ratified in 2018.
In the Philippines, broad tripartite consultation led to the ratification in 2017 of
the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).
51
International labour standards are usually applied through national law
and policy. It is therefore vital for each country to maintain a viable and
active labour administration system responsible for all aspects of national
labour policy formulation and implementation. In addition to promoting
labour administration systems in a variety of forms, ILO standards
also encourage the collection of labour statistics, which are invaluable in
identifying needs and formulating labour policy at both the national and
international levels. While labour administrations exist in most countries
around the world, many of them face financial and material difficulties.
Adequate financing of labour administration systems is therefore necessary
to maintain and strengthen this important development tool.
Relevant ILO instruments
Labour Adminstration Convention, 1978 (No. 150)
Ratifying countries are required to ensure, in a manner appropriate to
national conditions, the organization and effective operation in their territory
of a system of labour administration, the functions and responsibilities
of which are properly coordinated. The labour administration system
shall be responsible for the formulation, implementation and supervision
of national labour standards; employment and human resources development;
studies, research and statistics on labour; and shall provide support
for labour relations. Participation by workers and employers and their
respective organizations in relation to national labour policy shall also
be ensured. Labour administration staff shall have the status, material
means and financial resources necessary for the effective performance of
their duties.
Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160)
Ratifying countries are required to regularly collect, compile and publish
basic labour statistics, which shall be progressively expanded, in accordance
with their resources, to the economically active population, employment,
unemployment and, where possible, visible underemployment; the
structure and distribution of the economically active population; average
earnings and hours of work (hours actually worked or hours paid for)
LABOUR ADMINISTRATION
Subjects covered by international labour standards
52
and, where appropriate, time rates of wages and normal hours of work;
wage structure and distribution; labour cost; consumer price indices;
household expenditure or, where appropriate, family expenditure and,
where possible, household income or, where appropriate, family income;
occupational injuries and, as far as possible, occupational diseases; and
industrial disputes.
53
The proper application of labour legislation depends on an effective labour
inspectorate. Labour inspectors examine how national labour standards
are applied in the workplace and advise employers and workers on how
to improve the application of national law in such areas as working
time, wages, occupational safety and health, and child labour. In addition,
labour inspectors bring to the notice of national authorities gaps and
defects in national law. They play an important role in ensuring that labour
law is applied equally to all employers and workers. Because the international
community recognizes the importance of labour inspection, the ILO
has made the promotion of the ratification of the two labour inspection
Conventions (Nos 81 and 129) a priority. On 1st January 2019, 146 countries
(nearly 80 per cent of ILO member States) had ratified the Labour
Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and 53 had ratified Convention
No. 129.
Nevertheless, challenges remain in countries where labour inspection systems
are underfunded and understaffed, and consequently unable to do
their job. Some estimates indicate that in certain developing countries less
than 1 per cent of the national budget is allocated to labour administration,
of which labour inspection systems receive only a small fraction.
Other studies show that the costs resulting from occupational accidents
and illnesses, absenteeism, abuse of workers and labour disputes can be
much higher. Labour inspection can help prevent these problems and
thereby enhance productivity and economic development.
Relevant ILO instruments
Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)
This governance Convention requires ratifying States to maintain a system
of labour inspection for workplaces in industry and commerce; States can
make exceptions with regard to mining and transport. It sets out a series
of principles respecting the determination of the fields of legislation covered
by labour inspection, the functions and organization of the system
of inspection, recruitment criteria, the status and terms and conditions of
service of labour inspectors, and their powers and obligations. The labour
inspectorate has to publish and communicate to the ILO an annual report
indicating the general functioning of its services on a number of issues.
LABOUR INSPECTION
Subjects covered by international labour standards
54
Protocol of 1995 to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947
Each State that ratifies this protocol undertakes to extend the application
of the provisions of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No.
81), to workplaces considered as non-commercial, which means neither
industrial nor commercial within the meaning of the Convention. It also
allows ratifying States to make special arrangements for the inspection of
enumerated public services.
Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129)
This governance Convention, similar in content to Convention No. 81,
requires ratifying States to establish and maintain a system of labour
inspection in agriculture. Labour inspection coverage may also be extended
to tenants who do not engage outside help, sharecroppers and similar
categories of agricultural workers; persons participating in a collective
economic enterprise, such as members of a cooperative; or members of
the family of the operator of the agricultural undertaking, as defined by
national laws or regulations.
55
Labour inspection and the informal economy
The informal economy accounts for over half of the global workforce and more
than 90 per cent of micro- and small enterprises throughout the world. It encompasses
a great diversity of situations, employers and workers, most of whom
are in the subsistence economy, particularly in developing countries, where the
protection afforded by regulation may not be legally applicable, or may not be
applied in practice to informal economic units and their workers. The scarce
resources of inspection services and the particular challenges related to the
informal economy may also result in governments focusing their efforts solely
on formal enterprises. In June 2015, the ILO’s constituents, in recognition of
the fact that, in view of its size, the informal economy in all its forms is a major
obstacle to respect for workers’ rights, including fundamental principles and
rights at work, social protection, decent conditions of work, inclusive development
and the primacy of the law, and that it has a detrimental effect on the
development of sustainable enterprises, public revenue, State action, particularly
in relation to economic, social and environmental policy, as well as institutional
solidity and fair competition on national and international markets, adopted at
the International Labour Conference the Transition from the Informal to the
Formal Economy Recommendation, 2015 (No. 204).
Formulating deontological principles for labour inspection services
In France, the Decree issuing the Deontological Code for Public Labour Inspection
Services entered into force in 2017. The Code reinforces the rules of professional
ethics applicable to inspectors and refers specifically to Conventions Nos 81 and
129. It recalls the ethical principles and rules applicable to any public servant, as
well as the principles and rules governing labour inspection in light of the nature
of its functions and powers based on the objectives of ensuring the trust of users,
reinforcing the legitimacy of the service and the protection of citizens, the public
service and each of its officials..
Subjects covered by international labour standards
56
For most people, the key to escaping poverty is having a job. Recognizing
that the development of labour standards without addressing employment
would be meaningless, the ILO dedicates a large part of its programme
to creating greater opportunities for women and men to secure
decent employment and income. To achieve this goal, it promotes international
standards on employment policy which, together with technical
cooperation programmes, are aimed at achieving full, productive and
freely chosen employment. No single policy can be prescribed to attain
this objective. Every country, whether developing, developed or in transition,
needs to devise its own policies to achieve full employment. ILO
standards on employment policy provide a framework for designing and
implementing such policies, thereby ensuring maximum access to the jobs
needed to provide decent work.
Relevant ILO instrument
Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)
This governance Convention requires ratifying States to declare and pursue
an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen
employment. Such a policy shall aim to ensure that there is work for all
who are available for and seeking work; that such work is as productive
as possible; and that there is freedom of choice of employment and the
fullest possible opportunity for each worker to qualify for, and to use his
or her skills and endowments in a job for which he or she is well suited,
irrespective of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction
or social origin. The Employment Policy (Supplementary Provisions)
Recommendation, 1984 (No. 169), adds that the economic and social
policies, plans and programmes designed to promote full, productive and
freely chosen employment should aim to ensure for all workers equality of
opportunity and treatment in respect of access to employment, conditions
of employment, vocational guidance and training and career development.
Moreover, in view of the difficulties encountered by certain underprivileged
groups in finding employment, the Recommendation calls on States to
adopt measures to respond to the needs of all categories of persons frequently
having difficulties in finding lasting employment, such as women,
young workers, persons with disabilities, older workers, the long-term
unemployed and migrant workers lawfully within their territory. The
policy also has to take duly into account the stage and level of economic
EMPLOYMENT POLICY
In June 2017, the ILO’s constituents, recognizing the importance of employment
and decent work in promoting peace, preventing situations of crisis resulting
from conflict and disasters, enabling recovery and reinforcing resilience, and
emphasizing the need to ensure respect for all human rights and the rule of
law, including respect for fundamental principles and rights at work and international
labour standards, adopted at the International Labour Conference the
Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation,
2017 (No. 205).
57
development and the mutual relationships between employment objectives
and other economic and social objectives, and shall be pursued by methods
that are appropriate to national conditions and practices. The Convention
also requires ratifying States to take measures to apply an employment
policy in consultation with workers’ and employers’ representatives, and
the representatives of the persons affected by the measures to be taken.
Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198)
The objective of this Recommendation is to protect workers encountering
difficulties in establishing whether an employment relationship exists in situations
where the respective rights and obligations of the parties concerned
are not clear, where there has been an attempt to disguise the employment
relationship, or where inadequacies or limitations exist in the legal framework,
or in its interpretation or application. The Recommendation envisages
the adoption of a national policy to ensure effective protection for
workers who perform work in the context of an employment relationship.
Global Employment Agenda and Follow-up to the 2008 Declaration
In 2003, the ILO Governing Body adopted the Global Employment Agenda,
which sets forth ten core elements for the development of a global strategy
to boost employment. These include such economic strategies as promoting
trade and investment for productive employment and market access for
developing countries, sustainable development for sustainable livelihoods,
and policy integration in macroeconomic policy. Other core elements
include strategies supported by international labour standards, such as the
Subjects covered by international labour standards
58
promotion of cooperatives and small and medium-sized enterprises, training
and education, social protection and occupational safety and health, as well
as equality and collective bargaining.14 The follow-up action to the 2008
Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization includes a scheme of
recurrent discussions at the International Labour Conference. As a response
to the requirement set out in the Declaration for an integrated approach
to help member States meet ILO objectives, it was decided that a recurrent
report would be prepared by the Office for discussion at the International
Labour Conference. In November 2008, the Governing Body decided on
the first of the strategic objectives to be discussed as a recurrent item. Up to
now there have been two recurrent discussions by the International Labour
Conference on the strategic objective of employment. The first recurrent
discussion was held in 2010 on “employment policies for social justice and
a fair globalization”. The second recurrent discussion on employment was
held in 2014, when the Conference discussed “employment policies for
sustainable recovery and development”. The next recurrent discussion on
employment will be in 2021.
59
Convention No. 122 sets out the goal of full, productive and freely chosen
employment, while other ILO instruments put forward strategies for
attaining this aim. Employment services (public and private), the employment
of persons with disabilities, small and medium-sized enterprises and
cooperatives all play a part in creating employment. ILO standards in
these fields provide guidance on using these means effectively in order to
create jobs.
Relevant ILO instruments
Employment Service Convention, 1948 (No. 88)
The Convention requires ratifying States to establish and operate a free
employment service, consisting of a national system of employment offices
under the direction of a national authority. The close links between
Conventions Nos 88 and 122 are clear in Article 1(2) of Convention No.
88, which provides that “[t]he essential duty of the employment service
shall be to ensure, in co-operation where necessary with other public and
private bodies concerned, the best possible organisation of the employment
market as an integral part of the national programme for the achievement
and maintenance of full employment and the development and use
of productive resources.” The public employment service should assist
workers to find suitable employment and assist employers to find suitable
workers. The Convention envisages the adoption of specific measures to
respond to the needs of certain categories of workers, such as persons with
disabilities and young persons.
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention,
1983 (No. 159)
The Convention sets forth the principles of national policy for the vocational
rehabilitation and employment of persons with disabilities and provides
for the setting up and evaluation of vocational guidance, vocational
training, placement and unemployment services for persons with disabilities.
The national policy shall aim at ensuring that appropriate vocational
rehabilitation measures are made available to all categories of persons
with disabilities, and at promoting employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities in the open labour market. The policy shall be based on
the principle of equality of opportunity between workers with disabilities
and workers generally. The Convention also requires the representative
organizations of employers and workers, and the representative organizations
of and for persons with disabilities, to be consulted.
EMPLOYMENT PROMOTION
Subjects covered by international labour standards
60
Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181)
Requires ratifying States to ensure that private employment agencies
respect the principles of non-discrimination. The Convention provides
for cooperation between private and public employment services, general
principles to protect jobseekers against unethical or inappropriate practices,
and the protection of workers under subcontracting arrangements
and workers recruited from abroad. It also applies to temporary work
agencies.
Older Workers Recommendation, 1980 (No. 162)
Recommends that older workers should, without discrimination on the
grounds of their age, enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment with
other workers.
Job Creation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Recommendation, 1998
(No. 189)
Recommends member States to adopt measures which are appropriate to
national conditions and consistent with national practice to promote small
and medium-sized enterprises in view of their importance in promoting
employment and sustainable economic growth.
Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 (No. 193)
The objective of this Recommendation is to promote cooperatives, in
particular in view of their role in job creation, mobilizing resources and
generating investment.
61
Securing employment for workers with disabilities
Several States that have ratified Convention No. 159 have adopted national policies
and laws on vocational rehabilitation and employment for persons with disabilities
following consultations with the social partners and representative organizations
of persons with disabilities. For example, in 2015, Ireland adopted a global
employment strategy for persons with disabilities. Japan and Mongolia have also
adopted legislation to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities.
The Irish Workway programme was the first project in Europe to adopt a
partnership approach in response to high unemployment among people with
disabilities. It was established in 2001 under the Programme for Prosperity and
Fairness. Workway aims to raise awareness and promote the employment of people
with disabilities in the private sector. In order to do so, the programme operates
through tripartite local networks established in the four regions of the country. The
programme is co-funded by the Irish Government and the European Commission.
Tripartism and social dialogue were also central to the efforts made by Iceland
through the adoption of specific legislation on disability and the creation of a
vocational rehabilitation fund (VIRK). The origins of the legislation go back to the
collective agreements of 2008, which included provisions on the development
of new rehabilitation arrangements for workers who fell ill for long periods or
suffered accidents resulting in a reduction of their working capacity. The VIRK was
also established to give effect to an agreement reached by the social partners for a
special contribution by employers.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
62
Youth employment: Challenges and prospects
In 2012, the general discussion at the International Labour Conference reviewed
the magnitude and characteristics of the youth employment crisis. It considered
in particular the high levels of unemployment and underemployment, the decline
in the quality of jobs available for young people, their detachment from the
labour market and slow and difficult transitions to decent work. Following the
discussion, a resolution was adopted calling for immediate, targeted and r
enewed action to address the youth employment crisis. The resolution recognizes
that international labour standards play an important role in protecting the rights
of young workers. It also includes an appendix listing the international labour
standards relevant to work and young persons. Data in the Global Employment
Trends 2017 report confirms that young persons are three times more likely than
adults to be unemployed. And when young women and men find work, the quality
of the work is a cause for concern, and young persons are twice as likely to
be in precarious employment. The Committee of Experts has emphasized that the
challenges faced by young persons in finding lasting employment are worse for
the categories who are most exposed to decent work deficits, including young
women, who are often affected by higher unemployment rates than young men,
as well as young persons with disabilities and others. However, the Committee of
Experts has noted the efforts made in certain countries through policies and programmes
to promote youth employment and create quality jobs.
63
Education and training are key to making people employable, thereby
allowing them to gain access to decent work and to escape poverty. To
compete in today’s global economy, workers and employers need to be
especially well trained in information and communication technologies,
new forms of business organization and the workings of international
markets. Societies aiming to attain full employment and sustained economic
growth therefore need to invest in education and human resources
development. By providing basic education, core work skills and lifelong
learning opportunities for their entire working population, countries can
help to ensure that workers can maintain and improve their employability,
resulting in a more skilled and productive workforce. Nevertheless,
major gaps in education and access to information technology persist
between and within countries. ILO standards encourage countries to
develop sound human resources practices and training policies that are
beneficial to all the social partners. Because of the continued importance
of this topic, in 2004 the International Labour Conference adopted an
updated Human Resources Development Recommendation, 2004 (No.
195), which focusses on education, training and lifelong learning.
Relevant ILO instruments
Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140)
The Convention requires ratifying States to formulate and apply a policy
designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and
practice, and by stages as necessary, the granting of paid educational leave
for the purpose of training at any level, general, social and civic education,
and trade union education.
Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142)
The instrument requires ratifying States to develop policies and programmes
of vocational guidance and vocational training, closely linked
with employment, in particular through public employment services. For
this purpose, they are required to develop complementary systems of
general, technical and vocational education, educational and vocational
guidance and vocational training, and to extend them gradually to young
persons and adults, including appropriate programmes for persons with
disabilities.
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING
Subjects covered by international labour standards
64
Education and training in practice
By investing in human resources, enterprises can improve productivity
and compete more successfully in world markets. One study has found
that in Denmark, for instance, enterprises which combined production
innovations with targeted training were more likely to report growth in
output, jobs and labour productivity than companies that did not pursue
such strategies. Studies on Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States
have reached similar conclusions. Training benefits not only the individual
worker but, by increasing her or his productivity and skills level, the
employer reaps the rewards as well.15
The 2010 General Survey on the employment instruments refers to the critical
relation between Convention No. 142, as complemented by Recommendation No.
195, the attainment of full employment and decent work, and the realization of
the right to education for all. The General Survey also acknowledges the important
role of Convention No. 142 in combating discrimination. The Committee of Experts
observed that there is a growing problem of unemployment among educated
workers, particularly young university graduates, who are experiencing increasing
difficulties in finding secure employment commensurate with their skills level. This
is an issue for both advanced market economies and developing countries. The
Committee of Experts has encouraged governments to develop job creation and
career guidance policies targeted at this new category of the educated
unemployed.
65
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
The termination of an employment relationship is likely to be a traumatic
experience for a worker and the loss of income has a direct impact
on her or his family’s well-being. As more countries seek employment
flexibility and globalization destabilizes traditional employment patterns,
more workers are likely to face involuntary termination of employment
at some point in their professional lifetime. At the same time, the flexibility
to reduce staff and to dismiss unsatisfactory workers is a necessary
measure for employers to keep enterprises productive. ILO standards on
termination of employment seek to find a balance between maintaining
the employer’s right to dismiss workers for valid reasons and ensuring that
such dismissals are fair and are used as a last resort, and that they do not
have a disproportionately negative impact on the worker.
Relevant ILO instrument
Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158)
This instrument sets forth the principle that the employment of a worker
should not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination
connected with the worker’s capacity or conduct, or based on
the operational requirements of the enterprise, establishment or service.
Reasons for dismissal not considered valid include those based on union
membership or participation in union activities, the filing of a complaint
against an employer, race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities,
pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social
origin, temporary absence due to illness, or absence from work during
maternity leave. If an individual worker is dismissed, he or she shall have
the right to defend him or herself against any allegations. In cases of collective
dismissals, governments should encourage employers to consult
workers’ representatives and develop alternatives to mass lay-offs (such
a hiring freezes or working time reductions). The Convention also covers
matters related to severance pay, the period of notice, appeal procedures
against dismissal, unemployment insurance and the advance warning to
be given to the authorities in cases of mass dismissals.16
Subjects covered by international labour standards
66
The ILO Constitution, in the Declaration of Philadelphia, provides that
“all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to
pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development
in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal
opportunity”, and that the fulfilment of this objective “must constitute
the central aim of national and international policy”. Social policy formulated
through dialogue between the social partners has the best chance of
achieving the aims agreed upon by the international community. Relevant
ILO standards provide a framework for creating social policies which
ensure that economic development benefits all those who participate in it.
Relevant ILO instruments
Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention, 1949 (No. 94)
This Convention aims to ensure compliance with minimum labour standards
in the execution of public contracts.
Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117)
The Convention sets forth the general principle that all policies shall be
primarily directed at the well-being and development of the population
and the promotion of its desire for social progress. Furthermore, the
improvement of standards of living shall be regarded as the principal
objective in the planning of economic development. It also sets out additional
requirements concerning migrant workers, agricultural producers,
independent producers and wage earners, minimum wage-fixing and the
payment of wages, non-discrimination, and education and vocational
training.
SOCIAL POLICY
67
WAGES
With working time, wages are among conditions of work that have the
most direct and tangible effect on the everyday life of workers. Although
wages are necessary for the maintenance of workers and their families,
in many parts of the world access to adequate and regular wages is not
guaranteed.
Indeed, in certain countries, wage arrears continue to be a problem. In
some cases, workers who have not received their wages are never paid due
to the bankruptcy of the enterprise. Problems can also arise in cases where
part of wages, and sometimes a large part, are paid in kind. Such situations
push the workers concerned into poverty. In certain cases, these practices
may even expose them to the risk of debt bondage or forced labour.
The principle of the provision of an adequate living wage was already set
out in the Treaty of Versailles. Following the erosion of purchasing power
as a result of the 2008 economic crisis, the ILO considered it important to
emphasize the link between minimum wage-fixing and action to combat
poverty. Accordingly, the Global Jobs Pact, adopted by the International
Labour Conference in 2009, makes several references to minimum wages
as one of the means of responding to the international economic crisis.
The regular adjustment of wages, in consultation with the social partners,
is identified in the Pact as one of means of reducing inequality, increasing
demand and contributing to economic stability.
ILO standards on wages address all of these issues. They provide for the
regular payment of wages, the protection of wages in the event of the insolvency
of the employer and the fixing of minimum wage levels.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
68
Relevant ILO instruments
Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95)
Wages shall be paid in legal tender at regular intervals; in cases where
partial payment of wages is in kind, the value of such allowances should
be fair and reasonable. Workers shall be free to dispose of their wages as
they choose. In cases of employer insolvency, wages shall enjoy a priority
in the distribution of liquidated assets.
Minim Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131)
The Convention requires ratifying States to establish minimum wage
fixing machinery to determine, periodically review and adjust minimum
wage rates having the force of law.
Protection of Workers’ Claims Convention, 1992 (No. 173)
The Convention provides for the protection of wage claims in insolvency
and bankruptcy proceedings by means of a privilege or through a guarantee
institution.
Also relevant:
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
The Convention lays down the principle of equal remuneration for men
and women workers for work of equal value.
69
Wage policies and sustainable development
As part of its Decent Work Agenda, the ILO encourages member States to adopt a
minimum wage to reduce poverty and provide social protection for workers. The
adoption of appropriate wage policies is also identified as a means of implementing
the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030. SDG 8 is to “Promote sustained,
inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and
decent work for all”, with emphasis on ensuring equal pay for work of equal
value for everyone. SDG 10 aims to “Reduce inequality within and among countries”
and places emphasis on the progressive achievement of greater equality.
The ILO analyses wage trends throughout the world and regularly publishes a
Global Wage Report. The 2016/17 edition of the report found that, following the
2008-09 financial crisis, real wage growth in the world recovered in 2010, but
has since slowed down and has even been reversed in some countries. One of
the conclusions of the report is that on average wage growth has fallen behind
labour productivity growth (the average value of the goods and services produced
by workers). The report also notes that in recent years several countries have
introduced or strengthened minimum wages as a means of supporting low-paid
workers and reducing wage inequality. According to the report, when they are set
at an adequate level, minimum wages can have the effect of raising the income
of low-paid workers, many of whom are women, without significant negative
effects on employment. Finally, the report finds that the inclusion of wage policy
on the agenda of recent meetings of the G20 is a positive development, and
recalls that the G20 has called for the establishment of the principles of a sustainable
wage policy to strengthen labour market institutions and policies, including
the minimum wage and collective bargaining, so that wage increases better
reflect productivity growth.
In 2016, the ILO published a Minimum wage policy guide, which describes
the diversity of practices and identifies the various options, based on national
preferences and situations. Without seeking to promote a particular model, the
Guide emphasizes essential principles and good practices for minimum wage fixing
and provides examples of the advantages and disadvantages of the various
options. The Guide was published following the preparation of a General Survey
on minimum wages (2014), in which the Committee of Experts concluded that
the objectives, principles and methods set out in Convention No. 131 remain as
relevant today as when the Convention was adopted in 1970 and are adapted to
public policies aimed at reconciling the objectives of economic development with
the principles of social justice.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
70
The regulation of working time is one of the oldest concerns of labour legislation.
Already in the early 19th century it was recognized that working
excessive hours posed a danger to workers’ health and to their families.
The very first ILO Convention, adopted in 1919 (see below), limited hours
of work. Today, ILO standards on working time provide the framework
for regulated hours of work, weekly rest periods, annual holidays, night
work and part-time work. These instruments ensure high productivity
while safeguarding workers’ physical and mental health. Standards on
part-time work have become increasingly important instruments for
addressing such issues as job creation and the promotion of equality
between men and women.
Relevant ILO instruments
Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1)
Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (No. 30)
These two Conventions set the general standard of 48 hours of work a
week, with a maximum of eight hours a day.
Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 (No. 47)
Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962 (No. 116)
These instruments set out the principle of the 40 hour working week.
Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14)
Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106)
These instruments set the general standard that workers shall enjoy a rest
period of at least 24 consecutive hours every seven days.
Holidays with Pay Convention, 1970 (No. 132)
This Convention provides that every person to whom it applies shall enjoy
at least three working weeks of annual paid holiday for one year of service.
WORKING TIME
Working time in the 21st century
In view of the importance of working time issues in the context of the current
transformations in the world of work, the Governing Body decided that the 2018
General Survey would cover the ILO’s working time instruments. In this vast
General Survey, the Committee of Experts observes that, while new working-time
arrangements, such as on-call work, telework and the platform economy, may
offer advantages for both workers and employers, they are also associated with a
number of disadvantages, including the encroachment of work on rest periods, the
unpredictability of working hours, income insecurity and the stress associated with
the perceived need to be constantly connected to work. It is therefore important
for these issues to be regulated by national legislation, taking into account both
the needs of workers in relation to their physical and mental health and work–life
balance, and the flexibility requirements of enterprises. The Committee of Experts
also observed that, while national legislation of the countries reviewed broadly
recognizes weekly limits on hours of work, daily limits are not clearly set in many
countries and that the circumstances that justify recourse to exceptions to normal
statutory hours of work are not always clearly defined, or go beyond those recognized
in ILO instruments. Moreover, the limits on the number of additional hours
allowed in law and practice often go beyond the reasonable limits required by the
Conventions, and additional hours are often not compensated either financially or
with time off. The Committee of Experts also noted that, although the principle of
weekly rest is widely recognized in national legislation, there are frequent cases of
recourse to special weekly rest schemes and a tendency to provide financial compensation
for work performed during weekly rest periods, rather than compensatory
time off. It further noted that, while the principle of holidays with pay is broadly
accepted, there is a trend for qualifying periods to be too long, and a tendency to
postpone and divide annual leave into parts, which is in contradiction with the
purpose of ensuring that workers benefit from a sufficient period of leave to rest
and recover from fatigue. Finally, the Committee of Experts noted that the national
legislation in many countries does not yet establish protective measures
in relation to night work.
71
Subjects covered by international labour standards
72
Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171)
The Convention requires ratifying States to take measures required by
the nature of night work for the protection of night workers, including
to protect their health, assist them to meet their family and social
responsibilities, provide opportunities for occupational advancement and
compensate them appropriately. It also requires alternatives to night work
to be offered to women for specified periods during and after pregnancy
Part-Time Work Convention, 1994 (No. 175)
The Convention provides that part-time workers must receive the same
protection as that accorded to comparable full-time workers in respect of
the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, occupational safety
and health and discrimination in employment and occupation. They must
also benefit from equivalent conditions in relation to maternity protection,
termination of employment and other terms and conditions of employment.
73
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
The ILO Constitution sets forth the principle that workers must be protected
from sickness, disease and injury arising from their employment.
Yet for millions of workers the reality is very different. According to the
most recent ILO global estimates, 2.78 million work-related deaths are
recorded every year, of which 2.4 million are related to occupational diseases.
In addition to the immense suffering caused for workers and their
families, the associated economic costs are colossal for enterprises,
coun-tries and the world. The losses in terms of compensation, lost work
days, interrupted production, training and reconversion, as well as
health-care expenditure, represent around 3.94 per cent of the world’s
annual GDP.17 Employers face costly early retirements, loss of skilled
staff, absenteeism and high insurance premiums. Yet, many of these
tragedies are preventable through the implementation of sound
prevention, reporting and inspec-tion practices. ILO standards on
occupational safety and health provide essential tools for governments,
employers and workers to establish such practices and provide for
maximum safety at work.
Relevant ILO instruments
The ILO has adopted more than 40 Conventions and Recommendations
specifically dealing with occupational safety and health, as well as over 40
codes of practice. Moreover, nearly half of ILO instruments deal directly
or indirectly with occupational safety and health issues.
Fundamental principles of occupational safety and health
Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention,
2006 (No. 187)
As an instrument setting out a promotional framework, this Convention is
designed to provide for coherent and systematic treatment of occupational
safety and health issues and to promote recognition of existing Conventions
on occupational safety and health. The Convention is aimed at establishing
and implementing coherent national policies on occupational safety and
Subjects covered by international labour standards
74
health through dialogue between government, workers’ and employers’
organizations and to promote a national preventive safety and health culture.
It entered into force in early 2008 and has already been ratified by
nearly 50 member States.
Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), and its Protocol
of 2002
The Convention provides for the adoption of a coherent national occupational
safety and health policy, as well as action to be taken by governments
and within enterprises to promote occupational safety and health
and improve working conditions. This policy shall be developed taking
into consideration national conditions and practice. The Protocol calls for
the establishment and periodic review of requirements and procedures for
the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, and
the publication of related annual statistics.
Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161)
This Convention provides for the establishment of enterprise-level occupational
health services which are entrusted with essentially preventive
functions and are responsible for advising the employer, workers and their
representatives in the enterprise on maintaining a safe and healthy working
environment.
Safety and health in particular branches of economic activity
Hygiene (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1964 (No. 120)
The objective of this instrument is to preserve the health and welfare of
workers employed in trading establishments, and establishments, institutions
and administrative services in which workers are mainly engaged in
office work and other related services through elementary hygiene measures
responding to the requirements of welfare at the workplace.
Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152)
See under dockworkers.
75
Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167)
The Convention sets out detailed technical preventive and protective
measures having due regard to the specific requirements of the sector.
These measures relate to the safety of workplaces, machines and the
equipment used, work at heights and work executed in compressed air.
Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (176)
This instrument regulates the various aspects of safety and health characteristic
of work in mines, including inspection, special working devices
and protective equipment for workers. It also prescribes requirements
relating to mine rescue.
Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184)
The objective of this Convention is the prevention of accidents and injury
to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of agricultural
and forestry work. The Convention therefore sets out measures
relating to machinery safety and ergonomics, the handling and transport
of materials, the sound management of chemicals, animal handling, protection
against biological risks, and welfare and accommodation facilities.
Protection against specific risks
Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)
The objective of the Convention is to set out basic requirements for the
protection of workers against the risks associated with exposure to ionizing
radiations. The protective measures to be taken include the limitation
of workers’ exposure to ionizing radiations to the lowest practicable level
and the avoidance of any unnecessary exposure, as well as the monitoring
of the workplace and of workers’ health. The Convention also sets out
requirements relating to emergency situations that may arise.
Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139)
This instrument aims at the establishment of a mechanism for the adoption
of measures to prevent the risks of occupational cancer caused by
exposure, generally over a prolonged period, to chemical and physical
Subjects covered by international labour standards
76
agents of various types present in the workplace. For this purpose, ratifying
States are required to determine periodically carcinogenic substances
and agents to which occupational exposure shall be prohibited or regulated,
to make every effort to replace these substances and agents by non
or less carcinogenic ones, to prescribe protective and supervisory measures,
and to prescribe the necessary medical examinations of workers
who are exposed.
Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977
(No. 148)
The Convention provides that, as far as possible, the working environment
shall be kept free from any hazards due to air pollution, noise or
vibration. To achieve this, technical measures shall be applied to enterprises
or processes, and where this is not possible, supplementary measures
regarding the organization of work shall be taken instead.
Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162)
The Convention aims to prevent the harmful effects of exposure to asbestos
on the health of workers by specifying reasonable and practicable
methods and techniques to reduce occupational exposure to asbestos to
a minimum. With a view to achieving this objective, the Convention enumerates
various detailed measures, which are based essentially on the
prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to
asbestos, and the protection of workers against these hazards.
Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170)
The Convention provides for the adoption and implementation of a coherent
policy on safety in the use of chemicals at work, which includes the
production, handling, storage and transport of chemicals, as well as the
disposal and treatment of waste chemicals, the release of chemicals resulting
from work activities, and the maintenance, repair and cleaning of
equipment and containers of chemicals. In addition, it allocates specific
responsibilities to suppliers and exporting States.
77
The current situation with regard to occupational safety and health
In 2017, the Committee of Experts published an important General Survey on the
occupational safety and health instruments relating to the promotional framework,
construction, mines and agriculture. In the General Survey, the Committee
of Experts noted an almost universal recognition of the importance of ensuring
safe and secure conditions at work, in general, and in the construction, mining
and agriculture sectors in particular. All member States reported measures taken
in law or practice to promote occupational safety and health and to protect workers
from occupational accidents and diseases, and many reported recent measures
to reinvigorate and intensify efforts in this regard.
Safety and health of young workers
On the occasion of the World Day for Safety and Health at Work 2018, the ILO
drew attention to the issue of the safety and health of young workers. The 541
million young workers (aged 15-24 years) globally, including 37 million children
engaged in hazardous child labour, account for over 15 per cent of the world’s
labour force and suffer up to a 40 per cent higher rate of non-fatal occupational
injuries than adult workers over 25 years of age. Many factors can increase youth
vulnerability to occupational safety and health risks, such as their physical and
psychological stage of development, lack of work experience and training, limited
awareness of work-related hazards and lack of bargaining power, which can lead
young workers to accept dangerous tasks or jobs with poor working conditions.
The ILO placed emphasis on the critical importance of addressing these challenges
and improving safety and health for young workers, not only to promote decent
work for youth, but also to link these efforts to action to combat hazardous, and
all other forms of child labour.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
78
Codes of practice
ILO codes of practice set out practical guidelines for public authorities,
employers, workers, enterprises and specialized occupational safety and
health protection bodies (such as enterprise safety committees). They are
not legally binding instruments and are not intended to replace the provisions
of national laws or regulations, or accepted standards. Codes of
practice provide guidance on safety and health at work in certain economic
sectors (including construction, opencast mines, coal mines, iron
and steel industries, non-ferrous metals industries, agriculture, shipbuilding
and ship repairing and forestry), protecting workers against certain
hazards (such as radiation, lasers, visual display units, chemicals, asbestos
and airborne substances) and certain safety and health measures (e.g.
occupational safety and health management systems; ethical guidelines
for workers’ health surveillance; recording and notification of occupational
accidents and diseases; protection of workers’ personal data; safety,
health and working conditions in the transfer of technology to developing
countries).
79
SOCIAL SECURITY
Social security is a human right which responds to the universal need for
protection against certain life risks and social needs. Effective social security
systems guarantee income security and health protection, thereby contributing
to the prevention and reduction of poverty and inequality, and
the promotion of social inclusion and human dignity. They do so through
the provision of benefits, in cash or in kind, intended to ensure access to
medical care and health services, as well as income security throughout
the life cycle, particularly in the event of illness, unemployment, employment
injury, maternity, family responsibilities, invalidity, loss of the family
breadwinner, as well as during retirement and old age. Social security
systems therefore constitute an important investment in the well-being of
workers and the community as a whole, and facilitate access to education
and vocational training, nutrition and essential goods and services. In
relation with other policies, social security contributes to improving productivity
and employability, and to economic development. For employers
and enterprises, social security helps to maintain a stable workforce that
can adapt to changes. Finally, it reinforces social cohesion and therefore
contributes to building social peace, inclusive societies and a fair globalization
by ensuring decent living conditions for all.
The Conventions and Recommendations which make up the ILO’s standards
framework on social security are unique: they set out minimum
standards of protection to guide the development of benefit schemes and
national social security systems, based on good practices from all regions
of the world. They are therefore based on the principle that there is no
single model for social security, and that it is for each country to develop
the required protection. For this purpose, they offer a range of options and
flexibility clauses for the progressive achievement of the objective of the
universal coverage of the population and of social risks through adequate
benefit levels. They also set out guidance on the design, financing, implementation,
governance and evaluation of social security schemes and systems,
in accordance with a rights-based approach. In a globalizing world,
in which individuals are exposed to ever greater economic risks, it is clear
that a significant national policy of social protection can contribute to
attenuating the many negative effects of crises. It was for this reason that
the International Labour Conference adopted a new instrument in 2012,
Subjects covered by international labour standards
80
the Social Protection Floors Recommendation (No. 202). Moreover, the
2019 General Survey, focusing on universal social protection for life in
dignity and health, prepared by the Committee of Experts, which will be
examined by ILO constituents at the International Labour Conference in
2019, covers this Recommendation.
Relevant ILO instruments
Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102)
This Convention sets out minimum standards for the level of social security
benefits and the conditions under which they are granted. It covers the
nine principal branches of social security, namely medical care, sickness,
unemployment, old age, employment injury, family, maternity, invalidity
and survivors’ benefits. To ensure that it can be applied in all national
circumstances, the Convention offers ratifying States the possibility of
ratification by initially accepting at least three of its nine branches and of
subsequently accepting obligations under other branches, thereby allowing
them to progressively attain all the objectives set out in the Convention.
The level of minimum benefits can be determined with reference to the
level of wages in the country concerned. Temporary exceptions may also
be envisaged for countries where the economy and medical facilities are
insufficiently developed, thereby enabling them to restrict the scope of the
Convention and the coverage of the benefits provided.
Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202)
This instrument provides guidance on introducing or maintaining social
protection floors and on implementing social protection floors as part of
strategies to extend higher levels of social security to as many people as
possible, in accordance with the guidance set out in ILO social security
standards.
Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118)
Maintenance of Social Security Rights Convention, 1982 (No. 157)
These instruments provide for certain social security rights and benefits
for migrant workers, who risk losing the entitlements to social security
benefits that they enjoyed in their country of origin.
81
Further social security instruments
A later generation of Conventions expands the scope of the protection
provided by Convention No. 102. While offering a higher level of protection
in terms of the scope and level of benefits to be guaranteed, these
instruments authorize certain exceptions which ensure flexibility.
The benefits provided under Convention No. 102 and later Conventions
are outlined below. This information does not include provisions on the
duration and conditions of entitlement to benefits, the derogations allowed
under these instruments or the higher levels of benefits provided by the
relevant Recommendations.18
Medical care
• Convention No. 102: provides for preventive care, general practitioner
care, including home visits, specialist care, essential pharmaceutical supplies
as prescribed, prenatal, confinement and postnatal care by medical
practitioners or qualified midwives, and hospitalization where necessary.
• Convention No. 130: provides for the same benefits as Convention No.
102, plus dental care and medical rehabilitation.
Sickness benefit
• Convention No. 102: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 45
per cent of the reference wage.
• Convention No. 130: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 60
per cent of the reference wage. Also provides for funeral expenses in case
of the death of the beneficiary.
Unemployment benefit
• Convention No. 102: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 45
per cent of the reference wage.
• Convention No. 168: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 50
per cent of the reference wage. Beyond the initial period, possibility of
applying special rules of calculation. Nevertheless, the total benefits to
which the unemployed may be entitled must guarantee them healthy and
reasonable living conditions, in accordance with national standards.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
82
Old-age benefit
• Convention No. 102: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 40
per cent of the reference wage. The rates of relevant benefits must be
revised following substantial changes in the general level of earnings and/
or cost of living.
• Convention No. 128: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 45
per cent of the reference wage. Same conditions as Convention No. 102
relating to the revision of rates.
Employment injury benefit
• Convention No. 102: medical care, periodical payments corresponding to
at least 50 per cent of the reference wage in cases of incapacity for work
or invalidity. Benefits for widows and dependent children in case of the
death of breadwinner with periodical payments corresponding to at least
40 per cent of the reference wage. Possibility of converting periodical
payments into a lump sum under certain conditions. Except in the case of
incapacity for work, obligation to revise the rates of periodical payments
following substantial changes in the cost of living.
• Convention No. 121: same as Convention No. 102, plus certain types of
care at the place of work. Periodical payments, corresponding to at least
60 per cent of the reference wage in cases of temporary incapacity for
work or invalidity, benefits for widows, disabled and dependent widowers,
and dependent children in case of the death of breadwinner, with
periodical payments corresponding to at least 50 per cent of the reference
wage. Obligation to prescribe a minimum amount for these payments,
possibility of converting payments into a lump sum under certain conditions,
and supplementary benefits for persons requiring the constant help
of a third person.
Family benefit
• Convention No. 102: provides for either periodical payments, or the
provision of food, clothing, housing, holidays or domestic help, or a
combination of these.
83
Maternity benefit
• Convention No. 102: medical care, including at least prenatal, confinement
and postnatal care, either by medical practitioners or qualified
midwives, and hospitalization where necessary; periodical payments,
corresponding to at least 45 per cent of the reference wage.
• Convention No. 183: medical benefits, including prenatal, childbirth and
postnatal care, as well as hospitalization when necessary; cash benefits
to ensure that the woman can maintain herself and her child in proper
conditions of health and with a suitable standard of living, corresponding
to at least two-thirds of previous earnings or a comparable amount.
Invalidity benefit
• Convention No. 102: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 40
per cent of the reference wage; the rates of the relevant benefits must be
revised following substantial changes in the general level of earnings and/
or the cost of living.
• Convention No. 128: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 50
per cent of the reference wage; the rates of relevant benefits must be
revised following substantial changes in the general level of earnings and/
or the cost of living. Obligation to provide rehabilitation services and to
take measures to facilitate the placement of persons with disabilities in
suitable employment.
Survivors’ benefit
• Convention No. 102: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 40
per cent of the reference wage; the rates of the relevant benefits must be
revised following substantial changes in the general level of earnings and/
or the cost of living.
• Convention No. 128: periodical payments, corresponding to at least 45
per cent of the reference wage; the rates of the relevant benefits must be
revised following substantial changes in the general level of earnings and/
or the cost of living.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
84
MATERNITY PROTECTION
Raising a family is a cherished goal for many working people. Yet pregnancy
and maternity are an especially vulnerable time for working women
and their families. Expectant and nursing mothers require special protection
to prevent harm to their or their infants’ health, and they need
adequate time to give birth, recover and nurse their children. At the same
time, they also require protection to ensure that they do not lose their job
simply because of pregnancy or maternity leave. Such protection not only
ensures the equal access of women to employment, it also ensures the
continuation of often vital income, which is necessary for the well-being
of their entire family. Safeguarding the health of expectant and nursing
mothers and protecting them against job discrimination is a precondition
for achieving genuine equality of opportunity and treatment for men and
women at work and enabling workers to raise families in conditions of
economic security.
Relevant ILO instrument
Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183)
This Convention is the most up-to-date international labour standard
on maternity protection, although earlier instruments – the Maternity
Protection Convention, 1919 (No. 3), and the Maternity Protection
Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103) – are still in force in certain countries.
Convention No. 183 provides for 14 weeks of maternity benefit for
women to whom the instrument applies. Women who are absent from
work on maternity leave shall be entitled to a cash benefit which ensures
that they can maintain themselves and their child in proper conditions of
health and with a suitable standard of living, and which shall be no less
than two thirds of her previous earnings or a comparable amount. The
Convention also requires ratifying States to take measures to ensure that
pregnant women and nursing mothers are not obliged to perform work
which has been determined to be harmful to their health or that of their
child, and to protect them against discrimination based on maternity. It
85
also prohibits employers from terminating the employment of a woman
during pregnancy or absence on maternity leave, or during a period following
her return to work, except on grounds unrelated to pregnancy,
childbirth and its consequences, or nursing. Women returning to work
must be returned to the same or an equivalent position paid at the same
rate. The Convention also establishes the right to one or more daily breaks
or a daily reduction of hours of work for women to breastfeed their child.
Maternity leave: Countries complying with ILO standards19
Globally, 52 per cent of the countries studied (99 countries) provide for a period
of maternity leave of at least 14 weeks, the standard established by Convention
No. 183. Among those, 48 countries meet or exceed the 18 weeks of leave
suggested in Recommendation No. 191; 49 countries provide for 12 to 13 weeks
of leave – less than the duration specified by Convention No. 183, but consistent
with the level set by Conventions Nos. 102 and 103 of at least 12 weeks. Only
16 per cent (30 countries) provide for less than 12 weeks of maternity leave. Of
the 192 countries for which information is available, all but two provide cash
benefits to women during maternity leave. The two exceptions are Papua New
Guinea and the United States, which provide some form of maternity leave, but
have no general legal provision respecting cash benefits. Globally, 38 per cent (73
countries) of the 192 countries for which information is available provide cash
benefits of at least two-thirds of earnings for at least 14 weeks. Indeed, 14 per
cent (26 countries) go beyond this standard by providing 100 per cent of previous
earnings for at least 18 weeks. In 44 per cent (84 countries), however, maternity
leave is unpaid, paid at less than two-thirds of previous earnings, or paid for a
period of less than 14 weeks.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
86
Domestic workers represent a significant part of the global workforce in
informal employment and are among the most vulnerable groups of workers.
They work for private households, often without a real employment
contract, undeclared and excluded from the scope of labour legislation.
Currently there are at least 67 million domestic workers worldwide, not
including child domestic workers, and this number is increasing steadily
in developed and developing countries. 80 per cent of domestic workers
are women.
Deplorable working conditions, labour exploitation and abuses of human
rights are major problems facing domestic workers. Only 10 per cent
of all domestic workers are covered by general labour legislation to the
same extent as other workers. In contrast, over one quarter are completely
excluded from the scope of national labour legislation. Domestic workers
often have very low wages, excessive hours of work, with no guaranteed
day of weekly rest, and are sometimes victims of physical, psychological
or sexual abuse, or constraints on their freedom of movement.
Relevant ILO instruments
Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189)
This Convention, with the accompanying Recommendation No. 201, provides
that domestic workers around the world who care for families and
households, must have the same basic labour rights as those available to
other workers: reasonable hours of work, weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive
hours, a limit on in-kind payments, clear information on their
terms and conditions of employment, as well as respect for fundamental
principles and rights at work, including freedom of association and the
right to collective bargaining.
DOMESTIC WORKERS
87
On 1st January 2019, 27 countries had ratified Convention No. 189, most
of which have taken measures to give effect to its provisions. For example,
Costa Rica has extended access to social security to all domestic workers.
Measures to authorize labour inspection have been taken in a number
of countries, while maintaining respect for the household (Costa Rica,
Uruguay). In other countries, where a minimum wage was established for
domestic workers that is below the national minimum wage, measures
have been taken to increase their wage levels and enable them and their
families to live a decent life (Argentina).
Domestic work in figures
Domestic work is a significant source of employment, accounting for around
1.7 per cent of total employment worldwide, and 3.6 per cent of wage
employment. Data on domestic work are particularly difficult to collect. The ILO
published its first estimates of domestic work in 2013 (in the report Domestic
workers across the world). The methodology was subsequently refined and
adapted in 2016, and published in the context of estimates of the number of
migrant workers throughout the world. These key resources are accompanied
by guides on qualitative and quantitative research on child domestic work and
reflection on the means of measuring the social and economic value of domestic
work. 20
Subjects covered by international labour standards
88
The growing pace of economic globalization has created more migrant
workers than ever before. Unemployment and increasing poverty have
prompted many workers in developing countries to seek work elsewhere.
It is estimated that 73 per cent of migrants are workers. In industrialized
countries, demand for labour, especially unskilled labour, has increased.
As a result, millions of workers and their families travel to countries other
than their own to find work. Considerable efforts have been made over
recent years to obtain reliable and comparable data on labour migration.
However, as noted by the ILO and the international community, there
remain significant gaps. In response, the ILO has published global and
regional estimates of migrant workers. According to these estimates, there
are at present approximately 244 million migrants around the world, representing
3.3 per cent of the global population. Women make up almost
half of migrants.21 Migrant workers contribute to the economies of their
host countries, and the remittances they send home help to boost the
economies of their countries of origin. Yet, migrant workers often benefit
from inadequate social protection and are vulnerable to exploitation and
human trafficking. Skilled migrant workers are less vulnerable to exploitation,
but their departure deprives some developing countries of the valuable
labour needed for their own economies. ILO standards on migration
provide tools for both countries of origin and of destination to manage
migration flows and ensure adequate protection for this vulnerable category
of workers.
Relevant ILO instruments
Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97)
The Convention requires ratifying States to facilitate international migration
for employment by establishing and maintaining a free assistance
and information service for migrant workers and taking measures against
misleading propaganda relating to emigration and immigration. It includes
provisions on appropriate medical services for migrant workers and the
transfer of earnings and savings. States have to apply treatment no less
favorable than that which applies to their own nationals in respect of
a number of matters, including conditions of employment, freedom of
association and social security.
MIGRANT WORKERS
89
Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143)
The Convention sets out measures to combat clandestine and illegal
migration, while at the same time establishing the general obligation to
respect the fundamental rights of all migrant workers. It also extends the
scope of equality of treatment between legally resident migrant workers
and national workers beyond the provisions of Convention No. 97 to
ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment
and occupation, social security, trade union and cultural rights, and individual
and collective freedoms for persons who, as migrant workers or
members of their families, are lawfully within the territory of a ratifying
State. It also requires ratifying States to facilitate the reunification of the
families of migrant workers legally residing in their territory.
Migrants in today’s world of work: Global and regional trends
Although migration is a vital dimension of the debate on the future of work,
factors such as technological change, modifications of the employment
relationship and the erosion of the social contract between the State and other
actors will make it increasingly difficult to manage migration for employment.
Indeed, migration for employment is becoming increasingly complex and dynamic
throughout the world, both within and between regions. On certain migration
routes, for example between Asia and the Arab States, or within South East Asia,
the number of international migrants, the great majority of whom are workers,
has tripled since 1990. Temporary migration for employment, particularly of lowskilled
workers, is greater than flows of permanent migrants, which creates real
challenges in relation to governance, particularly on how to ensure decent work
and reduce the costs of migration for this category of migrant workers.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
90
The ILO has been concerned since its creation to protect the rights of migrant
workers, and has adopted measures to reduce the irregularities and abuses from
which they sometimes suffer, while taking fully into account the complex balance
required in social, economic and political terms. The migration for employment
instruments basically call for international cooperation for the promotion of a
rights-based approach. In its 2016 General Survey concerning the instruments
on migrant workers, the Committee of Experts considered that this objective is
as relevant now as it was when the instruments were adopted in 1949 and 1975
even if, having not foreseen current migration developments, certain details in
the provisions appear somewhat outdated. Emphasizing the potential of the
instruments to respond to many of the current migration challenges experienced
by member States, as well as their inherently flexible nature, the Committee of
Experts encouraged the ILO to undertake a comprehensive campaign to promote
the effective implementation and awareness of Conventions Nos 97 and 143, as
well as the implementation of Recommendations Nos 86 and 151, in the context
of its Fair Migration Agenda. The Committee of Experts emphasized, in this
regard, the importance of measures to address the needs of women, as well as
particular groups of migrant workers, such as ethnic and religious minorities, rural
and indigenous populations, youth, persons with disabilities, and people living
with HIV/AIDS.
91
An estimated 90 per cent of world trade passes through maritime or
river transport and requires seafarers to operate the ships. Seafarers are
therefore essential to international trade and the international economic
system. It should be emphasized that maritime transport is the first really
globalized sector. This means that very often seafarers drawn from many
countries work together on board ships that are registered or “flagged” in
yet another country and owned by shipowners who sometimes are not the
same nationality as the ship or any of the seafarers. Under international
law, the country in which a ship is flagged, or in other words the country
whose flag the ship flies, is the country with international responsibility
for establishing and enforcing the necessary measures to ensure safety
at sea, particularly in relation to working conditions, irrespective of the
nationality of the seafarers or the shipowner.
On ships flying the flags of countries that do not exercise effective jurisdiction
and control over them, as required by international law, seafarers
often have to work under unacceptable conditions, to the detriment of
their well-being, health and safety, and the safety of the ships on which
they work. Since seafarers most frequently work outside their home country
and their employers are also often not based in their country, effective
international standards are essential in the sector. Of course, these
standards must also be implemented at the national level, particularly
by governments that have a ship registry and authorize ships to fly their
flags. This is already well recognized in connection with ensuring the
safety and security of ships and protecting the marine environment. It is
also important to emphasize that many shipowners provide seafarers on
their ships with decent working and living conditions. These countries
and shipowners however face unfair competition as they are undercut by
shipowners which operate substandard ships.
As the ship is both their home and their workplace for prolonged periods
of time, the working and living conditions of seafarers are of primary
importance. Moreover, seafarers are exposed to many unique occupational
risks. They also face exposure to extreme weather conditions, as well as
the risk of being abandoned in a foreign country if the shipowner encounters
financial or other difficulties. In addition, contemporary concerns for
enhanced national security and border controls have made it difficult for
seafarers to exercise the right to go ashore for brief periods for their health
and well-being or to travel to join or leave a ship on its voyage.
SEAFARERS
Subjects covered by international labour standards
92
Relevant ILO instruments
To protect the world’s seafarers and their contribution to international
trade, the ILO has adopted over 70 instruments (41 Conventions
and the related Recommendations) at special maritime sessions of the
International Labour Conference. The ILO’s international standards for
this sector establish the minimum conditions for “decent work” and
address almost all aspects of work, including minimum requirements for
work on a ship (such as minimum age, medical fitness and training),
provisions on conditions of employment, such as hours of work and rest,
wages, leave, repatriation, accommodation, recreational facilities, food
and catering, occupational safety and health protection, welfare and social
security protection. In addition, they address issues such as pensions and
an internationally recognized document for seafarers (a seafarers’ identity
document) to assist in border control.
Consolidation of ILO maritime standards
In February 2006, at its 10th Maritime Session, the 94th Session of
the International Labour Conference adopted the Maritime Labour
Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). This Convention revises and consolidates
37 existing Conventions and the related Recommendations. The
MLC, 2006, uses a new format with some updating, where necessary, to
reflect modern conditions and language. In this manner, it sets out, in a
single instrument, the right of the world’s 1.5 million seafarers to decent
conditions of work in almost every aspect of their working and living
conditions, including minimum age, employment agreements, hours of
work and rest, payment of wages, paid annual leave, repatriation, on
board medical care, the use of recruitment and placement services, accommodation,
food and catering, health and safety protection and accident
prevention, and complaint procedures for seafarers.22
The MLC, 2006, applies to a wide range of ships operating on international
and national or domestic voyages, with the exception of those
sailing exclusively in inland waters or waters within, closely adjacent to
sheltered waters or areas where port regulations apply; those engaged in
fishing or similar pursuits; ships of traditional build, such as dhows and
junks; and warships or naval auxiliaries.
To enter into force, the MLC, 2006, needed to be ratified by 30 ILO
member States representing at least 33 per cent of the world gross shipping
tonnage. On 20 August 2012, both prerequisites were satisfied, and
the Convention entered into force 12 months later, on 20 August 2013.
93
As of 30 November 2018, the Convention had already been ratified by
90 countries representing over 90 per cent of the world gross tonnage and
is continuing to be ratified rapidly.
In order to ensure that it has a far-reaching impact at the national level,
and to continue promoting its widespread ratification, the ILO delivers
a wide range of capacity-building activities, such as national tripartite
seminars, and has developed a wide range of resources, including the
website devoted to the MLC, 2006, which contains updated information
on activities under the Convention and a database containing countryspecific
information and guidance on the legislation and measures adopted
for its implementation. In addition, the Maritime Labour Academy, based
at the ILO’s International Training Centre in Turin, organizes workshops
on the Convention, including short-term residential training courses for
inspectors and trainers of maritime labour inspectors, workshops in cooperation
with the international organizations representing seafarers and
shipowners, and workshops for jurists.
In June 2013, the ILO Governing Body established the Special Tripartite
Committee (STC), which is mandated under Article XIII of the MLC,
2006, to keep the working of the Convention under continuous review.
Under the Convention, the Committee has the power to consider and
propose to the International Labour Conference amendments to the Code
of the Convention, and also plays an important consultative role under
Article VII for countries that do not have national shipowners’ or seafarers’
organizations to consult when implementing the MLC, 2006. The
STC held its first meeting in April 2014, when it adopted very important
amendments to the Code to address the issue of the provision of rapid and
effective financial security to compensate seafarers in cases of long-term
personal injury, death and abandonment. The amendments were approved
by the International Labour Conference in June 2014 and entered into
force on 18 January 2017. Two further sets of amendments to the Code of
the Convention have since been adopted in 2016 and 2018. The amendments
are intended to include the prevention of harassment and bullying
in occupational safety and health measures and to respond to the situation
of seafarers held captive as a result of acts of piracy and armed robbery.
In this case, the employment agreement is maintained during the period
of captivity, while wages continue to be paid and the right to repatriation
is maintained. These amendments are due to enter into force over the
coming years.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
94
In parallel, much consideration has been given to the Seafarers’ Identity
Documents Convention (Revised), 2003 (No. 185), with a view to modernizing
its provisions and incorporating the progress that has been made
since the adoption of the Convention in relation to the security of identity
documents. The discussions resulted in the adoption of amendments to
the Annexes of the Convention, which entered into force on 8 June 2017.
The Convention makes a vital contribution to the security of maritime
transport in order to combat terrorist threats, and particularly to respond
to the needs of seafarers in transit or transfer to join a ship or to be repatriated.
It also facilitates shore leave, which is essential for the health and
welfare of seafarers, who often remain on board their ship for several
months at a time.
Finally, in the framework of the Standards Review Mechanism, the STC
began an assessment in April 2018 of the relevance of the maritime instruments
adopted prior to the MLC, 2006. The objective is to ensure the
maintenance of a robust and up-to-date body of international maritime
labour standards adapted to the needs of seafarers for protection and to
ensure the conditions of fair competition for the actors in the maritime
transport industry. In April 2018, the STC placed emphasis on the need to
focus on the ratification of the MLC, 2006, as amended, which is the universally
recognized reference instrument in the maritime transport sector.
95
Over 58 million people are estimated to be engaged in the primary sector
of capture fisheries and aquaculture. This includes 37 per cent engaged
full time, 23 per cent engaged part time, and the rest working as either
occasional fishers or of unspecified status. Over 15 million work full time
on fishing vessels. Fishing involves long hours and strenuous activity in
an often challenging marine environment. Fishers may be using simple or
complex dangerous machinery to catch, sort and store fish. Injury and
fatality rates are much higher in the fishing sector than national averages
for all workers in many countries. In the event of injury or illness at sea,
fishers may be far from professional medical care and must rely on others
on board for such care; medical evacuation services vary considerably
between countries and regions. Fishing vessels may be at sea for long
periods, operating in distant fishing grounds. Fishers often face difficulty
in taking shore leave in foreign ports and problems obtaining visas allowing
them to join or leave the vessel in foreign countries. Relationships
between employers (often fishing vessel owners) and workers are diverse.
There are two main types of payment system in the sector: the flat wage
and the share system. A flat wage is a fixed salary per pay period. Under
a share system contract, fishers earn a percentage of the gross revenue or
profit of the particular fishing trip. Sometimes fishers may be paid a low
minimum wage, with the rest of their pay being based on a share of the
catch or on bonuses (for example, for finding fish). In many countries,
these arrangements place fishers in the category of “self-employed”. To
respond to the needs of workers engaged in fishing, the ILO has developed
specific standards for their protection. In view of the importance of
the fishing industry and the developments that have taken place since the
adoption of fishing standards in 1959 and 1966, respectively, and bearing
in mind that fishing vessels are specifically excluded from the Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006, the International Labour Conference adopted
at its 97th Session the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188), and the
Work in Fishing Recommendation, 2007 (No. 199), which are intended to
set comprehensive standards addressing the living and working conditions
of fishers. Convention No. 188 entered into force on 16 November 2017.
FISHERS
Subjects covered by international labour standards
96
Taking into account the need to revise the Conventions adopted by the
International Labour Conference specifically concerning the fishing sector,
namely the Minimum Age (Fishermen) Convention, 1959 (No. 112),
the Medical Examination (Fishermen) Convention, 1959 (No. 113), the
Fishermen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1959 (No. 114), and the
Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen) Convention, 1966 (No. 126),
Convention No. 188 updates these instruments and aims to reach a greater
number of the world’s fishers, particularly those working on smaller vessels.
The objective of the Convention is to ensure that fishers have decent
conditions of work on board fishing vessels with regard to minimum
requirements for work on board; conditions of service; accommodation
and food; occupational safety and health protection; medical care and
social security. It applies to all commercial fishing, with the exception of
subsistence and recreational fishing; to all vessels, regardless of size; and
to all fishers, including those who are paid on the basis of a share of the
catch.
Among the many improvements, the new Convention:
• raises the minimum age for work on board fishing vessels to 16 years;
• fixes the maximum period of validity of a medical certificate at two years;
• requires the adoption of laws regarding minimum levels of crewing and
defines minimum periods of daily and weekly rest for vessels remaining
at sea for more than three days;
• establishes fishers’ entitlement to repatriation at the cost of the fishing
vessel owner; and
• finally, incorporates port State control provisions modelled on those
applicable in the maritime sector.
Older ILO instrument
Fishermen’s Competency Certificates Convention, 1966 (No. 125)
The Convention requires ratifying States to establish standards of qualification
for certificates of competency for the skipper, mate or engineer
on board a fishing vessel, and to organize and supervise the examination
of candidates to ensure that they have the necessary qualifications. It sets
forth the minimum age and minimum professional experience necessary for
each profession, the competences necessary for specific categories and the
grades of certificates for which candidates have to prove their qualification.
For many countries, the dock industry has become an important link
in the transport network that requires constant upgrading in order to
respond to the demands of international trade. The growing transport
volume, the increasing sophistication of infrastructure, the widespread
use of containers and the intensity of capital investment required for the
development of dock activities have led to profound reforms in the sector.
Once relying on mostly occasional and low-skilled labour, dock work now
requires very highly skilled workers who are increasingly registered workers.
At the same time, there are growing demands on dockworkers to be
more productive and to work in shifts, while the overall dock workforce
has been reduced. Developing countries are finding it difficult to finance
the development of increasingly sophisticated ports. ILO standards help
address these challenges by dealing with two characteristics of dock work:
the need for specific protection due to the safety and health hazards to
which dockworkers are exposed during their work, and the impact of
technological progress and international trade on their employment and
the organization of work in ports.
Relevant ILO instruments
Dock Work Convention, 1973 (No. 137)
This Convention deals with methods of work in docks and their impact
on employment and the organization of the profession. It has two main
objectives: first, to afford protection to dockworkers in their professional
life through measures relating to the conditions of their access to and performance
of work; and second, to foresee and manage in the best possible
manner, through appropriate measures, fluctuations in the work and the
workforce required for it.
Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152)
This Convention requires ratifying States to take measures with a view to
providing and maintaining workplaces, equipment and methods of work
that are safe and without risk of injury to health; providing and maintaining
97
DOCKWORKERS
safe means of access to any workplace; providing the information, training
and supervision necessary to ensure the protection of workers against risks
of accident or injury to health at work; providing workers with personal
protective equipment and clothing, and any life-saving appliances reasonably
required; providing and maintaining suitable and adequate first aid
and rescue facilities; and developing and establishing proper procedures
for any emergency situations that may arise.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
98
99
Indigenous and tribal peoples have their own cultures, ways of life, traditions
and customary laws. Unfortunately, throughout history, lack of
respect for tribal and indigenous cultures has led to numerous instances
of social conflict and bloodshed. Today, the international community has
accepted the principle that the cultures, ways of life, traditions and customary
laws of indigenous and tribal peoples are valuable and need to be
respected and protected, and that indigenous and tribal peoples should
participate in decision-making processes in the country in which they live.
The most recent ILO standards on this subject set out these principles and
provide a framework for governments, organizations of indigenous and
tribal peoples, and non-governmental organizations to ensure the development
of the peoples concerned, with full respect for their needs and desires.
Relevant ILO instruments
The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and the
older Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107), are to
date the only international treaties dealing exclusively with the rights of
indigenous and tribal peoples. Convention No. 169, which is considered
an up-to-date instrument and which revised Convention No. 107, provides
for consultation and participation of indigenous and tribal peoples
with regard to policies and programmes that may affect them. It provides
for the enjoyment of fundamental rights and establishes general policies
regarding indigenous and tribal peoples’ customs and traditions, land
rights, the use of natural resources found on traditional lands, employment,
vocational training, handicrafts and rural industries, social security
and health, education, and cross-border contacts and communication.
The rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in practice
Over the years, many countries have adopted or amended legislation putting
Convention No. 169 into practice. Several Latin American countries,
including the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Peru and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, have recognized
in their Constitutions the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural character
of their respective populations. Some countries have also taken steps to
ensure self-governance, participation and consultation. For example, in
1987, Norway set up the Sameting, a Parliament for the Sami people
with consultative and limited administrative authority. Denmark has set
INDIGENOUS AND TRIBAL PEOPLES
up the Greenland Home Rule authorities so that many local matters may
be governed by and for the Inuit peoples of Greenland. More recently, on
30 August 2012, the Central African Republic became the first African
country to ratify Convention No. 169. In 2018, Luxembourg became the
23rd country to ratify the Convention.
Indigenous peoples and climate change: From victims to agents of change
through decent work
In a report entitled Indigenous peoples and climate change: From victims
to change agents through decent work, the ILO has analysed the situation
of indigenous peoples in a context of climate change. The report suggests
that indigenous peoples are affected in different ways by climate change,
and also by the policies or actions that are aimed at addressing it. At the
same time, it emphasizes that, as agents of change, indigenous peoples are
essential to the success of policies and measures to mitigate and adapt to
climate change, especially their sustainable economic model and traditional
knowledge. The report emphasizes the importance of the Decent Work
Agenda, including Convention No. 169 and the ILO Guidelines for a just
transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for
all, for empowering indigenous women and men, and ensuring that they
can emerge as partners for the achievement of sustainable development
and strong climate action.
Convention No. 169 and peace agreements
On two occasions, the ratification of Convention No. 169 has occurred
as an integral element of peace accords to put an end to an internal armed
conflict that was rooted in the exclusion of indigenous communities. In
Guatemala, the Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace put an end to 36
years of civil war in December 1996. The 1996 Agreement brought into
effect a number of previous accords negotiated over a six-year period, such
as the Agreement on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples, signed
on 31 March 1995 by the Government and the Unidad Revolucionaria
Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG). The peace agreement facilitated the
ratification of Convention No. 169 by Guatemala on 5 June 1996. In
Nepal, the formal end of the armed conflict initiated in February 1996
was reached on 21 November 2006 with the signature of a Comprehensive
Peace Accord between the Government and the Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist). The peace process consisted of various agreements, some of
which included provisions on the ratification of Convention No. 169,
which was ratified by Nepal on 14 September 2007.
Subjects covered by international labour standards
100
101
In most cases, international labour standards have universal value and
apply to all workers and all enterprises. Some standards mentioned earlier
cover specific industries, such as seafaring. Finally there are a number
of standards dealing with work-related issues in very specific sectors of
economic activity (plantations, hotels, restaurants) or concerning specific
groups of workers (nursing personnel, homeworkers).
Relevant ILO instruments
Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110), and its Protocol of 1982
Plantations still constitute an important economic sector in many developing
countries. These instruments cover the recruitment and engagement of
migrant workers and afford protection to plantation workers in respect
of employment contracts, wages, working time, medical care, maternity
protection, employment accident compensation, freedom of association,
labour inspection and housing.
Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 (No. 149)
Due to the growth of health services, many countries lack sufficient numbers
of qualified nursing personnel. Many nurses are migrant workers
who face particular challenges. This Convention requires each ratifying
State to adopt measures appropriate to national conditions to provide
nursing personnel with education and training and with working conditions,
including career prospects and remuneration, which are likely to
attract persons to the profession and retain them in it. Nurses shall enjoy
conditions at least equivalent to those of other workers in the country
with regard to hours of work, weekly rest, paid annual holidays, educational
leave, maternity leave, sick leave and social security.
Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants) Convention, 1991 (No. 172)
Hotels, restaurants and tourism is one of the economic sectors with the
highest growth rate in the world. It is also one of the sectors that creates
the most employment, in view of its high labour coefficient and significant
multiplier effect on employment in other related sectors. However, it has
a reputation of offering poor working conditions for several reasons: the
fragmentation of the sector, with a majority of small and medium-sized
enterprises where the unionization rate is low; the low wages and skills
OTHER SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF WORKERS
102
Subjects covered by international labour standards
requirements; and shift work, night work and seasonal work. With the
objective of improving the working conditions of these workers and bringing
them closer to those prevailing in other sectors, this Convention provides
for reasonable hours of work and contains provisions on overtime,
rest periods and annual leave. It also prohibits the sale and purchase of
employment in hotels and restaurants.
Home Work Convention, 1996 (No. 177)
Homeworkers, the majority of whom are women, are a particularly vulnerable
category of workers on account of their often informal status and
lack of legal protection, their isolation and their weak bargaining position.
The objective of the Convention is to promote equality of treatment
between homeworkers and other wage earners, particularly in relation to
freedom of association, protection against discrimination, occupational
safety and health, remuneration, social security, access to training, minimum
age for admission to work and maternity protection.
103
Working conditions in the health sector
In addition to promoting social health protection for all workers, the ILO supports
better working conditions for health workers through sectoral labour standards
and social dialogue. The shortage of trained health workers coincides with
longer life expectancy, the increasing use of specialized medical technology and
the emergence of new and drug resistant diseases. Meanwhile, hospitals and
other health facilities are rarely considered as workplaces. As the demand for
health services grows and the shortage of qualified health personnel becomes
more severe, working conditions are deteriorating and the quality of health care
may be jeopardized. The critical shortage of workers in the poorest countries is
further exacerbated by wealthier countries offering better working conditions to
migrant health workers. The ILO is collaborating with the WHO to address these
challenges by recognizing health facilities as a unique work environment and
encouraging the improvement of working conditions so that health workers are
encouraged and supported to provide high quality care in their communities.
From sexual exploitation to a job in the hotel sector23
Poverty and the absence of job prospects lead young persons living in the coastal
areas of Madagascar to fall into the trap of the commercial sexual exploitation
of children. The efforts made locally to combat one of the worst forms of child
labour are being supported by an ILO project. Between 2014 and 2016, the ILO,
in collaboration with UNICEF, set up a project to enable young persons who
had fallen into this system to leave it with a view to learning a trade. The young
persons concerned are mainly girls, but also boys who have acted as “procurers”.
They were provided with three months of training in hotel work (waiters, cleaners,
cooks, bar staff), which is a sector where local employers experience difficulties
in recruiting skilled personnel. The theoretical training was supplemented by a
three-month internship in enterprises, which resulted in several trainees being
recruited. One of the beneficiaries of the programme, now aged 22, explains that
she had fallen into the trap of commercial sexual exploitation between the ages
of 15 and 20. From a poor family with five children, she tells of her ordeal and
her meetings with clients for derisory sums, which she has now completely given
up. As a result of the training that she received, she is now a waitress in a hotel
restaurant. She says that she is happy and dreams that in a few years she will
have her own small fast food outlet (known locally as a “gargote”).
3
Regular supervisory system Representations
Complaints
Freedom of association
Application of unratified Conventions
Technical assistance and training
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up
ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization
Centenary Standards Initiative
APPLYING AND PROMOTING
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS
105
For nearly a century, the ILO has been contributing to the progress
made in achieving social justice on the planet. To do so, it applies a
decision-making process that is unique among international governance
instituions. The value of “tripartism”, the principle that lies at the heart
of ILO action, is widely recognized, and this principle is considered to
be the reason for the Organization’s unparalleled impact on the achievement
of rights at work throughout the world. Nevertheless, although the
first stage in the legal protection of workers and employers at the international
level is indeed the adoption of labour standards, supervision
of their application is no less important. The ILO supervisory system is
multidimensional, and is anchored in the Organization’s standards and
principles. Of the many supervisory mechanisms that exist in international
and regional organizations, the specific system established by the ILO to
promote compliance with labour standards is considered to be one of the
most developed and effective.
International labour standards are in fact backed up by supervisory bodies
that are unique at the international level, which help to ensure that
countries implement the Conventions that they ratify. The ILO regularly
examines the application of standards in member States and points out
areas where they could be better applied. If there are any problems in the
application of standards, the ILO seeks to assist countries through social
dialogue and technical assistance.
106
Applying and promoting international labour standards
Once a country has ratified an ILO Convention, it is required to report
regularly on the measures it has taken for its implementation. Every three
years, governments have to provide reports detailing the steps they have
taken in law and practice to apply any of the eight fundamental and four
governance Conventions that they have ratified. For all other Conventions,
reports have to be provided every six years, except for Conventions that
have been “shelved” (which are no longer supervised on a regular basis).
Reports on the application of Conventions may be requested at shorter
intervals. Governments are required to submit copies of their reports to
employers’ and workers’ organizations. These organizations may comment
on the government reports, or send comments directly to the ILO
on the application of Conventions.
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
The Committee of Experts was set up in 1926 to examine the growing
number of government reports on ratified Conventions. Today it is
composed of 20 eminent jurists appointed by the Governing Body for
renewable three-year terms. The experts come from different geographic
regions, legal systems and cultures. The role of the Committee of Experts
is to provide an impartial and technical evaluation of the application of
international labour standards in ILO member States.
When examining the application of international labour standards, the
Committee of Experts makes two kinds of comments to governments:
observations and direct requests. Observations contain comments on fundamental
questions raised by the application of a particular Convention
in a State. These observations are published in the annual report of the
Committee of Experts. Direct requests relate to more technical questions
or requests for further information. They are not published in the report,
but are communicated directly to the governments concerned.24
The annual report of the Committee of Experts consists of three parts.
Part I contains the General Report, which includes comments on compliance
by member States with their Constitutional obligations. Part II contains
observations on the application of international labour standards,
while Part III is a General Survey on a specific subject selected by the ILO
Governing Body (see the section on General Surveys).
REGULAR SUPERVISORY SYSTEM
107
The regular supervisory process
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
The annual report of the Committee of Experts, usually adopted in
December, is published in February the following year and submitted
to the International Labour Conference the following June, where it is
examined by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.
A standing committee of the Conference, the Conference Committee is
made up of Government, Employer and Worker delegates. It examines the
report in a tripartite setting and selects from it a number of observations
for discussion. The governments referred to in these comments are invited
to respond before the Conference Committee and to provide information
on the case. In many cases, the Conference Committee draws up conclusions
recommending that governments take specific steps to remedy a
problem or accept ILO missions or technical assistance. The discussions
and conclusions on the individual cases (normally 24 cases) examined by
the Conference Committee are published in its report. Situations of special
concern are highlighted in special paragraphs of its General Report.
GOVERNMENTS
SUBMIT REPORTS
ON RATIFIED
CONVENTIONS
EMPLOYERS
AND WORKERS MAY
COMMENT
COMMITTEE
OF EXPERTS
REVIEWS REPORTS,
COMMENTS
AND RELATED
DOCUMENTS
COMMITTEE
OF EXPERTS
PUBLISHES AN
OBSERVATION
IN ITS
ANNUAL REPORT
COMMITTEE
OF EXPERTS
SENDS DIRECT
REQUEST TO
GOVERNMENT,
AND EMPLOYERS’
AND WORKERS’
ORGANIZATIONS
CONFERENCE
DISCUSSES
AND ADOPTS
THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE’S
REPORT
IN PLENARY
E W
G
TRIPARTITE COMMITTEE
AT THE CONFERENCE
DISCUSSES
THE REPORT AND
A SELECTION
OF OBSERVATIONS
OR
OR
108
Applying and promoting international labour standards
Impact of the regular supervisory system
Cases of progress noted by the Committee of Experts on the application of
Convention and Recommendation
Since 1964, the Committee of Experts has kept track of the number of
cases of progress in which it has noted changes in law and practice which
have improved the application of a ratified Convention. To date, over
3,000 cases of progress (cases in which the Committee has expressed
“satisfaction”) have been noted.
Since first identifying cases of satisfaction in its reports, the Committee of
Experts has continued to follow the same general criteria. The Committee
expresses satisfaction in cases in which, following comments it has made
on a specific issue, governments have taken measures through either the
adoption of new legislation, an amendment to the existing legislation or a
significant change in the national policy or practice, thus achieving fuller
compliance with their obligations under the respective Conventions. In
expressing its satisfaction, the Committee indicates to governments and
the social partners that it considers the specific matter resolved. The reason
for identifying cases of satisfaction is twofold:
• to place on record the Committee’s appreciation of the positive action
taken by governments in response to its comments; and
• to provide an example to other governments and social partners which
have to address similar issues.
The impact of the regular supervisory system is not just limited to cases of
progress. The Committee of Experts each year examines whether member
States have fulfilled their obligation to submit the instruments adopted to
their legislative bodies for consideration. Even if a country decides not to
ratify a Convention, it may choose to bring its legislation into conformity
with it. Member States regularly review the Committee’s comments on
the application of a Convention in other countries and may amend their
own law and practice so as to avoid similar problems in the application
of a standard or to emulate good practices. Where a Convention has
109
been ratified, the Committee often makes direct requests to governments,
pointing to apparent problems in the application of a standard and giving
the countries concerned time to respond and address these issues before
any comments are published in its report. The Committee’s interventions
facilitate social dialogue by requiring governments to review the application
of a standard and to share this information with the social partners,
who may also provide information. The ensuing social dialogue can lead
to further problem-solving and prevention.
The reports of both the Committee of Experts and the Conference
Committee are available on the Internet to millions of users. Governments
and the social partners thus have an even greater incentive to solve problems
in the application of standards in order to avoid critical comments
by these bodies. Upon request by member States, the International Labour
Office provides substantial technical assistance in drafting and revising
national legislation to ensure that it is in conformity with international
labour standards. In this way, the supervisory bodies play an important
role in preventing problems in the application of standards from arising
in the first place.
110
Applying and promoting international labour standards
The representation procedure is governed by articles 24 and 25 of the
ILO Constitution, under which an industrial association of employers
or of workers has the right to present to the ILO Governing Body a representation
against any member State which, in its view, “has failed to
secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any
Convention to which it is a party”. A three-member tripartite committee
of the Governing Body may be set up to examine the representation and
the government’s response. The report that the committee submits to the
Governing Body sets out the legal and practical aspects of the case, examines
the information submitted and concludes with recommendations.
Prior to the 2000s, where the government’s response was not considered
satisfactory, the Governing Body was entitled to publish the representation
and the response. Over recent years, the reports of the tripartite committees
have been systematically made available to the public on the ILO
website. Moreover, if the government does not take the necessary measures,
the Committee of Experts may be requested to follow up the case or,
in the most serious instances, the case may lead to a complaint, in which
case the Governing Body may decide to establish a Commission of Inquiry.
Finally, representations concerning the application of Conventions Nos 87
and 98 are usually referred for examination to the Committee on Freedom
of Association, in accordance with the procedure for the examination of
representations.
REPRESENTATIONS
Who can made a representation?23
Representations under article 24 of the ILO Constitution may be made by national
and international employers’ and workers’ associations. Individuals cannot make
representations directly to the ILO, but can pass on relevant information to their
workers’ or employers’ organization.
111
The representation procedure
Representations in practice
Greece ratified the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), in 1955.
In 1994, it adopted a law which decentralized the labour inspectorate and
placed it under the responsibility of autonomous prefectural administrations.
The Federation of Associations of Public Servants of the Ministry
of Labour of Greece (FAMIT) subsequently made a representation to the
ILO claiming that the law contravened the principle of Convention No.
81 that labour inspection should be placed under the supervision and
control of a central authority. The tripartite committee set up to examine
this representation agreed and urged the Greek Government to amend
its legislation to comply with the Convention. In 1998, the Government
adopted new laws bringing the labour inspectorate under a central authority
once again. The same year, the Committee of Experts commended the
Greek Government for its “diligence and close attention” to the recommendations
made by the tripartite committee.
REPRESENTATION
BY EMPLOYERS’
OR WORKERS’
ORGANIZATIONS
IS SUBMITTED
TO ILO
ILO INFORMS
THE GOVERNMENT
CONCERNED
AND SUBMITS
REPRESENTATION
TO GOVERNING
BODY
GOVERNING
BODY SENDS
REPRESENTATION
TO COMMITTEE
ON FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION
GOVERNING
BODY DECIDES NOT
TO RECEIVE THE
REPRESENTATION
GOVERNING
BODY MAKES
FINDINGS,
ADOPTS REPORT,
AND PASSES CASE
TO COMMITTEE
OF EXPERTS FOR
FOLLOW-UP
GOVERNING
BODY ASKS
FOR A
COMMISSION
OF INQUIRY
TO DEAL WITH THE
MATTER AS
A COMPLAINT
TRIPARTITE
COMMITTEE ASKS
GOVERNMENT
FOR INFORMATION
AND SUBMITS
REPORT WITH FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR
OR OR
GOVERNING
BODY APPOINTS
TRIPARTITE
COMMITTEE
112
Applying and promoting international labour standards
The complaint procedure is governed by articles 26 to 34 of the ILO
Constitution, under which a complaint may be filed against a member State
for not complying with a ratified Convention by another member State
which has ratified the same Convention, a delegate to the International
Labour Conference or the Governing Body of its own motion. Upon
receipt of a complaint, the Governing Body may establish a Commission
of Inquiry, consisting of three independent members, which is responsible
for carrying out a full investigation of the complaint, ascertaining all the
facts of the case and making recommendations on measures to be taken to
address the problems raised by the complaint. A Commission of Inquiry is
the ILO’s highest-level investigative procedure and is generally set up when
a member State is accused of committing persistent and serious violations
and has repeatedly refused to address them. To date, 13 Commissions of
Inquiry have been established, the most recent of which was established
by the Governing Body in March 2018 following an article 26 complaint
filed against the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
When a country refuses to fulfill the recommendations of a Commission
of Inquiry, the Governing Body can take action under article 33 of the
ILO Constitution. This provision establishes that “[i]n the event of any
Member failing to carry out within the time specified the recommendations,
if any, contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry, or in
the decision of the International Court of Justice, as the case may be, the
Governing Body may recommend to the Conference such action as it may
deem wise and expedient to secure compliance therewith.” Article 33 was
invoked for the first time in the ILO’s history in 2000, when the Governing
Body asked the International Labour Conference to take measures to lead
Myanmar to end the use of forced labour. An article 26 complaint had
been filed against Myanmar in 1996 for violations of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the resulting Commission of Inquiry had
found “widespread and systematic use” of forced labour in the country.
COMPLAINTS
113
The complaint procedure
Complaints in practice
Poland ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise
and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), in 1957. When
martial law was declared in the country in 1981, the Government suspended
the activities of the Solidarnosc trade union and detained or
dismissed many of its leaders and members. After the case had been examined
by the Committee on Freedom of Association, delegates at the 1982
International Labour Conference filed a complaint under article 26 against
Poland. The resulting Commission of Inquiry found grave violations of
both Conventions. Based on the Commission’s conclusions, the ILO and
numerous countries and organizations put pressure on Poland to redress
the situation and, in 1989, the Polish Government gave Solidarnosc legal
status. Lech Walesa, Solidarnosc leader and later President of Poland,
noted that “the Commission of Inquiry created by the ILO after the imposition
of martial law in my country made significant contributions to the
changes which brought democracy to Poland.”25
GOVERNING
BODY FORWARDS
COMPLAINTS
CONCERNING FOA RIGHTS
TO
COMMITTEE ON
FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION
(CFA)
MEMBER
STATE OR
INTERNATIONAL
LABOR CONFERENCE
DELEGATE OR
GOVERNING BODY
INITIATES
COMPLAINT
GOVERNING BODY
MAY APPOINT
A COMMISSION
OF INQUIRY
GOVERNING BODY
MAY TAKE
ACTION UNDER
ARTICLE 33
COMMISSION
OF INQUIRY
INVESTIGATES
COMPLAINT AND
ADOPTS
REPORT WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS
ILO PUBLISHES
REPORT
GOVERNMENT
ACCEPTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR
MAY APPEAL
TO THE
INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE
OR
GOVERNING BODY
NOTES REPORT
AND PASSES CASE
TO COMMITTEE
OF EXPERTS OR CFA
FOR
FOLLOW-UP
114
Applying and promoting international labour standards
Committee on Freedom of Association
Freedom of association and collective bargaining are among the founding
principles of the ILO. Soon after the adoption of Conventions Nos 87 and
98 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, the ILO came to
the conclusion that the principle of freedom of association needed a further
supervisory procedure to ensure compliance with it in countries that
had not ratified the relevant Conventions. As a result, in 1951, the ILO
set up the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) for the purpose
of examining complaints of violations of freedom of association, whether
or not the country concerned had ratified the relevant Conventions.
Complaints may be brought against a member State by employers’ and
workers’ organizations. The CFA is a Governing Body committee, and is
composed of an independent chairperson and three representatives each
of governments, employers and workers. If it decides to receive the case,
it establishes the facts in dialogue with the government concerned. If it
finds that there has been a violation of freedom of association standards
or principles, it issues a report through the Governing Body and makes
recommendations on how the situation could be remedied. Governments
are subsequently requested to report on the implementation of its recommendations.
In cases where the country has ratified the relevant instruments,
legislative aspects of the case may be referred to the Committee of
Experts. The CFA may also choose to propose a “direct contacts” mission
to the government concerned to address the problem directly with government
officials and the social partners through a process of dialogue. In
nearly 70 years of work, the CFA has examined over 3,300 cases. More
than 60 countries on five continents have acted on its recommendations
and have informed it of positive developments with regard to freedom of
association in recent decades.26
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
115
Freedom of association procedure
The Committee on Freedom of Association: An innovative procedure
in international law
Paragraph 14 of the Special procedures for the examination of complaints
alleging violations of freedom of association provides that the mandate of
the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) “consists in
determining whether any given legislation or practice complies with the
principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining laid down
in the relevant Conventions.” The Governing Body has regularly
approved this mandate and in 2009 decided to include it in the
Compendium of rules applicable to the Governing Body. The function of
the CFA is not to formulate general conclusions concerning the trade
union situation in particular countries on the basis of vague general
statements, but simply to evaluate specific allegations relating to
compliance with the principles of freedom of asso-ciation. The object
of the CFA complaint procedure is not to criticize governments, but
rather to engage in a constructive tripartite dialogue to promote respect
for trade union rights in law and practice.
To make a complaint to the Committee, certain conditions of receivability
have to be met. The complainant must indicate clearly that the complaint
is made to the Committee on Freedom of Association; the complaint must
be made by an employers’ or workers’ organization; it must be made in
writing and signed by the representative of a body entitled to make a
complaint. Non-governmental organizations having consultative status
with the ILO are also entitled to make complaints. In terms of
substance, the allegations contained in the complaint must not be of a
purely politi-cal nature; they must be set out clearly and duly supported
with evidence. It is not necessary to have exhausted all the national
procedures, but the CFA may take into account the fact that a case is
under examination by a national jurisdiction. The CFA meets three
times a year in the week preceding the sessions of the Governing
Body.27
E W
G
GOVERNING BODY
APPROVES
COMMITTEE’S
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOLLOW-UP BY
THE COMMITTEE
ON FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION
IF THE GOVERNMENT
HAS RATIFIED
RELEVANT
CONVENTIONS,
THE CASE MAY
ALSO BE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE
OF EXPERTS
DIRECT
CONTACTS
MISSION MAY
BE INITIATED
COMPLAINT
IS SUBMITTED
TO THE
COMMITTEE ON
FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION
BY EMPLOYERS’
OR WORKERS’
ORGANIZATIONS
COMMITTEE REVIEWS COMPLAINT
AND EITHER RECOMMENDS
NO FURTHER ACTION, OR ISSUES
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTS
GOVERNMENT TO KEEP IT INFORMED
116
Applying and promoting international labour standards
• 2010 - Employment instruments
• 2011 - Social security instruments
• 2012 - Fundamental Conventions
• 2013 - Labour relations (public service) and collective bargaining
• 2014 - Minimum wage fixing instruments
• 2015 - Right of association (agriculture) and rural workers’ organizations
• 2016 – Migrant workers instruments
• 2017 – Occupational safety and health instruments
• 2018 – Working time instruments
• (forthcoming 2019) – Social Protection Floors Recommandation
(No. 202)
• (forthcoming 2020) – Instruments relating to the strategic objective
of employment
• (forthcoming 2021) – Instruments on nursing personnel and domestic
workers
L’appLication et La promotion des normes internationaLes du travaiL
118
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING
The ILO does not just supervise the application of ratified Conventions.
It also provides different forms of technical assistance, in which ILO officials
or other experts help countries address problems in legislation and
practice to bring them into line with the obligations under ratified instruments.
Forms of technical assistance include advisory and direct contacts
missions, during which ILO officials meet government officials to discuss
problems in the application of standards with the aim of finding solutions;
and promotional activities, including seminars and national workshops,
with the purpose of raising awareness of standards, developing the capacity
of national actors to use them, and providing technical advice on how
to apply them for the benefit of all. The ILO also provides assistance in
drafting national legislation in line with its standards.
National tripartite mechanisms for the prevention and settlement of
disputes relating to international labour standards promoted by the ILO.
For many years, the ILO has been promoting national tripartite mechanisms in
Latin America for the prevention and settlement of disputes relating to international
labour standards, and particularly concerning freedom of association and
collective bargaining, at the request of governments against which complaints
have been made to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The ILO supervisory
bodies have noted and/or supported the use of such mechanisms and have
encouraged the Office to continue promoting their appropriate development.
These mechanisms have proved to be very useful in preventing and resolving
many disputes relating to freedom of association, and have sometimes offered
a framework for the conclusion of collective agreements. Colombia and Panama
have created commissions of this type with encouraging results. In the Dominican
Repubic, it was decided to create a round-table, the responsibilities of which
include the prevention and appropriate treatment of any dispute relating to
the application of ratified ILO Conventions with a view to finding solutions and
reaching agreements. Experience shows that the following criteria lead to the
effective operation of such bodies:
– Ministries of Labour have to allocate the necessary human and financial
resources for the coordination of the work of conciliation mechanisms, and it
should be possible to coordinate with and invite other ministries and public
institutions to participate in the meetings held to deal with the cases under
examination;
– acceptance of the mediation mechanism must be based on tripartite agreement;
– the most representative organizations of employers and workers and the government
should nominate a permanent national mediator/moderator who has
the confidence of all the parties;
– the conciliation proposals and conclusions adopted in the context of this procedure
must be based on the relevant international labour standards and take
into account the comments of the supervisory bodies;
– a follow-up mechanism for the agreements concluded should be established to
reinforce the confidence of the parties in the mechanism;
– the members mediation mechanisms should also receive special training on
international labour standards and the ILO supervisory system;
– the conciliation procedure must be free of charge and optional, and should not
prevent recourse to the ILO supervisory bodies.
There can be no doubt that the international community has found in these
mechanisms another tool to reinforce social dialogue. The challenge is to “export”
these bodies beyond Latin America. The initiative responds to a modern trend in
the permanent quest for the full application of international labour standards.
117
General Surveys (article 19)
International labour standards are universal instruments adopted by the
international community and reflecting common values and principles on
work-related issues. While member States can choose whether or not to
ratify Conventions, the ILO considers it important to keep track of developments
in all countries, whether or not they have ratified them. Under
article 19 of the ILO Constitution, member States are required to report
at regular intervals, at the request of the Governing Body, on measures
they have taken to give effect to the provisions of certain Conventions or
Recommendations, and to indicate any obstacles which have prevented
or delayed the ratification of a particular Convention.
On the basis of article 19 of the Constitution, the Committee of Experts
publishes an in-depth annual General Survey on the national law and practice
of member States on certain Conventions and/or Recommendations
chosen by the Governing Body. These surveys are established mainly on the
basis of reports received from member States and information transmitted
by employers’ and workers’ organizations. They allow the Committee of
Experts to examine the impact of Conventions and Recommendations,
analyse the difficulties reported by governments in their application and
identify means of overcoming these obstacles.
The most recent General Surveys include:
• 2010 - Employment instruments
• 2011 - Social security instruments
• 2012 - Fundamental Conventions
• 2013 - Labour relations (public service) and collective bargaining
• 2014 - Minimum wage fixing instruments
• 2015 - Right of association (agriculture) and rural workers’ organizations
• 2016 – Migrant workers instruments
• 2017 – Occupational safety and health instruments
• 2018 – Working time instruments
• 2019 – Social Protection Floors Recommendation (No. 202)
• (forthcoming 2020) – Instruments relating to the strategic objective of
employment
• (forthcoming 2021) – Instruments on nursing personnel and domestic
workers
APPLICATION OF UNRATIFIED CONVENTIONS
118
Applying and promoting international labour standards
The ILO does not just supervise the application of ratified Conventions.
It also provides different forms of technical assistance, in which ILO officials
or other experts help countries address problems in legislation and
practice to bring them into line with the obligations under ratified instruments.
Forms of technical assistance include advisory and direct contacts
missions, during which ILO officials meet government officials to discuss
problems in the application of standards with the aim of finding solutions;
and promotional activities, including seminars and national workshops,
with the purpose of raising awareness of standards, developing the capacity
of national actors to use them, and providing technical advice on how
to apply them for the benefit of all. The ILO also provides assistance in
drafting national legislation in line with its standards.
A global network of international labour standards specialists
Many of these technical assistance activities are carried out by ILO international
labour standards specialists who are assigned to ILO offices
located around the world. Standards specialists meet government officials,
employers’ and workers’ organizations to provide assistance with
issues arising in the region, new ratifications of Conventions and reporting
obligations, to discuss solutions to problems raised by the supervisory
bodies and to review draft legislation to ensure that it conforms with
international labour standards. International labour standards specialists
are stationed in:
Africa: Cairo, Dakar, Pretoria, Yaoundé
Americas: Lima, San José, Santiago
Caribbean: Port of Spain
Arab States: Beirut
East Asia: Bangkok
South Asia: New Delhi
Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Budapest, Moscow
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING
119
ILO International Training Centre
The ILO International Training Centre, located in Turin, Italy, has the
mandate of offering training, education and capacity building for governments,
employers’ and workers’ organizations and other national and
international partners for the promotion of decent work and sustainable
development. Each year, the Centre organizes over 450 programmes and
projects for some 12,000 participants from 190 countries. In particular,
the Centre provides training on international labour standards for government
officials, employers, workers, lawyers, judges and legal educators, as
well as specialized courses on labour standards, productivity improvement
and enterprise development, international labour standards and globalization,
and the rights of women workers.
The Turin Centre also hosts the Maritime Labour Academy, a programme
of specialized courses aimed at strengthening the capacity of governments,
shipowners and seafarers in the application of the Maritime Labour
Convention, 2006.
In 1998, the ILO created a special promotional measure to strengthen
the application of the four principles and associated rights that are
considered fundamental for social justice. By adopting the Declaration
on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, ILO
member States recognized that they have an obligation, arising from the
very fact of membership in the Organization, to work towards realizing
certain basic values, namely: freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all
forms of forced or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child
labour; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment
and occupation. This obligation exists even if they have not yet been able
to ratify the eight fundamental Conventions which embody these principles
(including the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention).
At the same time, the ILO itself has an obligation to provide the assistance
needed to achieve these objectives.
Moreover, paragraph 5 of the Declaration emphasizes that labour standards
should not be used for protectionist trade purposes, and that nothing
in the Declaration and its Follow-up shall be invoked or otherwise
used for such purposes. In addition, the comparative advantage of any
country should in no way be called into question by the Declaration and
its Follow-up.
A follow-up mechanism to the Declaration was adopted at the same time
to help determine the needs of States to improve the application of these
principles and rights. Member States are required to submit annual reports
on all the fundamental rights for which they have not ratified the corresponding
Conventions. The reports are examined by the Governing Body,
whose comments are published in the Introduction to the Annual Review
of reports, which examines the implementation of the fundamental principles
and rights at work in the countries concerned, focusing on new
developments and trends.
The Declaration and its Follow-up are designed to promote the principles
and rights that it embodies and to facilitate ratification of the fundamental
Conventions through dialogue and technical assistance. The purpose of the
Declaration and its Follow-up is not to create a parallel set of standards,
but rather to assist member States to achieve full respect for the fundamental
principles and rights at work, including the ratification of all the fundamental
Conventions, as well as the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour
Convention. Once this has been achieved, all member States will be under
the regular ILO supervisory system with respect to these instruments.
120
Applying and promoting international labour standards
ILO DECLARATION ON FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND
RIGHTS AT WORK AND ITS FOLLOW-UP (1998)
Amid widespread uncertainty in the world of work, ranging from financial
turmoil and economic downturn to growing unemployment, informality
and insufficient social protection, in June 2008 the governments, workers
and employers of the International Labour Organization adopted the
Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, which is designed to
strengthen the ILO’s capacity to promote its Decent Work Agenda and
forge an effective response to the growing challenges of the transformation
of the world of work in the context of globalization. It is the third
major statement of principles and policies adopted by the International
Labour Conference since the ILO Constitution of 1919. It builds on the
Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944 and the Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work of 1998. The 2008 Declaration expresses
the contemporary vision of the ILO’s mandate in the era of globalization.
All the Members of the Organization must pursue policies based on the
strategic objectives – employment, social protection, social dialogue and
rights at work. At the same time, it emphasizes a holistic and integrated
approach by recognizing that these objectives are “inseparable, interrelated
and mutually supportive” and the role of international labour standards
as a useful means of achieving them all.
The Declaration also emphasizes the need to promote the ILO’s standards
policy as a cornerstone of ILO activities by enhancing its relevance to
the world of work, as well as ensuring the role of standards as a useful
means of achieving the constitutional objectives of the Organization. The
Declaration specifies that how member States achieve the ILO’s strategic
objectives is a question that must be determined by each Member subject
to its existing international obligations and the fundamental principles
and rights at work with due regard, among others, to the principles and
provisions of international labour standards. The Declaration also recalls
that the violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot
be invoked or otherwise used as a legitimate comparative advantage and
that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes.
121
ILO DECLARATION ON SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR A FAIR
GLOBALIZATION (2008)
122
Applying and promoting international labour standards
Finally, the Declaration includes a follow-up mechanism to ensure the
means by which the Organization will assist the Members in their efforts
to promote the Decent Work Agenda, including a review of the ILO’s institutional
practices and governance; regular discussions by the International
Labour Conference in response to the situation and needs in member
States and to assess the results of ILO activities; voluntary country reviews,
technical assistance and advisory services; and strengthening research
capacities, information collection and sharing.
123
The Standards Initiative is one of the seven Centenary Initiatives that has
been implemented in the run-up to of the ILO’s centenary year in 2019.
It has a dual objective:
• to enhance the relevance of international labour standards through a
standards review mechanism; and
• to consolidate tripartite consensus on an authoritative supervisory system.
1. Standards Review Mechanism (SRM)
The SRM is an in-built mechanism of the ILO Standards Policy to ensure
that the ILO has a clear, robust and up-to-date body of international
labour standards that respond to the changing patterns of the world
of work, for the purpose of the protection of workers and taking into
account the needs of sustainable enterprises (see section 1, Updating international
labour standards).
2. A consolidated tripartite consensus on an authoritative supervisory system
Its implementation began with a request by the Governing Body in
March 2015 that the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts and the
Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association jointly prepare
a report on the inter-relationship, functioning and possible improvement
of the various supervisory procedures related to articles 22, 23, 24 and
26 of the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom
of association.
At its March 2017 session, the Governing Body adopted a work plan
and timetable for the strengthening of the supervisory system, including
ten proposals grouped under four focus areas. The ten proposals cover a
broad range of topics, such as: the relationship between the ILO supervisory
bodies, the streamlining of reporting, information-sharing with
organizations and legal certainty. The work plan is now being implemented.
The Standards Initiative is spearheading current international labour
standards policy. This policy aims to strengthen the role of international
labour standards in advancing the key objective of the Organization of
furthering social justice through the promotion of decent work. To achieve
this aim, the Standards Policy is also informing efforts to:
• achieve greater visibility of international labour standards; and
• reach out to constituents through technical assistance, technical cooperation
and capacity building.
CENTENARY INITIATIVE ON INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
STANDARDS
4 Key ILO bodies and documents
Notes
RESOURCES
“We cannot develop at the expense of social justice. We cannot compete
without a floor of basic human standards. If this is true inside our own
society, it is true for the world as a whole.”
Nelson Mandela, President of the African National Congress, 199428
As this booklet has tried to show, international labour standards
are important tools for ensuring that the global economy provides
benefits and opportunities for all. From freedom of association to social
security, from combating child labour to promoting vocational training,
international labour standards provide for dignified and decent working
conditions and related economic benefits at the national and enterprise
levels. The supervisory system ensures that countries respect their obligations
under the Conventions they have ratified and, more generally, their
obligations under the ILO Constitution.
The international labour standards system continues to grow and develop
in response to current global needs. There have been many cases of progress
to which the international labour standards system has contributed.
But there is much work left to do. While the international labour standards
system is primarily a tool to be used by national governments and
employers’ and workers’ organizations, the wider public can play a role as
well. Individuals, non-governmental organizations, enterprises and activists
can raise awareness of the system, encourage their governments to
ratify Conventions and work with the appropriate employers’ and workers’
organizations to identify problems in the application of standards. It
is hoped that this introduction to the standards-related work of the ILO
will not only empower ILO constituents, but also allow society as a whole
to make use of these powerful tools for development.
The following pages provide an overview of some of the most important
documents and sources of further information on international labour
standards.
126
Resources
• Conventions and Recommendation
• ILO Constitution
• Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations
Annual report containing:
General Report: comments on compliance by member States with reporting
obligations, cases of progress and the relationship between international
labour standards and the multilateral system (Report III (Part 1A))
Observations: comments on the application of Conventions in ratifying
States (Report III (Part 1A))
General Survey: examination of law and practice in a particular subject area
in member States that have or have not ratified the relevant Conventions
(Report III (Part 1B))
• Report of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
Report containing:
General Report
Examination of individual cases
Available in the Provisional Record of the International Labour Conference
and published separately as Extracts from the Record of Proceedings of
the International Labour Conference.
• Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association
Published three times a year as a Governing Body document and in the
ILO Official Bulletin.
• Reports of committees established to examine representations (art. 24)
Published in Governing Body documents
• Reports of Commissions of Inquiry (art. 26)
Published in Governing Body documents and in the ILO Official Bulletin
All of the above are available in the NORMLEX database at: www.ilo.
org/normlex
KEY ILO BODIES AND DOCUMENTS
127
• Governing Body documents, including documents of the Legal Issues and
International Labour Standards Section, available at: www.ilo.org/gb/
lang--en/index.htm
• International Labour Conference documents, including preparatory reports
for the adoption of Conventions and Recommendations, available at:
www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/lang--eng/index.htm
• Documents under the Follow-up to the Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work
Available at:
www.ilo.org/declaration/follow-up/annualreview/annualreports/lang--en/
index.htm
ILO documents are also available through ILO offices and depositary
libraries.
Selected publications
A selection of publications on the various subjects covered by international
labour standards and the ILO supervisory system is available through the
ILO website on international labour standards. These publications cover
the following subjects, among others:
– General works on international labour standards
– ILO standard-setting activities and the supervisory system
– Freedom of association and collective bargaining
– Child labour and forced labour
– Seafarers and maritime labour
– Maternity protection
– Informal economy
– Trade and workers’ rights
– Labour administration and inspection
– Equality of treatment
128
Resources
• See the labour standards website under “Publications” at the following
address:
www.ilo.org/global/standards/information-resources-and-publications/
publications/lang--en/index.htm
Internet resources
• NORMLEX is a trilingual database (English, French and Spanish) which
brings together information on international labour standards (such as
information on ratifications, reporting requirements, comments of the
ILO supervisory bodies, etc.), as well as on national labour and social
security legislation. It has been designed to provide full and easily usable
information on these subjects.
NATLEX is a trilingual database (English, French and Spanish – as well
as very many texts in the original language) on labour, social security and
human rights law. It includes nearly 90,000 legislative texts from 196
countries and over 160 territories, provinces and other entities.
These databases are accessible through the international labour standards
website at:
www.ilo.org/normes
129
NOTES
1 ILO, A vision statement by Guy Ryder, Director-General of the ILO, Geneva, 2016.
2 ILO, World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2018, Geneva, 2018.
3 ILO, World Employment and Social Outlook: Greening with jobs, Geneva, 2018; International
Institute of Labour Studies (IILS), World of Work Report 2013: Repairing the economic and
social fabric, Geneva, ILO, 2013.
4 ILO, Transitioning from the informal to the formal economy, Report V(2), International Labour
Conference, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014.
5 See https://www.ilo.org/empent/areas/business-helpdesk/lang--en/index.htm
6 IILS, Social dimensions of free-trade agreements, ILO, 2013; see also, C. Doumbia-Henry
and E. Gravel, “Free trade agreements and labour rights: Recent developments”, International
Labour Review, Vol. 145 (No. 3), pp. 185-206.
7 International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union
Rights, Brussels, 2017.
8 ILO and International Finance Corporation (IFC), Better Work Jordan Annual Report 2017:
An industry and compliance review.
9 Summary based on T. El-Rayyes, Multi-employer collective bargaining in Jordan: The case
of the garment industry (forthcoming).
10 ILO, Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage, Geneva,
2017.
11 ILO, Global estimates of child labour: Results and trends, 2012-2016, Geneva, 2017.
12 Understanding Children’s Work (UCW), Understanding the Brazilian success in
reducing child labour: Empirical evidence and policy lessons, Rome, 2011.
13 M. Oelz, S. Olney and M. Tomei, Equal pay: An introductory guide, Geneva, ILO, 2013.
14 ILO, Review of the core elements of the Global Employment Agenda, GB.286/ESP/1(rev),
Governing Body, 286th Session, Geneva, March 2003.
15 ILO, Learning and training for work in the knowledge society, Report IV(1), International
Labour Conference, Geneva, 91st Session, 2003, p. 4 ; see also, World Bank, World Development
Report 2005: A better investment climate for everyone, Washington DC, pp. 137-40.
16 See ILO, Final report: Tripartite Meeting of Experts to Examine the Termination of Employment
Convention, 1982 (No. 158), and the Termination of Employment Recommendation,
1982 (No. 166), Geneva, 18–21 April 2011, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/
groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_165165.
pdf; and Report and outcome of the Tripartite Meeting of Experts to Examine the
Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) and the Termination of Employment
Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166), Governing Body, 312th Session, November 2011, GB.312/
LILS/6.
17 See the website of the World Day for Safety and Health at Work 2018, at: https://www.ilo.org/
safework/events/safeday/lang--en/index.htm
18 R. Silva and M. Humblet, Standards for the XXIst century: Social security, Geneva, ILO, 2002.
19 ILO, World Social Protection Report: Universal social protection to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals, 2017-2019, Geneva, 2017, pp. 27 et seq., and Annex IV, Table B.5.
20 ILO, ILO Global estimates on migrant workers and migrant domestic workers: Results and
methodology, Geneva, 2015.
21 ILO, Addressing governance challenges in a changing labour migration landscape, Report IV,
International Labour Conference, 106th Session, Geneva, 2017.
22 See https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/maritime-labour-convention/lang--en/index.htm
23 See the website of the ILO Sectoral Activities Department (SECTOR), hotels, catering and
tourism, at: https://www.ilo.org/global/industries-and-sectors/hotels-catering-tourism/lang--en/
index.htm
24 See ILO, Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and
Recommendations, revised edition, Geneva, 2012.
25 ILO, Promoting better working conditions: A guide to the international labor standards system,
ILO Office, Washington, DC, 2003, p. 29.
26 E. Gravel, I. Duplessis and B. Gernigon, The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact
over 50 years, Geneva, ILO, 2001.
27 See ILO, Freedom of Association: Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of
Association, sixth edition, Geneva, 2018, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/
public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_632659.pdf
28 N. Mandela, “The continuing struggle for social justice”, in Visions of the future of social justice,
Essays on the occasion of the ILO’s 75th anniversary, Geneva, ILO, 1994, p. 184.
Document No. 61
Constitution of the ILO, articles 22–34
r Constitution
of the International
Labour Organization
International Labour Office, Geneva, 2021
22
Article 22
Annual reports on ratified Conventions
Each of the Members agrees to make an annual report to the
International Labour Office on the measures which it has taken to give effect
to the provisions of Conventions to which it is a party. These reports shall be
made in such form and shall contain such particulars as the Governing Body
may request.
Article 23
Examination and communication of reports
1. The Director-General shall lay before the next meeting of the
Conference a summary of the information and reports communicated to
him by Members in pursuance of articles 19 and 22.
2. Each Member shall communicate to the representative
organizations recognized for the purpose of article 3 copies of the
information and reports communicated to the Director-General in
pursuance of articles 19 and 22.
23
Article 24
Representations of non-observance of Conventions
In the event of any representation being made to the International
Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that
any of the Members has failed to secure in any respect the effective
observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the
Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government
against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such
statement on the subject as it may think fit.
Article 25
Publication of representation
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the
government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to
be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to
publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it.
Article 26
Complaints of non-observance
1. Any of the Members shall have the right to file a complaint with the
International Labour Office if it is not satisfied that any other Member is
securing the effective observance of any Convention which both have ratified
in accordance with the foregoing articles.
2. The Governing Body may, if it thinks fit, before referring such a
complaint to a Commission of Inquiry, as hereinafter provided for,
communicate with the government in question in the manner described in
article 24.
3. If the Governing Body does not think it necessary to communicate
the complaint to the government in question, or if, when it has made such
communication, no statement in reply has been received within a reasonable
time which the Governing Body considers to be satisfactory, the Governing
Body may appoint a Commission of Inquiry to consider the complaint and to
report thereon.
24
4. The Governing Body may adopt the same procedure either of its
own motion or on receipt of a complaint from a delegate to the Conference.
5. When any matter arising out of article 25 or 26 is being considered
by the Governing Body, the government in question shall, if not already
represented thereon, be entitled to send a representative to take part in the
proceedings of the Governing Body while the matter is under consideration.
Adequate notice of the date on which the matter will be considered shall be
given to the government in question.
Article 27
Cooperation with Commission of Inquiry
The Members agree that, in the event of the reference of a complaint to
a Commission of Inquiry under article 26, they will each, whether directly
concerned in the complaint or not, place at the disposal of the Commission
all the information in their possession which bears upon the subject matter
of the complaint.
Article 28
Report of Commission of Inquiry
When the Commission of Inquiry has fully considered the complaint, it
shall prepare a report embodying its findings on all questions of fact relevant
to determining the issue between the parties and containing such
recommendations as it may think proper as to the steps which should be
taken to meet the complaint and the time within which they should be taken.
Article 29
Action on report of Commission of Inquiry
1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall
communicate the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the Governing Body
and to each of the governments concerned in the complaint, and shall cause
it to be published.
2. Each of these governments shall within three months inform the
Director-General of the International Labour Office whether or not it accepts
the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission and if not,
25
whether it proposes to refer the complaint to the International Court of
Justice.
Article 30
Failure to submit Conventions or Recommendations
to competent authorities
In the event of any Member failing to take the action required by
paragraphs 5(b), 6(b) or 7(b)(i) of article 19 with regard to a Convention or
Recommendation, any other Member shall be entitled to refer the matter to
the Governing Body. In the event of the Governing Body finding that there
has been such a failure, it shall report the matter to the Conference.
Article 31
Finality of decisions of the International Court of Justice
The decision of the International Court of Justice in regard to a
complaint or matter which has been referred to it in pursuance of article 29
shall be final.
Article 32
Effect of decisions of the International Court of Justice on findings or
recommendations of Commission of Inquiry
The International Court of Justice may affirm, vary or reverse any of the
findings or recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, if any.
Article 33
Failure to carry out recommendations of Commission of Inquiry or the
International Court of Justice
In the event of any Member failing to carry out within the time specified
the recommendations, if any, contained in the report of the Commission of
Inquiry, or in the decision of the International Court of Justice, as the case
may be, the Governing Body may recommend to the Conference such action
as it may deem wise and expedient to secure compliance therewith.
26
Article 34
Compliance with recommendations of Commission of Inquiry or the
International Court of Justice
The defaulting government may at any time inform the Governing Body
that it has taken the steps necessary to comply with the recommendations of
the Commission of Inquiry or with those in the decision of the International
Court of Justice, as the case may be, and may request it to constitute a
Commission or Inquiry to verify its contention. In this case the provisions of
articles 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 shall apply, and if the report of the Commission
of Inquiry or the decision of the International Court of Justice is in favour of
the defaulting government, the Governing Body shall forthwith recommend
the discontinuance of any action taken in pursuance of article 33.
Document No. 62
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), Improvements in the standardsrelated
activities of the ILO: Initial implementation of the
interim plan of action to enhance the impact of the
standards system, March 2008, paras 42–79
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
301st Session
Governing Body Geneva, March 2008
Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards LILS
FOR DECISION
SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Improvements in the standards-related
activities of the ILO: Initial implementation
of the interim plan of action to enhance the
impact of the standards system
Executive summary
The main purpose of this paper is to report on the initial progress made in the implementation of the interim plan of action
for the standards strategy approved by the Governing Body to enhance the impact of the standards system.
When it approved the interim plan of action at its 300th Session (November 2007), the Governing Body agreed to postpone
the implementation of certain aspects of its first (standards policy) and second (supervisory system) components until after the
discussion on the strengthening of the ILO’s capacity at the Conference in June. This applied in particular to the organization of
tripartite consultations on the first component, which the present paper proposes to initiate no later than November 2008.
With respect to standards policy, the paper presents a progress report on the strengthened promotion of the ratification and
effective implementation of the priority and recently adopted Conventions. As far as the labour inspection Conventions are
concerned, the paper recalls that their promotion is an integral part of the strategy to modernize and reinforce labour inspection
that the Office has been requested to develop and implement. For the employment policy and tripartite consultation
Conventions, the paper proposes a targeted approach to countries. Regarding the four most recently adopted Conventions
(Nos 185, 187, 188 and the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC)), the paper indicates the main elements of the
promotional strategy adopted in each case, important action that has been taken in this respect and technical cooperation and
assistance needs.
With respect to the dynamics of the supervisory system, the paper provides an overview of the links between the various
supervisory procedures relating to ratified Conventions (articles 22, 24 and 26 of the Constitution) and the special procedure for
the examination of complaints alleging infringements of trade union rights. The overview focuses on historical and procedural
matters. Within this framework, the overview endeavours to provide information on the historical development of the supervisory
system, the main features of each procedure and the links that have been established between procedures. The objective of the
exercise is to provide constituents with all the necessary explanations on the supervisory system as a whole to ensure a clear
understanding of its linkages. The overview also highlights the important role of the Governing Body in ensuring coordination
between the various procedures.
With respect to enhancing the impact of the standards system through technical cooperation, the paper provides a brief
update of the activities carried out since the approval of the interim plan of action, and particularly the finalization of the good
practice guide on promoting international labour standards through technical cooperation, which will be disseminated soon.
With respect to enhancing access to and the visibility of the standards system, the paper describes the two main steps to
be taken for the implementation of a comprehensive online reporting system aimed at facilitating the communication of reports
by member States: (i) electronic reporting facilities to be made available for this year’s reporting cycle; (ii) consolidated access
for each member State in one single application to all the information concerning reporting cycles and the comments of the
Committee of Experts, with the possibility of replying to these comments and completing all the report forms directly online.
Recent activities relating to the International Labour Standards Department’s web site and databases and the steps taken to
increase the visibility of international labour standards for the widest possible audience are also described.
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 1
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
12 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc
2.1. Overview of the ILO supervisory system
2.1.1. Main developments in the ILO supervisory
system from 1919 onwards
42. The constitutional provisions relating to supervision of the application of ratified
Conventions – the obligation to make annual reports on measures taken to give effect to
ratified Conventions and the procedures for the presentation of complaints and
representations – have been in place since they were first set out in the 1919 Constitution.
Nevertheless, the supervisory system has evolved substantially over the years, mainly
through the decisions taken by the Conference and the Governing Body. In addition, the
supervisory bodies have taken a number of decisions relating to their own methods of work
and procedure.
43. The first important development was the establishment in 1926 of the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards and the CEACR through the same Conference
resolution. 15 When the ILO was first created, it had been thought that supervision of the
application of ratified Conventions would be carried out by the Conference itself through
the summary of annual reports that the Director-General would lay before it. However,
during its first six years of existence, the Conference as a whole was not able to take
cognizance of the summary, as it was not in a position to do a thorough examination. 16
Recognition of this gave rise to the need for specific machinery to undertake such an
examination.
44. At the time, the distinction was emphasized between the procedure for the examination of
reports submitted by member States and the procedures concerning complaints and
representations. The annual reports were presented as constituting a means of providing
and sharing information among member States; the procedure for their examination
therefore differed essentially from the representation and complaint procedures. Indeed,
under the terms of the above Conference resolution, the mandate of the Committee of
Experts was to make “the best and fullest use of the information contained in the reports
rendered by the State Members”.
45. The submission of the first two representations in 1924 and 1931 raised a number of
practical questions about the modalities of the procedure embodied in the Constitution. It
was felt that to safeguard both the rights of industrial associations and the freedom of
action of the Governing Body, some rules were needed. In 1932, the Governing Body
therefore adopted Standing Orders concerning the application of the representation
procedure. 17 In the course of the discussion leading up to the adoption of these rules,
members of the Governing Body emphasized the need to distinguish clearly between the
representation procedure and the complaint procedure.
46. The next important development in the supervisory system occurred through the 1946
amendments to the Constitution. Several significant changes were introduced in articles 19
15 Resolution concerning the methods by which the Conference can make use of the reports
submitted under Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles, ILC, Eighth Session (1926), Vol. I,
Appendix VII, p. 429; in accordance with the resolution, the two committees were named
respectively “Committee of the Conference” and “Committee of Experts”.
16 See Note prepared by the Office, ILC, Eighth Session (1926), Vol. I, Appendix V, p. 395.
17 The Standing Orders concerning the representation procedure were amended in 1938, 1980 and,
more recently, in 2004.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 13
and 22, and particularly: (i) the obligation to report on measures taken to submit newly
adopted instruments to the competent national authorities; (ii) the obligation to submit
information and reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations when so
requested by the Governing Body; (iii) the obligation to communicate reports and
information under articles 19 and 22 to representative employers’ and workers’
organizations. The terms of reference of the Conference Committee and the CEACR were
revised to reflect the first two obligations. Other changes were also made to the complaint
procedure relating to article 26.
47. The third major development in the supervisory system took place in 1950. Following the
adoption of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the ILO, in agreement with the Economic and Social Council
of the United Nations (ECOSOC), established a procedure for the examination of
allegations concerning the infringement of trade union rights, including a new supervisory
body: the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association. It was
also agreed that all allegations regarding infringements of trade union rights received by
the United Nations against ILO member States would be forwarded by ECOSOC to the
Governing Body. The purpose of the new procedure was to provide facilities for impartial
and authoritative investigation of questions of fact raised by allegations of infringements of
trade union rights. In view of the fact that the principle of freedom of association was
enshrined in the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia, as well as its
importance for the tripartite structure of the ILO, allegations concerning infringements of
trade union rights could be made against all ILO member States, whether or not they had
ratified the relevant Conventions. On the other hand, no allegations could be referred to the
Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association without the consent
of the government concerned. 18 It was emphasized that the new arrangements would not
in any way replace the existing constitutional provisions concerning representations and
complaints.
48. In 1951, the Governing Body went on to establish the Committee on Freedom of
Association (CFA). Initially, the examination of complaints by the CFA was intended to
determine whether the allegations warranted further examination by the Governing Body
and, where it was so determined, to attempt to secure the consent of the government
concerned to the referral of such allegations to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation
Commission on Freedom of Association. The examination of allegations by the CFA,
unlike the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission, did not require the consent of the
government concerned. The CFA rapidly became the main body responsible for examining
allegations of violations of freedom of association for a number of reasons, including: the
difficulty in obtaining the consent of government to the referral of matters to the Fact-
Finding and Conciliation Commission; the formal nature of the investigation carried out by
the latter; and substantial developments in the procedure of the CFA, which led to a
broadening of the examination of complaints by the CFA. To date, the CFA has examined
around 2,600 complaints, whereas the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission has only
examined six.
49. Following the establishment of the special procedure on freedom of association, the
developments that have occurred in the supervisory system have related to the operation of
existing supervisory arrangements.
18 A compromise was thus reached between proponents of the universality of ILO action in respect
of all its Members in relation to freedom of association and those who considered that the ILO could
only intervene on the basis of the ratification of the relevant Conventions.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
14 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc
50. In the mid-1950s, the first decisions were taken to allow the CEACR and the Conference
Committee to deal with their increasing workload. Reference should be made to two such
decisions. First, a certain division of labour was progressively established between the
Conference Committee and the CEACR. At the beginning, both Committees examined
successively all the issues arising out of annual reports. However, in 1955, the Conference
Committee adopted the “principle of selectivity” 19 so that it could concentrate only on
cases in which the CEACR had drawn attention to definite discrepancies between the terms
of ratified Conventions and national law and practice. Second, in 1959, the Governing
Body decided to lengthen the reporting cycle from one to two years.
51. Starting in the 1960s, supervision of the application of ratified Conventions, which had
hitherto been carried out mainly through the regular supervisory procedure, began to see
the more frequent use of complaint and representation procedures. In 1961, a complaint
was lodged by one member State against another, leading to the establishment of the first
Commission of Inquiry. As of 1965, employers’ and workers’ organizations began to have
recourse more frequently to the representation procedure. A total of 24 complaints and 123
representations have been lodged to date.
52. In addition to further adjustments to reporting arrangements, the main development in the
1970s was the increased participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the
supervisory procedures. In 1971 and 1977, the Conference adopted two resolutions
reinforcing tripartism in all ILO activities, including supervision of the application of
international labour standards. 20 These resolutions prompted various measures to
encourage greater participation by employers’ and workers’ organizations in the
supervisory procedures. Moreover, Convention No. 144 was adopted in 1976 with a view
to reinforcing the involvement of employers’ and workers’ organizations at the national
level in all ILO standards-related activities, including the drawing up of reports by member
States under article 22. When, in 1976, the Governing Body decided to further lengthen the
reporting cycle for Conventions (except for the most important Conventions) from two to
four years, it approved a number of safeguards to ensure that the introduction of a longer
reporting cycle did not weaken the effectiveness of the supervisory system. These
measures included consideration by the CEACR of comments sent directly to the Office by
employers’ and workers’ organizations even in years when no report was due.
Modifications to the reporting cycle were again made in 1976 and 1993. 21
53. Following the Report of the Director-General to the 81st Session of the Conference
(1994), 22 the Governing Body has regularly discussed the working of the supervisory
system within the overall framework of improvements to ILO standards-related activities
with a view to strengthening the efficiency and impact of the supervisory mechanisms. An
19 ILC, Record of Proceedings, 38th Session, 1955, p. 582, paras 6–7.
20 Resolution concerning the strengthening of tripartism in the overall activities of the International
Labour Organisation, ILC, 56th Session, June 1971; resolution concerning the strengthening of
tripartism in ILO supervisory procedures of international standards and technical co-operation
programmes, ILC, 63rd Session, June 1977.
21 See GB.298/LILS/4, paras 31–32, for a summary of the various adjustments to reporting
arrangements, including the reporting cycle, decided on by the Governing Body.
22 Defending values, promoting change: Social justice in a global economy: An ILO agenda, Report
of the Director-General (Part I), ILC, 81st Session, 1994.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 15
overview of the related discussions and decisions was presented to the Governing Body at
its 292nd Session (March 2005). 23
2.1.2. Overview of the specific features of each
of the supervisory procedures
54. The supervisory system consists of several different procedures, each with a well-defined
purpose. In the first place, the regular supervisory procedure, based on the reports
submitted regularly by member States, ensures the continuous assessment of the
application by member States (difficulties and progress) of ratified international labour
Conventions. It combines the CEACR’s objective examination of the reports submitted
with tripartite dialogue in the Conference Committee. Despite the lengthening of the
reporting cycle, this continuity has been preserved, particularly by making the necessary
arrangements for the active participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations through
the submission of comments. Second, the special supervisory procedures, which are based
on the various types of complaints, focus on specific problems as they arise and are mainly
initiated by employers’ and workers’ organizations. The main purpose is to resolve
particular cases, generally involving complex issues of fact and law that call for close
examination by a specially convened body. These special supervisory procedures each
have specific mandates and attributes. The representation and complaint procedures
address allegations of non-observance of ratified Conventions. The representation
procedure permits a relatively speedy resolution of the case by a tripartite body, while the
procedure for the examination of a complaint by a Commission of Inquiry under article 26
of the Constitution is more solemn and may eventually result in important measures under
article 33 of the Constitution. The scope of the special procedure on freedom of association
is broader, as it can be invoked whether or not the country concerned has ratified the
relevant Conventions and the allegations are examined in the light of the principles of
freedom of association.
55. The following table is intended to provide a schematic overview of the main features
differentiating the various supervisory procedures. 24
23 See GB.292/LILS/7, paras 22–34.
24 All the supervisory procedures are described in the Handbook of procedures relating to
international labour Conventions and Recommendations, revised edition, 2006. Further details on
the special procedure concerning freedom of association can be found, in particular, in Annex I of
the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing
Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, 2006.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
16 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.do
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified
Conventions
Representations alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom
of association
Constitutional basis Articles 22 and 23 Articles 24 and 25 Articles 26 to 29 and 31 to
34
Principle of freedom of association embodied in the
Preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Philadelphia
Other legal basis (i) Conference resolution of 1926; (ii) article 7 of
the Conference Standing Orders; (iii) decisions of
the Governing Body; (iv) decisions by the
supervisory bodies concerning their methods of
work and procedure
Standing Orders concerning
the representation procedure
adopted by the Governing
Body (last modified at its 291st
Session, November 2004)
Governing Body has left the
determination of the
procedure to the competent
supervisory body
(i) Provisions adopted by common consent by the
Governing Body and the UN Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) in January and February 1950; (ii)
decisions taken by the Governing Body; (iii) decisions
adopted by the supervisory bodies themselves
Initiation of the
procedure
Obligation of Members to provide reports
(article 22) on the measures taken to give effect
to ratified Conventions, in accordance with the
report form and the reporting cycle determined by
the Governing Body
Comments submitted by employers’ and workers’
organizations (article 23)
In 2006, a total of 2,935 reports were requested:
64% of these reports were requested within the
reporting cycle (2.8% were first reports); 36% of
reports were requested out of the reporting cycle,
mainly because they were overdue, although
3.1% were requested by the supervisory bodies
for other reasons
Representation made by an
industrial association of
employers or workers alleging
failure by a Member to secure
effective observance of a
ratified Convention
123 representations have been
submitted to date
Complaint by a Member
alleging failure by another
Member to secure effective
observance of any
Convention which both have
ratified
The Governing Body also
may adopt the same
procedure either of its own
motion or on receipt of a
complaint from a delegate to
the Conference
24 complaints have been
submitted to date
(i) Initiation of the procedure:
Complaints lodged with the Office against an ILO
Member, either directly or through the UN, either by
organizations of workers or employers or by
governments
Complaints may be entertained whether or not the
country concerned has ratified the freedom of
association Conventions
(ii) Initiation of the procedure – specific
conditions:
Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission:
Complaints may be lodged against a Member of the
UN which is not a Member of the ILO
Complaints which the Governing Body, or the
Conference acting on the report of its Credentials
Committee or ECOSOC, considers it appropriate to
refer to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission
In principle, no complaint may be referred to the
Commission without the consent of the Government
concerned
Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA):
Referral, proposed unanimously by the Credentials
Committee of the Conference and decided upon by the
Conference, concerning an objection as to the
composition of a delegation to the Conference
c
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 17
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified
Conventions
Representations alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom
of association
Competent
supervisory bodies
Committee of Experts
on the Application of
Conventions and
Recommendations
(CEACR) (1926
Conference
resolution)
Conference
Committee on the
Application of
Standards (1926
Conference
resolution)
Tripartite committees of the
Governing Body (Standing
Orders concerning the
procedure for the examination
of representations)
Commissions of Inquiry
(article 26, para. 3)
CFA (Governing Body
decision of 1951, 117th
Session)
Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of
Association (1950
decisions of the
Governing Body (110th
Session) and of
ECOSOC accepting the
services of the ILO and
the Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission
on behalf of the UN)
Nature and mandate Standing body
To examine annual
reports (article 22) on
measures taken to
give effect to ratified
Conventions
To make a report that
is submitted by the
Director-General to
the Governing Body
and the Conference
(Governing Body
decision, 103rd
Session, 1947)
Standing committee of
the Conference
To consider measures
taken by Members to
give effect to ratified
Conventions
To submit a report to
the Conference
(article 7 of the
Conference Standing
orders)
Ad hoc tripartite body of the
Governing Body
To examine a representation
deemed receivable by the
Governing Body
To submit a report to the
Governing Body setting out
conclusions and
recommendations on the
merits of the case (article 3,
para. 1 and article 6 of the
Standing Orders)
Ad hoc body
To fully consider a complaint
referred to it by the
Governing Body
To prepare a report
embodying findings on all
questions of fact and
containing recommendations
as to the steps to be taken
and a time frame within
which this should occur
(article 28 of the
Constitution)
11 complaints examined by
a Commission of Inquiry
Standing tripartite body
of the Governing Body
To examine allegations
of violations of freedom
of association so as to
determine whether any
given legislation or
practice complies with
the principles of
freedom of association
and collective
bargaining
To report to the
Governing Body
(Governing Body
decision of 1951;
Digest, para. 6)
Around 2,600
complaints have been
examined by the CFA
Standing body
To examine allegations
of violations of freedom
of association
To ascertain the facts, as
a fact-finding body
Authorized to discuss
situations with the
government concerned
with a view to securing
the adjustment of
difficulties by agreement
To report to the
Governing Body
(Governing Body
decision of 1950)
Six complaints have
been examined by the
Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
18 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.do
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified
Conventions
Representations alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom
of association
Competent
supervisory bodies
CEACR Conference
Committee on the
Application of
Standards
Tripartite committees Commissions of Inquiry CFA Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of
Association
Composition Members are
appointed by the
Governing Body, upon
the proposal of the
Director-General in
their personal
capacity. Members
are impartial persons
of technical
competence and
independent standing
Government,
Employer and Worker
members of the
Committee form part
of national delegations
to the Conference
Members of the Governing
Body chosen in equal numbers
from the Government,
Employers’ and Workers’
groups (i.e. one per group)
Members appointed by the
Governing Body in their
personal capacity upon the
proposal of the Director-
General. Persons chosen for
their impartiality, integrity
and standing
Members of the
Governing Body
representing in equal
proportion the
Government,
Employers’ and
Workers’ groups
(i.e. six per group)
Each member
participates in a
personal capacity
Chaired by an
independent person
Members appointed by
the Governing Body for
their personal
qualifications and
independence upon the
proposal of the Director-
General
Governing Body has
authorized members of
the Commission to have
the work undertaken by
panels of no less than
three or more than five
members
c
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 19
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified
Conventions
Representations alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom
of association
Competent
supervisory bodies
CEACR Conference
Committee on the
Application of
Standards
Tripartite committees Commissions of Inquiry CFA Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of
Association
Information
considered
Written information on
the application in law
and practice of ratified
Conventions including:
(i) article 22 reports;
(ii) article 23
comments submitted
by employers’ and
workers’
organizations; (iii)
other information,
such as relevant
legislation or mission
reports
Written information on
the application in law
and practice of ratified
Conventions,
including: (i) report of
the CEACR; (ii)
information supplied
by governments
Oral information
concerning the case
under discussion
supplied by the
government
concerned and by
members of the
Committee
Written information supplied by
the parties
The hearing of the parties
could be possible
Written and oral information.
The Commissions of Inquiry
can take all necessary steps
to obtain full and objective
information on questions at
issue, in addition to
information supplied by the
parties (e.g. information
supplied by other Members,
the hearing of the parties
and witnesses, visits by the
Commission to the country)
Complaints and
observations thereon by
the government. Any
additional information
requested by the
Committee and supplied
by the parties, generally
in writing
The hearing of the
parties is possible, as
decided in appropriate
instances by the CFA,
although such cases are
rare. On the other hand,
at various stages in the
procedure, an ILO
representative may be
sent to the country
concerned
In order to ascertain
facts, the Commission is
free to hear evidence
from all concerned (e.g.
information from third
parties, hearing of the
parties and witnesses,
visits to the country). Any
discussions “with a view
to securing the
adjustment of difficulties
by agreement” have to be
held with the government
concerned
Status of the report Governing Body takes
note of the report and
transmits it to the
Conference
Report published
Plenary of the
Conference discusses
and approves the
report.
Report published
Governing Body discusses
and approves the report in
private sitting
Report communicated by the
Director-General to the
parties concerned and to the
Governing Body, which
takes note of it
Report published in the ILO
Official Bulletin, under
article 29 of the Constitution
Report submitted to the
Governing Body for
discussion and approval
Report published in the
ILO Official Bulletin
Report communicated by
the Director-General to
the Governing Body,
which takes note of it
Report published in the
ILO Official Bulletin
20 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified
Conventions
Representations alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of ratified
Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom
of association
Competent
supervisory bodies
CEACR Conference
Committee on the
Application of
Standards
Tripartite committees Commissions of Inquiry CFA Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of
Association
Outcome Individual comments by the CEACR as part of an
ongoing dialogue on the application in law and
practice of ratified Conventions and, where
appropriate, expressions of “satisfaction” and
“interest”
Conclusions on individual cases by Conference
Committee
Technical assistance provided by the Office at
the request of the government in the light of
these comments
Governing Body’s decisions on
the representation notified to
the parties by the Office,
including decision to publish
the representation and the
reply of the government, in
accordance with article 25
Possible follow-up by the
CEACR
Governments concerned
must inform the Director-
General within three months
whether or not they accept
the recommendations and, if
not, whether they propose
referral of the complaint to
the International Court of
Justice
Governing Body may
recommend action by the
Conference in case of failure
to give effect to the
recommendations (article
33). Possible follow-up by
CEACR
Possible
recommendations to
Governing Body: (i) no
further examination
required; (ii) anomalies
to be drawn to the
government’s attention;
government may be
invited to take remedial
steps and state the
follow-up action taken;
(iii) attempt to secure
government’s consent to
referral to the Fact-
Finding and Conciliation
Commission; (iv)
CEACR’s attention
drawn to legislative
aspects if Conventions
ratified
The Governing Body may
decide on arrangements
to follow up the matters
examined by the
Commission, whether the
complaint concerns an
ILO Member or a UN
Member which is not a
Member of the ILO
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 21
2.2. Explanations of the links between the supervisory
procedures concerning the application of ratified
Conventions, including the special procedure
for the examination of complaints alleging
infringements of trade union rights
2.2.1. Relevant general features of the
supervisory system
56. The system as a whole has a number of features that are conducive to the establishment of
links between its different components.
57. The various supervisory procedures all pursue a common purpose: the effective observance
of international labour standards, and in particular ratified Conventions. The links between
the supervisory procedures therefore operate in respect of obligations freely assumed by
member States through the ratification of Conventions. This consideration also includes
the special procedure concerning freedom of association since, as will be seen below, this
procedure interacts with other procedures only in cases where member States have ratified
the relevant Conventions.
58. As is only natural in a tripartite organization, in addition to governments, the system
involves the participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, and their role has
continued to grow as the system has developed. Convention No. 144 formalized the
important role that they should fulfil at the national level, where they contribute to the
adoption of measures and assist in reviewing their implementation. Employers’ and
workers’ organizations can contribute to the work of the CEACR by sending comments on
the application of ratified Conventions, or they can initiate action by an ILO supervisory
body through the submission of a representation under article 24, a complaint under
article 26 (through a delegate to the Conference) or a complaint to the CFA. Their
representatives participate directly in the work of a number of the supervisory bodies and
the Governing Body.
59. Under the ILO Constitution, the Governing Body has a number of specific functions in
relation to the operation of the supervisory procedures. These include the approval of
report forms on ratified Conventions and the consideration of representations and
complaints. Moreover, the Governing Body has responsibilities relating to the overall
efficient functioning and work of the supervisory bodies. Accordingly it: (i) decides upon
the mandates of certain supervisory bodies (although not in the case of Commissions of
Inquiry and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards); (ii) appoints the
members of most of these bodies (on the proposal of the Director-General in the case of
bodies composed of independent experts); and (iii) receives all the reports of the
supervisory bodies, either to note or approve them (with the exception of the report of the
Conference Committee). The Governing Body has always exercised these responsibilities
in full knowledge of the distinction between its own role and those of the specific bodies
concerned. It has accordingly left them to determine their methods of work and procedures
and has approved their reports after discussion by its members. As will be seen below, the
Governing Body is also called upon to take decisions relating to the linkages between the
various supervisory procedures.
60. In accordance with its functions under article 10 of the Constitution, the Office also has an
important role to play in acting as the secretariat of the supervisory bodies. In this capacity,
it prepares the necessary materials for their meetings, including, where appropriate, draft
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
22 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc
texts for their consideration and adoption, taking into account the work carried out by other
supervisory bodies. The Office therefore contributes, within its mandate, to the coherence
of examination between the supervisory bodies. Further, the Office has specific
responsibilities at the various stages prior to the examination of cases by the supervisory
bodies in terms of obtaining full and appropriate information from the parties. It also
follows up comments made by the supervisory bodies, particularly through its technical
cooperation and assistance activities.
2.2.2. Similarities between the supervisory procedures
61. The supervisory procedures present a number of similarities, some of which are of
particular relevance to the present overview. While a range of supervisory procedures are
available, the tools employed in each case show similarities. These tools include:
submission of written information, which may be supplemented by oral information; onthe-
spot missions, particularly in the form of direct contacts missions; arrangements to
follow up on matters examined by a supervisory body in the context of a particular
complaint or a representation; and various publicity measures.
62. Moreover, some supervisory mechanisms present similarities in terms of composition and
procedure, which tend to create particular links between the bodies concerned. Thus, the
CFA and the tripartite committees set up to examine representations are all tripartite bodies
of the Governing Body examining submissions made by employers’ and workers’
organizations. The impartiality of their respective examinations is guaranteed by similar
rules, which exclude from the examination of the case any representative or national of the
State against which the submission is made, as well as any person occupying an official
position in the organization which has made the submission. 25 The introductory note to the
Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of representations refers to
certain principles developed by the CFA in relation to the issues of receivability and
prescription of complaints, which may be applied by analogy to the representations
procedure. 26 The two investigatory bodies of the system – the Fact-Finding and
Conciliation Commission and Commissions of Inquiry – also present a number of
similarities regarding their membership (the independence and qualifications of their
members) and procedures (both commissions have recourse to similar means to obtain full
and objective information). They also have in common the mandate to investigate the facts
relating to the alleged non-compliance.
2.2.3. Links
63. As noted above, on each occasion that the Conference and the Governing Body decided to
supplement the institutional framework of the supervisory system, emphasis was placed on
the distinctive nature of each procedure. This meant that the examination of issues under
one procedure would not prevent the initiation of another procedure on the same issues. On
the other hand, there is an inherent need for coordination and coherence between the work
of the various supervisory bodies in order to achieve the common purpose of the effective
observance of international labour standards. This need has thus led to the establishment of
links between the procedures.
25 Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of
representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the ILO and paragraph 10 of Annex I
of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, op. cit.
26 Introductory note to the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of
representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the ILO, adopted by the Governing
Body at its 291st Session (November 2004), paras 10 and 16.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 23
64. The links between the supervisory procedures operate at three levels: (a) the referral of
matters to the appropriate supervisory body; (b) suspension or closure of a supervisory
procedure upon the initiation of another procedure; and (c) the examination by other
supervisory bodies, and particularly the CEACR, of the effect given to the
recommendations of supervisory bodies in specific cases.
Referral
In the context of a representation under article 24
65. Under article 26, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, the Governing Body may initiate the
complaint procedure of its own motion. One of the objectives of this provision, which was
already included in the original 1919 Constitution, was to enable the Governing Body to
initiate a complaint procedure in light of a representation submitted by an industrial
association under article 24. This specific manner of initiating a complaint procedure was
further specified in the first version of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for
the examination of representations adopted in 1932. Article 10 of the current Standing
Orders was inserted to enable the Governing Body, when it receives a representation, to
adopt at any time the complaint procedure provided for in article 26. When the Standing
Orders were revised in 1980, it was decided to retain this provision “both to draw attention
to this possibility and to make it clear that the fact that the representation procedure under
article 24 was under way did not prevent the initiation of the complaints procedure under
article 26”. 27 To date, the Governing Body has availed itself of this possibility on two
occasions. 28
66. Under article 3, paragraphs 1–3, of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the
examination of representations, if the Governing Body deems a representation receivable,
it can decide on one of the following three courses of action: (i) reference to a tripartite
committee, which is the most common course of action; 87 tripartite committees have thus
been established to date; (ii) referral to the CFA 29 of any aspects of a representation
relating to a Convention dealing with trade union rights, in which case the CFA will
examine the case applying its own methods of work and procedure, and its conclusions and
recommendations will be published in a report that is separate from the report on
complaints examined under the special procedure; there have been 16 such referrals to
date; and (iii) postponement of the appointment of a tripartite committee if the
representation relates to matters and allegations similar to those that have been the subject
of a previous representation until the CEACR has examined the follow-up to the
recommendations adopted by the Governing Body in relation to the previous
representation; the Governing Body has not yet formally resorted to this possibility.
27 GB.212/14/21, para. 45.
28 In one of these cases, the representation had already been examined by a tripartite committee.
When examining the report of the tripartite committee, the Governing Body decided to set up a
Commission of Inquiry which, in the course of its examination, emphasized that its task did not
consist of reviewing the conclusions of the tripartite committee that had examined the
representation; rather, it was to carry out its own investigation.
29 The possibility of referral to the CFA, in accordance with articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution,
was introduced when the Standing Orders were revised in 1980 in light of the resolution concerning
the promotion, protection and strengthening of freedom of association, trade union and other human
rights, adopted by the Conference at its 63rd Session.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
24 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc
In the context of a complaint relating to the application of
ratified Conventions on freedom of association
67. As indicated in the table above, in principle no complaint may be referred to the Fact-
Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association without the consent of
the government concerned. Nevertheless, the government’s consent is not required in
respect of any complaint relating to a ratified Convention, in which case the Governing
Body may designate the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission as a Commission of
Inquiry under article 26 of the Constitution. The possibility thus open to the Governing
Body is reflected in the six reports of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.
Although the Governing Body has never availed itself of this possibility, it made use of
similarities between the two commissions in one instance. 30
68. In eight instances where complaints lodged under article 26 concerned issues relating to
the non-observance of ratified Conventions on freedom of association already pending
before the CFA, the Governing Body sought the latter’s recommendation as to whether the
article 26 complaint should be referred to a Commission of Inquiry. In four of these cases,
referral to a Commission of Inquiry was not considered appropriate in light of the
information obtained through on-the-spot missions. These cases remained under the CFA’s
examination. In two cases, the CFA recommended the referral of the complaint to a
Commission of Inquiry, while emphasizing that it was for the Governing Body to take a
decision on the recommendation and the modalities of its implementation. In the two
remaining cases, the CFA merely underlined that it was for the Governing Body to decide
on the referral of the complaint to a Commission of Inquiry. It should also be noted that in
one case the Governing Body decided of its own motion to refer allegations pending before
the CFA to a Commission of Inquiry.
Suspension or closure
69. It is the established practice that the examination of a case by the CEACR and,
subsequently by the Conference Committee, should be suspended in the event of a
representation (article 24) or complaint (article 26) in relation to the same case being
referred either to a tripartite committee or to a Commission of Inquiry. The CEACR reverts
to its examination once the Governing Body has taken a decision on the representation or
complaint. As will be noted below, the CEACR’s subsequent examination of the case may
include follow-up of the recommendations of the body which examined the representation
or complaint. Nevertheless, in cases where a complaint is lodged with the CFA,
examination by the CEACR of some of the issues raised therein is not suspended. 31
30 At the time, allegations of infringements of trade union rights against a country which had not
ratified the Conventions on freedom of association had led to the establishment of a Fact-Finding
and Conciliation Commission with the government’s consent. When the Conference subsequently
requested the Governing Body to refer to a Commission of Inquiry the question of the observance
by that country of other Conventions it had ratified, the Governing Body nominated the same
persons that it had appointed as members of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission one
month earlier to sit on the Commission of Inquiry. A double investigation was carried out by the
Commission, which eventually submitted two reports to the Governing Body.
31 There may be several explanations for this established practice: (i) although the two bodies
examine legislative as well as practical issues, their respective examinations have a different
emphasis (case-specific and with greater emphasis on practical issues for the CFA, while the
CEACR’s examination tends to focus on legislative issues or on more general questions relating to
the application of Conventions in practice); (ii) the importance of freedom of association and the
related need to draw attention to serious problems relating to the application of the relevant
Conventions; (iii) the special procedure was not meant to replace existing procedures, but to
supplement them.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 25
Similarly, referral by the Governing Body of a representation under article 24 to the CFA
does not affect the examination of the matter by the CEACR. 32
70. In the process leading to the adoption of the Standing Orders concerning the representation
procedure in 1932, the Office suggested that a decision of the Governing Body to initiate a
complaint procedure under article 26, paragraph 4, should imply “closure” of a
representation procedure on the same matter. However, no rule was introduced in the
Standing Orders to that effect. The Governing Body has consequently retained its
discretion as to the course of action to be decided upon in such cases. On one occasion,
when discussing the report of the respective tripartite committee, the Governing Body
decided to refer the matters raised in a representation to a Commission of Inquiry; in view
of this referral, the Governing Body decided that it was no longer necessary to adopt the
recommendations of the tripartite committee set up to examine the original representation.
On another occasion, the Governing Body decided that the representation procedure should
resume its course once the procedure for the examination of the complaint had become
without object. 33
Effect given to the recommendations made
by the supervisory bodies
71. It is a well-established practice in the supervisory system that the CEACR follows up the
effect given by governments to the recommendations made by tripartite committees
(article 24) and Commissions of Inquiry (article 26). The governments concerned are
therefore requested to indicate in their reports under article 22 the measures taken on the
basis of these recommendations. The related information is then examined by the regular
supervisory machinery. As such, it becomes part of the ongoing dialogue between the
government, the CEACR and the Conference Committee, if it so decides.
72. In the case of the recommendations made by tripartite committees (article 24), this practice
was officially acknowledged when the Standing Orders concerning representations were
last revised in 2004. There is a direct reference to the practice in article 3, paragraph 3, of
the Standing Orders concerning representations relating to matters similar to those which
have been the subject of a previous representation. 34 The practice itself is described in the
introductory note to the Standing Orders on the representation procedure. 35
73. In relation to recommendations made by Commissions of Inquiry (article 26 of the
Constitution), the practice of follow-up by the CEACR has been followed since the first
Commission of Inquiry was set up. It was left to the CEACR to determine when it was no
longer necessary for the government to provide information on the matters (or certain of
32 The question of the effect of the complaint and representation procedures, including the special
procedure on freedom of association, on the regular supervisory machinery was discussed by the
Governing Body at its 273rd (November 1998) and 276th (November 1999) Sessions. See
GB.273/LILS/1 and GB.276/LILS/2. The amendments to the Standing Orders proposed in this
respect did not achieve consensus.
33 In this particular instance, a complaint under article 26 and a representation under article 24 had
been lodged by a member State and a workers’ organization against the same member State. The
complaint and representation raised the same issues of non-observance of ratified Conventions. The
Governing Body decided that the issues should be referred to a Commission of Inquiry. A
settlement was eventually reached between the two member States and the complaint was
withdrawn.
34 See para. 66 above.
35 See para. 19 of the introductory note, op. cit.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
26 GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc
them) examined by the Commission of Inquiry. In the case of a complaint concerning the
application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the Commission of Inquiry recommended that
the implementation of its recommendations should be followed up by the CFA, which had
been examining the matters raised in the complaint over a long period. At the same time,
the Commission of Inquiry observed that, within the framework of its regular supervision,
the CEACR would continue to examine the legislative aspects involved in respect of
Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
74. The procedure of the CFA provides for the examination of the action taken by
governments on its recommendations. 36 It should be recalled that the relevant procedural
rules were set forth for the first time in the 127th Report of the CFA. 37 At the time, they
constituted a response to paragraph 14 of the resolution concerning trade union rights and
their relation to civil liberties, adopted at the 54th Session (June 1970) of the Conference.
In accordance with this resolution, the Governing Body requested the CFA to examine
what further measures might be taken to strengthen its procedure and in particular to
consider arrangements for periodically reviewing the action taken by governments on its
recommendations.
75. Under these rules, where member States have ratified one or more Conventions on
freedom of association, examination of the legislative aspects of the recommendations
adopted by the Governing Body is often referred to the CEACR. The attention of the
CEACR is specifically drawn in the concluding paragraph of the CFA’s reports to
discrepancies between national law and practice and the terms of the Convention.
However, it is made clear in the procedure that such referral does not prevent the CFA
from examining the effect given to its recommendations, particularly in view of the nature
and urgency of the issues involved. Since its 236th Report (November 1984), the CFA has
highlighted in the introduction to its report the cases to which the attention of the CEACR
has been drawn.
The issue of interpretation of international labour Conventions
76. As indicated in the earlier papers on the implementation of the standards strategy, a
complete overview of the links between the supervisory procedures relating to ratified
Conventions should also cover the procedure relating to the interpretation of international
labour Conventions. It should be recalled in this respect that, while the supervisory bodies
examine the application of ratified Conventions in law and in practice, under the terms of
article 37, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, the authority to interpret Conventions is vested
with the International Court of Justice. In addition, paragraph 2 of article 37 envisages the
alternative solution of instituting a tribunal “for the expeditious determination of any
dispute or question relating to the interpretation of a Convention which may be referred
thereto by the Governing Body or in accordance with the terms of the Convention”. An
explanation on the issue of interpretation was provided to the Governing Body at its
256th Session (May 1993). At that time, the Office prepared a thorough study 38 with a
view to providing the necessary background for a possible detailed examination by the
Governing Body of the implementation of article 37, paragraph 2. More specifically, the
study reviewed the existing arrangements, including their limitations, under which
questions of interpretation have been dealt in the absence of any recourse to the machinery
provided for in the Constitution. It examined whether and to what extent the appointment
of the tribunal provided for in article 37, paragraph 2, could offer a useful additional
36 See paras 70–74 of Annex I of the Digest of the CFA, op. cit.
37 See 127th Report in Official Bulletin, Vol. LV, 1972, Supplement, paras 10 and 22–28.
38 See GB.256/SC/2/2.
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.)
GB301-LILS_6(Rev.)_[2008-02-0185-2]-En.doc 27
mechanism and sketched out possible modalities for its institution and functioning. While
the Governing Body welcomed the study, it did not come to any decision on the matter.
The question arises as to whether this issue should be revisited.
2.3. Conclusions
77. The functioning of the ILO supervisory system is a complex matter and the system has
evolved substantially over the years since it was first established by the 1919 Constitution.
Its development has been informed by pragmatism under the effect, firstly, of the decisions
of the Governing Body and the Conference in giving effect to their responsibility to ensure
the smooth and effective functioning of the system. It has also developed in the light of
decisions taken by the supervisory bodies themselves concerning their methods of work
and procedures with a view to adapting the system to changing needs, particularly in
relation to the increased workload.
78. This review highlights the important role of the Governing Body with regard to all the
supervisory procedures, except for the regular supervisory procedure, which is ultimately
the responsibility of the Conference. This implies that the Governing Body is able to
maintain oversight of the procedures and is in a position to ensure that the necessary
linkage and differentiation are maintained. On the other hand, the Governing Body has
exercised restraint, particularly by leaving it to the supervisory bodies themselves (with the
exception of the tripartite committees set up to examine representations under article 24) to
determine their methods of work and procedure.
79. The above overview has endeavoured to provide the information that is necessary to
facilitate greater understanding by constituents of the links between the various
procedures. As indicated at the outset, it has focused on historical and procedural aspects.
The links between the procedures could also be studied from a substantive and practical
standpoint. Such a study could address two issues: the concrete interplay between the
supervisory procedures in cases where constituents resort to a procedure in relation to
questions that are already before another supervisory body; whether, and to what extent,
the interplay between the procedures has contributed to compliance with ratified
Conventions. In view of its limited resources, the Office’s margin for manoeuvre to
undertake a study of this scope within the specific deadlines for the preparation of
Governing Body papers is very narrow. The study would therefore have to cover selected
cases of application of ratified Conventions. Further, some prerequisites would have to be
met before the Office could embark upon such a study. There would have to be a clear
consensus within the LILS Committee, first, that the Office is indeed requested to carry out
such a study and, second, that the sole objective of the exercise is to strengthen the impact
of the ILO supervisory system.
3. Update on action to enhance the
impact of the standards system
through technical cooperation
80. With regard to action to enhance the impact of standards through technical cooperation,
three main elements were outlined in the interim plan of action:
specific interventions to address thematic priorities for the promotion, ratification and
implementation of standards, shared across countries or regions;
specific interventions to address the promotion, ratification and implementation of
standards in the context of DWCPs; and
Document No. 63
GB.326/LILS/3/1, The Standards Initiative: Joint report
of the Chairpersons of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations and
the Committee on Freedom of Association, February 2016
This GB document is printed in limited numbers to minimize the environmental impact of the ILO's activities and processes, contribute to climate
neutrality and improve efficiency. GB members and observers are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and to avoid asking for
additional ones. All GB documents are available on the Internet at www.ilo.org.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
326th Session, Geneva, 10–24 March 2016
GB.326/LILS/3/1
Legal Issues and International Labour Standards Section
International Labour Standards and Human Rights Segment LILS
Date: 29 February 2016
Original: English
THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA
The Standards Initiative: Joint report
of the Chairpersons of the Committee
of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations
and the Committee on Freedom
of Association
Purpose of the document
In follow-up to the request by the Governing Body at its 323rd Session, this document invites
the Governing Body to: (a) receive the joint report of the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and the Chairperson of the
Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) on the interrelationship, functioning and possible
improvement of the various supervisory procedures related to articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO
Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom of association; and (b) request the
Director-General to undertake further consultations on issues related to the joint report with a view
to formulating recommendations for consideration by the Governing Body (see the draft decision in
paragraph 3).
Relevant strategic objective: All the objectives.
Policy implications: Depends on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Legal implications: Depends on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Financial implications: Depends on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Follow-up action required: Depends on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Author unit: International Labour Standards Department (NORMES).
Related documents: GB.323/PV (paras 51–84); GB.323/INS/5.
GB.326/LILS/3/1
GB326-LILS_3-1_[NORME-160216-1]-En.docx 1
1. At its 323rd Session (March 2015), and in relation to the Standards Initiative, the
Governing Body requested the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), Judge Abdul Koroma
(Sierra Leone), and the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA),
Professor Paul van der Heijden (Netherlands), to jointly prepare a report, to be presented to
the 326th Session of the Governing Body (March 2016), on the interrelationship,
functioning and possible improvement of the various supervisory procedures related to
articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on
freedom of association. 1
2. The report prepared pursuant to that request by the Governing Body is attached to the
present document. It includes findings and recommendations following an intensive
consultative process in which the views of the tripartite constituents were first sought
between June and September 2015. The subsequent draft report was then the subject of
further consultations between October and December 2015.
Draft decision
3. The Governing Body is invited to:
(a) receive the joint report of the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts on
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Chairperson
of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the interrelationship,
functioning and possible improvement of the various supervisory procedures
related to articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution and the
complaints mechanism on freedom of association; and
(b) request the Director-General to undertake further consultations on issues
related to the joint report with a view to formulating recommendations for
consideration by the Governing Body.
1 GB.323/PV, para. 84.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
REVIEW OF ILO
SUPERVISORY MECHANISM
Authors:
A.G. Koroma
P.F. van der Heijden
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx iii
Preface
For almost a century, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has contributed to
the advancement of social justice across the globe. In doing so, the Organization utilizes a
decision-making process which is unique among its peers within the arena of international
governance. The concept of “tripartism” which lies at the heart of the ILO is widely
praised, and recognized to be indispensable for the Organization’s unparalleled impact on
the implementation of international rights at work.
While the adoption of labour standards is the first step towards effectuating
international legal protection of workers and employers, the supervision of the application
of these standards is of equal importance. The supervisory mechanism of the ILO is
multifaceted and anchored in the Organization’s standards and principles. Many different
monitoring mechanisms exist in the context of international and regional organizations and
the ILO’s diverse system of promoting compliance with labour standards is regarded as
very successful among them. Nevertheless, the changing social, geopolitical and economic
dynamics within the ILO and on the ground have brought about challenges pertaining to
the efficiency of the system and means of enhancing the Organization’s distinct tripartite
model.
It is in this light that roughly a year ago, the Governing Body of the ILO, its executive
arm, requested us to undertake an assessment of the supervisory mechanism of the
Organization, identify opportunities for improvement and suggest means of implementing
these. While very conscious of the internal intricacies associated with tripartism and the
potential effect of these on the review, we were determined from the outset to engage the
ILO constituents in the process and to attain their perspectives and suggestions for
enhancing the system. We are very thankful to all the constituents for their support for our
mandate and their substantive contribution to the process. This being said, we would like
to reiterate that this report and its conclusions are entirely based on our independent and
objective assessment of the ILO supervisory mechanism.
We would like to thank Dr Bas Rombouts of the Department of Labour Law and
Social Policy of Tilburg University for his extensive research contributions to the report
drafting process. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the
important role of The Hague Institute for Global Justice and its staff, in particular
Ms Manuella Appiah, in the course of the development of the report. We would also like to
thank the International Labour Office for providing us with facts and figures when
requested. Last but not least, we thank all others who through direct and indirect
contributions made it possible for this report to come about.
This report has been prepared with a view to responding to the request of the
Governing Body. We hope that the findings and recommendations shall contribute to the
continuous process of enhancing the supervisory system of the ILO, and to strengthening
the conciliatory spirit of cooperation between the ILO’s tripartite constituents.
The Hague, January 2016
Judge Abdul G. Koroma
Chairperson
Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR)
Professor Paul F. van der Heijden
Chairperson
Committee on Freedom of
Association (CFA)
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx v
Contents
Page
Preface ............................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... vii
List of abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... ix
I. Introduction, mandate and approach ....................................................................................... 1
(a) The ILO supervisory system ........................................................................................... 1
(b) Governing Body request ................................................................................................. 2
(c) Developments leading to the report ................................................................................ 2
(d) Approach and structure ................................................................................................... 5
II. Overview, development and procedural aspects of the supervisory mechanisms................... 5
(a) The regular and special supervisory procedures: A short introduction........................... 5
Article 24 representations ............................................................................................... 7
Article 26 complaints ...................................................................................................... 8
The complaints procedure before the Committee on Freedom of Association ............... 9
Reporting obligations on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations ................. 11
Technical assistance ........................................................................................................ 12
(b) Establishment and development of the supervisory mechanisms ................................... 12
Development of the CAS and the CEACR ..................................................................... 13
The special procedure on freedom of association ........................................................... 18
Article 24 representations and Article 26 complaints ..................................................... 20
(c) Procedural aspects and contemporary supervisory architecture ..................................... 21
III. Interrelationship, functioning and effectiveness of the supervisory mechanisms ................... 28
(a) Interrelationship and coherence ...................................................................................... 29
(b) Functioning, impact and effectiveness ............................................................................ 32
Article 24 representations ............................................................................................... 32
Article 26 complaints ...................................................................................................... 33
The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations (CEACR) ................................................................................... 33
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) ............................. 35
The Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) ........................................................ 37
(c) Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................ 40
IV. Proposals and suggestions for improvement ........................................................................... 41
(a) Issues of transparency, visibility and coherence ............................................................. 41
(b) Supervisory mandates and the interpretation of Conventions ........................................ 43
(c) Workload, efficiency and effectiveness .......................................................................... 45
V. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................ 47
vi GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Appendices
Page
Appendix I. Human rights bodies’ supervisory machinery outside the ILO .............................. 49
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 49
I. Charter-based bodies ....................................................................................................... 50
(a) The Human Rights Council procedures and
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) .......................................................................... 50
(b) The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ................................................................... 50
(c) The Advisory Committee ....................................................................................... 50
The Complaint Procedure ....................................................................................... 51
The Special Procedures ........................................................................................... 51
II. Treaty-based bodies ........................................................................................................ 52
(a) The Human Rights Committee (CCPR) ................................................................. 52
(b) The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) ..................... 53
(c) The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) .................. 54
(d) The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW) ..................................................................................... 56
(e) The Committee against Torture (CAT) and the
Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) ...................................................... 58
(f) The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) ................................................. 60
(g) The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) ........................................................ 62
(h) The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) ...................... 63
(i) The Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) ............................................. 64
Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................ 65
Appendix II. Statistics and figures ............................................................................................... 67
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx vii
Executive summary
The present report was requested by the Governing Body of the International Labour
Organization (ILO) at its 323rd Session in March 2015. The Governing Body requested the
Chairperson of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (CEACR), Judge Abdul Koroma (Sierra Leone), and the Chairperson of
the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA), Professor Paul van der Heijden
(Netherlands), to jointly prepare a report on the interrelationship, functioning and possible
improvement of the various supervisory procedures related to articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of
the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom of association. 1 During
the drafting process of this report, the authors received perspectives from the ILO’s
tripartite constituents. Where possible, these are reflected in the report.
The different supervisory procedures of the ILO serve a common purpose: the
effective observance of international labour standards, particularly in relation to ratified
Conventions. The existing connections between the supervisory mechanisms therefore
operate in respect of obligations freely assumed by the Organization’s member States
through the ratification of Conventions. Nevertheless, obligations in respect of unratified
instruments are also an important area of attention for the supervisory bodies.
The supervisory mechanism has developed over time to meet changing societal
realities and challenges. The current system of supervision is one of the oldest and one of
the most sophisticated international monitoring mechanisms in existence. An analysis of
and comparison with (other) United Nations (UN) Human Rights monitoring mechanisms
did not reveal specific shortcomings of the ILO system. 2
The ILO supervisory procedures are complementary. The effective functioning of the
supervisory system as a whole is based on the links and interactions between the different
elements. Tripartism is vital for the effective functioning of the supervisory bodies and for
preventing unnecessary duplication.
Many cases of progress illustrate the significant impact the different supervisory
bodies have in promoting compliance with international labour standards. A combination
of supervisory tools, such as reporting obligations, technical assistance and on-site
missions contributes to the effectiveness of the system.
While the system functions adequately, it is necessary to evaluate and enhance it on a
continuous basis. In this report, various recommendations are put forward in this respect.
These suggestions are related to: (a) transparency, visibility and coherence; (b) mandates
and the interpretation of Conventions; and (c) workload, efficiency and effectiveness.
It is critical that mechanisms are put in place to improve upon the transparency of the
supervisory mechanism. Clarity with respect to the procedures and committees within the
system could be enhanced by strengthening the avenues for dialogue between the different
supervisory bodies. Furthermore, transparency can be achieved by utilizing more “userfriendly”
and “visible” methods for delineating the different supervisory tasks of the
different supervisory bodies using available modern technology. In relation to questions
1 GB.323/INS/5, para. 1(5)(b).
2 See Appendix I.
viii GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
about the interpretation of Conventions, the ILO Constitution offers two distinct options
under article 37(1)–(2).
Reducing the workload of the various bodies could be achieved by increasing the
capacity of the different bodies, but also by exploring meticulously the use of independent
and impartial national mechanisms for conflict settlement that precede recourse to the
ILO’s bodies.
Improved coordination of supervision and technical assistance will also lead to more
effective compliance with international labour standards. It is generally recognized that the
ILO’s supervisory system succeeds in promoting the application of labour standards.
Bolstering the transparency, accessibility, awareness and coherence of the system
nevertheless demands unceasing attention. Moreover, measuring the impact of
international labour standards is essential for the continuous efforts to strengthen the ILO
supervisory system. The present report contributes to these ongoing efforts.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx ix
List of abbreviations
CAS Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
CAT Committee Against Torture
CCPR United Nations Human Rights Committee
CEACR Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations
CED Committee on Enforced Disappearances
CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
CETCOIT Comité Especial de Tratamiento de Conflictos ante la OIT
CFA Committee on Freedom of Association
CMW Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members
of Their Families (Committee on Migrant Workers)
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
CRPD Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council
FFCC Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of
Association
HRC Human Rights Council
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ICJ International Court of Justice
ILC International Labour Conference
ILO International Labour Organization
NORMLEX Information System on International Labour Standards
NPM National Preventive Mechanism
OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
OPCAT Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
SPT Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
UPR Universal Periodic Review
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 1
I. Introduction, mandate and approach
(a) The ILO supervisory system
1. The supervisory mechanism of the ILO is widely viewed as being unique at the
international level. Since its creation in 1919, the ILO has been mandated to adopt
international labour standards. These may take the form of either binding Conventions or
non-binding Recommendations, which provide guidance on the implementation of
Conventions. The special nature of the labour standards is derived from the direct
involvement of the social partners in ILO standard-setting activities. This method of work
in practice of the ILO used in the adoption of binding treaties is a distinguishing
democratic and participatory feature among international organizations.
2. The promotion of the ratification and application of labour standards as well as their
accountable supervision is a fundamental means of achieving the Organization’s objectives
and principles of promoting decent work and social justice which can be found, inter alia,
in the 1919 Constitution, the 1944 Declaration of Philadelphia, the 1998 Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up and the 2008 ILO
Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization. 1
3. Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution provide for a number of obligations for member
States when the International Labour Conference (ILC) adopts international labour
standards, including the obligation to report periodically on the measures taken to give
effect to the provisions of ratified and unratified Conventions and Recommendations. 2 The
ILO’s supervisory system by which the Organization examines the standards-related
obligations of member States derived from ratified Conventions is complex and has
evolved over the years. Supervision takes place within the framework of: (1) a regular
process; and (2) a number of special supervisory procedures. The regular system of
supervision concerns the reporting duty of member States under article 22 of the
Constitution to inform the ILO on the measures taken to give effect to ratified
Conventions. Under article 23 of the Constitution a summary of these reports is presented
to the ILC at its yearly session. The Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards (CAS) play a pivotal role in this regular supervisory process.
1 Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, 1919, Annex: Declaration concerning the
aims and purposes of the International Labour Organisation (Declaration of Philadelphia) 1944; ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the
International Labour Conference at its 86th Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998; ILO Declaration on
Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its
97th Session, Geneva, 10 June 2008; also see: N. Valticos: “Once more about the ILO system of
supervision: In what respect is it still a model?”, in N. Blokker and S. Muller (ed.): “Towards more
effective supervision by international organizations”, in Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers,
Vol. I, 1994.
2 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution), Third item on the agenda: Information and reports on
the application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session,
Geneva, 2015, p. 1.
2 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
4. Special supervisory procedures are based on the submission of a representation or
complaint and are enshrined in articles 24, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 24 grants
industrial associations of workers or employers the right to present a representation to the
Governing Body about a possible failure to respect obligations derived from ratified
Conventions by a member State. By virtue of article 26, a member State may lodge a
complaint against another member State for not complying with a Convention, provided
that both have ratified the said Convention. This procedure may also be invoked by a
Conference delegate or by the Governing Body on its own motion. Moreover, since 1951,
a special procedure for complaints concerning violations related to the principles of
freedom of association exists by which such complaints are referred to the Committee on
Freedom of Association (CFA).
5. The ILO’s supervisory machinery is generally regarded as capable of relieving national
tensions and building consensus about work-related issues by strengthening tripartism at
the domestic level and providing technical assistance in a spirit of constructive dialogue. 3
Nevertheless, this comprehensive system, perceived in light of an increasingly dynamic
global economy, calls for a continuous examination and evaluation of its effectiveness and
functioning. This report contributes to that process.
(b) Governing Body request
6. The present report was requested by the ILO Governing Body. At its 323rd Session in
March 2015, the Governing Body invited us to jointly prepare a report, to be presented to
the 326th Session of the Governing Body (March 2016) on the functioning of the ILO
supervisory mechanisms. The Governing Body requested: “the Chairperson of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(CEACR), Judge Abdul Koroma (Sierra Leone), and the Chairperson of the Committee on
Freedom of Association (CFA), Professor Paul van der Heijden (Netherlands), to jointly
prepare a report on the interrelationship, functioning and possible improvement of the
various supervisory procedures related to articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution
and the complaints mechanism on freedom of association”. 4 In drafting this report we took
into consideration input received from the ILO’s tripartite constituents.
(c) Developments leading to the report
7. Following discussions in the CAS in 2012, the Employers’ group put forward a number of
objections to certain observations made by the CEACR in its 2012 General Survey
concerning the right to strike. 5 Apart from the substantive norm in question, the
3 K. Tapiola: “The ILO system of regular supervision of the application of Conventions and
Recommendations: A lasting paradigm”, in Protecting Labour Rights as Human Rights: Present
and Future of International Supervision – Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the
80th Anniversary of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Geneva, 24–25 November 2006, p. 26.
4 GB.323/INS/5, para. 1(5)(b).
5 ILO: Giving globalization a human face, General Survey on the fundamental Conventions
concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization,
2008, Report III (Part 1B), ILC, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 3
controversy related to the supervisory procedures and the mandate of the CEACR. 6
Concerns were expressed over the role of the CEACR with regard to the interpretation of
Conventions and the Committee’s relation to the other supervisory procedures and
mechanisms, primarily the CAS and the CFA. 7 A clarification of the role of the
Committee of Experts in relation to its mandate was requested. Ultimately the 2012 CAS
was unable to adopt its list of individual cases for the first time since this aspect of
supervision was created in 1927. 8 This generated renewed discussion about the
functioning of the Committee of Experts in particular and the supervisory mechanism as a
whole.
8. The CEACR has recently undertaken further examination of its working methods. While
the consideration of its working methods has been an ongoing process since its
establishment, a special subcommittee on working methods was set up in 2001 which
discussed the functioning of the CEACR on several occasions. 9 The subcommittee
reviews the methods of work with the aim of enhancing the CEACR’s effectiveness and
efficiency, by endeavouring to streamline the content of its report and improving the
organization of its work with a view to increasing it in terms of transparency and quality. 10
9. As regards the relationship between the CAS and the CEACR, the 2015 report of the
Committee of Experts noted that a transparent and continuous dialogue between the CAS
and the CEACR proved invaluable for ensuring a proper and balanced functioning of the
ILO standards system. The CAS and the CEACR can be regarded as distinct but
inextricably linked as their activities are mutually dependent. Moreover, the tripartite
constituents reiterated their full support for the ILO supervisory system and their
commitment to finding a fair and sustainable solution to the current issues. 11 In 2014, the
Committee of Experts included a statement of its mandate in its report:
The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is
an independent body established by the International Labour Conference and its members are
appointed by the ILO Governing Body. It is composed of legal experts charged with
examining the application of ILO Conventions and Recommendations by ILO member States.
The Committee of Experts undertakes an impartial and technical analysis of how the
Conventions are applied in law and practice by member States, while cognizant of different
national realities and legal systems. In doing so, it must determine the legal scope, content and
meaning of the provisions of the Conventions. Its opinions and recommendations are non-
6 ILO: Provisional Record No. 19(Rev.), Part One, ILC, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012, Committee
on the Application of Standards at the Conference, extracts from the Record of Proceedings, ILC,
101st Session, 2012. See especially paras 144–236. Also see F. Maupain: “The ILO Regular
Supervisory System: A model in crisis?”, in International Organizations Law Review, Vol. 10,
Issue 1, 2013, pp. 117–165.
7 ILO: Provisional Record No. 19(Rev.), Part One, op. cit., paras 147–149.
8 L. Swepston: “Crisis in the ILO supervisory system: Dispute over the right to strike”, in
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2013,
pp. 199–218.
9 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution), Third item on the agenda: Information and reports on
the application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session,
Geneva, 2015, p. 7.
10 ibid., p. 8.
11 ibid., p. 9.
4 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
binding, being intended to guide the actions of national authorities. They derive their
persuasive value from the legitimacy and rationality of the Committee’s work based on its
impartiality, experience and expertise. The Committee’s technical role and moral authority is
well recognized, particularly as it has been engaged in its supervisory task for over 85 years,
by virtue of its composition, independence and its working methods built on continuing
dialogue with governments taking into account information provided by employers’ and
workers’ organizations. This has been reflected in the incorporation of the Committee’s
opinions and recommendations in national legislation, international instruments and court
decisions. 12
10. The Committee noted that the statement of its mandate, which was reiterated in its 2015
report, was welcomed by the Governing Body and has the support of the tripartite
constituents. 13 It reiterated that the functioning and existence of the Committee were:
“anchored in tripartism, and that its mandate had been determined by the International
Labour Conference and the Governing Body. Tripartite consensus on the ILO supervisory
system was therefore an important parameter for the work of the Committee which,
although an independent body, did not function in an autonomous manner.” 14
11. The Committee restated that it will continue to strictly abide by its mandate and core
principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality. Furthermore, it stated that regular
examinations will be conducted on the means of improving its methods of work, and
reaffirmed its willingness to contribute to resolving the current challenges to the
supervisory system and to the enhancement of the functioning and impact of the ILO’s
supervisory mechanism as a whole. 15
12. Similarly, the CFA undertakes efforts to improve its working methods on a regular basis. 16
The CFA’s composition is renewed every three years and the Committee discusses
questions related to its impact, visibility and working methods in separate sessions. 17 The
present report is an exposition of these continuing efforts to assess and strengthen the
supervisory procedures.
12 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), ILC, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014, para. 31.
13 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution), Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III
(Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, p. 10, para. 24.
14 ibid.
15 ibid., p. 10, paras 25–26.
16 ILO: 371st Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Governing Body, 320th Session,
Geneva, 13–27 Mar. 2014, GB.320/INS/12, para. 14. Also see ILO: Digest of decisions and
principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, fifth
(revised) edition, Geneva, 2006, Annex I: Special procedures for the examination in the
International Labour Organization of complaints alleging violations of freedom of association,
pp. 231–243.
17 GB.320/INS/12, para. 14.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 5
(d) Approach and structure
13. This review covers three main areas related to articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO
Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom of association: the functioning,
interrelationship and possible improvements to the existing supervisory system.
14. The functioning of the system will be analysed by examining the development of the
regular and special procedures, as well as their legal basis. Furthermore, their operation in
practice, effectiveness and impact will be discussed. The current challenges, criticisms and
concerns of the system will be scrutinized.
15. The interrelationship between the ILO supervisory bodies will be critically addressed.
Complementarity, balance and symmetry of the different procedures will be discussed and
possible gaps in coverage or, inversely, areas of overlap will be identified.
16. Finally, suggestions and proposals on how to improve the ILO supervisory system will be
discussed. In order to arrive at these suggestions, an assessment of the workings of the
various procedures and their primary objectives as well as a clear understanding of the
constitutional framework is necessary.
17. The report is structured as follows: Part II of this report examines the architecture and
development of the supervisory system in order to get a clear picture of the existing
procedures in the supervisory landscape. Part III outlines the practice of the different
supervisory bodies; their interrelationship, impact and effectiveness to come to an
informed understanding of similarities and differences of the supervisory mechanisms and
to identify possible gaps or overlapping competences. Part IV reviews the shortcomings of
the current system and evaluates suggested improvements to the supervisory system.
Part V will conclude the report with a concise overview of the authors’ main findings.
Appendix I will discuss other monitoring or supervisory systems outside the ILO system to
assess which lessons could be learned from – primarily – the UN Charter- and Treatybased
human rights bodies. Appendix II includes further statistical data on the supervisory
procedures.
II. Overview, development and procedural
aspects of the supervisory mechanisms
18. This section will explain the structure of the supervisory mechanisms and the
developments that shaped them into their contemporary forms. In order to set the stage for
a more elaborate examination of the evolution and particulars of the different procedures
and bodies a concise overview of the present system is first provided. Secondly, a more
thorough analysis of the different procedures including their genesis and key features will
be presented.
(a) The regular and special supervisory procedures:
A short introduction
19. The ILO regularly examines the application of labour standards in its member States in
order to ensure that the ratified Conventions are duly implemented at the domestic level.
Furthermore, the Organization points out areas in which these standards could be applied
more judiciously and offers technical assistance and support for social dialogue. The
regular system of supervision works as follows: once a member State ratifies an ILO
Convention it is obliged to report on a regular basis on the measures it has taken towards
its implementation. Every three years governments are to submit reports on the steps taken
in law and practice to apply the eight fundamental and the four governance – or priority–
6 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Conventions. For other Conventions the reporting obligation is once in every five years
(except for shelved Conventions). 18 However, governments may be urged to send report at
shorter intervals when required. Article 23 of the Constitution requires governments to
send copies of their reports to the national social partners. The national and international
social partners may also provide the ILO with comments on the application of labour
standards.
20. The Committee of Experts is the body primarily responsible for conducting the technical
examination of the compliance of member States with provisions of ratified
Conventions. 19 The CEACR was set up in 1926 and is presently composed of 20 eminent
jurists from different geographical regions, representing different legal systems and
cultures. They are appointed by the Governing Body and the Conference for a term of
three years.
21. Being a technical body, the CEACR produces two kinds of comments: observations and
direct requests. Observations are comments on fundamental questions raised by the
application of a particular Convention by a member State and are published in the
Committee’s flagship publication; its annual report. 20 Direct requests relate to more
technical questions or requests for additional information that are communicated directly to
the governments concerned.
22. The annual report of the CEACR consists of three separate parts. The first part is a General
Report, which contains comments and remarks about the degree to which member States
respect their obligations derived from article 22 of the ILO Constitution. Part II includes
the observations on the application of the international labour standards and Part III
concerns a General Survey of one or more specific themes selected by the Governing
Body. 21
23. The annual report of the Committee of Experts is submitted to the plenary session of the
Conference in June each year, where it is examined by the CAS. The CAS is an ILC
tripartite standing committee composed of Government, Employer and Worker
representatives. The CAS analyses the CEACR report and selects a number of observations
for discussion. Governments referred to in these comments are invited to respond to the
CAS and provide further details about the matters at hand. The CAS draws up conclusions
in which it recommends governments to take specific measures to remedy a problem or to
ask the ILO for technical assistance. 22 In the General Report of the CAS certain situations
of particular concern are highlighted in special paragraphs. 23
18 ILO: Rules of the Game: A brief introduction to international labour standards (revised edition
2014), p. 102.
19 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, p. 2.
20 ILO: Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and
Recommendations, International Labour Standards Department, Rev. 2012, p. 34.
21 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, op. cit., p. 2.
22 ILO: Provisional Record No. 14(Rev.), Part One, Report of the Committee on the Application of
Standards, ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, paras 8–23.
23 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 103.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 7
24. Comprised in a simple diagram, the regular system of supervision can be presented as
follows:
Figure 1. The regular supervisory process 24
25. Unlike the regular system of supervision, the three special supervisory procedures are
based on the submission of a complaint or representation. The article 24 representations
procedure, the complaints procedure under article 26 of the Constitution and the special
procedure concerning complaints regarding freedom of association will be briefly
introduced below.
Article 24 representations
26. The representations procedure is enshrined in articles 24 and 25 of the ILO Constitution.
These provisions grant an industrial organization of employers or workers the right to
present a representation to the Governing Body against any member State which, in its
view, “has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance of any Convention to
which it is a party”. 25 The Governing Body may appoint a three-member tripartite
committee – if the representation is admissible – to examine it on its merits and the
government’s response thereto. 26 When representations deal with possible violations of the
principles contained in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the matter is usually referred to the CFA, which will be
examined below. The CFA – after requesting the government for further information –
subsequently submits a report to the Governing Body in which it states the legal and
practical aspects of the case, examines the information submitted and concludes with
certain recommendations. If the response of the government is deemed not satisfactory, the
Governing Body may choose to publish the representation and the government’s response.
24 ibid.
25 ibid., p. 106.
26 ILO: Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and
Recommendations, op. cit., p. 49.
8 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
The case may be referred to the CEACR for follow up, or dealt with as a complaint, in
which case the Governing Body asks for a Commission of Inquiry to be set up. Individuals
or other groups are not allowed to submit a representation directly to the Governing Body.
Figure 2. The representations procedure 27
Article 26 complaints
27. The second special procedure, the complaints procedure, is provided for in articles 26–34
of the ILO Constitution. Complaints may be filed against a member State for not
complying with a ratified Convention by another member State which has ratified that
same Convention, a delegate to the ILC or the Governing Body in its own capacity. 28
When a complaint is received, the Governing Body may set up a Commission of Inquiry,
consisting of three independent members, which is responsible for carrying out an
investigation of the complaint in which it ascertains all the facts and issues
recommendations on measures to be taken to address the complaint. 29 The Commission of
Inquiry is the most severe investigative procedure available and is usually set up when a
State persistently and seriously violates international labour standards. 30 Up to this date
there have been 12 such Commissions established (see figure 4 in Appendix II).
28. When a State refuses to adhere to the recommendations of the Commission, the Governing
Body can take action under article 33 of the Constitution, which provides as follows:
In the event of any Member failing to carry out within the time specified the
recommendations, if any, contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry, or in the
decision of the International Court of Justice, as the case may be, the Governing Body may
27 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit.
28 ibid., p. 108.
29 ILO: Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and
Recommendations, op. cit., paras 82–84.
30 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 108.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 9
recommend to the Conference such action as it may deem wise and expedient to secure
compliance therewith.
29. Article 33 has only been invoked once, in 2000, when the Governing Body requested the
ILC to take measures against the widespread and systematic use of forced labour in
Myanmar.
Figure 3. The complaints procedure 31
The complaints procedure before the
Committee on Freedom of Association
30. The third special supervisory mechanism concerns the procedure before the CFA.
Following the establishment of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom
of Association (FFCC) in 1950, the CFA was set up in 1951 for the purpose of examining
complaints about violations of the principles of freedom of association laid down in
Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Paragraph 14 of the special procedures for examining
complaints alleging violations of freedom of association states that: “The mandate of the
Committee consists in determining whether any given legislation or practice complies with
the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining laid down in the relevant
Conventions.” 32 The mandate has been regularly approved by the Governing Body,
including in 2009 when it was included in the Compendium of rules of Governing Body
committees. 33 Formally, the responsibility of the CFA is to consider, with a view to
31 ibid., p. 109.
32 Paragraph 14 of the special procedures for examining complaints alleging violations of freedom
of association. Also see ILO: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association
Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, Geneva, 2006, para. 6.
33 GB.306/LILS/1, para. 8; GB.306/10/1(Rev.), para. 4.
10 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
making recommendations to the Governing Body, whether a case is worthy of examination
by the Governing Body or possible referral to the FFCC. 34 The Committee may examine
complaints whether or not the country concerned has ratified the relevant Conventions.
These complaints may be lodged by employers’ and workers’ organizations against a
member State. The CFA is a Governing Body committee and is composed of an
independent chairperson and three members and three deputies from each of the three
groups: Governments, Employers and Workers, all acting in their personal capacity. Its
function is not to form general conclusions concerning trade unions’ and/or employers’
situations in particular countries on the basis of vague general statements, but to evaluate
specific allegations about the principles of freedom of association. 35 The main objective of
the CFA procedure is not to criticize certain governments, but rather to engage in a
constructive tripartite dialogue to promote respect for trade unions’ and employers’
associations’ rights in law and practice. 36
31. In order for a case to be receivable by the CFA, certain requirements must be met. The
complaint should clearly state that its intent is to lodge a complaint to the CFA, it must
come from an employers’ or workers’ organization, the complaint has to be in writing and
it has to be signed by a representative of a body entitled to make a complaint. 37 Nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) with consultative status with the ILO are also entitled
to file complaints. 38 Substantively, the allegations in the complaints should not be purely
political in character, should be clearly stated and fully supported by evidence. There is no
requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies although the CFA takes into account the
fact that a matter may be pending before the national courts. 39
32. If the CFA decides to receive a case it subsequently requests a response from the
government concerned. After the response is examined, the Committee analyses the case
and draws up recommendations on how the specific situation could be remedied. 40 If a
violation of freedom of association principles is found, governments are requested to report
on the implementation of those adopted recommendations. In cases where the member
34 D. Tajgman and K. Curtis: Freedom of Association: A user’s guide – Standards, principles and
procedures of the International Labour Organization (Geneva, ILO, 2000), p. 58.
35 ILO: Freedom of Association: Digest and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of
the Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, Geneva, 2006, Annex, para. 16.
36 Freedom of Association: Digest and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the
Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, Geneva, 2006, para. 4. The legitimacy and
authority of the supervisory mechanism is based on stability and consistency of its decisions. This is
the reason behind the adoption of a Conference resolution in 1970 which called for the
establishment of the CFA Digest, see: Resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to
civil liberties, adopted on 25 June 1970, ILC, 54th Session, Geneva, 1970, para. 11.
37 D. Tajgman and K. Curtis, op. cit., pp. 58–59. Also see paragraphs 31 and 40–42 of the special
procedures for examining complaints alleging violations of freedom of association.
38 Non-governmental international organizations having general consultative status with the ILO
are: International Co-operative Alliance, International Organisation of Employers, International
Trade Union Confederation, Organization of African Trade Union Unity, Business Africa and
World Federation of Trade Unions.
39 ibid., pp. 60–61. See paragraphs 28–30 of the special procedures for examining complaints
alleging violations of freedom of association.
40 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 110.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 11
State under scrutiny has ratified the relevant Convention, the technical legal aspects of the
case may be referred to the Committee of Experts.
33. Once the CFA has examined a case it sends its report to the Governing Body for adoption.
The CFA may indicate in its conclusions and recommendations that the case calls for no
further examination; include interim conclusions and recommendations; and may ask to be
kept informed of certain developments or make definitive conclusions and
recommendations. 41 At various stages in the procedure, the CFA may issue urgent appeals
or send other special communications to the government concerned. Moreover, direct
contacts – whereby a representative of the Director-General is sent to the country
concerned to ascertain the facts of a case – may be established during or after the
examination process. 42 These missions are meant to discuss the issue directly with
government representatives and the social partners. The Committee convenes three times a
year including in the week before the Governing Body meeting takes place. The CFA has
examined over 3,100 cases since its creation. 43
Figure 4. The freedom of association procedure 44
Reporting obligations on unratified Conventions
and on Recommendations
34. Under article 19 of the Constitution, member States are required to report at regular
intervals, at the request of the Governing Body, on the position of its law and practice with
regard to the extent to which effect is given, or proposed to be given, to any of the
provisions of unratified Conventions. The goal of this obligation is to keep track of
developments in all countries, whether or not they have ratified Conventions. Article 19 is
the basis for the annual in-depth General Survey by the CEACR. These Surveys – on a
subject chosen by the Governing Body – are established mainly on the basis of information
41 D. Tajgman and K. Curtis, op. cit., p. 66.
42 ibid., p. 64.
43 Also see E. Gravel, I. Duplessis and B. Gernigon: The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its
impact over 50 years (Geneva, ILO, 2001).
44 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 111.
12 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
and reports received from member States, and employers’ and workers’ organizations.
Furthermore, a special follow-up reporting procedure has been implemented with the
adoption of the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,
whereby member States are required to report annually on any changes which may have
taken place in their law and practice with regard to unratified fundamental Conventions. 45
Article 19 reports may identify obstacles in the way of ratification or may point out areas
in which assistance may be required. 46
Technical assistance
35. The ILO, in supporting the supervisory bodies, is also mandated to provide technical
assistance whereby ILO officials or other experts help countries to address problems in
legislation and practice in order to bring them into conformity with ratified instruments. 47
Different types of assistance are available. These range from facilitation of social dialogue
or dispute resolution processes, legal advisory services – including the analysis of, and
advice on, legal drafts and the provision of an informal opinion of the International Labour
Office (the Office) on certain legal matters – to direct contacts, tripartite missions or ILO
advisory visits. 48 Whether the Office provides such assistance depends on the political will
in a country to resolve the issues, matters of budget and the specificity of the request. 49
Technical assistance is an important component of effective supervision of international
labour standards.
(b) Establishment and development of
the supervisory mechanisms
36. This section examines the historical development of the supervisory system in order to set
the stage for a more elaborate analysis of the contemporary status of the supervisory bodies
and procedures in the following paragraphs. First, a more expansive and general
description of the creation and development of the mandate and functioning of the CEACR
and the CAS – the regular system of supervision – will be provided. Subsequently, the
development of the special procedures – the CFA, representations and complaint
procedures – will be briefly visited in separate sections.
45 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the
International Labour Conference at its 86th Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998, Annex, Part II,
section B.
46 D. Tajgman and K. Curtis, op. cit., p. 52.
47 http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/applying-and-promoting-international-labour-standards/tech
nical-assistance-and-training/lang--en/index.htm.
48 D. Tajgman and K. Curtis, op. cit., p. 73.
49 ibid.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 13
Development of the CAS and the CEACR
37. The CAS and the CEACR were established to carry out their supervisory responsibilities
under the concept of “mutual supervision” which emerged from the work leading to the
development of the ILO in 1919. 50 This concept is based on the precept that unfair
competition between countries would be prevented if ILO Members would all be bound by
the same ratified Conventions. Furthermore, the Commission on International Labour
Legislation, which drafted the Labour Chapter in the Treaty of Versailles, emphasized that
the supervisory procedures were “carefully devised in order to avoid the imposition of
penalties, except in the last resort, when a State has flagrantly and persistently refused to
carry out its obligations under a Convention”. 51 The supervisory machinery was therefore
based on persuasion and deliberation, rather than on sanctions or other types of measures.
Article 22 of the Constitution provides the basis for the regular system of “mutual
supervision”. 52 It provides as follows:
Article 22
Annual reports on ratified Conventions
Each of the Members agrees to make an annual report to the International Labour Office
on the measures which it has taken to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which it
is a party. These reports shall be made in such form and shall contain such particulars as the
Governing Body may request.
38. This constitutional context provided the means for information exchange between
Members while the (special) representation and complaints procedures – originally
Articles 409 and 411 of Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles – could potentially be used in
cases where Members failed to give effect to the provisions of ratified Conventions. 53
Originally, the Director-General’s summary of the reports was to serve as a basis for
further action, but in practice this did not happen. Therefore, the CEACR and the CAS
provided the only effective means for supervising the implementation of ratified
Conventions since their inception.
1926–39
39. In 1926, the ILC set up the CAS and requested the Governing Body to appoint a
Committee, the current CEACR, whose functions would be defined in the report of the
Committee on the examination of annual reports under Article 408 of the Treaty of
Versailles. 54 The Committee indicated that the CEACR would have no juridical capacity
or interpretative authority. The role of the CEACR was, in the Committee’s view, to take
50 Informal tripartite consultations (19–20 February 2013): Follow-up to matters arising out of the
report of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 101st Session (June 2012) of the
International Labour Conference, Information paper on the history and development of the mandate
of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, paras 7–9.
(Henceforth: Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013)).
51 ILO: Official Bulletin, Vol. 1, April 1919–August 1920, pp. 265–266.
52 Originally Article 408 of Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919.
53 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 8.
54 ibid., para. 10.
14 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
notice of inadequate reports, to call attention to diverging interpretations of Conventions
and to present a technical report to the Director, who would communicate this report to the
Conference. 55
40. The CEACR received 180 reports for its First Session of which 70 gave rise to
“observations”. The CAS noted that the CEACR report in 1928 had rendered useful results
and the Governing Body decided to appoint the CEACR for another year and tacitly
renewed its mandate annually. 56
41. In this first period – between 1926 and 1939 – the CEACR was initially composed of eight
members, but this grew to 13 in 1939. The workload also increased, from 180 reports in
1928 to 600 in 1939. The CEACR methods of work evolved through interaction with the
Governing Body and the CAS. The CEACR also commenced with addressing member
States’ governments directly, thereby gradually establishing a dialogue with those
governments. 57
42. As regards the relationship between the CAS and the CEACR in this first period, the
deliberations in the CAS focused on matters of principle arising out of the report of the
CEACR, while an independent examination was still possible for reports that were
received too late to be examined by the CEACR. While the CEACR’s main task was
therefore to examine the reports from member States, the procedures in the CAS developed
around the opportunities given to member States to submit certain explanations orally or in
writing. 58
43. In 1939, the CAS commented on this double examination process in its report and stated –
in order to urge member States to submit their reports in a timely manner – that this system
placed member States on a footing of equality in respect of the supervision of the
application of ratified Conventions. It added that the examination of reports by the CEACR
and the CAS differed in certain respects: the CEACR consisted of independent experts
whose examination is generally limited to a scrutiny of the documents provided by
governments while the CAS is a tripartite organ, made up of representatives of
governments, workers and employers, who are in a better position to go beyond questions
of conformity and as far as practicable, verify the day-to-day practical application of the
Conventions in question. 59 The CAS explained that in this system of mutual supervision
and review “… the preparatory work carried out by the Experts plays an important and
essential part”. 60
55 ILO: Record of Proceedings, Appendix V, Report of the Committee on Article 408, ILC, Eighth
Session, 1926, pp. 405–406. The current Director-General was simply called “Director” in the early
days of the Organization.
56 ILO: Minutes of the 30th Session of the Governing Body, Jan. 1926, p. 56.
57 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 16.
58 ibid., para. 19.
59 ILO: Record of Proceedings, Appendix V, ILC, 25th Session, 1939, p. 414.
60 ibid.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 15
1944–61
44. A second period in the development of the CEACR and the CAS, from 1944 to about
1961, witnessed an expansion of the supervisory role of the committees. 61 In the period
following the Second World War, the ILO reviewed its standard-setting system through an
analysis of the functioning of the supervisory machinery. 62 During the 26th Session of the
Conference, it was discussed – on the basis of a preparatory report – that although the
system offered a rather reliable impression of the extent to which national laws were in
conformity with labour standards, it did not provide a clear picture of the extent to which
those laws were effectively applied. 63 This led to a broadening of the terms of reference of
the CAS and the CEACR in light of the 1946 constitutional amendment in which the
system of information and reports to be supplied by member States was expanded. 64
45. More specifically, the constitutional amendments entailed important changes to articles 19
and 22 and concerned the obligation to report on measures taken to submit newly adopted
instruments to the competent national authorities, the obligation to submit information on
unratified Conventions and Recommendations at the request of the Governing Body and
the obligation to communicate reports to representative workers’ and employers’
organizations. 65
46. Due to the increasing workload, the membership of the CEACR grew to 17 and its sessions
were lengthened to an average of one-and-a-half weeks. Dialogue between governments
was further enhanced during this period and the first references to “technical assistance”
were made. 66
47. The CAS emphasized that “double examination” was essential to the functioning of the
supervisory system and repeatedly supported calls for strengthening the CEACR.
Furthermore, the CEACR and the CAS focused on ensuring that governments fulfilled
their new obligation to provide representative organizations of employers and workers with
copies of their reports. In 1953, the CEACR took notice of the first comments made by
workers’ organizations. 67
48. From the mid-1950s, the Governing Body stopped its practice of commenting on the report
of the CEACR and confined itself to taking note of it. In 1950, the CEACR examined its
first reports on unratified Conventions, based on the 1946 constitutional amendment and a
61 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), paras 21–41.
62 ibid, para. 21.
63 ILO: Future, policy, programme and status of the ILO, Report I, ILC, 26th Session, 1944,
pp. 95–96 and 99–100.
64 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), paras 26–29.
65 ILO: Improvements in the standards-related activities of the ILO: Initial implementation of the
interim plan of action to enhance the impact of the standards system, Geneva, Mar. 2008,
GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 46.
66 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), paras 32–34.
67 ibid., para. 37.
16 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
1948 decision of the Governing Body. 68 Examination of the unratified Conventions was
strengthened during the 1950s and in 1955, the Governing Body approved a proposal that
the CEACR should undertake, in addition to a technical examination on the application of
Conventions, a study on general matters, such as positions of the application of certain
Conventions and Recommendations by all governments. These examinations, presently
known as “General Surveys”, were established with a view to reinforcing the work of the
CAS and intended to cover Conventions and Recommendations selected under article 19
of the Constitution. Since 1956, the CAS has consistently discussed the General Surveys
produced by the CEACR. 69 In 1950 and 1951, a special procedure on freedom of
association was established. This process will be described later on in a separate section.
1962–89
49. A third period in the development of the supervisory system, from 1962 to 1989 is
characterized by further diversification of the supervisory model. 70 The ILO began to
focus more on the assistance it could provide to its new Members in light of its expanded
membership resulting from the attainments of independence of many new territories.
Tripartism was strengthened by the increased participation of employers’ and workers’
organizations, the adoption of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards)
Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the rise of the international trade union movement. 71
50. Although the mandate of the CEACR did not alter, its functions were further developed
and the impartiality of the supervisory bodies was reinforced. The ILO collaborated with
other international mechanisms in supervising the application of common standards. The
CEACR examined reports on the European Code of Social Security and certain reports
from States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) until the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) was
established in 1985. 72
51. The competence and functioning of the CEACR was frequently discussed in this period.
Concerns were voiced over the absence of formal rules of procedure and the role of the
CEACR as a disguised judicial body. 73 A majority of the tripartite parties disagreed and
considered that the CEACR had functioned well without any formal rules of procedure. 74
They “expressed their faith in the impartiality, objectivity and integrity of the Committee
68 Informal tripartite consultations on the follow-up to the discussions of the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards (19 September 2012), The ILO supervisory system: A factual and
historical information note, paras 51–54.
69 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 41.
70 ibid., paras 42–62.
71 ibid., para. 42–43.
72 ibid., para. 47.
73 ibid., paras 48–49. Also see para. 50. In 1983, in a memorandum, socialist countries considered
that the composition, criteria and methods of the supervisory bodies did not reflect the membership
of the Organization and the present-day conditions. ILO procedures, in their view, were being
misused for political purposes to direct criticism at socialist and developing countries.
74 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 49.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 17
of Experts, a quasi-judicial body whose professional competence was beyond question. …
Objectivity could not be guaranteed by rules of procedure but depended upon the personal
qualities of the members of the Committee.” 75
52. In 1979, the CEACR reached its current level of 20 experts and the issue of the
geographical representation of the experts took on greater importance. 76 As regards the
Committee’s working methods, a number of developments took place. In 1963, the
CEACR indicated – supported by the CAS – that it reviewed the practical application of
ratified Conventions and their incorporation into domestic law. 77 A year later, the CEACR
started to record cases of progress in its report and in 1968 the direct contacts procedure
was introduced. 78
53. From 1970, the CEACR began giving special attention to the obligation for Members,
under article 23 of the Constitution, to communicate reports and further information to the
representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, by which greater participation of
workers and employers was to be promoted. 79 In 1973, the CEACR noted that the number
of comments had increased from seven during the previous year to 30 in the present one.
Most comments were submitted together with the governments’ reports, while some had
been sent directly to the Organization. 80 The submission of comments became established
practice during this period and their number steadily increased to 149 in 1985.
1990–2012
54. The review of standards-related activities broadened in recent decades in order to take the
context of globalization better into account. Between 1994 and 2005, the Governing Body
and the Conference discussed virtually all aspects of the ILO standards system. 81
Discussions – about the core values and goals of the Organization – similar to those in the
early years of the Organization and the years prior to the Second World War led to the
adoption of the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and
the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization in 2008. 82
75 ILO: Record of Proceedings, Appendix V, ILC, 47th Session, 1963, para. 10.
76 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 51.
77 ILO: Record of Proceedings, Appendix V, op. cit., para. 5.
78 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), paras 54–55. During direct contact missions, ILO officials meet
government officials to discuss problems in the application of standards with the aim of finding
solutions. Different formalities for conducting such missions are possible, for example on the spot,
direct contact, high-level, and high-level tripartite missions.
79 ibid., para. 56.
80 ibid., para. 58.
81 ILO: For a comprehensive overview of the standards-related activities from 1994–2004, see:
Improvements in the standards-related activities of the ILO: A progress report, Geneva, Mar. 2005,
GB.292/LILS/7.
82 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 64.
18 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
55. The CEACR’s terms of reference were not adjusted during this period, but the Governing
Body did attribute a role to the Committee in cases where representations declared
admissible related to facts and allegations similar to those of an earlier representation. 83
The membership of the CEACR remained unchanged at 20 experts, but a 15-year limit for
all members was established by the experts themselves in 2002. In 1996, the dates of the
CEACR’s sessions were moved from February–March to November–December.
56. In 2001, the CEACR established a subcommittee on its working methods and these
methods were discussed in plenary during the CEACR’s sessions in 2005 and 2006. The
reviews were prompted by discussions in the Governing Body as well as the desire to
effectively address the workload of the Committee. The number of comments also
increased to over 1,000. 84
57. While this last period witnessed greater coordination and interaction between the CEACR
and the CAS, it was also marked by divergences concerning the role of the CEACR in
relation to matters of interpretation and the division between the functions of the respective
committees. 85 These discussions, mainly held in 1994, forebode the 2012 problems and
substantively covered similar ground. The Governing Body began to address the work of
the CEACR more frequently during this period, especially due to the new reporting
procedure under the Social Justice Declaration, the streamlining of the regular reporting
procedure and the more rapid renewal of the CEACR membership. 86
The special procedure on freedom of association
58. While the CEACR and the CAS have been in operation almost from the creation of the
ILO, another important component of the supervisory system developed from 1950
onward. Following the adoption of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the ILO with the support
of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) created a special
procedure for the examination of allegations concerning the violation of trade union
rights. 87
59. A new supervisory body was created, the FFCC, and it was agreed that allegations
regarding violations of trade union rights would be forwarded by ECOSOC to the
Governing Body. The new process was meant to ensure facilities for impartial and
authoritative investigations of questions of fact raised by allegations of infringements of
trade unions’ and employers’ associations’ rights. 88
60. Since the principle of freedom of association was enshrined in the Constitution and the
Declaration of Philadelphia and in light of its importance for the tripartite model of the
Organization, these allegations could be made against all member States, irrespective of
whether they had ratified the relevant Conventions. However, without the consent of the
government concerned, no allegations could be submitted to the Commission. These new
83 ibid., para. 65.
84 ibid., paras 69–71.
85 ibid., paras 72–74.
86 ibid., para. 74.
87 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 47.
88 ibid.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 19
procedures were not meant to replace the existing constitutional representations and
complaints procedures. 89
61. In 1951, the CFA was created by the Governing Body. Originally, examination of
complaints by the CFA was intended to determine whether the allegation warranted further
examination by the Governing Body and to secure the consent of the government
concerned should referral to the FFCC be justified. Examination by the CFA did not
require such consent and the CFA quickly became the main platform for examining
allegations of violations of freedom of association. 90 This occurred for a number of
reasons, mainly because of the difficulty to obtain consent from the government under
consideration and the formal nature of the procedure before the FFCC. Moreover,
important developments in the procedure of the CFA contributed to a broadening of the
examination of complaints by this Committee over time.
62. Such procedural changes and the Committee’s mandate were discussed at different
moments. 91 At its session in 1952, the Committee considered it desirable to establish a
simpler and more expeditious procedure to deal with complaints that were not sufficiently
substantiated. 92 In its ninth report, the Committee proposed a number of changes to the
procedure related to the presentation of complaints, governments’ replies, hearings of the
parties and the form of the Committee’s recommendations. 93 In 1958, the Committee
formulated additional improvements aimed at strengthening its impartiality, preventing
abuse of its procedures and making a distinction between urgent and less urgent cases. 94 In
1969, another set of proposals dealing with complainants, receivability and measures to
speed up the procedure were formulated. 95 In 1977, two proposals concerning contacts
with governments and the direct contacts procedure were adopted to increase the impact of
the CFA. 96 In 1979, the Governing Body adopted a number of proposals by the Committee
regarding hearing the parties, direct contacts missions, relations with complainants and
governments, and improving efficiency. 97
89 Informal tripartite consultations on the follow-up to the discussions of the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards (19 September 2012), The ILO supervisory system: A factual and
historical information note, para. 68.
90 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 48.
91 CFA: Examination of complaints alleging infringements of trade union rights, Document on
Procedure, Mar. 2002; Sixth Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association reproduced in the
Seventh Report of the International Labour Organization to the United Nations, Appendix V,
Reports of the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association, para. 25. Also see:
GB.306/10/1(Rev.), para. 4.
92 Sixth Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association reproduced in the Seventh Report of
the International Labour Organization to the United Nations, Appendix V, Reports of the Governing
Body Committee on Freedom of Association, para. 24.
93 CFA: Document on Procedure, op. cit., paras 7–13.
94 ILO: Official Bulletin, Vol. XLIII, 1960, No. 3, 29th Report of the Committee on Freedom of
Association, paras 8–12.
95 CFA: Document on Procedure, op. cit., para. 21.
96 ibid., para. 29.
97 ibid., paras 32–39.
20 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
63. The CFA procedure has been adapted and enhanced regularly since its creation. As was
discussed, the CFA has presently examined over 3,100 complaints while the FFCC has
reviewed six cases. 98
Article 24 representations and article 26 complaints
64. The functioning of the representations procedure, governed by articles 24 and 25, and the
complaints procedure, governed by articles 26–29 and 30–34 of the Constitution, has been
discussed by the Governing Body on various occasions. 99 Over the years the increase in
the use of these procedures has called attention to their efficiency, specificity and
coherence among the other supervisory mechanisms. A number of adjustments have been
introduced over time.
65. Articles 409 and 410 of the Treaty of Versailles contained the original procedure for
representations. The submission of the first representations in 1924 and 1931 raised a
number of practical issues about the procedure. To safeguard both the rights of industrial
associations and the freedom to act of the Governing Body, Standing Orders were adopted
in 1932. 100 These provided for the instalment of a tripartite committee to examine each
representation. Initially, the tripartite committee’s mandate covered both the receivability
and the substance of the representations, but this was later changed so that the Governing
Body would decide on matters of admissibility. 101 The Standing Orders for the
examination of representations were last amended in 2004. 102
66. The complaints procedure was initially regulated in Articles 411–420 of the Treaty of
Versailles, limiting the right to file a complaint only to a member State and providing for
tripartite panels to examine the complaint. 103 The procedure was amended substantially in
1946 with the adoption of articles 26–34 of the Constitution. As explained above, a
complaint may be filed against a member State for not complying with a ratified
Convention by another member State, provided that it has ratified the same Convention. 104
The Governing Body may use the same procedure either of its own motion or on receipt of
a complaint from a delegate to the Conference. Subsequently, a Commission of Inquiry
may be set up by the Governing Body to examine the complaint, although this happens
only occasionally. 105 Furthermore, the reference to measures of an economic character was
replaced by a provision under which the Governing Body can recommend to the
98 Informal tripartite consultations on the follow-up to the discussions of the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards (19 September 2012), The ILO supervisory system: A factual and
historical information note, para. 69.
99 For both procedures, see GB.288/LILS/1; for specific debates on the representations procedure,
see GB.271/LILS/3; GB.273/LILS/1; GB.277/LILS/1; and GB.291/LILS/1.
100 The ILO supervisory system: A factual and historical information note, op. cit., para. 62.
101 ibid., para. 64.
102 GB.288/LILS/1, para. 20.
103 The ILO supervisory system: A factual and historical information note, op. cit., para. 65.
104 Article 26(4) of the Constitution grants similar complaint rights to the Governing Body or a
delegate to the International Labour Conference.
105 Improvements in the standards-related activities of the ILO – articles 19, 24 and 26 of the
Constitution, GB.288/LILS/1, para. 33.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 21
Conference such measures it deems “wise and expedient” to bring about compliance with
the Convention concerned. 106
67. From the 1960s, supervision of the application of ratified Conventions, which had been
carried out before that time largely through the regular supervisory process, began to see
the more frequent use of complaints and representations. In 1961, the first complaint was
lodged leading to the first Commission of Inquiry. 107 The diversification of the use of the
supervisory procedures after the 1960s also demonstrated the complementarity of the
system. 108
68. Thus, some of the concerns raised during that period have come to the forefront again in
recent times – particularly those regarding the effects of the special procedures on the
regular procedure, the overlapping of procedures and the increasing workload – in all parts
of the supervisory system. It is against this background that it has been suggested that
improvement of coherence and the effectiveness of the supervisory system needs to
address the balance and interrelationship of the different supervisory components. 109 The
following section will explain the contemporary status of the different parts of the
supervisory system in order to provide a clear picture of its current procedural aspects.
(c) Procedural aspects and contemporary
supervisory architecture
69. The different supervisory procedures serve a common purpose: the effective observance of
international labour standards, particularly in relation to ratified Conventions, taking into
account the extent to which Members have given effect to the provisions of the
Conventions. The different links that exist between the supervisory mechanisms therefore
operate in respect of obligations freely assumed by the Organization’s member States
through the ratification of Conventions. 110
106 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 27.
107 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 51. Also see: Information paper on the history and development of
the mandate of the CEACR (19–20 February 2013), para. 9: “… the preference was to focus on the
review of annual reports, so as to render recourse to the other constitutional procedures
(representations and complaints) unnecessary”.
108 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 44.
109 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), op. cit., paras 39–79.
110 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), op. cit., para. 57.
22 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
70. The following section sets out the procedures of the different supervisory mechanisms in
one comprehensive table. 111 The different sections – placed in the left column – discuss:
(a) the constitutional or other legal basis; (b) procedure; (c) nature and mandate;
(d) composition; (e) information considered; (f) the status of the reports; and (g) the
outcomes for each respective supervisory procedure or body. This table offers a concise,
comparative and comprehensive overview of the supervisory system as a whole.
Subsequent paragraphs will focus on the interrelationship of the different supervisory
procedures.
111 This table is similar to the one that can be found in document GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 54.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 23
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of
ratified Conventions
Representations alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom of association
Constitutional basis Articles 22 and 23 Articles 24 and 25 Articles 26–29 and 31–34 Principle of freedom of association embodied in the Preamble of
the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia
Other legal basis (i) Conference resolution of 1926;
(ii) article 7 of the Conference
Standing Orders;
(iii) decisions of the Governing Body;
(iv) decisions by the supervisory
bodies concerning their methods
of work and procedure.
Standing Orders concerning
the representation procedure
adopted by the Governing
Body (last modified at its
291st Session, November
2004).
Governing Body has left the
determination of the procedure to
the competent supervisory body.
No rules of procedure explicitly
set out but developed and
evolved in practice.
(i) Provisions adopted by common consent by the Governing
Body and ECOSOC in January and February 1950;
(ii) decisions taken by the Governing Body;
(iii) decisions adopted by the supervisory bodies themselves.
(Also see: Compendium of rules applicable to the Governing
Body of the International Labour Office, ILO, Geneva, 2011.)
Initiation of the procedure Obligation of Members to provide
reports (article 22) on the measures
taken to give effect to ratified
Conventions, in accordance with the
report form and the reporting cycle
determined by the Governing Body
(and comments submitted by
employers’ and workers’
organizations under article 23).
In 2015, 2,336 reports (under
articles 22 and 35 of the ILO
Constitution) were requested from
governments on the application of
Conventions ratified by member
States. The Committee of Experts
has received 1,628 reports. This
figure corresponds to 69.7 per cent
of the reports requested.
Representation made by an
industrial association of
employers or workers alleging
failure by a Member to secure
effective observance of a
ratified Convention.
168 representations have
been submitted to date.
Complaint by a Member alleging
failure by another Member to
secure effective observance of
any Convention which both have
ratified.
The Governing Body also may
adopt the same procedure either
of its own motion or on receipt of
a complaint from a delegate to
the Conference.
30 complaints have been
submitted to date.
(i) Initiation of the procedure:
Complaints lodged with the Office against an ILO Member,
either directly or through the UN, either by organizations of
workers or employers or by governments. Complaints may be
entertained whether or not the country concerned has ratified
the freedom of association Conventions;
(ii) Initiation of the procedure – Specific conditions:
Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission (FFCC):
– Complaints may be lodged against a Member of the UN
which is not a Member of the ILO;
– Complaints which the Governing Body, or the Conference
acting on the report of its Credentials Committee or
ECOSOC, considers it appropriate to refer to the FFCC;
– In principle, no complaint may be referred to the
Commission without the consent of the government
concerned;
Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA):
– Referrals proposed unanimously by the Credentials
Committee of the Conference and decided upon by the
Conference, concerning an objection as to the
composition of a delegation to the Conference.
24 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified Conventions Representations alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom of association
Competent
supervisory
bodies
Committee of Experts
on the Application of
Conventions and
Recommendations
(CEACR)
(1926 Conference
resolution)
Conference Committee
on the Application of
Standards (CAS)
(1926 Conference
resolution)
Tripartite committees of the
Governing Body
(Standing Orders concerning the
procedure for the examination of
representations)
Commissions of Inquiry and
Governing Body (including
through high-level missions)
(article 26(3))
CFA
(Governing Body decision
of 1951, 117th Session)
FFCC
(1950 decisions of the
Governing Body
(110th Session) and of
ECOSOC accepting the
services of the ILO and the
FFCC on behalf of the UN)
Nature and
mandate
Standing body
To examine annual
reports (article 22) on
measures taken to give
effect to ratified
Conventions.
To make a report that is
submitted by the Director-
General to the Governing
Body and the Conference
(Governing Body decision,
103rd Session, 1947).
Standing Committee of
the Conference
To consider measures
taken by Members to
give effect to ratified
Conventions.
To submit a report to
the Conference
(article 7 of the
Conference Standing
Orders).
Ad hoc tripartite body of the
Governing Body
To examine a representation
deemed receivable by the
Governing Body.
To submit a report to the
Governing Body setting
out conclusions and
recommendations on the
merits of the case (article 3(1)
and article 6 of the Standing
Orders).
Ad hoc body
To fully consider a complaint
referred to it by the Governing
Body.
To prepare a report embodying
findings on all questions of fact
and containing recommendations
as to the steps to be taken and a
time frame within which this
should occur (article 28 of the
Constitution).
12 complaints have been
examined by a Commission
of Inquiry thus far.
Standing tripartite body of
the Governing Body
To examine allegations of
violations of freedom of
association so as to determine
whether any given legislation
or practice complies with the
principles of freedom of
association and collective
bargaining.
To report to the Governing
Body (Governing Body
decision of 1951; Digest,
para. 6).
Until July 2015,
3,126 complaints have been
examined by the CFA.
Standing body
To examine allegations of
violations of freedom of
association.
To ascertain the facts, as a
fact-finding body.
Authorized to discuss
situations with the government
concerned with a view to
securing the adjustment of
difficulties by agreement.
To report to the Governing
Body (Governing Body
decision of 1950).
Six complaints examined by
the FFCC.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 25
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified Conventions Representations alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom of association
Competent
supervisory
bodies
CEACR CAS Tripartite committees Commissions of Inquiry CFA FFCC
Composition Members are appointed
by the Governing Body,
upon the proposal of the
Director-General in their
personal capacity.
Members are appointed
in view of their legal
expertise, impartiality
and independence.
Government, Employer
and Worker members of
the Committee form part
of national delegations
to the Conference.
Members of the Governing Body
chosen in equal numbers from
the Government, Employers’
and Workers’ groups
(i.e. one per group).
Members appointed by the
Governing Body in their personal
capacity upon the proposal of the
Director-General. Persons
chosen for their impartiality,
integrity and standing.
Members of the Governing
Body representing in equal
proportion the Government,
Employers’ and Workers’
groups (i.e. six per group).
Each member participates
in a personal capacity.
Chaired by an independent
person.
Members appointed by the
Governing Body for their
personal qualifications and
independence upon the
proposal of the Director-
General.
Governing Body has
authorized members of the
Commission to have the work
undertaken by panels of no
less than three and no more
than five members.
26 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified Conventions Representations alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom of association
Competent
supervisory
bodies
CEACR CAS Tripartite committees Commissions of Inquiry CFA FFCC
Information
considered
Written information on the
application in law and
practice of ratified
Conventions including:
(i) article 22 reports;
(ii) article 23 comments
submitted by
employers’ and
workers’
organizations;
(iii) other information,
such as relevant
legislation or
mission reports.
Written information on the
application in law and
practice of ratified
Conventions, including:
(i) report of the CEACR;
(ii) information supplied
by governments.
Oral information
concerning the case
under discussion supplied
by the government
concerned and by
members of the
Committee.
Written information supplied
by the parties.
The hearing of the parties
could be possible.
Written and oral information. The
Commissions of Inquiry can take
all necessary steps to obtain full
and objective information on
questions at issue, in addition to
information supplied by the
parties (e.g. information supplied
by other Members, the hearing of
the parties and witnesses, visits
by the Commission to the
country).
Complaints and observations
thereon by the government.
Any additional information
requested by the Committee
and supplied by the parties,
generally in writing.
The hearing of the parties is
possible, as decided in
appropriate instances by the
CFA, although such cases
are rare. On the other hand,
at various stages in the
procedure, an ILO
representative may be sent
to the country concerned.
In order to ascertain facts, the
Commission is free to hear
evidence from all concerned
(e.g. information from third
parties, hearing of the parties
and witnesses, visits to the
country). Any discussions
“with a view to securing the
adjustment of difficulties by
agreement” have to be held
with the government
concerned.
Status of
the report
Governing Body takes
note of the report and
transmits it to the
Conference.
The report is published.
Plenary of the
Conference discusses
and approves the report.
The report is published.
Report includes conclusions
and recommendations of the
tripartite committee. Governing
Body discusses and approves
the report in a private sitting.
Report communicated by the
Director-General to the parties
concerned and to the Governing
Body, which takes note of it.
Report published in the ILO
Official Bulletin, under article 29
of the Constitution.
Report submitted to the
Governing Body for discussion
and approval.
Report published in the ILO
Official Bulletin.
Report communicated by the
Director-General to the
Governing Body, which takes
note of it.
Report published in the ILO
Official Bulletin.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 27
Regular supervisory procedure Special supervisory procedures
Reports on the application of ratified Conventions Representations alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging
non-observance of
ratified Conventions
Complaints alleging violations of freedom of association
Competent
supervisory
bodies
CEACR CAS Tripartite committees Commissions of Inquiry CFA FFCC
Outcome Individual comments by the CEACR as part of an
ongoing dialogue on the application in law and
practice of ratified Conventions and, where
appropriate, expressions of “satisfaction” and
“interest”.
Conclusions on individual cases by Conference
Committee.
Technical assistance provided by the Office at the
request of the government in the light of these
comments.
Governing Body’s decisions on
the representation notified to the
parties by the Office, including
decision to publish the
representation and the reply of
the government, in accordance
with article 25.
Possible follow-up by the
CEACR.
Governments concerned must
inform the Director-General
within three months whether or
not they accept the
recommendations and, if not,
whether they propose referral of
the complaint to the International
Court of Justice.
Governing Body may
recommend action by the
Conference in case of failure to
give effect to the
recommendations (article 33).
Possible follow-up by the
CEACR.
Possible recommendations to
the Governing Body:
(i) no further examination
required;
(ii) anomalies to be drawn to
the government’s attention;
government may be invited
to take remedial steps and
state the follow-up action
taken;
(iii) attempt to secure
government’s consent to
referral to the FFCC;
(iv) CEACR’s attention drawn
to legislative aspects if
Conventions ratified.
The Governing Body may
decide on arrangements to
follow up the matters
examined by the Commission,
whether the complaint
concerns an ILO Member or a
UN Member which is not a
Member of the ILO.
28 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
71. These tables illustrate the different procedures of the supervisory system while also
indicating the similarities and differences between them. With this general overview of the
supervisory architecture in place, the following section will proceed to analyse the
interrelationship between, and coherence of, the different procedures as well as the
interactions that occur among the bodies in practice.
III. Interrelationship, functioning and effectiveness of
the supervisory mechanisms
72. The system as a whole has a number of features that generate links and interactions
between the different components. Apart from their common purpose, the different
components – in a tripartite organization – involve the participation of employers’ and
workers’ organizations in addition to governments. They can contribute to the work of the
CEACR by sending comments and by initiating action through the submission of a
representation under article 24, a complaint under article 26 (through a delegate to the
Conference) or a complaint to the CFA. 112
73. The representatives of these organizations participate directly in the work of different
supervisory bodies and the Governing Body, which has a central role in relation to the
operation of the supervisory procedures. The Governing Body’s specific functions in this
respect include the approval of report forms on ratified Conventions and the consideration
of representations and complaints.
74. Furthermore, the Governing Body decides upon the mandates of certain supervisory bodies
(although not in relation to the CAS and Commissions of Inquiry), appoints the members
of most of these bodies and receives the reports of the supervisory bodies, either to note or
to approve them. 113 The Governing Body takes the difference between its role and those of
the specific other entities into consideration when exercising these functions. 114
75. As indicated in the tables above, the supervisory procedures have many other similarities.
In relation to the tools they possess these include: submission of written information, direct
contact missions, follow-up arrangements and various publicity measures. 115 Some
supervisory bodies have additional, similar characteristics in relation to their composition,
nature and procedures.
76. The complementarity of the system, which has been emphasized by the Governing Body
and Conference on each occasion the institutional framework was supplemented or
enhanced, means that examination under one procedure does not hinder the initiation of
another procedure on the same issue. 116 The resulting coordination, dialogue and
coherence between the different supervisory entities has created a number of links. These
will be discussed in the following section.
112 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 58.
113 ibid., para. 59.
114 ibid.
115 ibid., para. 61
116 ibid., para. 63.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 29
(a) Interrelationship and coherence
77. For the sake of coherence and effectiveness of the system as a whole, relationships exist
between the different supervisory bodies, both in principle and in practice.
78. Such interactions can be found in three areas: first, the referral of matters to the relevant
body; second, the suspension or closure of a procedure when another is initiated; and third,
as regards the examination by other supervisory bodies – in particular the CEACR – of the
follow-up and effect given to specific recommendations of supervisory bodies. 117
79. In the context of a representation, the Governing Body may decide to refer the matter to a
tripartite committee if it deems the representation admissible. The Governing Body may
also decide to refer aspects of the case that relate to trade union and employers’ rights to
the CFA. 118 This possibility was introduced in 1980 in accordance with articles 24 and 25
of the Constitution and, to date, 16 of these referrals have been made. Furthermore, the
Governing Body may postpone the appointment of a tripartite committee if the CEACR is
still in the process of examining a follow-up to a similar previous recommendation. 119
Regarding an article 26 complaint related to freedom of association that is already pending
before the CFA, the Governing Body may seek the CFA’s recommendation as to whether
the complaint should be referred to a Commission of Inquiry, or whether the examination
remains with the CFA. 120
80. Examination of a case by the CEACR and subsequently by the CAS may be suspended in
the event of a representation or complaint in relation to the same case. 121 When the
Governing Body has decided on the outcome, the CEACR’s subsequent examination may
include monitoring the follow-up to the recommendations of the body which examined the
representation or complaint. In cases involving representations or complaints where certain
aspects of the case are referred to the CFA, examination of the legislative issues by the
CEACR is not suspended. 122
81. In relation to the follow-up and effect given to the recommendations of the supervisory
bodies, governments are required to indicate which measures are taken. Following the
reporting obligations derived from article 22 of the Constitution, the CEACR is the body
entrusted with examining the follow-up to the recommendations made by tripartite
committees (article 24) and Commissions of Inquiry (article 26). As regards
representations, this practice was acknowledged during the revision of the Standing Orders
concerning representations in 2004. 123 In relation to recommendations by a Commission of
117 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 64.
118 ILO: Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and
Recommendations, op. cit., para. 81.
119 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 66.
120 ibid., para. 68.
121 ibid., para. 69.
122 ILO: Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and
Recommendations, op. cit., para. 69.
123 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 72; Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination
of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organisation, adopted by the Governing Body at its 57th Session (8 April 1932), modified at its
30 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Inquiry, this practice has been followed since the first such Commission was
established. 124
82. The procedure of the CFA provides for the examination of the effect given to its
recommendations. 125 Under these rules, the examination of the legislative aspects of the
recommendation adopted by the Governing Body is referred to the CEACR if member
States have ratified one or more Conventions on freedom of association. 126 Such a referral
does not prevent the CFA from examining the follow-up given to its recommendations,
especially in relation to cases involving urgent issues.
83. In 2008, the Office was requested to conduct a study on the dynamics of the supervisory
system, from a substantive and practical standpoint, based on the examination of a number
of cases. Seven cases were examined in which the following issues were discussed: the
roles of the supervisory bodies at the various stages, the extent to which there has been
duplication of work and how the interaction between the procedures occurred in
practice. 127 A number of insights regarding the dynamics of interaction in practice can be
drawn from this study.
84. The main findings derived from the case studies indicated that: the pattern of interactions
is multifaceted and dependent on a number of factors, among which the actions, approach
and role of the constituents and the Governing Body are most influential. Furthermore, the
various supervisory bodies often become involved at different times, in no predetermined
order. 128
85. As mentioned, the main interactions can be found between the regular supervisory
procedure through the CEACR and the special procedures. The CAS may also discuss
certain specific cases of the CEACR’s General Report. Interactions are heavily influenced
by the choices that constituents make regarding the procedure under which they would like
to see matters examined. 129
86. It has been suggested that the coordination of the response by the supervisory system
largely falls under the responsibility of the Governing Body. 130 Its central role in the
interactions is set out in the Constitution and in the Standing Orders concerning the
82nd Session (5 February 1938), 212th Session (7 March 1980) and 291st Session (18 November
2004), Article 3(3).
124 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 73.
125 ILO: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the
Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, Geneva, 2006, Appendix I, paras 70–74.
126 GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 75.
127 GB.303/LILS/4/2, paras 4–5.
128 ibid., para. 6.
129 ibid., para. 9.
130 ibid., para. 10.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 31
procedure for the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the ILO
Constitution. 131
87. A key feature of the supervisory machinery is its pragmatic functioning. Interactions are
possible in different ways depending on the issues in question and the choices made by the
constituents. This is also possible because the Constitution does not provide for explicit
standardized links between the procedures, and does not prescribe a specific fixed order for
the consideration by the different supervisory bodies. 132
88. As stated above, the distinctive nature of each procedure has often been highlighted by the
Governing Body and the Conference. The consequences of the assertion that none of the
procedures can operate as the substitute for the other are twofold. First, the examination of
issues under one procedure is not an impediment for an examination under another.
Secondly, matters can be raised directly under any of the supervisory procedures, provided
that the admissibility criteria have been met. 133 This way, constituents can make full use of
their freedom to choose which procedure suits their concerns best. 134 The case studies
examined in 2008 indicate that although there are some simultaneous interactions, most
interactions occur in sequence. 135
89. The same study investigated the issue of whether the complementarity of procedures may
lead to duplication. The fact that all supervisory processes pursue the common goal of
effective observance of international labour standards creates the need for coordination and
coherence between the implementation and examination of the various procedures.
Conflicting views within the supervisory system may undermine its impact, although in
practice there do not seem to be problems in this respect. 136 At the same time this
complementarity may lead to some elements of duplication, since the different supervisory
mechanisms may reconsider the same issues.
90. Some duplication in the information provided is therefore sometimes inevitable. 137 Also,
in relation to the follow-up, a degree of duplication may be present, for instance when the
CEACR and the CFA, under different mandates, examine the same matters. The CAS may
also decide to examine the same issues. The responsibility for the coordination and
management of the interactions lies with the Conference and Governing Body, whose roles
in overseeing the processes should prevent excessive overlap. 138 Complementarity of the
different procedures may create venues for exerting additional pressure on governments to
131 ILO: Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of representations under
articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, adopted by the
Governing Body at its 57th Session (8 April 1932), modified at its 82nd Session (5 February 1938),
212th Session (7 March 1980), and 291st Session (18 November 2004), Article 3(1) and Article 7.
Also see: GB.303/LILS/4/2.
132 GB.303/LILS/4/2, para. 13.
133 ibid., para. 14.
134 ibid., para. 15.
135 ibid., para. 17.
136 ibid., paras 25–26.
137 ibid., para. 27.
138 See case studies examined in GB.303/LILS/4/2.
32 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
remedy certain violations of labour standards. The mechanisms do not call for different
ways to comply and typically reinforce each other.
91. When considering the extent to which the interactions may enhance the functioning of the
supervisory system a number of remarks can be made. Interactions may provide a more
thorough examination of national labour laws, policies and practices by creating different
perspectives. Different opportunities of dialogue and monitoring may also lead to better,
more comprehensive and accurate information and evaluation of a specific situation.
Different combinations of procedures can have the benefit that the system is able to
respond to a variety of situations and changing circumstances. 139
92. The effective functioning of the supervisory system as a whole is based on the links and
interaction between its different elements. The constituents, Governing Body, the
Conference and the Office play a key role in ensuring the balance and coherence of the
different procedures. 140 In this connection, it is remarkable that between the chairpersons
of the CEACR and the CFA there is formally very little interaction. Furthermore,
tripartism is central to an effective functioning of the interactions between the supervisory
bodies and to preventing unnecessary duplication. Interactions may occur in the context of
referral, suspension of procedures and follow-up. The functioning of the supervisory
system is complex and has evolved substantially over the years since its establishment in
1919. Pragmatism and the need to adapt to changing social circumstances have influenced
these developments. Coherent and well-informed interaction between the different
supervisory procedures is essential to a properly functioning system of monitoring
international labour standards.
(b) Functioning, impact and effectiveness
93. To provide an overview of data related to the effectiveness and impact of the supervisory
system the special procedures under articles 24 and 26 will first be discussed.
Subsequently, the standing committees (CEACR, CAS and CFA) will be discussed in
more detail. Three substantial studies into the effectiveness and impact of these standing
committees have been produced since the turn of the century. These studies all contain an
elaborate analysis of cases of progress. 141
Article 24 representations
94. The procedure under article 24 of the ILO Constitution grants industrial associations of
employers or workers the right to file a representation that any of the Members of the
Organization has failed to secure effective observance of any Convention within its
jurisdiction. Since 1924, there have been 168 received representations. The number of
yearly representations has increased since the 1980s, although the number has exceeded
ten only three times: in 1994 (13 received), 1996 (11 received) and 2014 (13 received). In
respect of the regional distribution, Europe has been involved in 71, the Americas in 63,
139 ibid., paras 32–36.
140 GB.303/LILS/4/2, para. 39.
141 ILO: The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years (Geneva, 2001, second
edition 2002); E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin: The Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations: Its dynamic and impact (Geneva, 2003); The Committee on
the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference: A dynamic and impact built
on decades of dialogue and persuasion (Geneva, 2011).
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 33
Asia in 11, Africa in ten and the Arab States in five representation procedures. The average
duration of representation procedures since 1990 has been approximately 20 months.
Although it was expected that the end of the Cold War would bring about an enormous
increase in the number of representations, this did not happen in fact. 142
Article 26 complaints
95. Article 26 complaints procedures, by which a member State – or a delegate to the ILC –
may file a complaint of non-observance of a Convention against another member State
provided that they have both ratified that same Convention, have been fewer. Since 1961, a
total of 30 complaints have been received and only 12 Commissions of Inquiry have been
established until today. There has been no substantial increase in the setting up of
Commissions of Inquiry since the 1960s, when use of the complaints procedure became
more accepted practice. 143 The average duration of an article 26 complaint before a
Commission of Inquiry is about 19 months. 144
96. One third of the complaints filed under article 26 relate exclusively or primarily to the
application of fundamental Conventions. Especially the application of fundamental
Conventions dealing with freedom of association leads to more interactions between the
different complaint-based mechanisms (articles 24, 26 and the CFA procedure). 145
The Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR)
97. In relation to the regular system of supervision, the Committee of Experts is one of the two
bodies responsible for monitoring the application of labour standards. Different studies
into its effectiveness and impact have been published. 146 The following section will
provide a brief overview of the impact of the work of the Committee and its report. 147
142 For an overview of the number of article 24 representations received by year, region and by type
of Convention covered, see figures 1–3 in Appendix II.
143 Although there are four complaints procedures pending presently.
144 For a complete overview of statistics concerning articles 24 and 26 procedures until 2015, see
Appendix II.
145 GB.303/LILS/4/2, 2008, para. 12.
146 G.P. Politakis (ed.): Protecting Labour Rights as Human Rights: Present and Future of
International Supervision – Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the 80th Anniversary of
the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Geneva,
24–25 November 2006; E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin: The Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Its dynamic and impact (Geneva, ILO, 2003).
147 The following paragraphs are largely based on E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin: The
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Its dynamic and
impact (Geneva, ILO, 2003), since this study covers the impact of the CEACR over the years since
1977.
34 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
98. Since 1926, the number of Conventions as well as the membership of the Organization has
grown substantially, which has led to an enormous increase in the number of reports the
CEACR has to examine each year. Similarly, the number of observations and direct
requests has been on the rise. 148
99. A 2003 study on the impact of the CEACR’s work focused on the composition and
functioning of the Committee and on an analysis of a number of “cases of progress”. 149
Discussing the details of these cases is beyond the scope of this report, but the general
conclusions will be discussed. The study conducted an examination of cases that dealt with
core Conventions and the work of the Experts over the past few decades. 150 Since 1964,
the CEACR has listed the cases in which governments have made changes in law or
practice as a result of the comments of the Committee. In practice, the Committee
identifies such cases by noting “with satisfaction” the effect that a government has given to
its previous comments. Since 2000, the Committee also uses the terminology “with
interest” to indicate certain measures taken by governments in response to its observations
and requests. 151
100. While the increase in the number of “progress cases” is understandable in light of the
increase in ratifications, it is also caused by receptiveness of member States in
implementing the Committee’s observations more fully. 152 The impact of the Committee’s
work cannot be measured solely in light of “cases of progress” and an indirect or a priori
impact of the Experts’ work is certainly an important factor to take into account.
Nevertheless, monitoring these cases is useful for assessing the impact of the Committee
and the supervisory system as a whole. 153
101. The cases investigated show a variety of measures that have been implemented by member
States. Positive developments were detected, for example in relation to recognition of trade
unions, protection against anti-union discrimination, trade union pluralism and
independence, trade union resources, free collective agreements, inclusion of civil
servants, forced labour and forms of serfdom, freedom of expression, prison labour, equal
treatment and remuneration, sex-based discrimination, works council procedures, equal
opportunities legislation, indirect discrimination, child and youth labour, and so forth. The
numerous examples of cases of progress underline the importance of the work of the CAS
and the CEACR. 154
102. Approximately 3,000 of these cases of progress have been noted since 1964. Noteworthy
recent examples are the 2013 adoption of Samoa’s labour legislation in order to prohibit
children under 18 years of age from working with dangerous machinery or under working
148 G.P. Politakis (ed.), op. cit., pp. 289–290. The table in Annex II clearly illustrates this
development in respect of the number of member States, ratifications of Conventions, number of
experts, and observations and direct requests.
149 E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin, op. cit.
150 ibid., p. 2.
151 ibid., p. 23.
152 ibid., p. 24.
153 Nevertheless, proper, de facto, implementation of legal changes remains an important concern.
154 For the full overview of cases of progress, see: E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin, op. cit.,
pp. 29–71.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 35
conditions likely to be injurious to their physical and moral health. 155 Furthermore,
Ukraine adopted a law on equal rights and opportunities for women and men in 2006 and
Lebanon adopted legislation in 2012 on the prohibition of employment for minors under 18
in types of work that harm their safety, health, limit their education or constitute one of the
worst forms of child labour. 156
103. The CEACR has shown considerable effectiveness over the years and it is suggested that
the ILO supervisory mechanism is among the most advanced in the international
system. 157 Contrary to the critique that international legal monitoring bodies often receive,
the CEACR has demonstrated that supervision has real, practical and tangible effects in
domestic jurisdictions. The credibility and impact of the Committee of Experts can be
explained by several factors. Important factors are the independence and high
qualifications of the Experts. Furthermore, technical examinations are balanced with
comprehensive examinations by representative bodies composed of government, worker
and employer representatives. This increases the coherence of the system as a whole. 158
Moreover, effectiveness of the Committee is enhanced by its capacity to adapt to new
developments and realities, for instance, through rethinking its working methods. 159
Improving the working methods is a continuous priority of the CEACR.
The Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards (CAS)
104. The CAS makes an examination of compliance with standards-related obligations on the
basis of the report of the CEACR each year. The procedure of the CAS offers the
representatives of governments, employers and workers an opportunity to jointly examine
the manner in which member States comply with their obligations derived from
Conventions and Recommendations. 160 The CAS is thus responsible for determining the
extent to which international labour standards are given effect and reporting about this to
the Conference. This mandate is derived from article 23 of the Constitution and the
Standing Orders of the ILC. 161
105. Regarding its functioning, the CAS prepares a list of cases based on the observations in the
report of the Committee of Experts in respect of situations in which further government
information would seem desirable. 162 Subsequently, the Conference Committee examines
155 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 104.
156 ibid.
157 E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin, op. cit., p. 75. However, besides positive remarks,
concerns were also raised by the tripartite constituents in recent years. See, for example, Report of
the Committee on the Application of Standards, Provisional Record 14(Rev.), ILC, 104th Session,
Geneva, 2015, paras 38–39, and Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards,
Provisional Record No. 13, Part One, ILC, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014, paras 58 and 69.
158 E. Gravel and C. Charbonneau-Jobin, op. cit., p. 76.
159 ibid.
160 ILO: The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference: A
dynamic and impact built on decades of dialogue and persuasion (Geneva, 2011), p. 1.
161 ibid.
162 ibid., p. 2.
36 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
approximately 25 cases and submits its report on those cases to the Conference for plenary
discussion. 163 The CEACR may use “single footnotes” to observations in its report, by
which it indicates that a government should send an earlier report than is required under
the reporting cycle or it may use a “double footnote” which means that the government is
requested to send detailed information to the Committee of Experts and the CAS. 164 The
CAS report is published in the Record of Proceedings of the Conference.
106. The CAS normally begins its work with a brief general discussion after which the General
Survey of the CEACR is discussed. Subsequently, the observations of the Experts are
discussed and cases of serious failure to report are identified (so-called automatic cases).
The Workers’ and Employers’ groups draft a list of individual cases which are selected by
reference to the following criteria: (a) the nature of the comments of the CEACR and the
existence of a “footnote”; (b) the quality and scope of response provided by the
government; (c) the seriousness and persistence of shortcomings in the application of the
Convention; (d) the urgency of a specific situation; (e) comments received from
employers’ and workers’ organizations; (f) the nature of a specific situation; (g) previous
discussions and conclusions by the CAS; (h) the likelihood that discussing the case will
have impact; (i) balance between fundamental, governance and technical Conventions;
(j) geographical balance; and (k) balance between developed and developing countries. 165
After consultations with the Reporter and Vice-Chairpersons, the conclusions may be
proposed by the Chairperson to the CAS for adoption. 166
107. In 2011, an extensive study into the impact of the CAS was published in which the
diversity, depth, permanence and progressive nature of the impact of the work carried out
by the CAS in combination with the other ILO supervisory bodies was assessed. In the
study, different cases of progress and cases of serious failure to respect constitutional
reporting obligations are examined as well as the general functioning and working methods
of the CAS. The study also addressed the formal procedures of the ILO supervisory bodies
that draw attention to such “progress cases” as well as the more informal impact of ILO
supervision. 167
108. While it is outside the scope of this report to discuss in depth the identified “progress
cases”, the most important insights from the 2011 study will be examined. The emphasis in
the analysis was on the effect from repetition of individual examinations, the content of the
discussions and the force of the conclusions of the CAS versus a particular member
State. 168 The fact that a State may be included on the list of individual cases can certainly
163 ibid.
164 Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
Report III (Part 1A), ILC, 102nd Session, Geneva, 2013, para. 68.
165 In this respect, see for a detailed and recent explanation of the manner in which the work of the
CAS is carried out: Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards, Provisional Record
No. 14(Rev.), Part One, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, Annex I, C.App./D.1.
166 ILO: The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference: A
dynamic and impact built on decades of dialogue and persuasion (Geneva, 2011), p. 21.
167 ibid., p. 23.
168 ibid., p. 26.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 37
have a positive effect on compliance. The repetition of cases, on the other hand, does not
seem to have a determinative effect in this respect according to the 2011 impact report. 169
109. It is therefore important to assess the impact of the CAS in the context of other means used
by the Organization to persuade member States towards compliance. The complementarity
of the work of the different supervisory bodies in combination with targeted technical
assistance missions (practical advice) is key in promoting compliance. With this
framework in mind, the 2011 analysis covers cases of progress over the past 20 years
related to a selection of countries. 170 It covers a quantitative evaluation of cases of serious
failure by member States to meet their constitutional reporting obligations, an analysis of
cases of progress in complying with those obligations and a discussion of the relevant
elements that need to be discussed to assess the impact of the CAS. 171
110. The main conclusions of the study indicate that it is impossible to separate the work of the
CAS from that of the Committee of Experts, in cooperation with the Office and other ILO
supervisory bodies. The impact of such joint action is also dependent upon the activities
and expertise present “in the field” through technical assistance, support, training, Decent
Work Country Programmes and technical cooperation with other international
organizations. 172
111. The CAS constitutes an invaluable component of the ILO’s supervisory mechanism to
promote compliance with, and effective implementation of, international labour
standards. 173 The work of the CAS is especially meaningful when it operates in synergy
with the other bodies and procedures within the ILO system. 174 Although the CAS has a
commendable record of promoting adherence to international labour standards, it is also
necessary to keep improving its working methods and cooperation with other supervisory
bodies. 175
The Committee on Freedom of Association
112. While the FFCC has examined only six complaints in total (1966: Japan; 1966: Greece;
1975: Chile; 1975: Lesotho; 1981: United States; 1992: South Africa), the CFA has been
presented with over 3,100 cases since its establishment in 1951. With regard to the
geographical distribution of those cases, 49 per cent concern Latin American countries,
21 per cent European countries, 12 per cent Asian, another 12 per cent African States and
only 6 per cent concern States in North America. In recent years – from 1995 onwards –
even a larger percentage of the cases (57 per cent) originated in Latin America. 176 The
169 ibid.
170 ibid., p. 30.
171 ibid., p. 103.
172 ibid., pp. 139–142.
173 ibid., p. 145.
174 ibid.
175 ibid., p. 146.
176 See figures 7–13 in Appendix II.
38 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
CFA examines around 120 cases each year. The following table shows the distribution of
cases before the CFA from its establishment in 1951 to 2015.
Region No. of cases
Africa 383
Asia 388
Europe 645
Latin America 1 527
North America 183
Total 3 126
113. In light of the 50th anniversary of the CFA in 2001, the Organization published a study on
the manner in which the Committee carries out its supervisory role through an examination
of the historical background and functions as well as an empirical study into its impact and
effectiveness through a number of case studies. The study highlights that the value and
significance of international labour standards depend on their impact and that the desire for
practical implementation has been the drive that has led to the development of the different
supervisory systems, including the CFA. 177 The goal of the impact study is to show the
CFA’s influence on the effect that is given to ILO principles in the field of freedom of
association.
114. The CFA has to date succeeded in adopting all its recommendations by consensus, which
helps ensure proper weight to its decisions while at the same time safeguarding the balance
between the interests defended by the Government, Employer and Worker members. This
methodology furthermore helps to gain broad support in the Governing Body. 178 The
overall purpose of the procedure is the observance of freedom of association in law and
practice, and this system implies a certain complementarity between the competences of
the various supervisory mechanisms. 179 As mentioned, cases in which the country
concerned has ratified one or more Conventions on freedom of association, legislative
aspects are referred to the CEACR, while in other cases the CFA may periodically examine
follow-up to its recommendations in cooperation with the Director-General. 180
115. The 2001 impact study analyses the impact and effectiveness of the CFA’s procedure by
examining a number of cases of progress. 181 The impact is assessed on the basis of such
cases since 1971, from which year the progress has been systematically recorded. A case
of progress in this analysis means that following the filing of a complaint with the
Committee and its subsequent recommendations, changes have been made in law or
177 ILO: The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years (Geneva, second
edition 2002), p. 1.
178 ibid., pp. 11–12.
179 ibid., p. 12.
180 ibid.
181 ibid.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 39
practice in the country concerned with a view to bringing them more into conformity with
the principles of freedom of association as developed by the ILO. 182
116. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to go into the empirical analysis, the main
findings of the 2001 study will be briefly discussed. The cases of progress examined by the
ILO demonstrated clearly the effectiveness of the CFA system in many fields related to the
exercise of freedom of association. The Committee has ensured that trade unionists are
able to enjoy the legal safeguards of States in which the rule of law is respected.
Additionally, the CFA has caused the release of imprisoned trade unionists or the reduction
of their disproportional sentences in a significant number of cases. 183 It has secured
application of the right to establish and join organizations, the right to elect representatives
of those organizations as well as the freedom to formulate their rules, programmes and
administrative systems. 184
117. Furthermore, the CFA has managed to achieve re-registration of banned or dissolved
worker organizations and has remedied acts of anti-trade union discrimination.
Emphasizing the need for expeditious, impartial and objective procedures for workers
considered victims of such discriminatory practices has been a continuous effort.
Moreover, the CFA has watched over the exercise of the right to free collective bargaining
and protection of the right to strike. 185
118. A salient example of the CFA’s impact concerns the case of Dita Indah Sari, an Indonesian
labour activist who was detained because of her trade union activities in 1996. 186
Continuing pressure by the CFA and the international community led to her release and the
release of other detained union members. In the years since, Indonesia has taken significant
steps to improve protection of trade union rights and has ratified all eight fundamental
Conventions. 187 This case is not unique: in the last few decades, several hundred trade
unionists worldwide were released from prison after the CFA examined their cases and
drafted recommendations to the governments concerned. 188
119. The 2011 report of the CFA illustrated a substantial increase in the number of cases of
progress in the first decade of the new millennium. 189 According to the CFA, the
assessment of the Committee’s influence on the ground demonstrates a substantially
increased impact for the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations. 190 One of the
reasons for this increased impact is the CFA’s formulation of consensual conclusions and
recommendations that are aimed at providing practicable solutions that ensure harmonious
182 ibid., p. 22. See pp. 21–25 for a detailed description of the methodology used.
183 ILO: The Committee on Freedom of Association, op. cit., p. 65.
184 ibid.
185 ibid., pp. 65–66.
186 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 111.
187 Notwithstanding existing problems in relation to the protection of freedom of association.
188 ILO: Rules of the Game, op. cit., p. 111.
189 GB.311/4/1, 2011.
190 ibid., para. 18.
40 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
and sustainable environments for the exercise of freedom of association. 191 Furthermore, a
number of complaints have been resolved at the national level with the assistance of
preliminary on-the-spot missions and direct contacts missions. 192
120. The Committee carries out a review of its working methods on a regular basis in which it
assesses its procedures, visibility and impact. 193 While the increase in cases of progress is
significant, the CFA remains concerned about countries which have not responded to its
urgent appeals or have otherwise failed to comply with its requests. 194 In such cases of
persistent failure to respond to complaints, the Committee has called upon its Chairperson
to meet directly with Government representatives, offered the Office’s assistance and has
sent missions to collect information. 195 Another important effect of the CFA’s work is that
compliance with the principles of freedom of association, which apply to all member
States of the ILO, paves the way for ratification of the freedom of association
Conventions. 196
121. The accomplishments of the CFA are also attributable to the joint action of the ILO’s
supervisory bodies, particularly its cooperation with the CEACR and the CAS. 197 The
action of the technical bodies, whose members are selected in view of their expertise and
independence, is balanced against the activities of representative bodies that group together
delegates of governments, workers and employers. Additionally, the success of the CFA
lies in the underlying philosophy of the system of its complaints procedures; this is based
more on persuasion than repression, and more on dialogue and cooperation than on blame
and judgments. 198 In summary, the methods used by the CFA have the ability to address,
debate and resolve specific social problems bound to arise within a globalizing
economy. 199
(c) Concluding remarks
122. The historical development of the ILO and its supervisory system attests to the value of
international labour standards as tools to promote social justice and decent work on the
ground. With the Constitution as its basis, the ILO has developed a series of mechanisms
191 ibid., para. 19.
192 ibid., para. 17.
193 ILO: 371st Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Governing Body, 320th Session,
Geneva, 13–17 Mar. 2014, GB.320/INS/12, para. 14.
194 ibid., para. 15.
195 ibid., para. 16.
196 ibid., para. 15 and 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, para. 2,
“Declares that all Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in question, have an
obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and
to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the
fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions … .”
197 ILO: The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years, op. cit., p. 66.
198 ibid., p. 67.
199 ibid., p. 68.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 41
and procedures that are all intended to increase effectiveness in the field of standards. The
Committee of Experts and the CAS – the principal actors in the regular supervisory
procedures – together with special procedures in the framework of the CFA, article 24
representations and article 26 complaints, are responsible for effective compliance with
Conventions and Recommendations. It is the general coherence of, and cooperation
between, these supervisory elements – in different possible combinations – that makes the
system effective.
123. Furthermore, technical assistance and advice is an indispensable additional supervisory
component. Close collaboration between the supervisory bodies, the Office, including
people in the field in offering technical assistance in the form of training, legal advice,
tripartite workshops and technical support, increases the impact of the supervisory
system. 200
124. Different impact studies that focused on cases of progress indicate the diverse positive
effects of this system in domestic law and practice. However, for reasons of effectiveness
and accountability, the supervisory system as a whole needs to be continuously reviewed if
it is to be able to respond to changing socio-economic needs. This ability to respond and
react to societal and economic developments has been the strength of the system since its
inception.
IV. Proposals and suggestions
for improvement
125. As discussed above, it is inherent to any supervisory system – including the ILO’s – that it
must be reviewed and enhanced on a continuous basis with a view to improving its
coherence and effectiveness. The following paragraphs will discuss three key areas in
which improvements could be made. They will specify potential areas of concern and
make suggestions on how to deal with those. These – sometimes interconnected – issues
are grouped under (a) transparency, visibility and coherence; (b) mandates and the
interpretation of Conventions; and (c) workload, efficiency and effectiveness.
(a) Issues of transparency, visibility and coherence
126. Complexity is perceived as one of the main features of the existing supervisory
mechanism. As discussed above, different procedures may be used in different
combinations in order to promote compliance with international labour standards. While
the diversity of the system is also a major strength, a point of concern is whether such a
varied system may lead to overlap between, or a duplication of, procedures. A related
concern is that there may be too many different committees involved in the system which
may have negative effects on the transparency and effectiveness of the procedures for
those involved. Extra efforts should be made to make the system more user-friendly and
clear. 201
200 ibid., p. 140.
201 K. Tapiola: “The ILO system of regular supervision of the application of Conventions and
Recommendations: A lasting paradigm”, in Protecting Labour Rights as Human Rights: Present
and Future of International Supervision – Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the
80th Anniversary of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Geneva, 24–25 November 2006, p. 29.
42 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
127. To improve the collaboration between the different supervisory bodies, an annual meeting
between the chairpersons of the different committees – CAS, CEACR and CFA – could be
held. During this meeting, an exchange of information, views about current cases, issues of
coordination, possible overlap and general ideas on supervision could be discussed. This
meeting could take place during the ILC in June and could lead to more effective and
coherent supervision, as well as to the prevention of unnecessary duplication. A
complementary option could be that the Chairperson of the CFA releases a yearly report to
the CAS in which the main trends would be addressed and the most difficult cases pointed
out, for instance serious and urgent cases, long-standing cases without progress or cases
sent to the CEACR for legislative aspects. Such a report may also lead to increased
transparency and coordination between the supervisory bodies.
128. Another area of attention is the relationship between the CAS and the CEACR. The
application of international labour standards can only be effective if these two committees,
which are at the heart of the ILO’s supervisory mechanism, continue to advance their solid
relationship of cooperation and shared responsibility. 202 The ongoing dialogue between the
CAS and the CEACR has an important impact on the methods of work of the CEACR and
constitutes an essential component of the supervisory system. 203 Efforts towards a more
constructive relationship between the CAS and the CEACR should be continued and
strengthened to improve effectiveness. 204 The Committee of Experts emphasized in its
2015 report that the current institutional context offers opportunities for a forward-looking
approach to the relationship between both Committees. 205 The dual system of regular
supervision composed of a technical examination by the CEACR followed by a
comprehensive political analysis by the CAS is unique at the international level. 206
129. Transparency and visibility of the ILO’s supervisory work could also be enhanced through
adopting an inclusive approach tailored to the needs of the various constituencies.
Addressing the interests of unorganized groups of workers, for instance the large number
of workers in the informal economy, is an important objective for the ILO in view of
promoting universal minimum standards and should be further examined. 207
202 Statement of the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations, Judge Abdul G. Koroma, ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, June 2015
(C.App./D.4).
203 Provisional Record No. 14(Rev.), Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards, Part
One, General Report, ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, June 2015, para. 52.
204 An interesting idea may be to also include “cases of progress” on the CAS list in order for it to
have a positive component as well. Some have argued for different, more accessible criteria for the
adoption of the list in the CAS.
205 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution), Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III
(Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, para. 23.
206 A similar system was introduced at the regional level in the framework of the European Social
Charter in which the Committee of Independent Experts examines government reports. Its
conclusions are submitted to the Governmental Committee which reports to the Committee of
Ministers.
207 See, for example, the recent report: The transition from the informal to the formal economy,
Report V(1), ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 43
130. Another way to improve the visibility of the ILO’s work is by optimizing the ILO’s data
systems (for example NORMLEX). This can be done through an electronic system that
provides a simple and concise overview of member States’ implementation of ILO
standards, and in which a “country dashboard” provides statistical and graphical
information about the progress towards ratification of Conventions. Such a system could
improve visibility of the implementation efforts by States. All other relevant data would
also be easily accessible through this system. The better use of modern technology to
streamline and simplify the reporting procedures could also strengthen transparency and
effectiveness. This way the impact and relevance of the supervisory system, among all its
Members, could be improved and it could lead to an increased awareness of the content of
international labour standards for national employers’ and workers’ organizations.
(b) Supervisory mandates and the interpretation
of Conventions
131. While the terms of reference for the present report confine its scope to articles 22, 23, 24
and 26 of the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom of association,
it is necessary to discuss the mandates of the supervisory bodies in light of the question of
interpretation, since this question is inextricably tied up with the discussions surrounding
the present supervisory mechanism review. The mandate of the CEACR has been
explained and accepted by the tripartite constituents since it was included in the 2014
report of the Committee of Experts. 208 This reiteration of the Committee’s mandate “to
determine the legal scope, content and meaning of the provisions of Conventions” has
reduced part of the tensions in respect of the functioning of the supervisory system. 209
132. Although the Constitution of the ILO forms the basis for the mandate of the CFA, over the
years that mandate has developed in practice namely to determine “whether any given
legislation or practice complies with the principles of freedom of association and collective
bargaining laid down in the relevant Conventions”. 210 Although concerns have been
expressed about this mandate, it is generally acknowledged that some degree of
interpretation is necessary in order for the CEACR to conduct its examination of reports,
and for the CFA to investigate and examine complaints. The Experts conduct a technical
analysis of provisions of Conventions and Recommendations, while the CFA refers to the
principles of freedom of association. As mentioned, legislative aspects of CFA cases are
referred to the CEACR.
133. International governmental organizations are based on democratic decision-making, the
rule of law and the separation of powers into – different types of – legislative, executive
and judicial bodies. Within the ILO, the legal interpretation of Conventions is the
prerogative of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Questions or disputes about the
interpretation of Conventions or the Constitution are to be submitted to the ICJ on the basis
of article 37(1) of the Constitution. A viable approach could be to emphasize the role of the
ICJ as the authoritative body for interpretation and promote the procedure in article 37(1).
208 This mandate was reproduced in full in paragraph 9 of this report.
209 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, para. 29.
210 ILO: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the
Governing Body of the ILO, fifth (revised) edition, Geneva, 2006, para. 6.
44 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
134. There is an additional possibility under article 37(2). Under this provision, the Governing
Body may create a tribunal for the “expeditious determination of any dispute or question
relating to the interpretation of a Convention”. The creation of such an “ILO Tribunal” to
deal with matters of interpretation may be considered when trying to furthercommas
added. the debate concerning the roles and mandates of the supervisory bodies. 211 Such a
tribunal would not be a novelty in the international arena; for example the International
Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization
operate in parallel with the ICJ and deal with interpretive issues. 212
135. The constitutional option of creating an “in-house” mechanism for the interpretation of
Conventions was adopted in 1946 in order to introduce greater flexibility under the
Constitution by providing an additional authoritative mechanism and in order to ensure
uniformity of interpretation. 213 Such uniformity implies that the decisions should be
binding and apply to all ILO member States, that all Members should be informed of
decisions and have the possibility to make observations before the Conference, and that
coordination with the ICJ is necessary. 214 Informal discussions in 2010 identified three
paramount considerations when reflecting on the creation of an article 37(2) mechanism:
(1) it needs to contribute to strengthening the standards system, including the supervisory
system; (2) it needs to strengthen tripartite contribution to the interpretation of
Conventions; and (3) the integrity of the ILO supervisory system has to be preserved. 215
136. Such a tribunal should be easily accessible to constituents and should adhere strictly to the
rules laid down in article 37(2). The Governing Body may make and submit rules – to be
approved by the Conference – providing for the appointment of the tribunal. The
Governing Body is responsible for the referral of any dispute or question related to the
interpretation of a Convention to the tribunal and the decision of the tribunal would have a
binding effect. 216 Related to the composition, it is of vital importance to ensure the
independence of the tribunal, secure the quality of adjudicators and further specify the
binding effects of the decisions. 217 Moreover, the conditions for a possible appeal to the
211 Information paper on the history and development of the mandate of the CEACR
(19–20 February 2013), para. 116.
212 ibid.
213 Informal exploratory paper prepared by the International Labour Standards Department and the
Office of the Legal Adviser, Interpretation of international labour Conventions: Follow-up to the
informal tripartite consultations held in February–March 2010, para. 5. See Appendix 1:
“Overview of the considerations and discussions in 1945 and 1946 relating to the introduction of
article 37, paragraph 2, into the ILO Constitution”.
214 ibid., para. 5.
215 ibid., para. 10.
216 ibid.
217 In this context, it may be useful to take note of the advanced codes of ethics and guidelines for
members who serve on treaty bodies that were developed within the framework of the UN Human
Rights bodies. See: United Nations, HRI/MC/2012, Addis Ababa Guidelines on the independence
and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies, Advance unedited version, June
2012.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 45
ICJ should be examined and specified. 218 This possible innovation would have to be
integrated in the existing machinery, in which the ILO supervisory system plays a central
role. 219 This option could have the additional benefit of being composed of specialists in
the field of (interpretation of) international labour law.
(c) Workload, efficiency and effectiveness
137. The existence of the supervisory system has led to an increase in the workload of the
different bodies. With the increase of membership and the number of ratified Conventions,
the workload, especially for the CEACR, has increased over time, while the number of
Experts and time available has not increased proportionally. 220 This means that an
important area of attention is streamlining and improving the capacity of the supervisory
bodies. At the same time, constituents should be encouraged to respond as quickly as
possible to the requests of the supervisory bodies. The effectiveness of the supervisory
bodies in practice must continue to engage the attention of the constituents.
138. The Committee of Experts continues its efforts to streamline the content of its report and
improve its method of work. The subcommittee on working methods is examining – on an
ongoing basis – the opportunities for enhancing the CEACR’s effectiveness and
efficiency. 221 Efforts are directed towards improving the visibility of the Committee’s
work, which could not only facilitate more efficient work in the CAS, but also help the
tripartite constituents – in particular governments – to better understand and identify the
Committee’s requests. This could lead to greater implementation of, and compliance with,
international labour standards. 222 Furthermore, the CEACR should be encouraged to
improve its organization and method of work as highlighted in the report of its
subcommittee on the streamlining of treatment of certain reports. 223 It has been suggested
that a longer meeting period of the Experts or “split sessions” could be envisaged in this
respect. Moreover, further improvements of the structure and clarity of the comments
could also be beneficial. Improving the coherence and visibility of the Experts’ work,
without losing substance, is an iterative process.
139. Additionally, it has been suggested to enhance the efficiency of the CAS proceedings by:
(a) displaying the names of those registered to speak on a screen in the CAS room;
(b) creating the option for CAS members to make amendments to the Record of
Proceedings online; and (c) providing better access to computers and printing facilities to
better facilitate the drafting of conclusions.
218 Informal exploratory paper prepared by the International Labour Standards Department and the
Office of the Legal Adviser, Interpretation of international labour Conventions: Follow-up to the
informal tripartite consultations held in February–March 2010, para. 24.
219 ibid., para. 43.
220 Although currently the CEACR is again operating at its full capacity of 20 members.
221 ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution), Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III
(Part 1A), ILC, 104th Session, Geneva, 2015, para. 8.
222 ibid., para. 9.
223 ibid., para. 10.
46 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
140. With regard to the CFA, it has been suggested that it would be useful if the Members could
receive the working documents at an earlier time. Another option to increase its
effectiveness may be to introduce the possibility of consolidating complaints from the
same country, if they allege similar violations. An automatic follow-up mechanism at the
national level could also contribute to a more effective implementation of the Committee’s
recommendations.
141. Another important way to improve the effectiveness and to relieve pressure on the ILO’s
supervisory mechanisms is to search for (non-judicial) dispute settlement options at the
national level – that have the confidence of the parties – and precede recourse to the ILO
system. One example of such a national solution is the CETCOIT system (Comité Especial
de Tratamiento de Conflictos ante la OIT) in Colombia that functions as a voluntary
tripartite conflict settlement procedure for conflicts related to freedom of association and
collective bargaining. Parties can use this voluntary tripartite conflict settlement procedure
prior to considering filing a possible complaint to the CFA as well as for following-up on
cases examined by the CFA. 224
142. Concerning such national procedures it is essential that these mechanisms are both
independent and effective. Furthermore, setting up such a mechanism requires a context of
respect for the rule of law and a sufficient degree of political will to succeed. Otherwise,
the risks involved for parties (for example small unions) that allege violations of labour
standards would be too great. An important question that needs to be answered in this
respect is how to establish a fair threshold for the admissibility of cases before the
supervisory bodies. 225 Admissibility criteria must not have the effect of excluding options
for, for example, small unions. On the other hand, systems for filtering out unsubstantiated
cases may relieve some pressure on the supervisory system. Additionally, the Standards
Review Mechanism could provide further advice on the selection of Conventions that are
out of date and on which regular reporting is no longer required.
143. As the continuing process of globalization may contribute to dwindling employment
protection and subsequently to an increasing need for universal minimum standards, more
attention for non-ratifying Members could improve the impact and effectiveness of
international labour standards. A point of critique that is often mentioned is that only
countries that ratify a large number of Conventions are scrutinized by the supervisory
machinery. Efforts towards ratification of, and compliance with, established minimum
norms and principles are, and should be, high on the agenda of the ILO. Technical
assistance and advice should play a major role in the promotion of ratification and
implementation of Conventions. Follow-up mechanisms under article 19 of the
Constitution, such as in the framework of the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work, need to be promoted.
144. More coordination between the formal supervisory procedures and the more informal
means of supervision, like technical assistance, direct contacts missions or tripartite
meetings could also help improve the effectiveness of the implementation of international
labour standards. Especially in the area of follow-up to recommendations in the framework
of the special procedures, such a combination could prove fruitful in, for instance, working
out a time-bound plan in respect of implementing requested measures. Setting deadlines
could help to incrementally promote compliance. Improved coordination between the
224 A similar committee has been installed in Guatemala.
225 For the receivability criteria of representations, see article 2 of the Standing Orders concerning
the procedure for the examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of
the International Labour Organisation.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 47
Office in Geneva and the regional offices concerning supervisory matters also needs to be
further encouraged. Another option to consider in this respect is the possibility of interim
measures, meant to remedy particularly urgent situations. Such procedures are well known
in the framework of different UN Human Rights Bodies. 226 But also in relation to the
regular reporting process, further cooperation between the Committee of Experts and local
advisers, and reliance on information and knowledge of specialized field staff in specific
situations, could create a better “feedback loop” that will lead to a more efficient system.
Improved coordination between technical assistance, support, Decent Work Country
Programmes, training and programmes by other international organizations as well as
better coordination between the Committees – through their chairpersons – could also add
to the effectiveness of the supervisory system as a whole.
V. Concluding remarks
145. Efforts towards improving the supervisory machinery of the ILO must be made on a
continuous basis in order for the Organization to be able to adapt to changing social and
economic dynamics. The ILO system has managed to do this remarkably well for almost a
century of monitoring the implementation of international labour standards. Changes to the
system have occurred over time, in a gradual manner. The ILO’s system of supervision –
with its tripartite structure – is complex, advanced and unique. Improving this system
requires well-thought out adaptations that would streamline the current procedural and
practical framework in order to make it more comprehensible and coherent.
146. The supervisory system functions adequately and generally meets its objective of ensuring
compliance with international labour standards, cognizant of different national realities and
legal systems. Its different procedures and bodies facilitate countries to adhere to their
obligations and have complementary functions that create tailor-made solutions to labourrelated
conflicts and promote implementation of Conventions and Recommendations. The
independence, expertise, objectivity and personal authority of the members of the
supervisory bodies are essential for the success of the supervisory mechanism. 227
147. Nevertheless, certain specific improvements are suggested, mainly in paragraphs 127, 130,
133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 and 144 of this report. These improvements include, for
example: better communication about the functioning of the complex supervisory system,
which is needed to improve its transparency and accessibility; a better use of technology,
for instance by further digitalization of the reporting system; and better use of technical
assistance, which is essential to enhance the impact of the supervisory mechanisms.
Furthermore an improved balance between obligations of ratifying and non-ratifying
member States could be achieved. Moreover, coordination between the supervisory bodies
and between their chairpersons could be enhanced. Different options for tackling questions
about the interpretation of Conventions are available under the Constitution. Finally,
independent and impartial national conflict settlement procedures that precede recourse to
the ILO bodies could relieve some of the pressure on the system.
148. The different supervisory procedures serve a common purpose, the effective observance of
international labour standards, particularly in relation to ratified Conventions. The existing
connections between the supervisory mechanisms therefore operate in respect of
226 See Annex I for the different procedural options in respect of interim measures, early-warning
mechanisms or urgent interventions in the UN human rights system.
227 C.W. Jenks: “The International Protection of Trade Union Rights”, in E. Luard (ed.): The
International Protection of Human Rights, 1967, pp. 210–224.
48 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
obligations freely assumed by the Organization’s member States through the ratification of
Conventions. The combination of reporting and complaints, obligations regarding ratified
and unratified instruments, options for technical assistance and on-site missions, and the
mixture of technical and political scrutiny gives coherence to the ILO’s system of
supervision and ensures its effectiveness. 228 However, continuous evaluation, review and,
where necessary, making adaptations, are required for ensuring sustained compliance with
international labour standards and promoting social justice.
228 Cf. N. Valticos: “Once more about the ILO system of supervision: In what respect is it still a
model?”, in N. Blokker and S. Muller: “Towards more effective supervision by international
organizations”, in Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, 1994, p. 112.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 49
Appendix I. Human rights bodies’ supervisory
machinery outside the ILO
Introduction
1. The terms of reference of the Governing Body’s request to the Chairpersons included an invitation
to comparatively examine other international supervisory mechanisms. This appendix therefore
examines a number of other human rights monitoring mechanisms within the UN framework in
order to provide an overview of those supervisory systems and identify elements that may be of help
in improving the ILO’s supervisory machinery. In 1946, the ILO became the UN’s first specialized
agency. Under the Charter of the UN, specialized agencies refer to intergovernmental agencies
affiliated with the UN. They are separate, autonomous organizations that work with the UN and
each other via the coordinating function of ECOSOC. Other specialized agencies include the World
Bank Group, the International Monetary Fund and the World Health Organization.
2. Since the ILO is positioned under the “UN umbrella” it may be valuable to explore the supervisory
machinery of other UN human rights instruments. Different human rights bodies exist, with
different monitoring or supervisory mechanisms. Generally, these UN human rights bodies are
divided into two groups: Charter-based and Treaty-based bodies. Charter-based bodies derive their
legitimacy from the UN Charter. 1 The current Charter-based bodies are the Human Rights Council
(HRC) including its subsidiary bodies, the Advisory Committee, the Universal Periodic Review
(UPR) and the Special Procedures. 2 The HRC – established in 2006 – is the successor of the
Commission on Human Rights which worked on human rights related issues from 1946.
3. Treaty-based bodies are established to supervise the implementation of a specific legal instrument.
Their mandate is therefore not as broad as the Charter-based ones and they address a more limited
audience. Treaty-based bodies could be described as committees comprising independent experts
who conduct technical analyses of specific human rights instruments, while the HRC is a more
politically oriented platform. Decision-making within the Treaty-based bodies is generally based on
consensus, while Charter-based bodies take action based on majority voting. 3 There are nine UN
human rights Conventions with monitoring bodies to oversee the implementation of the provisions
of the treaties concerned. The bodies are composed of independent experts who consider States
parties’ reports, communications or individual complaints. Generally, the Treaty-based mechanisms
follow a similar pattern of supervision, although there are some notable differences. 4
4. The Charter-based and Treaty-based bodies will be examined below in order to get a clear view of
their monitoring systems and the possible benefits elements of these systems may have for the
ILO’s supervisory mechanism.
1 Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, San Francisco,
1945.
2 Dag Hammarskjöld Library Research Guides: http://research.un.org/en/docs/humanrights/charter.
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
50 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
I. Charter-based bodies
(a) The Human Rights Council procedures
and Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
5. Created by UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251 in 2006, the HRC is responsible for
strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. 5 The HRC is composed of
47 UN member States elected by the General Assembly and is mandated to discuss all thematic
human rights issues and situations. 6 The HRC has three main procedures for monitoring the global
human rights situation: the UPR, the Advisory Committee and the Complaint Procedure. Moreover,
the HRC also makes use of the UN Special Procedures that were established in 1947 under its
predecessor.
(b) The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
6. The UPR process involves a review of the human rights record of all UN member States per cycle.
Under the auspices of the HRC, the UPR is a State-driven process which provides the opportunity
for each State to declare which actions have been taken to improve their national human rights
situation. 7 HRC Resolution 5/1 of 2007 outlines the main elements and procedures of the UPR
process. 8 The Universal Periodic Review Group holds three two-week sessions each year in which
16 countries are reviewed. Each review is facilitated by a group of three States (troikas) who act as
rapporteurs. The reviews contain information from the State under review, independent human
rights experts and groups, treaty bodies, other UN entities and other stakeholders, like national
human rights commissions. 9 This way, 48 countries are reviewed yearly and the entire UN
membership over the full UPR cycle. 10 For each country, a Working Group report is issued in
which the meetings held are summarized and conclusions or recommendations are proclaimed. 11 A
special database by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has been
developed in which all completed reports can be found. 12 The UPR process is a unique and
innovative monitoring system based on equality and “peer-review” methodology.
(c) The Advisory Committee
7. The HRC Advisory Committee is a body composed of 18 independent experts from different
regions and professional backgrounds who act in their personal capacity. The Committee – that acts
as a think-tank for the Council – replaces the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights that was active under the Commission on Human Rights. 13 The Committee, which
meets twice a year and provides expertise to the HRC, may put forward suggestions for research.
5 UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251.
6 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/AboutCouncil.aspx#ftn1.
7 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx.
8 A/HRC/RES/5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
9 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx.
10 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRSessions.aspx.
11 Dag Hammarskjöld Library Research Guides: http://research.un.org/en/docs/humanrights/charter.
12 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Documentation.aspx.
13 Dag Hammarskjöld Library Research Guides: http://research.un.org/en/docs/humanrights/charter.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 51
The Committee does not adopt resolutions or decisions but is limited to providing advice in an
implementation-oriented manner on thematic issues. 14
The Complaint Procedure
8. Under Resolution 5/1 of 2007, the HRC established a Complaint Procedure for addressing
consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. 15 The procedure addresses communications submitted by individuals, groups or NGOs
that claim to be victims of human rights violations or have reliable knowledge of such violations.
The procedure is confidential and victim-oriented and seeks to ensure impartiality, objectivity and
efficiency. 16
9. The Chairperson of the Working Group on Communications undertakes an initial screening of the
communications based on the admissibility criteria in paragraphs 85–88 of Resolution 5/1. If the
communication is not rejected, the State is informed of the communication. Two distinct working
groups – the Working Group on Communications and the Working Group on Situations – are
responsible for examining the communications and bringing the patterns of violations to the
attention of the HRC. 17 Possible measures are to keep the situation under review, to appoint an
independent expert to report back to the HRC or to recommend technical assistance from the
OHCHR. 18
The Special Procedures
10. The HRC also has the responsibility for the special procedures that were originally created by the
Commission on Human Rights. These special procedures concern independent human rights experts
with a specific mandate, theme or country perspective. Special procedures are either an individual –
the so-called Special Rapporteur – or a working group composed of five members. 19 They are
appointed by the HRC and serve in their personal capacity. Their mandate is limited to a maximum
of six years and their independent status is meant to uphold impartiality, honesty and good faith. 20
As of 27 March 2015, there are 41 thematic and 14 country mandates.
11. Mandate holders have different means at their disposal to monitor and promote human rights. They
may conduct country visits to analyse the human rights situation at the national level. Furthermore,
most Special Procedures may send communications in the form of urgent appeals or other letters to
States or other entities asking for clarification or action. Moreover, part of the Special Procedures
may be to prepare thematic studies, develop human rights standards and guidelines, participate in
expert consultations, promote human rights awareness and offer technical assistance. 21
14 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/AdvisoryCommittee/Pages/AboutAC.aspx.
15 A/HRC/RES/5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, para. 85. The
Complaint Procedure replaced the procedure under ECOSOC Resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May
1970, as revised by Resolution 2000/3 of 19 June 2000. See: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/
HRC/ComplaintProcedure/Pages/ReviewComplaintProcedure.aspx.
16 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/ComplaintProcedure/Pages/HRCComplaintProcedure
Index.aspx.
17 A/HRC/RES/5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, paras 89–99.
18 ibid., para. 109.
19 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Introduction.aspx.
20 A/HRC/RES/5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, paras 39–53.
21 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Introduction.aspx.
52 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
II. Treaty-based bodies
12. Next to the Charter-based bodies and procedures, nine Treaty-based bodies with specific mandates
attached to their respective human rights instrument are established within the UN human rights
system. While in general their composition and functioning is rather similar, there are a number of
differences and special procedures present as well. The following paragraphs will provide an
overview of the Treaty-based monitoring mechanisms.
13. For each monitoring body, a short general introduction is provided after which its supervisory
system is explored. Next, the reporting obligations and other procedures are examined and the types
of documents the monitoring bodies produce are illustrated.
(a) The Human Rights Committee (CCPR)
14. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (CCPR) consists of 18 independent experts who
monitor implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by its
States parties. 22 The ICCPR is a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly on
16 December 1966, and came into force on 23 March 1976. It has 74 signatories and 168 parties.
The ICCPR commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the
right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, and
rights to due process and a fair trial. There are two Optional Protocols to the Covenant. The First
Optional Protocol establishes an individual complaints mechanism, allowing individuals to
complain to the CCPR about violations of the Covenant. The individual complaints mechanism has
led to the creation of a complex body of quasi-jurisprudence on the interpretation and
implementation of the provisions enshrined in the ICCPR. 23 The Second Optional Protocol aims at
the abolition of the death penalty. 24 The Protocol effectively abolishes the death penalty although
countries were permitted to make a reservation that allowed continued use of the death penalty for
the most serious crimes of a military nature, committed during wartime.
15. The CCPR meets three times a year for four-week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports
submitted by the member States on their compliance with the Covenant and to examine individual
petitions concerning the States parties to the Optional Protocols. The reporting procedure is
governed by Article 40 of the Covenant while an inter-State complaint procedure can be found in
Article 41. 25 The CCPR does not have a system in place for initiating inquiries into allegations of
serious or systematic violations of the ICCPR.
16. All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the Covenant’s
provisions are being implemented. Initially, States must report one year after acceding to the
Covenant and afterwards they are obliged to do so whenever the Committee requests this, which is
usually every four years. The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and
recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding observations”.
22 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966,
entry into force 23 March 1976. See: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/
Pages/Membership.aspx. Also see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.
aspx.
23 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened
for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of
16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976. Signatories: 35, parties: 115.
24 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 44/128
of 15 December 1989. Signatories: 37, parties: 81.
25 To this date, this procedure has never been used.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 53
17. Furthermore, the CCPR prepares general comments to clarify the scope and meaning of the
ICCPR’s provisions. Such general comments help to clarify to States parties what the Committee’s
views are on the obligations each State has assumed by acceding to the ICCPR. Each general
comment addresses a particular provision of the ICCPR. The CCPR also – infrequently – makes
substantive statements, similar to pronouncements or press releases, regarding State practices or
human rights conditions of concern and it may comment on certain developments within the UN
human rights system. Additionally, the Committee hosts general discussions to solicit input from
other UN agencies, national human rights institutions, NGOs and interested civil society
stakeholders on topics of interest.
(b) The Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
18. The CESCR oversees the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which is a multilateral treaty and sister to the ICCPR, and was adopted
by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and came into force on 3 January 1976. It
commits parties to work towards the realization of economic, social and cultural, including labour
rights, the right to health, the right to education and the right to an adequate standard of living. 26
19. The Optional Protocol to the ICESCR is a side agreement to the Covenant that allows parties to
recognize the competence of the CESCR to consider complaints from individuals. 27
20. The Committee consists of 18 independent experts and monitors the implementation of the
ICESCR. Its members are elected for four-year terms, with half the members elected every two
years. The Committee holds two sessions per year: a three-week plenary session and a one-week
pre-sessional working group in Geneva.
21. Initially, a State must make a report on the implementation of the Covenants’ provisions two years
after acceding to the ICESCR. Following the initial report, periodic reports are then requested every
five years. The reporting system requires each State party to submit firstly, a common core
document, which lists general information about the reporting State, a framework for protecting
human rights and information on non-discrimination and equality, and secondly, a treaty-specific
document, which accounts for specific information relating to the implementation of Articles 1–15
of the ICESCR and elaborates upon any national law or policy in place to implement the
ICESCR. 28
22. After States submit their reports, the CESCR initially reviews the report through a five-person presessional
working group that meets six months prior to the report being considered by the full
Committee. The pre-sessional working group will then issue a list of written questions to the State
party, and the State party will be required to answer prior to making their scheduled appearance
before the Committee.
26 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted and opened for
signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December
1966, entry into force 3 January 1976. Signatories: 5, parties: 164.
27 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
General Assembly Resolution A/RES/63/117, on 10 December 2008. Signatories: 5, parties: 164.
28 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Guidelines on Treaty-Specific
Documents to be Submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2008/2, 24 Mar. 2009. For more specific guidance
regarding the form and content of reports, the UN Secretary-General has published a Compilation of
Guidelines on the Form and Content of Reports to be submitted by States Parties to the International
Human Rights Treaties. The OHCHR also maintains a list of all the State party reports:
http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights/.
54 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
23. Representatives of each reporting State are invited to engage in a constructive dialogue with the
CESCR. Concluding observations are then drafted and later adopted by consensus following a
private discussion by the Committee. A list of concluding observations can be found on the
OHCHR web page. 29
24. The CESCR may, in its concluding observations, also make a specific request to a State party to
provide more detailed information or statistical data prior to the date on which the State party’s next
periodic report is due. 30 If the CESCR is unable to obtain the information it requires, the CESCR
may request that the State party accept a technical assistance mission consisting of one or two
Committee members. If the State party does not accept the proposed technical assistance mission,
the CESCR may then make recommendations to ECOSOC. 31
25. Furthermore, the Committee may consider individual communications alleging violations of the
ICESCR by States parties to the Optional Protocol. Inter-State complaints are governed by
Article 10 of the Optional Protocol, but this procedure has never been used. While there is no
mechanism for urgent action, the CESCR can consider inquiries on grave or systematic violations of
any of the rights set forth in the Covenant pursuant to Article 11 of the Optional Protocol. States
parties may opt out of the inquiry procedure at any time by declaring that the State does not
recognize the competence of the Committee to undertake inquiries.
26. The CESCR may produce general comments that guide interpretation of the ICESCR provisions and
assist States parties in fulfilling their obligations. Additionally, it may issue open letters and
statements to clarify its position with respect to certain obligations under the ICESCR following
major developments or other issues related to its implementation. 32
(c) The Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD)
27. The CERD is the body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by its States parties. 33 The Committee
meets in Geneva and normally holds two sessions per year consisting of three weeks each.
28. Additionally, a Special Rapporteurship was created to examine contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. As mentioned above, Special Rapporteurs
are part of the Special Procedures of the HRC. 34 The current Special Rapporteur for racial
discrimination, Mr Mutuma Ruteere (Kenya), has been mandated by Human Rights Council
Resolution 7/34 to focus on a number of issues related to racial discrimination. 35 In accordance
with his mandate, the Special Rapporteur transmits urgent appeals and communications on alleged
violations regarding contemporary forms of racism, discrimination based on race, xenophobia and
related intolerance to the State concerned in order to induce the national authority to undertake the
necessary investigations of all the incidents or individual cases reported. Moreover, he may
29 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=9&D
ocTypeID=5.
30 See Other activities of the human rights treaty bodies and participation of stakeholders in the
human rights treaty body process, UN document HRI/MC/2013/3, 22 Apr. 2013, para. 8. This is a
rarely used procedure.
31 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights/.
32 ibid.
33 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted and
opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly Resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December
1965, entry into force 4 January 1969. Signatories: 87, parties: 177.
34 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/SREducation/Pages/SREducationIndex.aspx.
35 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Racism/SRRacism/Pages/OverviewMandate.aspx.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 55
undertake fact-finding country visits and submit annual reports on the activities included in his
mandate to the HRC and the UN General Assembly. 36
29. All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the provisions of
the Convention are being implemented. States must initially report one year after acceding to the
Convention and afterwards every two years. The Committee examines each report and addresses its
concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of concluding observations. 37 Similar
to the reporting system under the 1966 human rights Covenants, this system requires each State
party to submit firstly, a common core document, which lists general information about the
reporting State, a framework for protecting human rights and information on non-discrimination and
equality, and secondly, a treaty-specific document which accounts for specific information relating
to the implementation of Articles 1–7 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and any national law or policy that aims at implementing
ICERD’s provisions. 38 The CERD subsequently engages in a constructive dialogue with each State
party that has fulfilled its reporting obligations. The CERD also has a follow-up procedure to
request further information or any additional reports concerning action taken by the State party to
implement the Committee’s recommendations. 39
30. In addition to the reporting procedure, the Convention establishes three other mechanisms through
which the Committee performs its monitoring functions: the examination of individual complaints,
the examination of inter-State complaints and the early-warning procedure. 40
31. The CERD may consider individual petitions alleging violations of the Convention by States parties
who have made the necessary declaration under Article 14 of the Convention. 41 Article 14 also
identifies the basic requirements a complaint must satisfy in order to be considered by the
Committee. 42 The CERD’s decisions are accessible through an online database. 43
32. The ICERD provides a mechanism for States to complain about violations of the ICERD made by
another State. 44 An ad hoc Conciliation Commission may be established, but to this date the inter-
State complaint procedure has not been used. The ICERD also provides a mechanism for States to
resolve inter-State disputes concerning the interpretation of the Convention. 45 In this procedure,
negotiations may be followed by arbitration to solve the existing conflicts. If the parties fail to agree
on an arbitration process within a period of six months, one of the States may refer the dispute to the
36 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Racism/SRRacism/Pages/IndexSRRacism.aspx.
37 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/.
38 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination/.
39 ibid.
40 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/CERDIntro.aspx.
41 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/CERDIntro.aspx and http://www.ijrcenter.org/
un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination/. As of June 2014, 55 States
have accepted the CERD complaint mechanism.
42 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination/
#Individual_Complaints.
43 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=6&D
ocTypeID=17.
44 Articles 11–13 of the ICERD.
45 Article 22 of the ICERD.
56 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
ICJ unless a State opted out of the procedure by making a declaration at the time of ratification or
accession to the ICERD. 46
33. The ICERD has a special procedure for urgent issues. When serious violations of the ICERD are at
stake, there is an early-warning procedure to prevent escalation of the conflict. When the CERD
commences this procedure, the party involved is requested to provide information and adopt a
decision that addresses specific concerns and recommends action. 47 The OHCHR has published a
list of recent decisions under this procedure. 48
34. The Committee publishes interpretations of the content of the Convention’s provisions in so-called
general recommendations. It may also publish reports on thematic issues and may organize thematic
discussions. 49 Furthermore, the CERD issues recommendations in the form of concluding
observations after receiving the State reports.
(d) The Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
35. The 1960s saw the emergence, in many parts of the world, of a new consciousness of the patterns of
discrimination against women and a rise in the number of organizations committed to combating the
effects of gender-based discrimination. 50 This led to the adoption of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1981. 51
36. The General Assembly adopted a 21-Article Optional Protocol to the Convention on 6 October
1999. 52 When a State ratifies the Protocol, the State recognizes the competence of the CEDAW to
receive and consider complaints from individuals or groups within its jurisdiction. The Optional
Protocol entered into force on 22 December 2000. 53
37. The CEDAW is an expert body established in 1982, and is composed of 23 experts on women’s
issues from around the world. 54 The Committee watches over the progress made with regard to
women’s rights in countries that are a party to the Convention. The CEDAW monitors the
implementation of national measures to fulfil this obligation. The experts are elected for a term of
four years, while elections for nine out of the 18 members occur every two years in order to ensure
the Committee maintains a balance between changing the Committee’s composition and
46 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination/.
47 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CERD/Pages/EarlyWarningProcedure.aspx.
48 ibid.
49 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/.
50 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/committee.htm.
51 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted and
opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 34/180 of
18 December 1979, entry into force 3 September 1981. Signatories: 99, parties: 189.
52 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/.
53 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women, A/RES/54/4, 15 Oct. 1999, Signatories: 80, parties: 106; https://treaties.un.org/Pages/
ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8-b&chapter=4&lang=en.
54 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/committee.htm.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 57
continuity. 55 The Committee also has five officers: a Chairperson, three Vice-Chairpersons and a
Rapporteur, who all serve for a term of two years.
38. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights decided in 1994 to appoint a Special Rapporteur
on violence against women, including its causes and consequences. 56 According to her mandate, the
Special Rapporteur, Ms Rashida Manjoo (South Africa), since August 2009, is requested to:
(a) seek and receive information on violence against women, its causes and consequences
from governments, treaty bodies, specialized agencies, other special rapporteurs
responsible for various human rights questions and intergovernmental and nongovernmental
organizations, including women’s organizations, and to respond
effectively to such information;
(b) recommend measures, ways and means at the local, national, regional and international
levels to eliminate all forms of violence against women and its causes, and to remedy its
consequences;
(c) work closely with all Special Procedures and other human rights mechanisms of the
Human Rights Council and with the treaty bodies, taking into account the request of the
Council that they regularly and systematically integrate the human rights of women and
a gender perspective into their work, and cooperate closely with the Commission on the
Status of Women in the discharge of its functions;
(d) continue to adopt a comprehensive and universal approach to the elimination of violence
against women, its causes and consequences, including causes of violence against
women relating to the civil, cultural, economic, political and social spheres. 57
39. The Special Rapporteur also transmits urgent appeals and communications to States regarding
violence against women, undertakes country visits and submits annual thematic reports.
40. Additionally, a Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and its practice
was created. The establishment of the Working Group by the HRC at its 15th Session in September
2010 was seen as necessary since, although many constitutional and legal reforms to fully integrate
women’s human rights into domestic law had occurred, there remains insufficient progress. 58 The
Working Group identifies, promotes and exchanges views, in consultation with States and other
actors, on good practices related to the elimination of laws that discriminate against women. 59
41. States parties are obliged to submit, within one year of ratification or accession, a national report to
the CEDAW. Afterwards, they are held to do so every four years, or whenever the Committee
requests them to do so. 60 The Committee reviews these State reports, which cover national action
taken to improve the situation of women. In discussions with State officials, CEDAW members
comment on the report and obtain additional information.
42. Following the receipt of the periodic reports, the Committee hosts a pre-session working group of
five members who create a shortlist of issues and questions that the full Committee will consider at
the following session. States parties are given an opportunity to respond to the list of issues and
questions prior to engaging in a constructive dialogue at the Committee’s session. Hereafter, the
Committee adopts concluding observations, which generally include sections on positive aspects on
55 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-discrimination-againstwomen/.
56 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/SRWomen/Pages/SRWomenIndex.aspx.
57 ibid.
58 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WGWomen/Pages/WGWomenIndex.aspx.
59 At its 23rd Session, the HRC adopted by consensus Resolution 23/7 extending the mandate of the
Working Group for another period of three years.
60 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-discrimination-againstwomen/.
58 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
which the State has complied with the CEDAW, a potential list of factors and difficulties in
implementation of the CEDAW, and principal areas of concern and recommendations. The
Committee also maintains a list of concluding observations. 61 This procedure of dialogue,
developed by the Committee, has proven valuable because it allows for an exchange of views and a
clearer analysis of anti-discrimination policies in the various countries. 62
43. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women contains two supervisory procedures: an Individual Communication Procedure and an
Inquiry Procedure. Individual women can submit claims of violations of rights in the Convention to
the Committee. Domestic remedies must have been exhausted before consideration of these
individual communications. The inquiry procedure enables the Committee to initiate inquiries into
situations of grave or systematic violations of women’s rights. 63
44. Furthermore, the Convention provides for a mechanism for inter-State complaints in Article 29. If
negotiations fail, arbitration is required. If this does not lead to a satisfactory result, one of the
parties may refer the dispute to the ICJ, unless a State opted out of the procedure by making a
declaration at the time of ratification or accession to the CEDAW. There is no mechanism for urgent
interventions in the framework of the Convention.
45. The Committee produces different kinds of normative documents. It formulates general
recommendations and suggestions. General recommendations are directed to States and discuss any
issue relating to women that the Committee believes States parties should focus on. As such, general
recommendations do not necessarily target a specific Article of the Convention. Additionally, the
Committee may produce open letters and statements to clarify its position with respect to
international developments and any issues that relate to the implementation of the Convention. 64
Moreover, thematic discussions and conferences are organized. 65
(e) The Committee against Torture (CAT) and the
Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT)
46. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
requires States to take effective measures to prevent torture in any territory under their jurisdiction,
and forbids States to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be
tortured. 66
47. An Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention (OPCAT) was adopted by the General Assembly of
the UN on 18 December 2002 and entered into force on 22 June 2006. 67 It establishes a system of
regular visits by international and national bodies to places of detention in order to prevent torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A Subcommittee on Prevention of
61 ibid.
62 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/committee.htm.
63 There is an opt-out clause: States are allowed to declare that they do not accept the inquiry
procedure.
64 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-elimination-of-discrimination-againstwomen/.
65 ibid.
66 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46
of 10 December 1984, entry into force 26 June 1987. Signatories: 81, parties: 158.
67 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, adopted on 18 December 2002 at the 57th session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution A/RES/57/199, entry into force on 22 June 2006.
Signatories: 75, parties: 79.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 59
Torture (SPT) was established under the Protocol to carry out visits and offer expertise to States
parties and national institutions in order to create national preventive mechanisms. 68
48. The CAT consists of ten independent experts who monitor the implementation of the Convention. It
holds two annual sessions in Geneva that last for two weeks, and in which it examines
approximately eight to nine State reports. 69 At each session, the Committee examines reports from
a number of States parties. Each report is examined orally in the presence of one or more
representatives of the State concerned. After examination of each report the Committee adopts its
conclusions and recommendations. 70
49. As mentioned, next to the CAT there is also the SPT. This is a new kind of treaty body in the UN
human rights system which focuses on innovative, sustained and proactive approaches to the
prevention of torture and ill treatment. The SPT is a committee that comprises 25 independent and
impartial experts, who are elected by States and come from various regions of the world. 71 Its two
main functions are to undertake visits to States parties and provide advice. Under the Optional
Protocol, the SPT has unrestricted access to all places where persons may be deprived of their
liberty, their installations and facilities and to all relevant information. 72 Article 17 of the Optional
Protocol obliges States parties to create a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM). The OPCAT and
the SPT are designed to guide States parties in establishing these bodies.
50. A working group prepares the examination of individual communications received under Article 22
of the Convention. The working group examines the admissibility and merits of the communications
and makes recommendations to the Committee. 73
51. In 1985, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights mandated the appointment of a Special
Rapporteur to examine questions that are relevant to torture. 74 The mandate was extended for three
years by Human Rights Council Resolution 25/13 in March 2014. 75 The current Special Rapporteur
is Mr Juan Méndez (Argentina). The Special Rapporteur covers all countries irrespective of whether
a specific State has ratified the Convention. The mandate comprises three main activities: firstly,
transmitting urgent appeals to States with regard to individuals reported to be at risk of torture, as
well as communications on past alleged cases of torture; secondly, undertaking fact-finding country
visits; and thirdly, submitting annual reports on activities, the mandate and methods of work to the
HRC and the General Assembly. 76 Unlike the complaints mechanism of the human rights treaty
monitoring bodies, the Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to
act. 77
68 A/RES/57/199, Articles 5–10. Also see: http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html.
69 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-against-torture/.
70 http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html.
71 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/OPCATIntro.aspx.
72 ibid.
73 http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html.
74 E/CN.4/RES/1985/33, Anti-Torture Initiative.
75 A/HRC/25/L.25, Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment:
Mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Also see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/
Pages/SRTortureIndex.aspx.
76 For the full mandate, see: A/HRC/25/L.25, Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
77 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/SRTortureIndex.aspx.
60 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
52. Pursuant to Article 19 of the Convention, each party is obliged to submit a report on measures taken
to give effect to its undertakings under the Convention to the Committee one year after the entry
into force and afterwards every four years or on request by the Committee. Periodic reports consist
of three parts: information about the implementation of the Convention; information requested by
the CAT; and measures that have been taken to comply with the conclusions and recommendations
addressed to it by the CAT previously. 78 The CAT will first generate a list of issues that will be
drafted by two members of the Committee chosen as rapporteurs for that particular State. The State
may reply and send representatives to the UN, in order to establish a constructive dialogue. The
CAT replies to the State with positive aspects, a section noting areas of concern and subsequent
recommendations. 79
53. The CAT may consider individual complaints alleging violations of the rights set out in the
Convention by States parties who have made the necessary declaration under Article 22 of the
Convention. As of February 2014, 65 States have accepted the complaints mechanisms of the
Convention against Torture.
54. Article 21 of the Convention establishes an inter-State complaints mechanism, while Article 30
provides a mechanism for States to resolve inter-State disputes concerning interpretation of
application of the Convention. First there is negotiation, then arbitration and if the parties still fail to
agree within a period of six months, then they can go to the ICJ, unless a State opted out. The CAT
does not have a mechanism for urgent interventions.
55. When there is a grave or systematic violation of any of the rights of the Convention, the CAT is
mandated, according to Article 20, to make use of the inquiry procedure. States parties may opt out
of this procedure at the time of signature, ratification of, or accession to, the Convention by
declaring that the State does not recognize the competence of the CAT to undertake inquiries,
pursuant to Article 28. 80
56. The CAT publishes general comments on thematic issues related to the content of the Convention.
Moreover, it may produce open letters and statements in which the CAT clarifies its position with
respect to international developments and other issues that could potentially affect the Convention’s
implementation. Furthermore, thematic discussions and conferences are organized with interested
stakeholders prior to the Committee’s adoption of a general comment. 81
(f) The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
57. The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and
cultural rights of children. 82 Three Optional Protocols are attached to the Convention. 83
78 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-against-torture/.
79 ibid.
80 ibid.
81 ibid.
82 Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, entry into force
2 September 1990.
83 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly Resolution A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000, entered into force on 18 Jan. 2002.
Signatories: 121, parties: 169. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
involvement of children in armed conflict, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly Resolution A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000, entry into force 12 Feb.
2002. Signatories: 129; parties: 159. A/RES/66/138, resolution adopted on 19 Dec. 2011 by the
General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a
communications procedure, 27 Jan. 2012, entry into force 14 Apr. 2014. Signatories: 49; parties: 17.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 61
58. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography obliges parties to pass laws within their territories against the
sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
59. The second Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict
aims to protect children from recruitment and use in hostilities. States shall not recruit children
under the age of 18 to battlefields, shall not conscript soldiers below the age of 18, and should take
all possible measures to prevent such recruitment, demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used
in hostilities, and to provide physical and psychological recovery services. Additionally, States
parties are obliged to help with the social integration of former child combatants. Furthermore,
armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a country should not, under any circumstances,
recruit or use in hostilities anyone under the age of 18. 84
60. The third and most recent Optional Protocol to the Convention establishes a communications
procedure which allows children from States that have ratified the Protocol to bring complaints
about violations of their rights directly to the CRC if they have not found a solution at the national
level. The third Optional Protocol provides two new ways for children to challenge violations of
their rights: a communication procedure and an inquiry procedure.
61. The CRC is composed of 18 independent experts who monitor the implementation of the
Convention. The Committee meets in Geneva and normally holds three sessions per year consisting
of a three-week plenary and a one-week pre-sessional meeting.
62. Furthermore, a Special Rapporteurship on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography was established in light of growing concerns over commercial sexual exploitation and
sale of children. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur is to investigate the exploitation of children
around the world and to submit reports to the General Assembly and the HRC, in which
recommendations for the protection of the rights of the children concerned are included. 85 The
current Special Rapporteur, Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio (Netherlands) was appointed in 2014 for
a three-year period. The mandate covers issues related to the sexual exploitation of children online,
tourism, travel, major sports events, child prostitution, child pornography and child trafficking and
the sale of children for the purpose of illegal adoption, organ transfer, child marriage and forced
labour. The recommendations of the Rapporteur are targeted primarily at governments, UN bodies,
the business sector and NGOs. 86
63. All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the provisions of
the Convention are being implemented. States must submit an initial report two years after acceding
to the Convention and afterwards are obliged to produce reports every five years. The report
requires a common core document with general information about the reporting State and a treatyspecific
document which entails specific information related to the implementation of the
Convention and its Optional Protocols. The Committee examines each report and addresses its
concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of concluding observations. 87
64. As mentioned, the CRC is mandated to consider individual complaints under the third Optional
Protocol in accordance with the Protocol’s rules of procedure. 88 Moreover, the CRC may initiate
inquiries when there is a grave or systematic violation of any of the rights of the Convention. States
can opt out of the inquiry procedure at the time of signature, ratification or accession of the
Convention by declaring that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee to undertake
such actions.
84 https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/mandate/opac/.
85 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Children/Pages/ChildrenIndex.aspx.
86 ibid.
87 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIntro.aspx.
88 For detailed guidance on the procedures of Optional Protocol 3, see: https://www.crin.org/en/
guides/legal/crc-complaints-mechanism-toolkit.
62 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
65. Inter-State communications are governed by Article 12 of the third Optional Protocol, which
provides the procedure for a State to complain about violations that another State party to the
Convention has committed. This procedure is the broadest in scope to raise potential violations of
children’s rights, as it does not require individual child victims to come forward. 89 Both States
concerned must have made declarations accepting this procedure, which is rarely used. Furthermore,
the CRC does not have a mandate for urgent interventions.
66. The Committee publishes interpretations of the content of the Convention’s provisions, in the form
of general comments on specific provisions or thematic issues. Moreover, the CRC may adopt
statements to clarify its position with respect to international developments and any further issues
that relate to the implementation of the Convention, and organizes general discussions to receive
input on the implementation of specific provisions of the Convention by stakeholders and experts.
(g) The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
67. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families’ main objective is to foster respect for migrant’s human rights. 90 It seeks to
establish minimum standards that States parties should uphold in relation to migrant workers and
their family members irrespective of their migratory status. 91
68. The CMW is the body of 14 independent experts that monitors the implementation of the
Convention by its States parties. The experts are elected for a term of four years by States parties to
the Convention. Each member must be a national of a State party to the Convention, of high moral
character and have recognized competences in the field of international human rights. The
Committee meets in Geneva and normally holds two sessions per year. 92
69. A Special Rapporteurship on the Human Rights of Migrants was established in 1999 by the
Commission on Human Rights. 93 Mr Francois Crépau (Canada) is the current Rapporteur. His
mandate covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the Convention, and there
is no requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies for him to act. 94
70. States are required to submit an initial report within one year after acceding to the Convention and
afterwards once every five years. In order to reduce the administrative burden on the Committee,
there is also a simplified reporting procedure, in which the traditional reporting obligation is waived
and in which the CMW’s list of issues and the replies by the State party constitute the report. 95
71. Article 77 of the Convention governs the individual complaints procedure which allows the CMW
to address specific alleged violations of the Convention. The individual complaint mechanism, in
which individual communications may be considered if the relevant State has made the necessary
89 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-rights-of-the-child/.
90 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of
Their Families, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 45/158 of 18 Dec. 1990, entry into force
1 July 2003.
91 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The International
Convention on Migrant Workers and its Committee, Fact Sheet No. 24 (Rev. 1), United Nations,
New York and Geneva, 2005.
92 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-migrant-workers/.
93 E/CN/4/RES/1999/44, Human Rights of Migrants, Commission on Human Rights Resolution
1999/44.
94 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Migration/SRMigrants/Pages/SRMigrantsIndex.aspx.
95 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-migrant-workers/.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 63
declaration, has not yet entered into force. 96 Article 74 of the Convention sets out an inter-State
complaints procedure, which has never been used thus far. The CMW, furthermore, does not have a
mechanism for urgent interventions or inquiries.
72. Following the submission of States’ reports, the CMW issues recommendations in the form of
concluding observations. 97 Moreover, the CMW may issue general comments that aim to clarify the
scope and meaning of the CMW’s substantive provisions, and thereby guides States’ efforts towards
implementing the Convention. 98
(h) The Committee on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD)
73. The CRPD supervises the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities through consideration of States’ reports, individual complaints, early-awareness and
urgent actions, inquiry requests. 99 Furthermore, it issues general comment and prepares general
discussions, and the Convention has a special system of national monitoring mechanisms.
According to Article 1 of the Convention, its purpose is to “promote, protect and ensure the full and
equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and
to promote respect for their inherent dignity”. 100
74. The CRPD comprises 18 independent experts, elected for a four-year term and holds two sessions a
year in Geneva. States are required to submit initial reports within two years after acceding to the
Convention and, afterwards, periodic reports on the implementation of the provisions of the
Convention every four years. 101 Pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention, reports have to include,
firstly, a common core document and a framework for protecting human rights and secondly, a
treaty-specific document. 102 A simplified reporting procedure was adopted at its Tenth Session in
September 2013.
75. If a State party has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention, the CRPD is mandated to
consider individual complaints. A decision on the merits is issued in which possible State
responsibility is asserted if the complaint is admissible. 103
96 This individual complaint mechanism will become operative when ten States parties have made
the necessary declaration under Article 77; http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/TBPetitions/Pages/
HRTBPetitions.aspx#interstate.
97 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-migrant-workers/.
98 ibid.
99 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, resolution adopted by the General
Assembly, 24 Jan. 2007, A/RES/61/106, Article 1.
100 ibid.
101 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/.
102 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, op. cit., Article 35.
103 Also see: CRPD/C/5/3/(Rev.1), June 2012, Revised guidelines for submission of communications
to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities under the Optional Protocol to the
Convention adopted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
64 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
76. The CRPD does not have a procedure for inter-State complaints, but does have a special procedure
for early-awareness and urgent action under which individuals or NGOs may ask the Committee for
specific measures. 104 Furthermore, a confidential inquiry procedure is provided for in Article 6 of
the Optional Protocol under which the CRPD is authorized to investigate alleged grave or systemic
violations of the Convention.
77. Moreover, Articles 33–39 of the Convention provide for a special type of national monitoring
mechanism, in which national human rights institutions and civil society are involved. 105 Article 33
provides that States are obliged to establish a focal point on issues of disability, to create a
framework to promote, protect and monitor the implementation, and that civil society is invited to
fully participate in this monitoring process.
78. A Special Rapporteurship was created in 2014 with the mandate to develop dialogue, exchange
information, make recommendations, offer technical assistance, promote awareness and cooperate
with other UN mechanisms to advance the rights of persons with disabilities. The first Special
Rapporteur is Ms Catalina Devandas Aguilar from Costa Rica. 106
79. The CRPD issues general comments related to specific provisions of the Convention, themes or
general issues that arise in the context of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee periodically
issues substantive statements and organizes thematic discussions and conferences.
(i) The Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)
80. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances is
supervised by the CED, which considers State reports, individual complaints, inter-State complaints,
requests for urgent action and inquiries. Furthermore, it produces general comments, substantive
statements and thematic discussions. 107 The Convention’s purpose is to prevent forced
disappearance which is considered a crime against humanity when it is used in a widespread or
systematic way. 108 The CED consists of ten independent experts who are elected for four-year
terms in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention. The Committee holds two sessions each
year in Geneva, with each session lasting approximately two weeks. 109
81. States parties to the Convention have to make an initial report within two years of accession which
must include a common core document and a treaty-specific document. 110 After the CED has
examined the State report it adopts concluding observations, which generally include a section on
positive aspects, a section on concerns and related recommendations, and a request for follow-up.
104 CRPD/C/5/4, Working Methods of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
adopted at its Fifth Session (11–15 April 2011), paras 26–29.
105 ibid., paras 38–42.
106 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disability/SRDisabilities/Pages/CatalinaDevandas.aspx.
107 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
20 Dec. 2006, entry into force 23 Dec. 2010. See: http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treatybodies/
committee-on-enforced-disappearances/.
108 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
20 Dec. 2006, entry into force 23 Dec. 2010, Article 5.
109 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-enforced-disappearances/.
110 See: CED/C/2, 8 June 2012, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance, Guidelines on the form and content of reports under Article 29 to be
submitted by States parties to the Convention, adopted by the Committee at its Second Session
(26–30 March 2012).
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 65
82. The CED is mandated to examine individual complaints for alleged violations of the Convention if
the relevant State has made the necessary declaration under Article 31 of the Convention. 111 When
the complaint is declared admissible, the CED will issue a decision on the merits and asserts
whether the State involved is responsible for violating the Convention. A mechanism for inter-State
complaints is provided for in Article 32 of the Convention. Both States concerned must have
accepted this procedure, which has never been used to this date. 112 Furthermore, the Convention
includes a specific procedure for requests for urgent action in Article 30. Pursuant to this procedure,
the CED will request the State to provide information on the disappeared person’s situation and may
make recommendations to the government to locate and protect the person concerned. The CED’s
recommendations may also include interim measures to avoid causing or allowing irreparable harm
to the victim.
83. Inquiry procedures are provided for in Article 33 of the Convention. The Committee may undertake
a country visit and subsequently provide the State party with written observations and
recommendations if it has received reliable information indicating that a State party is seriously
violating the provisions of the Convention. Like the other Treaty-based bodies examined, the CED
may produce general comments to clarify the scope and content of the Convention’s provisions.
Furthermore, it may issue substantive statements, open letters, and organize thematic discussions
and conferences. The Committee also works in close cooperation with national human rights
institutions. 113
Concluding remarks
84. The UN Human Rights Treaty- and Charter-based bodies have developed a diverse mixture of
supervisory options. Different procedures related to reporting, complaints, follow-up,
implementation, urgent action and national settlement processes are included in the UN system,
which is in continuous development. In some respects, the ILO’s supervisory system appears to be
more complex and advanced than many of the treaty bodies while in others the ILO should keep a
close track of the developments in this field. Close cooperation and coordination between the ILO
and other UN institutions could lead to a more effective and fair conception of international
supervision. The introductory overview presented in this appendix contributes to this idea.
111 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
20 Dec. 2006, entry into force 23 Dec. 2010, Article 31.
112 http://www.ijrcenter.org/un-treaty-bodies/committee-on-enforced-disappearances/.
113 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, The
relationship of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances with national human rights institutions,
CED/C/6, 28 Oct. 2014.
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 67
Appendix II. Statistics and figures
Figure 1. Number of representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution
and found receivable (1924–2015)
Figure 2. Number of representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution,
by year and type of Convention (1924–2015)
Figure 3. Number of representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution,
by region, year and type of Convention (1924-2015)
Figure 4. Number of complaints submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
and of Commissions of Inquiry established (1934–2014)
Figure 5. Number of complaints submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution,
by year and type of Convention (1934–2014)
Figure 6. Number of complaints submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution,
by region, year and type of Convention (1934–2014)
Figure 7. Complaints presented before the Committee on Freedom of Association,
by region (1951–2015)
Figure 8. Number of complaints originating from Africa (1951–2015)
Figure 9. Number of complaints originating from Asia (1951–2015)
Figure 10. Number of complaints originating from Europe (1951–2015)
Figure 11. Number of complaints originating from Latin America (1951–2015)
Figure 12. Number of complaints originating from North America (1951–2015)
Figure 13. Complaints presented before the Committee on Freedom of Association,
by region (1995–2015)
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 69
Figure 1. Number of representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution
and found receivable (1924–2015) *
* The figure includes only the years on which at least one representation was submitted.
1 1 1 1
3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3
4
3
4
2 2 2
1
4 4
13
9
11
6
7 7
1
6
3
5
1
4 4
2
5
1
5
2
6
13
2
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1924
1930
1935
1936
1937
1955
1965
1970
1975
1976
1977
1978
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Representations Evolution
70 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Figure 2. Number of representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution,
by year and type of Convention (1924–2015) *
* The figure includes only the years on which at least one representation was submitted.
0 0 0 0
1
0 0
1 1 1 1
2
3
8
3
7 7
1
2 2
7
3
5
7
6
4 4
1 2
0 4
2
0
3
0
0 0
2
9
1
0
1
0 0 0 0 0
0
1
5
0
0
3
0
0 0
2
1
4
3
3
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
1
0
1 1 1 1
0
0
1 1
0 0 0 0
2
10
12
9
3
10
1
4
2
5
1
13
8
7
5 8
6
1
3
3
5
2
3
4
2
4
1
2
2
3
5
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
1924
1930
1936
1937
1955
1965
1970
1975
1976
1977
1978
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fundamental Conventions Governance Conventions Technical Conventions
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 71
Figure 3. Number of representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution,
by region, year and type of Convention (1924–2015) *
* The figure includes only the years on which at least one representation was submitted.
0 0 0 0
1
0 0 0
1 1 1 1
2
1
2
3
5
1
2
7 7
1
1 1
2
4
3
2
1
0 0
2
3
2
4
1
0
3
0
3
0
4
1
1
2
1
2
0 0 0 0 0
4
1 1
0 0
2
1
0 0 0 0
1 1
4
2
3
1
0
1
0 0 0 0
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0 0
0
2
0
0
0
1
3 1
0
1
0 2
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
1
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
1
2 2
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1 1 1 1
0
0
1 1
0 0 0 0
2
3
7
9
3
1
7
1
3
10
0
1
4
0
2
5
0
0
0 1 2
8
3
1
5
0
2
4
1
2
4
1
1
6
0
1 3
0
3
1
3
3
3
1 1
2 2
1 4
0
1 1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
2
0
3
0
1
0
5
10
15
20
Asia
Europe
Asia
Europe
Europe
Americas
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Americas
Europe
Americas
Europe
Americas
Europe
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Asia
Americas
Europe
Africa
Americas
Arab States
Americas
Europe
Americas
Asia
Europe
Africa
Americas
Europe
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Americas
Asia
Europe
Americas
Europe
Africa
Americas
Arab States
Europe
Americas
Asia
Europe
Europe
Americas
Americas
Americas
Asia
Europe
Americas
Americas
Europe
Americas
Europe
Asia
Europe
Americas
Asia
Americas
Americas
Europe
Europe
Americas
Arab States
Europe
Americas
Arab States
Europe
Americas
Europe
19241930 1936 19371955196519701975 19761977197819811982 1983 1984 1985 19861987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fundamental Conventions Governance Conventions Technical Conventions
72 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Figure 4. Number of complaints submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
and of Commissions of Inquiry established (1934–2014) *
* The figure includes only the years on which at least one complaint was submitted.
1 1 1 1 1 1
2
1 1
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
1 1 1 1
0
0
0 0
1
1 1
0
1 1
0 0
1
0
1
0
1
0 0 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
1934
1961
1962
1968
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1981
1982
1985
1986
1987
1989
1991
1992
1996
1998
2003
2004
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Complaints Commissions of Inquiry established
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 73
Figure 5. Number of complaints submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution,
by year and type of Convention (1934–2014) *
* The figure includes only the years on which at least one complaint was submitted.
0
1 1
2 1
1
2
1 0 8 2 1 1
2 1
2
1 1
4
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0
0 1
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1934
1961
1962
1968
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1981
1982
1985
1986
1987
1989
1991
1992
1996
1998
2003
2004
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Fundamental Conventions Governance Conventions Technical Conventions
74 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Figure 6. Number of complaints submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution,
by region, year and type of Convention (1934–2014) *
* The figure includes only the years on which at least one complaint was submitted.
0 1 1
2 1 1 2
1 0
8 2
1 1 2 1 2
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0
0 1
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
2 0
0
1
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Asia
Europe
Africa
Europe
Americas
Americas
Americas
Americas
Americas
Americas
Europe
Europe
Arab States
Americas
Europe
Europe
Africa
Asia
Africa
Americas
Europe
Americas
Africa
Asia
Arab States
Americas
Asia
Arab States
1934 1961 1962 1968 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1981 1982 1985 1986 1987 1989 1991 1992 1996 1998 1998 2003 2004 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fundamental Conventions Governance Conventions Technical Conventions
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 75
Figure 7. Complaints presented before the Committee on Freedom of Association,
by region (1951–2015)
Figure 8. Number of complaints originating from Africa (1951–2015)
68
28
24
20 18
12 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
76 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Figure 9. Number of complaints originating from Asia (1951–2015)
Figure 10. Number of complaints originating from Europe (1951–2015)
71
36
34
31
20
16 15 15 14 13 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 8 8
6 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 1
99
91
84
46
38
34
19 19 18
15 14 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 8 7 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx 77
Figure 11. Number of complaints originating from Latin America (1951–2015)
Figure 12. Number of complaints originating from North America (1951–2015)
187
182
170
101 99
89
77
71
66 64
57 55 54 54 51
42 40 36
16 16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
107
43
9
6 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Canada United States Jamaica Guyana Bahamas Barbados Grenada Trinidad and
Tobago
Antigua and
Barbuda
Belize Saint Lucia Suriname
78 GB326-LILS_3-Supervisory Mechanism-[DDGMR-151127-1]-En.docx
Figure 13. Complaints presented before the Committee on Freedom of Association,
by region (1995–2015)
Document No. 64
GB.329/INS/5, The Standards Initiative: Follow-up to
the joint report of the Chairpersons of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations and the
Committee on Freedom of Association - Consolidating
tripartite consensus on an authoritative supervisory
system, March 2017
This GB document is printed in limited numbers to minimize the environmental impact of the ILO’s activities and processes, contribute to climate
neutrality and improve efficiency. GB members and observers are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and to avoid asking for
additional ones. All GB documents are available on the Internet at www.ilo.org.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
329th Session, Geneva, 9–24 March 2017 GB.329/INS/5
Institutional Section INS
Date: 6 March 2017
Original: English
FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
The Standards Initiative: Follow-up to
the joint report of the Chairpersons of
the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and
Recommendations and the Committee
on Freedom of Association
Consolidating tripartite consensus on an
authoritative supervisory system
Purpose of the document
In follow-up to its earlier decisions in relation to the Joint report of the two Chairpersons in the
context of the Standards Initiative, the Governing Body is invited to approve the workplan for the
strengthening of the supervisory system; to request the Office to take the necessary steps to
implement it based on the guidance received from the Governing Body, report on progress made at
its 331st Session (November 2017) and review the workplan, as may be adjusted by the Governing
Body during its 331st Session, in the context of its broader review of the Standards Initiative at its
332nd Session (March 2018) (see the draft decision in paragraph 42).
Relevant strat egic objective: All four.
Main relevant outcome/cross-cutting policy driver: Outcome 2: Ratification and application of international labour
standards and cross-cutting driver concerning international labour standards.
Policy implications: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Legal implications: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Financial implications: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Follow-up action required: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion of the Governing Body.
Author unit: International Labour Standards Department (NORMES).
Related documents: GB.328/PV/Draft; GB.328/LILS/2/2; GB.328/INS/6; GB.326/PV; GB.326/LILS/3/1; GB.323/PV;
GB.323/INS/5.
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 1
Introduction
1. At its 323rd Session (March 2015), the Governing Body requested the Chairpersons of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and of the
Committee on Freedom of Association to jointly prepare a report “on the interrelationship,
functioning and possible improvement of the various supervisory procedures related to
articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom
of association”. 1 In receiving the Joint report, the Governing Body requested further
consultations 2 and recommendations for its consideration in March 2017. 3 Separate
consultations with the three groups were held in January and February 2017, ensuring
tripartite involvement in the development of the proposals below.
2. Under the ILO Constitution, the supervisory system is the heart of the ILO. Ratification and
effective implementation of international labour standards are vital to the fulfilment of the
ILO’s mission to promote social justice. The ILO supervisory system is a functioning system
of interrelated procedures, each of which has a distinctive mandate and should operate in a
way that enhances complementarity and eliminates unnecessary overlap. Its impact depends
on how it works as a whole. The strengthening of the supervisory system contributes to the
way in which the ILO is equipping itself to respond to the changes in the world of work and
to give leadership in the global goal of ensuring decent work for all women and men.
3. Challenges and areas in which the supervisory system could be strengthened have been
identified by the tripartite constituents. The Joint report, reflecting some of those views,
referred to issues concerning transparency, visibility and coherence; mandates and the
interpretation of Conventions; and workload, efficiency and effectiveness. 4 In considering
the functioning of the supervisory system as a whole, the Joint report raised the question
whether its complexity may lead to overlap between, or a duplication of, procedures; and
whether there may be too many different committees involved in the system which may have
negative effects on the transparency and effectiveness of the procedures for those involved.
It also indicated that extra efforts could be made to make the system more user-friendly and
clear. 5
4. This document presents proposals to address the challenges raised by the constituents,
including those reflected in the Joint report and those expressed during the consultations in
January and February 2017, against a backdrop of previous Governing Body decisions. 6
1 GB.323/PV, para. 84. See further GB.323/INS/5, Appendix I, including statements from the
Government group and a joint statement from the Workers’ and Employers’ groups.
2 GB.326/PV, para. 502.
3 GB.328/PV/Draft, para. 594.
4 See GB.326/LILS/3/1 (the Joint report), paras 125–144.
5 Joint report, para. 126.
6 Notably, the recognition by the Governing Body of the Committee of Experts’ statement of its
mandate, the critical importance of the effective functioning of the Committee on the Application of
Standards and the need for steps to improve the working methods of the supervisory system, including
through the examination of their working methods by the supervisory bodies: GB/320/PV, para. 596.
See also joint statement of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups in GB323/INS/5/Appendix I,
Annex I.
GB.329/INS/5
2 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
The consultations provided helpful and constructive guidance to the Office, and confirmed
that the package of ten complementary concrete proposals was an acceptable starting point.
5. The Governing Body will continue its usual governance role in relation to the supervisory
system, including raising issues that are addressed by the supervisory bodies’ ongoing
reviews of their methods of work. 7 The overall review by the Governing Body of the
implementation of the Standards Initiative at its 332nd Session (March 2018) will be a
further opportunity for it to consider the supervisory system. 8
Common principles guiding the strengthening
of the supervisory system
6. Constituents have expressed diverse views on the functioning of the supervisory system and
its specific procedures. At the same time, there is convergence on the expected outcome of
measures to ensure a well-functioning and effective supervisory system within the
constitutional framework.
The value of the supervisory system is incontrovertible …
7. The role of the supervisory system is to give practical effect to the ILO founding values and
constitutional objectives. The tripartite constituents have highlighted the importance of the
system as a whole, as well as of the individual supervisory procedures, for the discharge of
the ILO’s mandate. Any evolution of the supervisory system must be based on its
well-established strengths. Equally, there is consensus that the system could be strengthened.
… and the responsibility to further strengthen the supervisory system lies with the
tripartite constituents.
8. There is a collective view that it is the joint responsibility of the tripartite constituents to
consider further strengthening the supervisory mechanisms. The tripartite structure adds
value to the supervisory system, and is an important reason for its authoritativeness. It is the
responsibility of the ILO constituents to guarantee the functioning and evolution of the
system in line with the Constitution, supported and assisted by the Office in the discharge of
its constitutional role. Solutions lie with the tripartite constituents and decisions will be taken
on a consensual and participatory basis by the ILO governance bodies. The tripartite
structure adds value to the supervisory system, and is an important reason for its
authoritativeness. In addition to recognizing their role in the functioning of the system, the
tripartite constituents have committed to engaging fully in the process of strengthening it.
Improvements must result in a robust, relevant and sustainable system …
9. The supervisory system must remain relevant to the existing world of work. This will enable
it to continue to guide the ILO in achieving progress and social justice in a constantly
changing environment, remaining pertinent and retaining global significance.
Fundamentally, within the constitutional framework, the system must enjoy committed
tripartite support that is manifested in constructive involvement and genuine engagement. A
7 The Committee of Experts, the Committee on the Application of Standards and the Committee on
Freedom of Association have ongoing processes for reviewing their working methods. See Joint
report, paras 138–140.
8 GB.328/PV/Draft, para. 108.
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 3
strong supervisory system inspires confidence, while enabling the ILO and its Members to
be resilient to change.
… and its procedures should be efficient and effective.
10. Effectiveness and efficiency are important components of the supervisory system. In
supervising the application of international labour standards, it must continue to fulfil its
purpose and make the best use of available resources. Its recommendations must be followed
up and implemented. An organized and coherent system contributes to the achievement of
the ILO’s strategic objectives through the ratification and effective application of standards
in member States.
The supervisory system must be transparent, fair and rigorous, leading to consistent and
impartial outcomes.
11. Transparency and integrity in the system are essential. Due process and procedural fairness
should be guaranteed, including through necessary procedural safeguards, and the
supervisory system must operate on the basis of consistent and impartial practices.
Comments, decisions and recommendations that are understood to be the outcome of a
balanced, objective and rigorous process are essential to the credibility and authority of the
system.
Concrete proposals
12. To contribute to the consolidation of tripartite consensus, the document presents proposals
on which the constituents could build a tripartite process to strengthen the supervisory
system. The ten proposals are grouped under four complementary focus areas. A workplan
describing the set of proposals and their timing is set out below.
4 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
GB.329/INS/5
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 5
Focus area 1: Relationships between the procedures
Main aims of the proposals, based on the common
principles of: enhanced transparency, coherence,
predictability and sustainability
13. Many views expressed by the constituents concern the supervisory system systemically,
highlighting the fact that it is a functioning system of interrelated and complementary
individual procedures. 9 Constituents have underlined the need to consider the functioning
of the system as a whole, and to improve understanding of its procedures and the linkages
between them, as well as to avoid unnecessary overlap and to take extra efforts to make it
more user-friendly and clear.
14. The proposals included within this focus area aim to respond to those challenges and issues.
Concrete proposal 1.1 addresses the need to ensure clarity in relation to the individual
supervisory procedures. Concrete proposal 1.2 addresses the need to consider the
relationships between the individual procedures and consider the functioning of the system
as a whole.
1.1. Guide on practices across the
supervisory system
15. The Office would create a user-friendly and clear guide for the supervisory system, bringing
together useful information and ensuring a level playing field of knowledge. In practical
terms, such a guide would build on existing descriptions of the supervisory system and its
procedures. As illustrated in Appendix I, it will set out, in a step-by-step format, the practices
for each supervisory procedure, including admissibility criteria, timelines and
implementation of the recommendations. The guide will be regularly updated to reflect the
evolution of working methods or any decisions of the Governing Body.
16. The development of the guide would be integrated into regular Office action and would be
reported on at the Governing Body’s session in October 2017.
1.2. Regular conversation between the supervisory bodies
17. As set out in the Joint report, 10 a regular conversation between the supervisory bodies could
complement the existing dialogue between the Committee on the Application of Standards
and the Committee of Experts.
18. For example, an annual meeting could take place between the Committee on the Application
of Standards, the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and
representatives of the articles 24 and 26 procedures. The supervisory bodies could be
represented by their Officers and the Officers of the Governing Body in their role in relation
to the articles 24 and 26 procedures. The meeting could be envisaged as an informal
exchange with two parts. The first part could be a forum for the representatives of the
supervisory bodies to address together synergies or any unnecessary duplication between the
9 See Joint report, para. 126.
10 See Joint report, para. 127.
GB.329/INS/5
6 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
procedures. A second part could be an information session with representatives of
governments. 11
19. At its March 2017 session, the Governing Body could discuss how to enhance the interaction
between the supervisory bodies, including considering options for a regular conversation
other than an annual meeting.
Focus area 2: Rules and practices
Main aims of the proposals, based on the common
principles of: enhanced accessibility, transparency,
clarity and due process
20. The constituents have underlined the need to consider the functioning of the individual
supervisory bodies and to preserve their distinct roles and features. In particular, the Joint
report recorded issues concerning the mandates and working methods of the supervisory
bodies, and the question of interpretation of the Conventions.
21. The proposals within this focus area concern rules and practices. Concrete proposal 2.1
addresses the article 26 procedure; and concrete proposal 2.2 addresses the operation of the
article 24 procedure. Concrete proposal 2.3 concerns legal certainty and, in particular, the
interpretation of Conventions.
22. These proposals complement the ongoing work of the Committee on the Application of
Standards, the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association to
review their working methods. In that regard, it should be recalled that the Committee on
Freedom of Association will report to the Governing Body on its review of its working
methods in March and June 2017. 12
2.1. Consider codification of the article 26 procedure
23. The practices related to the complaint procedure set out in articles 26–34 of the ILO
Constitution are not currently codified beyond the rules set out in the Constitution. While
the proposed guide above would set out the practice in relation to the article 26 procedure,
codification suggests formalized rules, such as Standing Orders. Taking into account the
views expressed during the consultations in January and February 2017, the possible
codification of the article 26 procedure could be discussed in November 2017 after a first
11 This could be modelled on the meeting held in 2013 where the Committee of Experts responded
to questions raised by Government representatives. See the Report of the Committee of Experts to the
Conference in 2014 (ILC.103/III(1A)), para. 30.
12 Further information on the ongoing examination of the methods of work can be found as follows:
– The report of the Committee on the Application of Standards to the 105th Session of the
Conference presents the latest decisions of the Committee in relation to its work. The oral
report of the Chairperson of the Working Party on the Functioning of the Governing Body
and the International Labour Conference at the 328th Session (October–November 2016) of
the Governing Body presents information on the most recent informal tripartite consultations
on the working methods of the Committee;
– The report of the Committee of Experts submitted to the 106th Session (2017) of the
Conference presents information on the consideration of its methods of work during its
87th Session.
– The 377th report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, raising in particular concrete
steps to improve its functioning and its interface with constituents.
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 7
discussion of the operation of the article 24 procedure, while ensuring coherence between
the two discussions.
2.2. Consider the operation of the article 24 procedure
24. During the consultations in January and February 2017, the constituents indicated that
consideration of the operation of the article 24 procedure could commence in March 2017.
In the context of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of
representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the ILO, a first tripartite
discussion could consider the operation of the procedure, in the context of the initial elements
set out in Appendix II. These elements include a possible standing committee, admissibility,
time limits, linkages with other supervisory procedures and follow-up of recommendations,
as well as linkages with national procedures.
25. At its March 2017 session, the Governing Body could provide guidance based on those initial
elements and any other aspects of the operation of the article 24 procedure. On that basis,
possible options for the strengthening of the operation of the article 24 procedure could be
discussed by the Governing Body at its November 2017 session.
2.3. Consider whether to take steps to ensure
further legal certainty
26. Legal certainty is important for the continued credibility and effectiveness of the supervisory
system. The Joint report proposed steps to be taken in relation to the question of how to
interpret Conventions. 13 At its March 2017 session, the Governing Body may wish to decide
whether to take this issue forward.
Focus area 3: Reporting and information
Main aims of the proposals, based on the common
principles of: enhanced relevance and efficiency
27. Submission of reports is at the core of the functioning of the supervisory system. Notably,
the constituents have expressed views on workload; the reliability and quality of
information; new technologies; and ensuring the best use of available resources.
28. The proposals within this focus area concern the communication of reports and other
information for the purposes of the supervisory procedures. Concrete proposal 3.1 addresses
the streamlining of reporting and proposal 3.2 addresses exchanges of information with other
international organizations.
3.1. Streamline reporting
29. Building on a proposal set out in the Joint report, 14 steps will be taken to streamline
reporting, optimizing the use of technology and meeting the needs of constituents.
30. As a first step, a feasibility study will address: (i) options for the full computerization of the
reporting/supervisory system; and (ii) the streamlining of reports and information requested.
Through this feasibility study, the prime users of the system – government officials
13 Joint report, paras 133–136.
14 Joint report, para. 130.
GB.329/INS/5
8 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
responsible for providing reports to the ILO supervisory system – could set out their views,
experiences and suggestions on possible improvements to the reporting process. Views
would be sought electronically from governments through a set of concise questions 15 soon
after the March 2017 session of the Governing Body, to be followed by consultation with
the groups’ secretariats.
31. Based on the feasibility study, detailed proposals will be submitted to the Governing Body
at its November 2017 session as a second step.
32. At its March 2017 session, the Governing Body could decide to implement the two-step
approach. Progress would be reported to the November 2017 session of the Governing Body,
together with proposals of further steps to be taken and their cost estimates.
3.2. Information sharing with international organizations
33. The Office has numerous current exchanges and collaborations with other international
organizations in supervising the implementation of standards. Based on the views expressed
during the January and February 2017 consultations, the Office will continue its regular
exchange of information with other international organizations.
Focus area 4: Reach and implementation of
recommendations of the supervisory bodies
Main aims of the proposals, based on the common
principles of: enhanced efficiency and effectiveness
34. There is tripartite agreement on the need to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and reach
of the supervisory system within the constitutional framework. The comments of the
supervisory procedures should contribute to the impact of international labour standards at
the country level.
35. Proposals 4.1 and 4.2 address the implementation of the outcomes of the supervisory system.
Proposal 4.1 aims to ensure that the recommendations of the supervisory bodies are effective,
by enhancing their clarity, and proposal 4.2 aims to ensure that the recommendations inform
all ILO work and that technical assistance is available to member States to facilitate national
level measures to ensure their implementation. Concrete proposal 4.3 aims to strengthen the
reach and implementation of the supervisory system, by addressing the potential of
article 19(5)(e) and 6(d) to consider the effect given to all instruments by member States,
regardless of ratification and to provide information on the obstacles to ratification.
36. During the consultations in January and February 2017, there was broad support for all three
proposals. The Office will continue to integrate the actions under proposals 4.1 and 4.2 in
its ongoing work, in light of the comments made by the constituents during the consultations.
In response to a request for further information on proposal 4.3, additional elements are
included in Appendix III.
15 Inputs would be sought on: (i) the greatest difficulties in fulfilling reporting obligations; (ii) the
greatest strengths of the existing reporting process; (iii) the best ways to incorporate national
circumstances; and (iv) concrete examples of national and international level processes, systems and
methodologies which could inspire the streamlining.
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 9
4.1. Clear recommendations by the supervisory bodies
37. The recommendations made by the supervisory bodies should be clear and provide practical
guidance to member States. In its secretariat role, the Office will pursue this objective with
the supervisory bodies as they continue to review their working methods, mindful of the
recent experience of the Committee on the Application of Standards. 16
4.2. Systematized follow-up at national level
38. To enhance the reach of the comments generated by the supervisory system, the Office will
continue its work to systematize the technical assistance member States choose to take up in
follow-up to the comments of the supervisory bodies and ensure their integration into other
ILO work and Decent Work Country Programmes. 17 In this context, the Office will promote
the use of recognized social dialogue mechanisms, including those established under the
Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).
39. Currently, the Office reports on the technical assistance it provides through reports to the
Governing Body relating to the programme and budget. In the latest programme and budget
proposals, it was indicated that “[t]he ILO supervisory bodies have noted increased
ratification and improved application of international labour standards, where a virtuous
cycle exists between the ILO’s normative function, Decent Work Country Programmes and
technical assistance”. 18 Systematizing technical assistance would encourage more detailed
reporting to the Governing Body on good practices which may be of assistance to
governments.
4.3. Consider potential of article 19 to extend reach and
implementation of standards
40. The request for concrete action arises from the Conference in its 2016 resolution on
Advancing Social Justice through Decent Work. 19 The initial elements set out in
Appendix III respond to the constituents’ request for additional information.
41. On the basis of the Governing Body’s discussion at its March 2017 session, the Office could
compile elements detailing the various uses of article 19 to facilitate the Governing Body’s
discussion in November 2017. 20
16 See footnote 12 above.
17 See GB.328/PFA/2, paras 23–32 and paras 120–122.
18 GB.329/PFA/1, para. 63.
19 See subparagraphs 15(1) and 15(2)(b) of the 2016 resolution.
20 In November 2017, the Governing Body will consider a revised framework for recurrent
discussions under the follow-up to the 2016 resolution, which would address the linkages between
the discussions of the General Surveys by the Committee on the Application of Standards and the
recurrent discussions (see GB.328/INS/5/2 and GB.328/PV/Draft, para. 102(c)).
GB.329/INS/5
10 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
Draft decision
42. The Governing Body:
(a) approves the workplan for the strengthening of the supervisory system;
(b) requests the Office to take the necessary steps to implement the workplan
based on the guidance it provides and to report on progress made at its
331st Session (November 2017), following consultations with the tripartite
constituents; and
(c) decides to review the workplan, as may be adjusted by the Governing Body
during its 331st Session, in the context of its broader review of the Standards
Initiative at its 332nd Session (March 2018).
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 11
Appendix I
Outline of guide on practices related to the operation of
the procedures (proposal 1.1)
The expected format of the guide would be a web-based tool, organized in a step-bystep
way for each procedure, and regularly updated to reflect any changes to the practices
over time. It would provide user-friendly information about the operation of the supervisory
procedures in practice.
An entry screen would identify each of the supervisory procedures to be addressed in
the guide. An example of such an entry screen could be:
There would then be separate pages for each of the supervisory procedures set out in
that entry screen, which would commence with a main screen providing a summary
overview and links to the main sources. An example of the main screen for each procedure
could be:
CEACR
Art. 24
Submission
to parliament
(Art. 19)
Fact-finding and
conciliation
committee
CFA
General
Survey
(Art. 19)
CAS
Arts 29–34
Art. 37
Annual review
(Art. 19)
Art. 26
SPECIAL PROCEDURES REGULAR PROCEDURES
GB.329/INS/5
12 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
There would then be a series of screens for each step in the procedure, each of which would
provide an explanation of the step and relevant information including the expected time
frame, the source, and linkages with other procedures. An example of the screens for steps
in the procedure could be:
Explanation
Source:
Constituttional: _________; Standing Orders: __________; Other written rules: ________; Established practice: ____________
Linkages across supervisory system:
Y procedure
Z procedure
X PROCEDURE- STEP Y
1
Expected time frame ___
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 13
Appendix II
Initial elements concerning the operation of article 24
procedure (proposal 2.2)
Statistical information about the use and operation of
the article 24 procedure 1
■ At present, there are nine pending article 24 representations. At the beginning of 2016,
there were 20 pending representations, 11 of which were resolved by the end of the
year.
■ Article 24 representations usually take between nine and 24 months to resolve from the
time that they are determined to be receivable until the time that the tripartite committee
submits its report to the Governing Body. Most often, this involves two–three meetings
of the tripartite committee over two, not necessarily consecutive, Governing Body
sessions.
■ Representations have been made against 71 of the 187 member States of the ILO. Of
those 71 member States, 24 have been the subject of only one representation and seven
have been the subject of eight or more.
■ The receivability of a representation is usually determined within 3–6 months from the
time that it is lodged, dependant on the timing of the Governing Body sessions. In some
cases, the question of receivability is considered twice by the Officers of the Governing
Body, in which case the timeline may be extended to one year.
■ Normally, the tripartite committee is established in the same session of the Governing
Body that the representation is deemed receivable, or in the months before the next
session of the Governing Body. In the case of renewal of the Governing Body, the
groups may wish to delay the establishment of the committee until the new membership
is appointed.
Establishment of standing committee to deal with
article 24 representations
■ At present, article 24 representations are usually dealt with by tripartite committees set
up by the Governing Body on a case-by-case basis. It has been suggested that a standing
committee be established, to which representations would be referred.
– In general, standing committees are open-ended committees that meet regularly
to deal with a particular subject; ad hoc committees are established for a limited
time to address a specific issue. Ad hoc committees have a membership that is
tailored to the specific representation, with relevant subject matter and language
skills; in comparison, members of a standing committee would have a general
expertise in examining representations. In terms of logistics, the appointment of
an ad hoc committee will take the time needed to identify appropriate members,
while the members of a standing committee would be appointed once for each
renewal of the Governing Body or each year, as determined by the Governing
Body.
1 This information is in addition to the figures concerning article 24 representations produced in the
Joint report; see figures 1–3 of Appendix II.
GB.329/INS/5
14 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
– A standing committee to examine article 24 representations could involve an
independent chairperson; a pool of available and expert members; and an
expressly determined mandate including matters such as timelines and follow-up.
■ The establishment of a standing committee could have the positive effect of enhancing
timeliness and competence.
■ Alternatively, it could have the negative effect of adding a further supervisory body;
possibly inducing an increase in the number of representations submitted.
Other suggestions made by the tripartite constituents
Receivability of representations
■ At present, the Officers of the Governing Body determine the receivability of
representations based on the Standing Orders concerning the article 24 procedure.
There has been a call from some constituents to examine the criteria on which
receivability is decided, 2 notably including linkages with national procedures and other
supervisory bodies.
■ Examination of the receivability criteria could have the positive effect of reducing
overlap with other procedures.
■ Alternatively, it could have the negative effect of possibly unduly restricting access to
the procedure by employers’ and workers’ organizations, and reducing the use of the
procedure by the Governing Body.
Introduction of time limits
■ At present, there are no time limits set out in the Standing Orders in relation to the
establishment of a tripartite committee or its examination of the representation. The
tripartite committee can determine time limits in relation to its requests for information
in the course of its examination. Some constituents have suggested that attention be
paid to the application of clear time limits.
■ The introduction of clear time limits could have the positive effect of increasing
effectiveness, clarity, timeliness and transparency in the process.
■ Alternatively, it could be considered to have the negative effect of reducing the time
needed for a proper examination of more complex representations.
Follow-up to recommendations of tripartite committees
■ At present, the recommendations of tripartite committees are followed up by the
Committee of Experts within its regular review. Some constituents have suggested
enhancing the follow-up, including through time-bound elements and considering the
link with national procedures.
■ Enhancing follow-up would have the positive effect of increasing effectiveness,
visibility and accountability.
■ Alternatively, it could have the negative effect of adding to the workload of the
Governing Body, the supervisory bodies and the Office.
2 These criteria are set out in article 2 of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the
examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organisation.
GB.329/INS/5
GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx 15
Appendix III
Initial elements on the potential of article 19 to extend
the reach and implementation of the standards
(proposal 4.3)
The request for concrete action arises from the Conference in its 2016 resolution on
Advancing Social Justice through Decent Work.
The Conference calls on the ILO to “(e)nsure that there are appropriate and effective
linkages between the recurrent discussions and the outcomes of the Standards Initiative,
including exploring options for making better use of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of
the ILO Constitution, without increasing the reporting obligations of member States”. 1 This
includes the adoption of appropriate modalities to ensure the contribution of General Surveys
and the related discussion by the Committee on the Application of Standards to recurrent
discussions. 2
The Joint report referred to the implementation of article 19 to improve the impact and
effectiveness of international labour standards. In particular, it indicated that more attention
to non-ratifying Members could improve the impact and effectiveness of international labour
standards. 3
Currently, article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d) is mainly used to gather information for the
General Surveys prepared by the Committee of Experts and discussed in the Committee on
the Application of Standards. The Governing Body has adapted the number of instruments
covered by General Surveys and the report form to address specific priorities it
has identified.
The use of this provision is not, however, limited to General Surveys. It is currently
also encompasses the annual follow-up to the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work under which reports are requested from governments which
have not ratified one or more fundamental Conventions. A number of other uses have been
made in the past on a more ad hoc basis. 4
The variety of uses reflects the multifaceted function of article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d) and
the discretion that the Governing Body can exercise as regards its application. The article
constitutes an important tool for the impact of the standards system across the ILO
membership and in particular to assist member States in giving effect to ILO instruments,
including by overcoming obstacles to ratification, and by enabling the ILO to ensure that
standards-related actions respond to the needs identified in Members’ reports.
1 Subparagraph 15.1 of the resolution. The follow-up to the Social Justice Declaration emphasizes the
need for “the fullest possible use” of all the means of action provided under the Constitution of the
ILO to fulfil its mandate. This could include adapting existing modalities of the application of
article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d), without increasing the reporting obligations of member States. In practice,
the adaptation of these modalities has focused on the arrangements for the General Surveys and their
discussion by the Committee on the Application of Standards to ensure coordination with
recurrent discussions.
2 Subparagraph 15(2)(b) of the resolution.
3 Para. 143.
4 These included periodic reports on Convention No. 111 and/or use in the context of an integrated
approach to standards adopted by the Governing Body in 2000.
GB.329/INS/5
16 GB329-INS_5_[NORME-170228-3]-En.docx
Through the Standards Initiative, the Governing Body has the opportunity to consider
a modern use of article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d). A coherent and broad approach must avoid
increased reporting obligations.
The choice of options for how the Governing Body could use article 19 will depend on
the specific aspects of its function it wishes to emphasize. In turn, this would determine the
type of information it would request. Whichever approach is taken, these options would
address the scope of reports; their format and design; how to best ensure that the information
gathered leads to meaningful discussions and outcomes, including the appropriate tripartite
forums, timing and format; and technical assistance in reporting and follow-up, in particular
within Decent Work Country Programmes.
To facilitate the discussions of the Governing Body in November 2017, the Office
would prepare a working paper gathering all elements relating to the various uses made of
article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d) so far.
Document No. 65
Minutes of the 329th Session of the Governing
Body, March 2017, paras 95-148
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
329th Session, Geneva, 9–24 March 2017
GB.329/PV
Minutes of the 329th Session
of the Governing Body of the
International Labour Office
GB.329/PV
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx 25
Conventions and to the 1998 Declaration, and to support continued collaboration between
UN Women and the ILO in the follow-up to the agreed conclusions.
93. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Ghana welcomed
the fact that more member States were ratifying Conventions Nos 182 and 29 and the
Protocol of 2014, which should accelerate the process of eliminating forced labour. The
review also brought to the fore challenges faced by member States with regard to ratification
and observance of the principle of freedom of association and the right to collective
bargaining. His group therefore urged the Office to continue to provide the necessary
technical assistance to enable member States to strengthen social dialogue and tripartism,
which were the key to the realization of freedom of association and collective bargaining.
With regard to the format of annual reports, the Africa group was of the view that a matrix
format would improve the readability of reports and make it easier to compare country data,
and therefore suggested that future reports could be submitted in that format. Moreover, the
Office should shorten and simplify the questions in the questionnaire and avoid duplication,
which would facilitate the submission of reports.
Decision
94. The Governing Body took note of the information presented under the Annual
Review of the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work for the period from October 2015 to 31 December 2016 and decided
to:
(a) invite the Director-General to further take into account its guidance on key
issues and priorities;
(b) reiterate its support for the mobilization of resources with regard to further
assisting member States in their efforts to respect, promote and realize
fundamental principles and rights at work, through universal ratification and
action, and in particular to combat the global scourge of forced labour
including human trafficking;
(c) hold the next review of the follow-up of the Declaration in March 2018.
(GB.329/INS/4(Rev.), paragraph 362.)
Fifth item on the agenda
The Standards Initiative: Follow-up to the joint
report of the Chairpersons of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations and the Committee on
Freedom of Association
(GB.329/INS/5 and GB.329/INS/5(Add.)(Rev.))
95. The Employer spokesperson said that both the Employers and the Workers attached great
importance to considering the functioning of the supervisory system as a whole and to
improving understanding of its procedures and the linkages between them. Both groups had
reaffirmed their commitment to the Joint Statement of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups
GB.329/PV
26 GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx
(23 February 2015), consolidating the results achieved. Notably, that included clarification
of the mandate of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (CEACR), a meaningful and results-oriented tripartite dialogue in the
Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS), and the establishment and first meetings
of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group. As an outcome of intense
consultations, the Employers and the Workers were pleased to be able to present a Joint
Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups on the ILO Supervisory Mechanism
(13 March 2017). 3 It was intended as a platform to allow the ILO to move forward and to
make the necessary changes to the supervisory system. Key points included: the presentation
to the Governing Body of specific proposals by the Committee on Freedom of Association
(CFA) on elements with repercussions on the whole supervisory system, including on the
compendium of conclusions and recommendations; a commitment to use article 24 in a
proper manner, involving further consultations; analysis of the article 24 procedure with a
view to addressing existing weaknesses, including the promotion of recourse to
national-level mechanisms in the first instance; efforts to avoid the duplication of cases under
different supervisory procedures; a commitment from the Employers’ and Workers’ groups
to use article 26 as a last resort only; and recognition of the need to secure tripartite
governance in the conclusions and recommendations of the various supervisory
mechanisms. The time frame included in document GB.329/INS/5 for the implementation
of the changes proposed was another step towards improving the functioning of the
supervisory system, which was a matter of urgency. Over the past century, the system had
become increasingly complex, as it had adapted to changing needs, the expansion of ILO
membership, the adoption of numerous new Conventions and the significant increase in the
number of ratifications. Discussions on possible improvements to the supervisory system
must be undertaken continuously to ensure that it remained effective, relevant and credible.
Care, as well as courage and ambition, were needed in the process.
96. The Worker spokesperson also expressed pleasure that the Workers’ and Employers’ groups
had achieved consensus on a Joint Position, and reaffirmed the February 2015 Joint
Statement committing both groups to a functioning supervisory mechanism. The two groups
concurred that the issues at stake lay at the heart of the Organization. As to document
GB.329/INS/5, his group agreed that ratification and effective implementation of
international labour standards, which must go hand in hand with a functioning supervisory
system, were vital to the fulfilment of the ILO’s constitutional mission to promote social
justice, and welcomed the section on common principles guiding the strengthening of the
supervisory system. With regard to focus area 1, his group supported the development of a
user-friendly and clear guide for the supervisory system (proposal 1.1). The proposed regular
conversation between the supervisory bodies (proposal 1.2) could be of interest, but required
further consideration and therefore should not yet be included in the workplan. To enhance
interaction between the supervisory bodies, the Joint Position of the Workers’ and
Employers’ groups recommended that the Chairperson of the CFA could submit a report of
activities to the CAS, after the report of the CEACR as of 2018; cases examined by the CAS
in the previous year could be published in a separate part of the CEACR report, with further
scrutiny of measures taken to respond to the conclusions; and mission reports concerning
CAS conclusions should be published, in NORMLEX or elsewhere. In that framework, the
mandate of the CEACR as defined in its 2015 and 2016 reports should be emphasized.
97. With regard to focus area 2, the Workers’ group did not support the proposed discussion on
codification of the article 26 complaint procedure (proposal 2.1), as codification would limit
the methods used by the Governing Body to handle cases. Complaints under article 26 should
be deemed receivable if they met the objective criteria set out in the ILO Constitution.
Furthermore, the Workers’ and Employers’ groups were committed to using the article 26
procedure only as a last resort; in cases in which a commission of inquiry was not yet
3 The Joint Position is included in Appendix II.
GB.329/PV
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx 27
established, it was necessary to balance the importance of attention against the need to avoid
unnecessary duplication. In relation to the article 24 procedure (proposal 2.2), the group was
prepared to examine the necessary conditions for the eventual creation of a standing
committee to replace ad hoc committees with a view to greater coherence. Any additional
receivability criteria, as indicated in the Joint Statement of February 2015, would reaffirm
those set out in the Constitution and Standing Orders and could include an explanation of
measures taken at the national level to resolve issues and the degree of success, but there
should be no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. The Officers of the Governing Body
should continue to determine the receivability of representations based on article 2(2) of the
Standing Orders concerning the article 24 procedure. Any postponement or dismissal of
representations must be taken by consensus. The Workers committed to using the
possibilities to submit article 24 representations in a proper manner. It was recommended
that a tripartite-agreed, standard form for representations should be developed and made
available for download from the ILO website, in which information could be required on the
content and result of any national-level tripartite dialogue on the issue. The International
Trade Union Confederation and the International Organisation of Employers should have
the possibility to support their members in finding a national-level solution and resolving
the case prior to its being discussed in the tripartite committee. The Workers’ group believed
that, barring extraordinary circumstances, governments should not be allowed to fail to
respond to a representation for more than one Governing Body session. Further, it supported
the enhancement of the follow-up to recommendations of tripartite committees, including
through time-bound elements. Technical assistance from the Office in developing
time-bound action plans for national-level implementation of the recommendations of
ad hoc committees and commissions of inquiry, and also of the CAS and CFA, would be
beneficial. With regard to legal certainty (proposal 2.3), in the light of the divergent views
and disputes concerning the interpretation of Conventions, a tripartite exchange of views on
the elements and conditions necessary for the operation of an independent body under
article 37(2) of the ILO Constitution would be useful. Such an exchange should be included
in the workplan, and the Governing Body should consider its modalities in November 2017.
98. With regard to focus area 3, the Workers’ group supported the proposal to conduct a
feasibility study on streamlining reporting (proposal 3.1), which would consider options for
the full computerization of reporting. However, there was no need to further streamline the
reports themselves and the information requested, as clear and detailed observations from
the supervisory mechanisms were crucial for a better understanding of their
recommendations. The proposal to continue the exchange of information between the Office
and other international organizations (proposal 3.2) was welcomed.
99. As to focus area 4, the Workers’ group reaffirmed the commitments made in the Joint
Statement of February 2015. It was for the various committees to define their own rules to
ensure action-oriented and clear recommendations. The CAS evaluated and adapted its
procedures and working methods yearly, including informal tripartite consultations on its
working methods. The CFA was currently holding such discussions and the Governing Body
would consider specific proposals at its present session. 4 It had already introduced a number
of important changes to its working methods to enhance efficiency and transparency, as
reported to the Governing Body in March 2016. With regard to systematized follow-up at
the national level (proposal 4.2), updated information on technical assistance provided to
member States to follow up on the comments of the supervisory bodies and ensure their
integration into other ILO work and Decent Work Country Programmes should be posted
under the country profiles on the ILO website. A consistent and transparent follow-up system
at the level of the Organization as a whole was particularly important. Further, structured
ILO interventions should increase compliance through detailed, time-bound memorandums
of understanding or similar mechanisms, and the Office should report back to the Governing
4 GB.329/INS/17(Add.).
GB.329/PV
28 GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx
Body at its November 2017 session. Lastly, the Workers’ group supported proposal 4.3 to
prepare a working paper on the various uses made of article 19(5)(e) and 19(6)(d) thus far,
which should lead to a plan for better implementation and ratification rates.
100. A Government representative of Mexico presented the views of the Government group. The
full text of his statement is reproduced in Appendix II.
101. A Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran presented the views of ASPAG.
The full text of his statement is reproduced in Appendix II.
102. A Government representative of Panama presented the views of GRULAC. The full text of
his statement is reproduced in Appendix II.
103. A Government representative of Kenya presented the views of the Africa group. The full
text of her statement is reproduced in Appendix II.
104. A Government representative of Canada presented the views of IMEC. The full text of his
statement is reproduced in Appendix II.
105. Speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a Government
representative of Cambodia said the review of the supervisory system must take into account
the principles of transparency, consistency, impartiality, accountability and, most
importantly, constructive engagement. The system should focus on capacity building and
technical cooperation, with fact-finding missions being a last resort. Receivability criteria
should be improved in order to avoid redundancy or duplication of actions, conserve ILO
resources, strengthen credibility, clarify the basis for States’ reporting obligations and
enhance tripartite consultations. The criteria for selection of cases for consideration by the
CAS should be clarified and improved, to ensure a balance of cases across regions and
Conventions. Specific country context must be factored into the process. Options for
non-judicial settlement at the country level should be explored prior to any involvement of
the ILO supervisory system, and the ILO must recognize and respect the finality of judicial
decisions, especially those handed down by the highest court of a member State.
106. Speaking on behalf of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China and
South Africa), a Government representative of China supported strengthening the
supervisory system to enhance its transparency, visibility, coherence, efficiency and
effectiveness, and to reduce member States’ reporting obligations and overlap between
procedures. Due process and procedural fairness should be guaranteed. The current
consultation process could include tripartite exchanges. He supported the proposed annual
meeting between the representatives of the supervisory bodies (proposal 1.2); an informal
exchange would allow representatives to address unnecessary duplication between
procedures. The role of governments in that process should be safeguarded. He looked
forward to examining proposals on the format, budget and dates of a first meeting.
107. At the current time it would be premature to push forward the matter of interpretation of
Conventions (proposal 2.3), and he did not support establishing a standing committee for the
article 24 procedure (proposal 2.2). A feasibility study should be conducted on streamlining
reporting and optimizing the use of technology (proposal 3.1), in line with constituents’
needs. The ILO should provide technical assistance to facilitate the implementation of
national and international labour standards (proposal 4.2), and ensure consultation with all
recipients and due regard for local circumstances. Receivability criteria for the supervisory
procedures should be reviewed to take national procedures into account. His group supported
the draft decision.
GB.329/PV
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx 29
108. A Government representative of India welcomed the proposed guide to understanding the
supervisory system (proposal 1.1), regular interaction between supervisory bodies and
governments (proposal 1.2), and technology-based reforms (proposal 3.1), as ease of
compliance would take away the burden of compliance. Recommendations by the
supervisory bodies should be clear (proposal 4.1), and, in addition, criteria for receivability,
as well as closure of cases should be well defined. In relation to legal certainty (proposal 2.3),
questions concerning the interpretation of Conventions should be brought before the
Conference, perhaps through the General Surveys taking into account national frameworks,
before considering any new forum.
109. A Government representative of Japan, referring to proposal 4.2 on systematized follow-up
at national level, said that clear and practical recommendations by the supervisory bodies
were not sufficient for them to be properly implemented in member States. The Office should
integrate such recommendations into its technical assistance programmes. Coherent efforts
in that regard would promote a virtuous circle of the ILO’s normative function and technical
assistance, yielding positive results.
110. A Government representative of Spain said that the Government of Switzerland supported
his statement. The supervisory system was the heart of the ILO and composed of interrelated
procedures that should function as an integrated whole to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Responsibility for further strengthening the supervisory system lay with the tripartite
constituents and, in particular, the governments, to which the comments of the supervisory
bodies were primarily addressed; governments had an interest in ensuring that such measures
were clear, practical and achievable, and in accordance with national contexts and
legislation. The Joint Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups was a necessary step
in the process, but insufficient without the guidance that only governments could provide to
the Office on the legal and social contexts out of which complaints and representations were
born, grew to maturity and, through consensus, were resolved.
111. The guide referred to in proposal 1.1 should include details of the receivability criteria and
reach of each supervisory body. Concerning proposal 1.2, the conversation between the
supervisory bodies should take place within the framework of the International Labour
Conference. With regard to proposals 2.1 and 2.2, the preference for discussing the article 24
procedure before the article 26 procedure sought to guarantee coherence between those
discussions, rather than pre-empting a final outcome. That was a good example of the
principle that should govern all discussions: analysing possible improvements while
maintaining an overview of the different bodies and the synergies between them. On
proposal 2.3, he urged progress towards establishing a permanent tribunal under article 37(2)
of the ILO Constitution, which should be non-bureaucratic in its functioning and flexible in
its composition. Concerning proposal 3.1, better use should be made of new technologies
for reporting, thereby reducing the burden on the Office and member States. With regard to
proposal 4.1, any recommendations by supervisory bodies had to be clear and achievable,
given their importance in supporting the implementation of Conventions.
112. A Government representative of France said that he welcomed the proposal to streamline
reporting (proposal 3.1). France stood ready to contribute to the feasibility study that was
envisaged following the present session of the Governing Body. That study should address
the volume of reports, the seriousness or urgency of a situation, the link between experts’
requests and questions and the contents of Conventions, and the emergence or not of new
developments since the previous report, among other aspects. Legal certainty (proposal 2.3)
was a particularly important issue for the Organization as it approached its centenary.
Differences in interpretation among constituents could lead to a serious crisis or even
paralysis in the functioning of the Organization. There was an urgent need to consider
together a legitimate instrument to address those differences. France accordingly supported
the recognition, as expressed in the Joint Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups,
GB.329/PV
30 GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx
that there could be value in a tripartite exchange of views on the elements and conditions
necessary for the operation of an independent body under article 37(2) of the ILO
Constitution.
113. A Government representative of China said that annual briefings on the ILO supervisory
system could be provided to staff of member States’ permanent missions in Geneva. Further
technical support should be provided to member States for the ratification and
implementation of Conventions. In view of the CFA’s growing case review workload,
consideration of the receivability of complaints should be improved, in order to avoid
duplication with other supervisory bodies. He supported the draft decision.
114. A Government representative of Cuba said that it was important to continue to review the
proposed changes to the working methods of the supervisory bodies. The proposals put
forward still neither answered concerns regarding the transparency and impartiality of the
mechanisms employed nor addressed the shortcomings whereby those mechanisms could be
applied selectively or used for political manipulation. She did not support proposals calling
for the establishment of new supervisory mechanisms but favoured the drafting of guidelines
on the procedures to be followed by the supervisory bodies, as those remained unclear
beyond the provisions of the ILO Constitution. Reviews by ad hoc committees established
within the framework of the Governing Body should continue. The review process for
admissibility criteria should aim to ensure that complaints could be filed only by
organizations that were representative within the meaning of the ILO’s basic texts. She
requested more information on the application of the measures proposed, taking into account
the Director-General’s proposals for a zero real growth budget for the 2018–19 biennium.
Cuba supported the draft decision.
115. A representative of the Director-General (Director, International Labour Standards
Department (NORMES)) said that the rich discussion had provided the Office with guidance
on the proposals contained in the document. Given the wealth of suggestions made, and in
view of the Joint Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, she proposed that the
workplan should be revised in the light of the discussion and the revised version presented
to the Governing Body the following week for review and adoption.
116. The Worker spokesperson said that he agreed with the proposal to consider the draft decision
the following week. Experience had shown that a systemic view of the supervisory bodies
should not be followed too strictly; the way in which cases were handled depended on their
content. While the streamlining and computerizing of reports could be helpful, it should not
be at the expense of the quality of the work of the ILO supervisory bodies. In relation to the
proposal for an annual meeting between the representatives of the supervisory bodies, further
thought was needed in relation to its concrete objective, role and terms of reference, as it
could not be a forum for debates about the relevance of the supervisory system. Discussions
on the operation of the article 24 procedure should start from the problems being faced, and
consider what could be a good result. The establishment of a standing committee for the
article 24 procedure could be such a solution. As it was unusual that an article of the
Constitution was not executed, a tripartite discussion on the implementation of article 37(2)
was justified. Criteria for the receivability of cases should be strengthened, but no concrete
proposals to that end had yet been made; exhaustion of domestic remedies – albeit important
– could not be the sole criterion, since the appropriate national bodies were not in place in
all countries. With regard to the article 26 procedure, the Employers’ and Workers’ groups
had committed to use it as a last resort, but at present commissions of inquiry were not being
established and therefore it was difficult to suspend the examination of a case under the other
supervisory procedures.
GB.329/PV
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx 31
117. The Employer spokesperson supported the proposal to defer adoption of the decision. The
complexity of the situation meant that it had been easier to identify problems than to propose
solutions, but progress had been made and certain issues could be taken up again. The whole
process of tripartite discussions, including informal consultations, had enabled more
flexibility and openness to discuss solutions. It was nevertheless essential to move forward
with urgency and ambition.
118. The Government representative of Mexico supported the proposal to postpone the draft
decision and looked forward to considering the new workplan.
119. A Government representative of Brazil said that he would welcome a brief statement from
the Office reflecting the discussion that had been held, particularly given the diverging views
on some issues, including legal certainty. Governments would benefit from hearing the
views of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups before coming to sessions of the Governing
Body, and forthcoming consultations should therefore have a tripartite element.
120. The representative of the Director-General (Director, NORMES) said that she was hesitant
to summarize on the spot the discussions as she was not in a position, given the wide range
of responses and comments made, to do justice to the members’ interventions. Her
department would systematically review the comments and suggestions made and, on that
basis, draw up a revised workplan. The revised workplan would be submitted to the
Governing Body the following week for review and adoption.
121. When the discussion resumed, the Employer spokesperson said that, since the revised
workplan and timetable fully reflected the discussion that had taken place, the Employers
supported the revised draft decision.
122. The Worker spokesperson said that the revised workplan and timetable took full account of
the discussions in the Governing Body and so the Workers agreed with the revised draft
decision. He requested that the Joint Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups should
be annexed to the official final document, as that position would guide both groups in
discussions with the Office and governments in the different bodies of the supervisory
system and during consultations on the supervisory system.
123. Speaking on behalf of GRULAC, a Government representative of Panama said that
GRULAC welcomed the revision of the workplan to reflect the discussions that had taken
place earlier in the session. GRULAC reiterated the issues that it had raised on that occasion
and understood that the current exercise was not one that could be carried out in the short
term. While some preliminary comments had been made during the current session,
GRULAC would go into greater substantive detail on the specific proposals during the next
round of consultations. Any decision taken on the item should clearly reflect that.
124. GRULAC considered that proposal 4.3 was not ready to be discussed nor decided upon in
November 2017. The governments in the region continued to have doubts regarding the
nature of the proposal and the implications of any decision. Proposal 4.3 would be better
moved to the group of proposals requiring guidance on next steps. In November, additional
information could be sought on the matter, so that the Governing Body could have in-depth
discussions in the future.
125. On the other hand, GRULAC considered that specific elements related to proposal 1.2, on a
regular conversation between the supervisory bodies, could be discussed in November 2017.
Those elements would allow for a decision on the timing, composition and budget of, and
tripartite involvement in, those meetings. In that regard, proposal 1.2 should be included in
the group of proposals to be examined by the Governing Body in November 2017.
GB.329/PV
32 GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx
126. Finally, GRULAC had appreciated the discussions on the supervisory bodies’ methods of
work, although it had expected more details, for example on the CFA. It would be useful if
more information on developments with regard to those discussions could be provided
during the consultations. Additionally, a document should be drawn up on that subject for
November, in order to prepare for the broader discussion of the review of implementation of
the Standards Initiative planned for March 2018. In the light of those comments, GRULAC
had proposed an amendment to the draft decision. It had been circulated and was being
considered by the various groups.
127. The Governing Body was adopting a workplan that would guide the consultations to be held
on the supervisory system. That workplan should be agreed by all tripartite constituents. For
that reason, the workplan could not remain in an addendum that had been prepared by the
Office, when the tripartite constituents had not had the opportunity to negotiate any of its
terms. GRULAC was flexible in terms of the best way to achieve that. The elements of the
workplan could be included in the draft decision, or the agreed workplan could remain in a
revised addendum. The GRULAC proposal did not make any substantive change to the
workplan; rather it provided clarity about what was being adopted. A clear workplan, agreed
by all three parties, would be key to the successful development of the future consultations
that were to be carried out on the matter.
128. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Kenya said that the
revised workplan took account of discussions in the Governing Body. Although his group
therefore supported the revised draft decision, it could accept the consensus view on the
amendment tabled by GRULAC.
129. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of Canada said that IMEC took
note of the revised workplan, which built on the Governing Body’s discussion earlier in the
session and on the Joint Position of the social partners, and which integrated some of its
suggestions. Of the ten proposals in the revised workplan, four would be integrated into the
Office’s work and six would remain on the Governing Body’s agenda; three of the latter
would be the subject of deeper discussions at the session of the Governing Body in
November 2017, while three remained for further guidance on next steps.
130. In light of its continuing strong support for and confidence in the ILO supervisory
machinery, and with a view to further strengthening it, IMEC was willing to contribute
constructively to the debate on the remaining six proposals. It welcomed the good
cooperation between the Workers’ and Employers’ groups and saw that as a positive and
necessary component of a functioning supervisory system. At the same time, it insisted that
consultations for improving the supervisory system needed also to include a tripartite
exchange of views. It was therefore disappointed that paragraph 5 of document
GB.329/INS/5(Add.) did not reflect that necessity, and it emphasized that the “broad and
inclusive consultation process” must include opportunities for tripartite exchange of views.
131. IMEC was flexible on whether the decision took the form of the revised draft version
contained in paragraph 6 or the amendment from GRULAC. Regarding the proposal of the
Workers and Employers to attach their Joint Position as an appendix, IMEC suggested that
the statements made by the Government group and the regional groups on document
GB.329/INS/5 should also be attached in an appendix.
132. A Government representative of Brazil said that, while his region had strongly supported the
whole process of reviewing the supervisory system, it had stated throughout the
consultations that proposal 4.3 required clarification. It would be satisfied with a revision of
the workplan, without any change to the draft decision, by incorporating proposal 4.3 in
paragraph 4(b), so that it would be the subject of guidance from the Governing Body in
November, and by moving proposal 1.2 to paragraph 4(a), so that it would be discussed by
GB.329/PV
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx 33
the Governing Body in November. The only language change in the amendment proposed
by GRULAC was the replacement of “taken” with “under consideration” in the second
sentence of the subparagraph on proposal 1.2, to reflect the situation that the point had not
yet been adopted but was still under review. He asked the social partners to allow
GRULAC’s views to be reflected in the workplan; the region was committed to the
supervisory system, to the notion of decent work and to defending the rights of workers. The
discussions by the supervisory bodies of their working methods should feed into discussions
of the review of the supervisory system. If that was understood, then GRULAC’s
amendment in that regard could be abandoned.
133. The Worker spokesperson said that, while he agreed to altering the phrase “actions taken” to
read “actions under consideration”, he would prefer to keep the workplan as it stood.
Proposal 4.3 on the potential of article 19 to extend the reach and implementation of
standards was following up on a decision taken by the International Labour Conference, and
so should be discussed in November. While proposal 1.2 was a priority for GRULAC, for
the Workers it depended on the conditions and criteria for a good system of contact between
the supervisory bodies, and accordingly required further tripartite discussions, before
concrete decisions could be taken.
134. The Employer spokesperson said that, while he agreed to amending the phrase “actions
taken” to read “actions under consideration”, he was against opening a discussion on the
structure of the addendum. It seemed incongruous to move proposal 4.3 to paragraph 4(b),
which started with the words “Guidance on next steps will be sought”.
135. A Government representative of the United States asked the Office what it meant for a
proposal to be under paragraph 4(a) or (b) of the addendum, or in other words, what it meant
for a proposal to be discussed in November 2017 rather than for the Governing Body to
provide guidance in November 2017.
136. The Chairperson asked whether the Office could provide assurances that the consultation
process to which reference was made in paragraph 5 would include a tripartite exchange of
views.
137. A representative of the Director-General (Deputy Director-General for Management and
Reform) said that in preparing the workplan the Office had tried to establish a balance among
the diverse views and priorities identified by the constituents in the two comprehensive
rounds of consultations held in January and February 2017. It had also considered the
workload capacity of the International Labour Standards Department, as well as decisions
of the Governing Body on implementing the programme of work to give effect to evaluation
of the impact of the Social Justice Declaration and the agenda of the International Labour
Conference. 5 That was particularly relevant for proposal 4.3 which involved the modalities
of the General Surveys and their contribution to recurrent discussions, which in turn played
an important role in the setting of the Conference agenda. Those were important elements to
ensure a cohesive and strategic approach between the corresponding discussions of the
Governing Body and its consideration of reporting of policy outcomes. He further noted that
the only difference between the workplan suggested by the Office and the amendment
proposed by GRULAC was the order of dealing with proposals 1.2 and 4.3. There would be
strategic value in retaining the order of tackling proposal 4.3 first because it was integral to
other institutional priorities, while proposal 1.2 was less critical at the current stage.
5 GB.329/INS/3/1.
GB.329/PV
34 GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx
138. Replying to the Chairperson’s question, he confirmed that there would be various levels of
consultation, including tripartite consultation. Replying to the representative of the United
States, he explained that concrete action should be taken in November 2017 on the group of
proposals in paragraph 4(a), and that guidance would be sought for a second round of
consultations after November on the proposals in paragraph 4(b).
139. Speaking on behalf of GRULAC, a Government representative of Panama said that his group
had listened very attentively to the comments of the Employers and the Workers and the
explanations given by the Deputy Director-General. The truth was that every time GRULAC
made a statement, it was for the good of the Organization; every proposal was made from
the viewpoint that they were governments responsible for ensuring entrepreneurial
development combined with decent work, and for providing a framework where all that took
place. They had an historic responsibility to agree on those matters with everyone round the
table and to seek the common good, which was what the Organization was seeking in its
fundamental principles.
140. While GRULAC statements were listened to, agreed with and replied to, it often felt as
though the resulting documents watered down their proposals or presented them in a weaker
or more tenuous manner. They strongly believed in the Organization and that it could help
to solve the problems of the world and tackle the future of work. All the important subjects
that had been discussed, the explanations of the Deputy Director-General, and the
Organization’s and the Officers’ intentions to find a solution must be recorded in clearly
drafted minutes. As the centenary approached, the Organization’s supervisory mechanism
had to be improved, because the Organization had an important role to play in the future of
humanity. GRULAC countries came not just to talk, they wanted to get things done and they
wanted practical solutions to be found for all parties. They wanted the minutes to record their
proposals, their statements and their amendments. For the sake of consensus, they could
accept the small amendment of the word “taken” to “under consideration”. They wanted
everything that they had proposed to be taken into account.
141. A Government representative of Spain said that often it seemed as if note was simply taken
of substantive and significant statements, and that that created the impression that there was
no improvement in the governance of the Organization. His Government supported the
amendment and the inclusion in the minutes of all the statements not only of regional groups
but also of national governments, in order to provide a complete and real picture of a lively
debate.
142. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of Canada recalled his group’s
request for the attachment of the statements made by the Government group and regional
groups. With respect to the broad and inclusive consultation process, he underscored that
that process must include opportunities for tripartite exchange of views.
143. Speaking on behalf of ASPAG, a Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran
said that ASPAG understood that the supervisory system was of particular importance for
the constituents. He encouraged the Office to give due consideration to the points raised
during the discussion, and took note of GRULAC’s arguments.
144. The Government representative of Spain repeated that he had requested the inclusion of
governments’ statements in the record.
145. A representative of the Director-General (Deputy Director-General for Management and
Reform) reminded the members of the Governing Body that all interventions were
summarized and recorded in the minutes of the session, and that in past cases such as the
item under consideration, formal group statements had also been appended when requested.
GB.329/PV
GB329_PV_[RELME-170627-1]-En.docx 35
146. A Government representative of Uruguay asked for clarification regarding whether the
Governing Body was considering adoption of the original or the revised draft decision,
whether the addendum would be amended, whether the phrase “actions taken” would be
replaced by “actions under consideration”, and which statements would be appended in full.
147. A representative of the Director-General (Deputy Director-General for Management and
Reform) said that his understanding was that document GB.329/INS/5(Add.) would be
revised so that “actions taken” was replaced by “actions under consideration”, and that a
reference to “including tripartite consultations” was included in paragraph 5. In line with
previous practice, the Joint Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups and statements
by the Government group and regional coordinators would be appended to the minutes.
Decision
148. The Governing Body:
(a) approved the revised workplan for the strengthening of the supervisory
system;
(b) requested the Office to take the necessary steps to implement the revised
workplan based on the guidance it provided and to report on progress made
at its 331st Session (November 2017), following consultations with the
tripartite constituents;
(c) decided to review the revised workplan, as might be adjusted by the Governing
Body during its 331st Session, in the context of its broader review of the
Standards Initiative at its 332nd Session (March 2018).
(GB.329/INS/5(Add.)(Rev.), paragraph 6.)
Sixth item on the agenda
Progress report on the implementation
of the Enterprises Initiative
(GB.329/INS/6)
149. The Employer spokesperson noted that the ILO’s strategy to engage with the private sector
was a priority for the Employers. The Office’s engagement with enterprises of all sizes and
in all regions allowed it to better understand the challenges they faced and thereby develop
a more practical approach to problem-solving at the policy level. It also facilitated a two-way
exchange of specialized information, which could be leveraged to achieve the Office’s goals.
The progress report listed an impressive number of activities in which the Office engaged
with the private sector. The fact that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and
cooperatives were included reflected the Organization’s recognition of the diversity within
the sector.
150. The Employers strongly encouraged all departments of the Office to avail themselves of the
Bureau for Employers’ Activities (ACT/EMP) as an entry point, as established in the revised
methodology adopted by the Governing Body at its 321st Session (June 2014). ACT/EMP
should also be the entry point for outreach to enterprises to ensure that they were fully
informed about the motives behind requests for engagement and to enable ACT/EMP to
Document No. 66
GB.335/INS/5, The Standards Initiative: Overall review
of its implementation, March 2019
This GB document is printed in limited numbers to minimize the environmental impact of the ILO's activities and processes, contribute to climate
neutrality and improve efficiency. GB members and observers are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and to avoid asking for
additional ones. All GB documents are available on the Internet at www.ilo.org.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
335th Session, Geneva, 14–28 March 2019
GB.335/INS/5
Institutional Section INS
Date: 8 March 2019
Original: English
FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
The Standards Initiative: Overall review
of its implementation
Purpose of the document
The document captures the concrete outcomes to date of the Standards Initiative, which has
aimed to enhance the relevance of international labour standards through a Standards Review
Mechanism (SRM) and to consolidate tripartite consensus on an authoritative supervisory system.
Review of actions pursued under the latter objective will be done following the workplan approved
by the Governing Body in March 2017. The document presents a draft decision reflecting areas
where guidance is sought for work that remains to be done after the Centenary (see paragraph 84).
Relevant strategic objective: All four strategic objectives.
Main relevant outcome/cross-cutting policy driver: Outcome 2: Ratification and application of international labour
standards and cross-cutting policy driver concerning international labour standards.
Policy implications: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion by the Governing Body.
Legal implications: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion by the Governing Body.
Financial implications: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion by the Governing Body (paragraph 23 of
GB.332/INS/5(Rev.) provides estimates on possible budget implications).
Follow-up action required: Will depend on the outcome of the discussion by the Governing Body.
Author unit: International Labour Standards Department (NORMES).
Related documents: GB.332/INS/5(Rev.); GB.332/PV; GB.331/INS/5; GB.331/INS/3; GB.331/POL/2; GB.331/PFA/5;
GB.331/PV; GB.329/PV; GB.329/INS/5; GB.329/INS/5(Add.)(Rev.); GB.328/PV; GB.328/LILS/2/2; GB.328/INS/6;
GB.326/PV; GB.326/LILS/3/1; GB.323/PV; GB.323/INS/5.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx iii
Contents
Page
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Objective 1 – Enhance the relevance of international labour
standards through a Standards Review Mechanism ................................................................ 2
Consensual tripartite recommendations to the Governing Body............................................. 3
Classification of standards ...................................................................................................... 3
Identification of gaps in coverage requiring standard-setting action ...................................... 4
Practical and time-bound follow-up action ............................................................................. 5
Ensuring impactful recommendations, lessons learned and future directions ........................ 7
Objective 2 – To consolidate tripartite consensus on an authoritative supervisory system .............. 9
Common principles guiding the strengthening of the supervisory system ............................. 10
The value of the supervisory system is incontrovertible ….......................................... 10
… and the responsibility to further strengthen the supervisory
system lies with the tripartite constituents .................................................................... 10
Improvements must result in a robust, relevant and sustainable system ….................. 10
… and its procedures should be efficient and effective ................................................ 11
The supervisory system must be transparent, fair and rigorous,
leading to consistent and impartial outcomes ............................................................... 11
Focus area 1: Relationships between the procedures .............................................................. 11
1.1. Guide on established practices across the system ............................................... 11
1.2. Regular conversation between supervisory bodies .............................................. 12
Focus area 2: Rules and practices ........................................................................................... 12
2.1. Consider codification of the article 26 procedure ............................................... 13
2.2. Consider the operation of the article 24 procedure .............................................. 13
2.3. Consider further steps to ensure legal certainty ................................................... 14
Focus area 3: Reporting and information ................................................................................ 16
3.1. The streamlining of reporting .............................................................................. 16
3.2. Information-sharing with organizations .............................................................. 21
Focus area 4: Reach and Implementation ............................................................................... 22
4.1. Clear recommendations of the supervisory bodies .............................................. 22
4.2. Systematized follow-up at national level............................................................. 23
4.3. Consideration of the potential of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d) ................ 24
Review by the supervisory bodies of their working methods ................................................. 26
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) .................................. 26
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations (CEACR) ................................................................................. 28
Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) ............................................................. 29
Draft decision .................................................................................................................................... 31
GB.335/INS/5
iv GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
Appendices
I. Decision taken by the Governing Body at it 334th Session (October–November 2018)
on strengthening the supervisory machinery ........................................................................... 33
II. Workplan and timetable for Governing Body discussions on the
strengthening of the supervisory system ................................................................................. 35
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 1
Introduction
1. At its 334th Session (October–November 2018), the Governing Body requested the Office
to present at its 335th Session (March 2019), following consultations with the tripartite
constituents, a report on progress towards completing the Standards Initiative workplan as
revised by the Governing Body in March 2017, including information on progress made with
regard to the review and possible further improvements of their working methods by the
supervisory bodies in order to strengthen tripartism, coherence, transparency and
effectiveness. The full text of the Governing Body decision of November 2018 is reproduced
in Appendix I.
2. The Standards Initiative originates from a decision of the Governing Body taken at its
323rd Session (March 2015) following the Tripartite Meeting on the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in relation to the right
to strike and the modalities and practices of strike action at national level. In essence, that
decision envisaged that the Standards Initiative would encompass: (a) the establishment
under the Standards Review Mechanism of a tripartite working group (SRM TWG); and
(b) a request to the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and the Chairperson of the Committee on
Freedom of Association (CFA) to jointly prepare a report on the interrelationship,
functioning and possible improvement of the various supervisory procedures related to
articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom
of association.
3. As proposed by the Director-General in his report to the 102nd Session of the International
Labour Conference (ILC) in 2013, 1 the Standards Initiative became one of seven centenary
initiatives, strengthening the ILO’s normative role for its second century through a clear,
robust and up-to-date body of international labour standards and an authoritative system for
the supervision of these standards, resting on a consolidated tripartite consensus.
4. The Governing Body discussed the Joint Report of the Chairperson of the CEACR and the
Chairperson of the CFA at its 326th Session (March 2016). At its 329th Session (March
2017), the Governing Body approved a revised workplan for the strengthening of the
supervisory system, setting out ten proposals centred around four focus areas. The
Governing Body considered proposals under this revised workplan at its 331st Session
(October–November 2017) and 332nd Session (March 2018). An updated version of the
workplan is attached in Appendix II. In parallel, the supervisory bodies engaged in a series
of discussions to review their working methods. 2
5. At its 331st Session (October–November 2017), the Governing Body approved the measures
and costs relating to the setting up of an electronic document and information management
system for the supervisory bodies and the preparation of a guide on established practices
across the supervisory system. Further deliberations produced further convergence of the
views expressed by various groups and culminated in the consolidated tripartite consensus
expressed in the decision adopted at the 334th Session (October–November 2018).
Meanwhile, the SRM TWG met four times, presenting consensual tripartite
recommendations to the Governing Body following each of its four meetings. It will meet
1 Report of the Director-General, Report 1(A) Towards the ILO centenary: Realities, renewal and
tripartite commitment, International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, Geneva, 2013.
2 GB.329/PV, para. 148.
GB.335/INS/5
2 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
for a fifth time in September 2019, when the Governing Body has decided it will review
eight instruments on employment policy in its initial programme of work, and examine the
follow-up taken to an additional employment policy instrument previously determined to be
outdated. 3
Objective 1 – Enhance the relevance of
international labour standards through
a Standards Review Mechanism
6. The SRM TWG has met four times since it was established in 2015: in March and October
2016, September 2017 and September 2018. Following its first meeting, the Governing Body
approved its adoption of an initial programme of work composed of 235 international labour
standards 4 and referred 68 instruments to the Special Tripartite Committee (STC)
established for addressing matters relating to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as
amended (MLC, 2006). 5 A first group of 34 instruments was submitted for review to the
third meeting of the STC (April 2018), 6 and a second group of 34 instruments will be
presented at its fourth meeting (April 2021). At its second meeting, the SRM TWG examined
the follow-up taken to 63 instruments previously determined to be outdated, involving
approximately 21 subtopics. 7 At its third and fourth meetings, it reviewed 28 instruments in
its initial programme of work on occupational safety and health, labour inspection and labour
statistics. 8 One instrument, (the Employment (Transition from War to Peace)
Recommendation, 1944 (No. 71), has been replaced by the Employment and Decent Work
for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205). As a result, out of the 235
international labour standards included in the SRM TWG’s initial programme of work, 75
instruments remain to be reviewed.
7. At the time of the Governing Body’s overall review of the Standards Initiative in October–
November 2016, 9 the SRM TWG had held its first two meetings. At its following session
in March 2017, the Governing Body conducted a first evaluation of the SRM TWG’s
functioning. 10 On the basis of a report provided by the SRM TWG’s Chairperson and Vice-
3 GB.334/LILS/3, para. 4.
4 Note that the number of instruments included in the SRM TWG’s initial programme of work was
amended from 231 to 235 at the second meeting of the SRM TWG.
5 GB.326/LILS/3/2.
6 Recommendations concerning the classification of the instruments reviewed and possible follow-up
action are set out in GB.334/LILS/2(Rev.).
7 GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.).
8 At its third meeting, the SRM TWG reviewed 19 instruments concerning OSH (general provisions
and specific risks): GB.331/LILS/2. At its fourth meeting, the SRM TWG reviewed nine instruments
concerning OSH (specific branches of activity), labour statistics and labour inspection; and examined
the follow-up to be taken to a further two outdated instruments falling within those subject areas that
had been examined for the first time by the SRM TWG at its second meeting in October 2016:
GB.334/LILS/3.
9 GB.328/INS/6 and GB.328/PV, para. 108.
10 Pursuant to paragraph 26 of the terms of reference of the SRM TWG, the “Governing Body shall
evaluate the functioning of the SRM Tripartite Working Group at regular intervals”.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 3
Chairpersons, the Governing Body noted that the SRM TWG had started its work and
decided to undertake a further evaluation no later than March 2020. 11
8. A review of the implementation of the SRM TWG involves consideration of its
achievements in fulfilling its mandate. Pursuant to its terms of reference, the SRM TWG’s
mandate is to review standards with a view to making recommendations to the Governing
Body on: 12
(a) the status of the standards examined, including up-to-date standards, standards in need
of revision, outdated standards, and possible other classifications;
(b) the identification of gaps in coverage, including those requiring new standards;
(c) practical and time-bound follow-up action, as appropriate.
Consensual tripartite recommendations
to the Governing Body
9. The SRM TWG has made consensual tripartite recommendations to the Governing Body
following each of its four meetings. Its discussions have been characterized by the frank,
constructive and committed approach of its Members, building on their often contrasting
experiences and views in relation to the complex and wide-ranging issues under
discussion. 13 Constructive tripartite dialogue allowing innovative solutions to be developed
was particularly necessary given the complexity of the work. 14 The SRM TWG has stressed
the crucial institutional role that it plays in ensuring that the ILO has a clear, robust and upto-
date body of international labour standards that respond to the changing patterns of the
world of work, for the purpose of the protection of workers and taking into account the needs
of sustainable enterprises; 15 and the corresponding need to ensure the effectiveness and
impact of its continuing work, also in terms of closing regulatory gaps and encouraging the
ratification of up-to-date Conventions and Protocols. 16
Classification of standards
10. The first element of the SRM TWG’s mandate is the classification of standards.
Significantly, in this regard, the SRM TWG simplified and streamlined the classification of
standards through its adoption of a three-classification system of “up to date”, “requiring
11 GB.329/LILS/2, para. 3; GB.329/PV, paras 580–589.
12 Para. 9 of the terms of reference of the SRM TWG. The SRM TWG recalled the achievements of
its first meetings in this regard in September 2018: GB.334/LILS/3, Annex to the appendix (SRM
TWG recommendations), para. 3.
13 GB.326/LILS/3/2, para. 3 (“constructive discussion”); GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), appendix (report
of meeting), para. 4 (the discussion was “thorough, wide-ranging and constructive”); GB.331/LILS/2,
appendix (report of meeting), para. 3 (“constructive and committed approach”); and GB.334/LILS/3,
appendix (report of the meeting), para. 3 (“committed and frank discussions”).
14 GB.334/LILS/3, appendix (report of the meeting), para. 3.
15 Para. 8 of the terms of reference of the SRM TWG.
16 GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), appendix (meeting report), paras 7–8; GB.331/LILS/2, appendix (meeting
report), para. 7; GB.334/LILS/3, Annex to the appendix (SRM TWG recommendations), paras 3–4.
GB.335/INS/5
4 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
further action to ensure continued and future relevance” and “outdated” instruments for the
purposes of its work in reviewing standards. 17 The SRM TWG stressed that all standards,
including those included in its initial programme of work, were active in terms of legal status
until any time that the Conference takes the decision to abrogate, withdraw or juridically
replace them. 18 Their ratification and/or effective implementation should, therefore,
continue to be promoted.
11. The SRM TWG has reviewed 28 international labour standards concerning occupational
safety and health, labour inspection and labour statistics, classifying them according to the
new classification system. The Governing Body decided that those instruments should be
considered to have the classifications recommended by the SRM TWG and requested the
Office to take the necessary follow-up action in that regard. 19
Table 1. Outcome of the SRM TWG process: Governing Body decisions concerning
classification of standards
Classification 2017 2018 Total
Up-to-date standards 8 6 14
Standards requiring further action to ensure their continued and future relevance 10 0 10
Outdated 1 3 4
Total 19 9 28
12. In relation to the 68 maritime instruments referred to the STC to the MLC, 2006, for review,
the STC reviewed the first 34 instruments at its third meeting in April 2018. 20 On the basis
of the STC’s recommendations, and using the three-classification system adopted by the
SRM TWG, the Governing Body decided that all 34 instruments should be classified as
outdated. It will review the remaining 34 maritime instruments at its fourth meeting.
13. Accordingly, 75 international labour standards out of the 235 instruments included in the
SRM TWG’s initial programme of work remain to be reviewed by the SRM TWG, eight of
which will be the subject of its fifth meeting in 2019.
Identification of gaps in coverage requiring
standard-setting action
14. In relation to the second element of the SRM TWG’s mandate, it has identified five gaps in
coverage or other follow-up requiring standard-setting action, be addressed by the
Organization.
17 GB.331/LILS/2, appendix (meeting report), para. 10.
18 ibid., Annex to appendix (recommendations), para. 9.
19 ibid., para. 5(d); GB.334/LILS/3, para. 5(b).
20 GB.334/LILS/2(Rev.).
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 5
Table 2. Outcome of the SRM TWG process: Governing Body decisions concerning standard-setting
Standard-setting required Recommendation approved Current status
Regulatory gap identified in relation to
apprenticeships
October–November 2016
(328th Session of the
Governing Body)
Standard-setting item
placed on agenda of
110th Session (2021)
Biological hazards: revision of R.3 through a new
instrument addressing all biological hazards
October–November 2017
(331st Session of the
Governing Body)
Proposals for
standard-setting
items on occupational
safety and health
expected to be made
to a future session of
the Governing Body
Consolidation of six chemicals instruments, in the
context of C.170 and R.177
Revision of C.119 and R.118 on guarding of
machinery
Revision of C.127 and R.128 to regulate ergonomics
and update approach to manual handling
15. At its fourth meeting in September 2018, the SRM TWG started an ongoing discussion about
the options for ensuring coherence and consistency in its recommendations on occupational
safety and health. 21 In this regard, the SRM TWG requested the Office to further elaborate
mainly an approach involving some degree of “thematic integration”, taking also into
account questions and points raised regarding “partial integration” and “consolidation”
approaches in preparation for its fifth meeting in September 2019. 22 At the same time, the
SRM TWG also considered options for addressing the impact of the SRM TWG
recommendations on the Conference agenda and the Office, touching on the need to avoid a
“traffic jam” of standard-setting items forming. 23
Practical and time-bound follow-up action
16. In relation to the third element of its mandate, the SRM TWG has stressed the need for
practical and time-bound follow-up to be prioritized by the Organization as part of
comprehensive and interrelated packages.
17. The SRM TWG has examined the follow-up to be given in relation to the 63 instruments
previously determined to be outdated – both during its second meeting in October 2016 that
was dedicated to these standards, and during subsequent meetings when such standards have
been examined together with instruments concerned with the same subtopic – and in relation
to the 28 instruments that it classified during its third and fourth meetings in September 2017
and 2018. Such follow-up action has primarily involved promotional campaigns, technical
assistance with implementation, other non-normative action, and recommendations that the
ILC consider the abrogation or withdrawal of outdated instruments.
21 GB.334/LILS/3, appendix (meeting report), paras 30–35.
22 ibid., appendix (meeting report), para. 35.
23 ibid., appendix (meeting report), paras 36–37.
GB.335/INS/5
6 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
Table 3. Outcome of the SRM TWG process: Governing Body decisions
concerning follow-up action required
Follow-up action recommended by
the SRM TWG
Recommendation approved
by the Governing Body
Current status
Promotional action
Campaign to promote the ratification of
17 up-to-date conventions related to 30
Conventions previously identified as
outdated
October–November 2016
(328th Session of the
Governing Body)
Under way in 136
member States
Campaign to promote ratification of key
OSH instruments and specific promotion
of a further four up-to-date OSH
Conventions
October–November 2017
(331st Session of the
Governing Body)
Under way
Campaign to promote ratification of five
up-to-date Conventions on OSH, labour
inspection and labour statistics
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Planning started
Encourage ratification of relevant up-todate
Conventions by member States in
which outdated instruments
recommended for abrogation are in
force, including technical assistance
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Started
Call by ICLS to member States to
consider ratification of up-to-date
Conventions on labour statistics
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Completed
Technical assistance with implementation
Technical assistance on implementation
of two OSH Conventions, including
research on obstacles to ratification;
improve awareness of a code of practice
October–November 2017
(331st Session of the
Governing Body)
Under way
Other non-normative action
Juridical replacement of 14
Recommendations noted
October–November 2016
(328th Session of the
Governing Body)
Completed
Publication of technical guidelines on
biological and chemical hazards; and
regular review of code of practice on
safety and health in the use of
machinery
October–November 2017
(331st Session of the
Governing Body)
Planned for
implementation in next
biennium
Study on gender equality in mining;
review of code of practice on
construction; development of guidelines
on labour inspection
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Planning started
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 7
Follow-up action recommended by
the SRM TWG
Recommendation approved
by the Governing Body
Current status
ILC consideration of abrogation or withdrawal of instruments
Abrogation or withdrawal of six
Conventions and three
Recommendations recommended
October–November 2016
(328th Session of the
Governing Body)
Instruments
abrogated/withdrawn
(107th Session, ILC
(2018))
Withdrawal of one Recommendation at
the earliest date possible
October–November 2017
(331st Session of the
Governing Body)
Item on agenda of
109th Session, ILC
(2020)
Withdrawal of one Recommendation in
2022 and abrogation of four
Conventions in 2024
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Items on agendas of
111th (2022) and
113th (2024) Sessions,
ILC
Follow-up action recommended by
the STC
Recommendation approved
by the Governing Body
Current status
Promotional action
Encourage ratification of MLC, 2006, by
member States in which certain
outdated maritime instruments are in
force; and extension of application of
MLC, 2006, to non-metropolitan
territories
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Under way
Other non-normative action
Juridical replacement of two
Recommendations noted
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Under way
ILC consideration of abrogation or withdrawal of instruments
Withdrawal of ten Recommendations
and nine Conventions, and abrogation
of eight Conventions, in 2020
October–November 2018
(334th Session of the
Governing Body)
Item on agenda of
109th Session (2020),
ILC
Ensuring impactful recommendations,
lessons learned and future directions
18. With the objective of ensuring that the SRM TWG’s work is effective and impactful, the
Governing Body has reiterated the SRM TWG’s call on the Organization to take appropriate
measures to follow up on its recommendations relating to standard-setting as well as to the
time-bound element of all recommendations resulting from its review of standards, including
follow-up action involving abrogation and withdrawal of outdated standards, giving due
consideration to the availability of technical assistance to encourage ratification of up-todate
instruments. 24 Effective follow-up of the SRM TWG recommendations requires
committed and concrete actions to be taken by governments and social partners, both at
national level and within the ILO Governing Body and International Labour Conference; in
24 ibid., para. 5(c). See further, appendix (meeting report), para. 7.
GB.335/INS/5
8 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
addition, the role of the Office in providing technical support to enable those actions is
essential. 25
19. This is pertinent to the SRM TWG’s ongoing consideration of the institutional implications
of its work, acknowledging the significance of its work on broader standards policy. 26 The
practical and time-bound follow-up undertaken throughout the Organization – by the
Conference, the Governing Body and the Office – has given a new impetus to ILO standards
policy both at global and national levels, calling for full tripartite support and commitment.
With such tripartite support and commitment, the ongoing work of the SRM TWG will
continue to contribute to a purposeful and invigorated standards policy that responds to the
needs and concerns of constituents. This will involve the adoption of new standards, the
promotion of the ratification and implementation of up-to-date standards by member States,
the identification of outdated standards requiring revision or which could be considered for
abrogation or withdrawal, and the beginning of a far-reaching conversation about the shape
of new standards and the processes for their adoption and revision. The SRM TWG has
acknowledged the complementarity of the integrated and balanced packages of practical and
time-bound follow-up action it developed for the topics under review, each comprising
interrelated elements that require active implementation. 27
20. As the tables above illustrate, progress has been made in relation to following up on the SRM
TWG’s recommendations with one standard-setting item 28 placed on the agenda of the
Conference, and four on the abrogation or withdrawal of 27 outdated instruments, 29 while
campaigns to promote the ratification and implementation of approximately 30 instruments. 30
The impact of the Organization’s follow-up of the recommendations concerning ratification
campaigns, as well as the follow-up of the SRM TWG’s identification of further instruments
as requiring revision, should be assessed at a later stage.
21. The SRM TWG has identified a number of lessons learned from past experiences and from
its own first meetings. In particular:
■ The SRM TWG has stressed the complexity of the task of reviewing the international
labour standards entrusted to it by the Governing Body. 31 In that context, it has
authorized the attendance of eight advisers to assist the Government members at its
third, fourth and fifth meetings. It has also stressed the need for coherence with other
institutional initiatives. 32
25 ibid., Annex (recommendations), para. 6.
26 See para. 16 above.
27 GB.334/LILS/3., appendix (meeting report), para. 6.
28 See table 2 above: item related to apprenticeships.
29 See table 3 above. Note that it refers to Governing Body decisions in relation to both the
recommendations of the SRM TWG and the STC.
30 See table 3 above.
31 GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), appendix (report of meeting), paras 16–17.
32 GB.326/LILS/3/2, appendix (report of meeting), para. 4; GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), appendix (report
of meeting), para. 8; GB.331/LILS/2, appendix (report of meeting), para. 28; GB.334/LILS/3,
appendix (report of meeting), para. 38.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 9
■ The SRM TWG has been mindful that its work should not result in gaps in coverage
for workers, 33 while ensuring a clear, robust and up-to-date body of international
labour standards that responds to the changing patterns of the world of work, for the
purpose of the protection of workers and taking into account the needs of sustainable
enterprises. 34 To this end, the SRM TWG considered recommendations on the
abrogation and withdrawal of obsolete instruments to be one means of implementing
ILO standards policy, in addition to recommendations concerning concrete and timebound
follow-up action by the Office and member States, including those concerning
the ratification and implementation of up-to-date standards. 35
■ The SRM TWG agreed that there was a need for a new classification system that aimed
to simplify and streamline the previous system. 36 As a result, at its third meeting the
SRM TWG decided to adopt a three-classification system for its work in reviewing
standards. 37 The new three-classification system was used by the SRM TWG in
reviewing standards at its third and fourth meetings, as well as by the STC in its work
in reviewing the maritime standards that had been referred to it.
■ The SRM TWG has been aware of the institutional importance of its actual and
potential role for the Organization as it enters its second century, requiring the followup
to its work to be effective, sustainable and an institutional priority. 38 The SRM
TWG has acknowledged that integrated and balanced packages of follow-up action are
the optimal way in which to ensure that its recommendations are impactful and fulfil
the mandate given to it by the Governing Body. 39 Follow-up should be concrete, timebound
and monitored by the SRM TWG at its subsequent meetings. 40 In this regard, it
is clear that there have been considerable successes, while challenges exist. Notably, in
order to ensure that its follow-up has substantial and sustainable impact, the Governing
Body will be asked to consider the need for additional resources at its October–
November 2019 session.
Objective 2 – To consolidate tripartite
consensus on an authoritative
supervisory system
22. It was foreseen from the outset that the implementation of the workplan was to be monitored
by the Governing Body in accordance with its governance role. In particular, the common
33 GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), Annex I (recommendations), para. 4.
34 GB.325/LILS/3, appendix (terms of reference), para. 8.
35 GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), appendix (report of meeting), para. 6.
36 GB.326/LILS/3/2, appendix (report of meeting), para. 8.
37 GB.331/LILS/2, para. 5(c); appendix (report of meeting), para. 10; Annex (recommendations),
para. 9.
38 GB.334/LILS/3, appendix (report of the meeting), paras 3–5; GB.331/LILS/2, appendix (report of
meeting), para. 3.
39 GB.334/LILS/3, appendix (report of the meeting), para. 6.
40 GB.328/LILS/2/1(Rev.), appendix (report of meeting), para. 7; Annex I (recommendations) para. 6;
GB.334/LILS/3, Annex (recommendations), para. 5.
GB.335/INS/5
10 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
principles guiding the strengthening of the supervisory system submitted to the Governing
Body at its 329th Session operate as the benchmark for the review of the implementation of
the workplan in the context of the broad review of the Standards Initiative. 41
Common principles guiding the strengthening
of the supervisory system 42
23. Constituents have expressed diverse views on the functioning of the supervisory system and
its specific procedures. At the same time, their views have converged on the expected
outcome of measures to ensure a well-functioning and effective supervisory system within
the constitutional framework.
The value of the supervisory system
is incontrovertible …
24. The role of the supervisory system is to give practical effect to the ILO founding values and
constitutional objectives. The tripartite constituents have highlighted the importance of the
system as a whole, as well as of the individual supervisory procedures, for the discharge of
the ILO’s mandate. Any further evolution of the supervisory system must be based on its
well-established strengths. Equally, there is consensus that the system could be strengthened.
… and the responsibility to further
strengthen the supervisory system
lies with the tripartite constituents
25. Tripartite constituents hold the collective view that it is their joint responsibility to consider
further strengthening of the supervisory mechanisms. It is their responsibility to guarantee
the functioning and evolution of the system in line with the Constitution, supported and
assisted by the Office in the discharge of its constitutional role. Solutions lie with the
tripartite constituents and decisions will be taken on a consensual and participatory basis by
the ILO governance bodies. The tripartite nature of ILO governance bodies underpins the
authority of the supervisory system. In addition to recognizing their role in the functioning
of the system, the tripartite constituents have committed to engaging fully in the process of
strengthening it.
Improvements must result in a robust,
relevant and sustainable system …
26. The supervisory system must remain relevant to the existing world of work. This will enable
it to continue to guide the ILO in achieving progress and social justice in a constantly
changing environment, remaining pertinent and retaining global significance.
Fundamentally, within the constitutional framework, the system must enjoy committed
tripartite support that is manifested in constructive involvement and genuine engagement. A
strong supervisory system inspires confidence, while enabling the ILO and its Members to
be resilient to change.
41 GB.329/INS/5, paras 5–11.
42 ibid.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 11
… and its procedures should
be efficient and effective
27. Effectiveness and efficiency are important components of the supervisory system. In
supervising the application of international labour standards, it must continue to fulfil its
purpose and make the best use of available resources. Its recommendations must be followed
up and implemented. An organized and coherent system contributes to the achievement of
the ILO’s strategic objectives through the ratification and effective application of standards
in member States.
The supervisory system must be transparent, fair and
rigorous, leading to consistent and impartial outcomes
28. Transparency and integrity in the system are essential. Due process and procedural fairness
should be guaranteed, including through necessary procedural safeguards and the
supervisory system must operate on the basis of consistent and impartial practices.
Comments, decisions and recommendations that are understood to be the outcome of a
balanced, objective and rigorous process are essential to the credibility and authority of the
system. Progress in implementing the ten proposals aimed at strengthening the supervisory
system is reviewed below against the above-mentioned guiding principles.
Focus area 1: Relationships between the procedures
29. This focus area considers the functioning of the system as a whole, highlighting the need to
improve understanding of its procedures and the linkages between them, as well as to avoid
unnecessary overlap and to strengthen efforts to make it clearer and more user-friendly.
1.1. Guide on established practices
across the system
30. The Guide was mandated to be “a user-friendly and clear guide for the supervisory system,
bringing together useful information and ensuring a level playing field of knowledge. In
practical terms, such a guide would build on existing descriptions of the supervisory system
and its procedures. … it will set out, in a step-by-step format, the practices for each
supervisory procedure, including admissibility criteria, timelines and implementation of the
recommendations. The guide will be regularly updated to reflect the evolution of working
methods or any decisions of the Governing Body.” 43
31. Note has been taken of guidance indicating that this tool should highlight both the distinct
features of the various supervisory procedures and the coherence of the system as a whole;
avoid pre-empting any Governing Body decision on the codification of the article 26
complaint procedure; and include information relating to the selection and appointment of
persons serving on the supervisory bodies.
32. The Office, in cooperation with the International Training Centre of the ILO in Turin (ITCILO)
is developing a Guide in the three official languages, consisting of a web-based tool
on the ILO supervisory procedures, presenting the established practices step-by-step and the
linkages among procedures. The Guide will be hosted on the ITC-ILO server and will be
accessible from both the ILO website and the ITC-ILO eCampus. It is fully integrated with
the NORMLEX database; the relevant web pages of the ILO “Labour Standards” website;
43 ibid., para. 15.
GB.335/INS/5
12 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
as well as the ITC-ILO training offerings for constituents on international labour standards
and standards-related procedures, including reporting.
33. The Guide will also be made available as pdf downloadable documents for each procedure;
and a fully customized application for tablets and smartphones. Both the web-based tool and
the application for handheld devices will be made available to Governing Body members for
informal consultation in March. Members will be given a month to provide comments on
the online interface as well as on the text made available in downloadable format. The tools
are expected to be available on the public ILO website before the Centenary session of the
Conference and the Office will report on the delivery of the guide to the Governing Body at
its 337th Session (October–November 2019).
1.2. Regular conversation between
supervisory bodies
34. In March 2017, the Joint Position of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups on the ILO
Supervisory Mechanism proposed that on the basis of a proper “clarification of the role and
mandate of the CFA … vis-à-vis regular standards supervision” (Joint Statement of 2015),
every year the Chairperson of the CFA could present to the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards (CAS) a report of activities, after the report of the Chairperson of
the CEACR. That information would be important for the work of the CAS, showing the
complementarity of the committees and could limit double procedures for the same cases.
Following the appointment of Evance Rabban Kalula as Chairperson of the CFA in June
2018, and the presentation of the CFA’s first annual report to the Governing Body at its
333rd Session (June 2018), the Governing Body is now invited to decide that the annual
report of the CFA be presented by its Chairperson to the CAS as from 2019.
35. Since its 88th Session (November–December 2017), the CEACR has dedicated a section of
its General Report to the follow-up to the conclusions of the CAS. The conclusions of the
CAS form an integral part of the Committee’s dialogue with the governments concerned. At
its most recent session in 2018, for example, the Committee has examined the follow-up to
the conclusions adopted by the CAS during the last session of the International Labour
Conference (107th Session, June 2018) in all 23 cases discussed by the Committee.
36. It has become the practice for the Chairperson of the CEACR to attend the general discussion
of the Conference Committee and the discussion on the General Survey as an observer, with
the opportunity to address the Conference Committee at the opening of the general
discussion and to make remarks at the end of the discussion on the General Survey.
Similarly, the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee are
invited to meet the Committee of Experts during its sessions and discuss issues of common
interest within the framework of a special session held for that purpose.
37. Against that background and based on the guidance of the informal consultations, the
proposal that an annual meeting could take place between the CAS, the CEACR, the CFA
and representatives of the articles 24 and 26 procedures was not pursued further. At the same
time, regular informal exchanges between representatives of the various bodies were
encouraged.
Focus area 2: Rules and practices
38. This focus area considers the functioning of the individual supervisory bodies with a view
to preserving their distinct roles and features and resolving the question of the interpretation
of Conventions in the interest of legal certainty.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 13
2.1. Consider codification of the article 26 procedure
39. The proposal to consider a possible codification of the complaints procedure provided for in
articles 26–34 of the Constitution stems from the fact that the procedure governing the period
between the submission of a complaint and the decision of the Governing Body to either
establish a Commission of Inquiry or close the procedure without establishing a Commission
of Inquiry, follows practice rather than codified rules.
40. Some members of the Governing Body have stressed that clear, transparent, and accessible
information regarding the article 26 procedure could help members prepare for cases;
improve time management in Governing Body discussions; and enhance understanding of
the linkages with other procedures. Some members have expressed concern that codification
would limit the possibility for the Governing Body to use the different methods to handle
cases taking into account the content of the case and country situation, as currently obtains.
Other members have been of the view that article 26, regardless of any codification of its
procedure, does not warrant a further proliferation of methods and should prompt the
Governing Body to establish a Commission of Inquiry unless alternative measures to address
the issues underlying the complaint can obtain a swift tripartite consensus.
41. A consensus emerged on a staged approach whereby, as a first stage, the clarification of
existing rules and practices, and linkages with other procedures, would be addressed through
the Guide on established practices (see section 1.1). Should that not prove sufficient, a
tripartite discussion of the possible codification of the article 26 procedure could be
continued at a later stage.
2.2. Consider the operation of
the article 24 procedure
42. Article 24 grants industrial associations of workers or employers the right to present a
representation to the Governing Body about a possible failure to respect obligations derived
from ratified Conventions by a member State. The review of the operation of the
representation procedure stemmed from a number of recognized weaknesses in its three main
phases: (i) the receipt of a representation and its processing until the Governing Body takes
a decision on how it will be handled (for example, appointment of a tripartite committee);
(ii) consideration of the merits of the representation and its outcome (for example, approval
by the Governing Body of the recommendations of the tripartite committee); and
(iii) follow-up to the procedure, including the implementation of the recommendations (for
example, through technical assistance). Expected improvements relate to transparency in
relation to national procedures and in the timeline for examining the receivability of a
representation; coherence in examining the merits of the case; and visibility of the followup
at the national level of the recommendations issued.
43. Following in-depth discussions, the Governing Body introduced several measures to
enhance the transparency, visibility and coherence of the procedure, namely it:
(a) Introduced a model electronic form for the submission of a representation under
article 24 of the ILO Constitution.
(b) Created the possibility for the ad hoc tripartite committee to suspend the examination
of the merits of the representation in order to address the allegations by seeking
conciliation or other measures at the national level for a maximum period of six months,
subject to the agreement of the organization making the representation and the
agreement of the Government; and with the possibility for the organization making the
representation to request the procedure to resume at an earlier moment should the
conciliation/other measures fail.
GB.335/INS/5
14 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
(c) Established timelines for the Office to provide members of ad hoc tripartite committees
and members of the Governing Body with information, documents and reports.
(d) Established ratification of the Conventions concerned as a condition for membership
of governments in ad hoc committees unless no government titular or deputy member
of the Governing Body has ratified the Conventions concerned.
(e) Reinforced integration of follow-up measures in the recommendations of committees
and a regularly updated document on the effect given to these recommendations for the
information of the Governing Body, as well as continuing to explore modalities for
follow-up action on the recommendations adopted by the Governing Body concerning
representations.
(f) Instructed the CFA to examine representations referred to it according to the procedures
set out in the Standing Orders for the examination of article 24 representations, to
ensure that representations referred to it be examined according to the modalities set
out in the Standing Orders.
(g) Approved maintaining existing measures and exploring other possible measures to be
agreed upon by the Governing Body for the integrity of procedure and to protect ad hoc
committee members from undue interference.
44. In respect of (b), it was understood that the six-months suspension for the purpose of
conciliation at the national level: (1) would leave open the possibility for the tripartite
committee to decide on a limited further extension of the suspension should the initial
conciliation or other measures need a further period of time to successfully resolve the issues
raised in the representation; and (2) would have to be reviewed by the Governing Body after
a two-year trial period, that is in November 2020.
45. In respect of (g), it was decided not to pursue at this stage the discussion about further
possible measures to protect ad hoc committee members from undue interference.
2.3. Consider further steps to ensure legal certainty
46. In March 2016, the Governing Body considered the Joint Report of the Chairperson of the
CEACR and the Chairperson of the CFA on the interrelationship, functioning and possible
improvement of the various supervisory procedures related to articles 22, 23, 24 and 26 of
the ILO Constitution and the complaints mechanism on freedom of association. The Joint
report proposed steps to be taken in relation to the interpretation of Conventions. More
specifically, the Joint Report pointed out that the question of uniformity of interpretation
was “inextricably tied up with the discussions surrounding the present supervisory
mechanism review”, and the establishment of an in-house ILO Tribunal might “be
considered when trying to further the debate concerning the roles and mandates of the
supervisory bodies”. Legal certainty has been considered important for the continued
credibility and effectiveness of the supervisory system, and therefore needed to be
considered in the context of a review of the rules and practices of the supervisory system
aimed at enhancing its accessibility, transparency, clarity and respect for due process.
47. The revised workplan for the strengthening of the supervisory system, approved by the
Governing Body in March 2017, provided for guidance to be sought from the Governing
Body on the modality of a possible future tripartite exchange of views on article 37(2) of the
Constitution and the elements and conditions necessary for the operation of an independent
body to interpret Conventions. This decision built on the March 2017 Joint Position of the
Workers’ and Employers’ groups which observed that “divergent views and disputes about
the interpretation of Conventions continue to be a reality”.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 15
48. In November 2017 and March 2018, the Governing Body provided further preliminary
guidance on the issue of legal certainty. Some Government members underlined the need to
pursue measures to enhance legal certainty by activating the option provided in article 37(2),
while other Government members preferred to continue exploring avenues for consensusbased
interpretation of Conventions. The Worker and Employer members supported a
proposal to have informal consultations on this first. In November 2018, the Governing Body
decided to request the Office to provide concrete proposals to prepare the discussion on
consideration of further steps to ensure legal certainty, “including, but not limited to,
organizing a tripartite exchange of views in the second semester of 2019 on article 37(2) of
the Constitution” to facilitate a tripartite exchange of views on the elements and conditions
necessary for the operation of an independent body under article 37(2).
49. During the informal consultations, the following questions were proposed for a possible
exchange of views:
(1) How many instances of significant disagreement around major issues of interpretation
of international labour standards are currently existing within the supervisory system?
(2) Does legal certainty around major issues of interpretation of international labour
Conventions need to be strengthened?
(3) Is the existing ILO internal machinery for handling questions relating to the
interpretation of international labour Conventions adequate to respond to current
needs?
(4) Should the existing ILO internal machinery not be considered adequate, what can be
done by the existing supervisory bodies, including the CEACR and the Office (which
provides support to avoid diametrically opposed positions on certain instruments)?
(5) What are the possible alternatives to establishing a tribunal? Will article 37(1) continue
to provide the opportunity for issues of interpretation of Conventions to be referred to
the International Court of Justice for decision should a tribunal be established, and
under what conditions?
(6) What are the pros and cons of establishing a tribunal under article 37(2) of the ILO
Constitution?
(7) What are the costs associated with the establishment of such tribunal and can we meet
that cost?
(8) If a tribunal were to be established, what would be the elements and conditions
necessary for an independent tribunal to enjoy the support of the tripartite ILO
constituency for the expeditious determination of any dispute or question relating to the
interpretation of ILO Conventions?
50. The parameters of a possible tripartite exchange of views on legal certainty could include:
■ informal consultations followed by tripartite exchange of views after the meeting of
SRM TWG in October 2019; and
■ the Office to prepare a paper with background information to facilitate a possible
exchange of views on the elements and conditions necessary for the operation of an
independent body under article 37(2) as well as of any other consensus-based options.
GB.335/INS/5
16 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
Focus area 3: Reporting and information
3.1. The streamlining of reporting
51. The streamlining of reporting pursues a number of objectives which, if met together, enhance
the relevance and efficiency of the supervisory system. First, to guarantee the sustainability
of the supervisory system in the light of a rising number of ratifications and near universal
membership of the Organization. Secondly, to reduce the reporting burden on member States
in the light of this trajectory. Thirdly, the important role of employers’ and workers’
organizations in raising pressing issues which call for examination by the supervisory bodies
without delay. The focus of this streamlining effort is not just to reduce the number of reports
requested each year and to alleviate the associated workload, but more broadly to rationalize
the reporting (for example, by grouping Conventions by subject for reporting purposes,
which also allows for a more comprehensive thematic review). An important consideration
is to enhance the role of employers’ and workers’ organizations, putting in place safeguards
to ensure the access of constituents to the CEACR outside the reporting cycle.
52. Based on the guidance received from the Governing Body and a technical and financial
feasibility assessment, the following measures are being implemented:
(i) Following a thorough business process review, the Office is finalizing the technical and
budgetary specifications for an electronic document and information management
system for the CEACR, the CAS and the CFA to be rolled out in stages, starting in
2019. This should result in significant time and cost savings and permit resources to be
directed to strengthening the Office support to the supervisory system, particularly to
providing technical assistance at the country level.
(ii) Developing a smarter e-reporting system through e-report forms remains a valid
objective: a comprehensive online reporting system that meet the needs of the ILO
constituents would not only offer simplified reporting obligations, but would also lead
to easier management of electronic archiving, both at the national level and for the
Office. 44 However, it should first be piloted at various stages so as take into account
the operational constraints raised by some governments, in particular where national
processes involve multiple drafters and internal clearance requirements. In a first stage,
the idea would be to establish baseline information on the application by member States
of ratified Conventions, as proposed under point (viii) below. In a second stage, the
baseline information established would allow the option to complete reporting
obligations online (while keeping the option to submit completed baseline reports by
electronic means but offline). Only then, based on the experience gained, taking into
account States’ technological capacities as supported by tailored training tools and in
full consultation with the tripartite constituents could it be considered to migrate to
fully fledged online e-reporting.
(iii) A revised reporting cycle ensuring greater thematic coherence in requests for reports
on all Conventions within a three-year reporting cycle for fundamental and governance
Conventions and a six-year reporting cycle for technical Conventions. The new
grouping now ensures that ratified Conventions covering related subjects are requested
44 This would be fully in line with the overall IT Strategy that has been approved by the Governing
Body. It may be noted that within the framework of the steps taken by the Office to introduce IT
improvements, a pilot under the Follow-up to the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work, the Office has put in place an optional online tool to facilitate reporting under
the Annual Review. Further considerations in this respect are set out in GB.335/INS/4. It is hoped
that the implementation of this online tool will benefit from the broader e-reporting developments
referred to in this section.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 17
in the same year for a specific country, as shown by the table below for different groups
of countries. This ensures thematic coherence by country as well as an examination of
all subjects each year, thus generating a positive impact on the objective of the CAS to
achieve greater balance in the selection of cases between technical, governance and
fundamental Conventions. The new reporting arrangements will be in effect as of 2019.
Table 4. Option 2. Simulation of reports requested 2019–25
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fundamental and governance Conventions (three-year reporting cycle)
C.87, C.98
(countries A–F)
C.87, C.98
(countries G–N)
C.87, C.98
(countries O–Z)
C.87, C.98
(countries A–F)
C.87, C.98
(countries G–N)
C.87, C.98
(countries O–Z)
C.87, C.98
(countries A–F)
C.100, C.111
(countries G–N)
C.100, C.111
(countries O–Z)
C.100, C.111
(countries A–F)
C.100, C.111
(countries G–N)
C.100, C.111
(countries O–Z)
C.100, C.111
(countries A–F)
C.100, C.111
(countries G–N)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries O–Z )
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries A–F)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries G–N)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries O–Z )
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries A–F)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries G–N)
C.29, C.105,
C.138, C.182
(countries O–Z )
C.144
(countries A–F)
C.144
(countries G–N)
C.144
(countries O–Z)
C.144
(countries A–F)
C.144
(countries G–N)
C.144
(countries O–Z)
C.144
(countries A–F)
C.81, C.129
(countries O–Z)
C.81, C.129
(countries G–N)
C.81, C.129
(countries A–F)
C.81, C.129
(countries O–Z)
C.81, C.129
(countries G–N)
C.81, C.129
(countries A–F)
C.81, C.129
(countries O–Z)
C122
(countries G–N)
C.122
(countries A–F)
C.122
(countries O–Z)
C.122
(countries G–N)
C.122
(countries A–F)
C.122
(countries O–Z)
C122
(countries G–N)
Technical Conventions (six-year reporting cycle)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (A-B)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (G-K)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (O-S)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (C-F)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (L–N)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (T-Z)
Freedom of
association and
collective
bargaining (A-B)
Industrial
relations (A-B)
Industrial
relations (G-K)
Industrial
relations (O-S)
Industrial
relations (C-F)
Industrial
relations (L-N)
Industrial
relations (T-Z)
Industrial
relations (A-B)
Protection of
children (O–S)
Protection of
children (A–B)
Protection of
children (G–K)
Protection of
children (T–Z)
Protection of
children (C–F)
Protection of
children (L–N)
Protection of
children (O–S)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(G–K)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(O–S)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(A–B)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(L–N)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(T–Z)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(C–F)
Workers with
family
responsibilities
(G–K)
Migrant workers
(G–K)
Migrant workers
(O–S)
Migrant workers
(A–B)
Migrant workers
(L–N)
Migrant workers
(T–Z)
Migrant workers
(C–F)
Migrant workers
(G–K)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(G–K)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(O–S)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(A–B)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(L–N)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(T–Z)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(C–F)
Indigenous and
tribal peoples
(G–K)
Other specific
categories of
workers (G–K)
Other specific
categories of
workers (O–S)
Other specific
categories of
workers (A–B)
Other specific
categories of
workers (L–N)
Other specific
categories of
workers (T–Z)
Other specific
categories of
workers (C–F)
Other specific
categories of
workers (G–K)
Working time
(T–Z)
Working time
(L–N)
Working time
(C–F)
Working time
(O–S)
Working time
(G–K)
Working time
(A–B)
Working time
(T–Z)
Wages (T–Z) Wages (L–N) Wages (C–F) Wages (O–S) Wages (G–K) Wages (A–B) Wages (T–Z)
OSH (T–Z) OSH (L–N) OSH (C–F) OSH (O–S) OSH (G–K) OSH (A–B) OSH (T–Z)
Maternity
protection
(T–Z)
Maternity
protection
(L–N)
Maternity
protection
(C–F)
Maternity
protection
(O–S)
Maternity
protection
(G–K)
Maternity
protection
(A–B)
Maternity
protection
(T–Z)
GB.335/INS/5
18 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Social security
(T–Z)
Social security
(L–N)
Social security
(C–F)
Social security
(O–S)
Social security
(G–K)
Social security
(A–B)
Social security
(T–Z)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(T–Z)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(L–N)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(C–F)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(O–S)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(G–K)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(A–B)
Labour
administration
and inspection
(T–Z)
Skills (L–N) Skills (C–F) Skills (T–Z) Skills (G–K) Skills (A–B) Skills (O–S) Skills (L–N)
Employment
policy (L–N)
Employment
policy (C–F)
Employment
policy (T–Z)
Employment
policy (G–K)
Employment
policy (A–B)
Employment
policy (O–S)
Employment
policy (L–N)
Employment
security (L–N)
Employment
security (C–F)
Employment
security (T–Z)
Employment
security (G–K)
Employment
security (A–B)
Employment
security (O–S)
Employment
security (L–N)
Social policy
(L–N)
Social policy
(C–F)
Social policy
(T–Z)
Social policy
(G–K)
Social policy
(A–B)
Social policy
(O–S)
Social policy
(L–N)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(C–F)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(T–Z)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(L–N)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(A–B)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(O–S)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(G–K)
Seafarers
Fishers
Dockworkers
(C–F)
Total number of reports requested
1 270 1 384 1 434 1 445 1 356 1 368 1 270
(iv) At its session in November–December 2018, the CEACR considered the extension of
the reporting cycle from five to six years and, in the context of the discussion on its
own working methods, considered the manner in which it might broaden the very strict
criteria for breaking its cycle of review when receiving comments from workers’ or
employers’ organizations under article 23(2), of the ILO Constitution. A report on its
discussion and decision is contained in the most recent report of the CEACR 45 and a
summary is provided in paragraph 74 below.
(v) Following the guidance of the Governing Body, the CEACR is continuing its recent
practice of adopting a single comment to address in a consolidated manner the issues
of application arising under various related Conventions. These types of consolidated
comments have been adopted in the fields of social security, maritime issues, wages,
working time, occupational safety and health, labour inspection and child labour. This
has allowed the CEACR to avoid repetitive comments under thematically related
Conventions and has helped to ensure greater coherence in the treatment of the related
information by country. For the countries concerned, one advantage is that comments
are more easily readable and provide a more coherent and holistic analysis by subject
of the issues to be addressed.
(vi) The Governing Body approved a new integrated report form for simplified reports to
be sent under article 22 of the Constitution. Every year, based on this report form, the
Office sends electronically to each member State a single request for all the simplified
reports which are due that year. Supervisory comments in respect of which replies are
invited are consolidated in an annex to the simplified report form. 46 This should
45 Report of the CEACR, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 108th Session, 2019.
46 The annex is established on the basis of the regular reporting cycle and any additional requests for
reports addressed to your country by the supervisory bodies for the year in question. It also includes
cases in which your country has failed to submit the simplified reports requested the previous year. It
does not cover any simplified report due under the MLC, 2006, for which a specific form will be sent
to your country, as appropriate.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 19
facilitate the submission of information. Readability would be improved, as the
CEACR’s comments for which reports are due that year could be presented by subject.
It may be emphasized that this proposal will not limit the content or level of detail of
the information provided by governments, but will facilitate the submission of
information and the discharge of reporting obligations. In addition, the Office
communicates to each member State the list of detailed reports which may also be due
the year in question. Existing report forms under each individual Convention (the
content of which corresponds to detailed reports) would continue to be used for first
reports following ratification, or when a detailed report is specifically requested by the
supervisory bodies.
(vii) Measures to address the delays in the receipt of reports and the reporting failures. These
delays give rise to significant challenges, both for the social partners and for the Office
as the secretariat of the CEACR. The social partners have less time to submit article 23
observations, while the late receipt of reports limits the capacity of the Office to prepare
files for the CEACR to carry out its work, with the result that the examination of belated
reports have to be deferred. Moreover, when the reports requested are not received
within the time limits, it is necessary to issue repetitions of outstanding comments and
resubmit requests the following year for the reports that have not been received, thus
further increasing the number of reports to be treated.
Following up on its annual exchange with the CAS Vice-Chairpersons, the CEACR
decided at its 2017 session to take safeguard measures paying closer attention to certain
serious cases of failure to report and instituting a practice of launching “urgent
appeals”. During the review of its working methods at the 2018 session, the Committee
decided to reinforce the practice of urgent appeals that it launched in 2017 drawing on
experience with the implementation of this decision. Already at the 2018 session, the
Committee issued urgent appeals to six countries which failed to send a first report for
at least three years. The Committee decided that as of its next session, it will generalize
this practice by issuing urgent appeals in all cases where article 22 reports have not
been received for three consecutive years. As a result, repetitions of previous comments
will be limited to a maximum of three years following which the Convention’s
application will be examined in substance by the Committee on the basis of publicly
available information, where the government has not sent a report, thus ensuring a
review of the application of ratified Conventions at least once within the reporting
cycle. The repetition language will follow a certain “escalation” in relation to how
many times the Government has failed to report:
– first year: simple repetition, the Committee will note that the report has not been
received;
– second year: the Committee will note with regret that the report has not been
received;
– third year: the Committee will note with deep regret that the report has not been
received and issue an urgent appeal, informing the government that if a report is
not received in time for examination by the Committee at its next session, the
latter will proceed to examine the application of the Convention in the country in
question on the basis of information at its disposal;
– fourth year: the Committee will carry out an examination on the basis of publicly
available information even if the Government has not replied.
Also, the Committee decided to distinguish more clearly between article 22
reports received after the 1 September deadline the examination of which might
be deferred due to their late arrival, and reports received by this deadline, the
GB.335/INS/5
20 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
examination of which might be deferred for various other reasons (e.g., need for
translation into the ILO working languages). The Committee instructed the
secretariat to place the late reports in a special category, separate from that of
“deferred files”, for transparency purposes. The Committee was pleased to note
the information provided by the Office on the potential medium term impact of
the Governing Body decisions in the framework of the Standards Initiative, from
the point of view of maintaining the sustainability and effectiveness of the
supervisory mechanism in the light of the constantly increasing number of
ratifications and consequent reporting obligations.
(viii) Pilot project on the establishment of baselines. The added value of baseline-based
reporting consists in easier, incremental and non-repetitive reporting by governments
as well as better information-sharing on compliant practices provided in the context of
the supervisory system. Currently, the only visible outputs of the article 22 reporting
process are the issues and concerns raised in the comments of the CEACR. The broader
picture of how a country is implementing a ratified Convention, including the
compliant practices adopted, is not publicly available. The idea would be to extract
information about compliant implementation of Conventions from article 22 reports
and to present that information in compliance summary tables, which would be made
available on the ILO website and serve as the baseline for the next round of reporting.
In light of the Governing Body decision to implement a pilot project on the
establishment of baselines on Convention No. 187 (see point 7(e) of the decision
adopted at its 334th Session (October–November 2018)), the Office has taken the
following measures:
(a) Countries due to report on Convention No. 187 in 2019 have been contacted to
confirm their interest in participating in the pilot project.
(b) A model electronic article 22 baseline report on the application of Convention
No. 187 has been developed. The draft article 22 baseline report will be sent to
the countries concerned together with the request for reports for 2019. Where the
countries concerned have ratified other up-to-date OSH instruments, a
consolidated thematic draft baseline report will be prepared to cover the
corresponding instruments. It will contain the information available to the Office
on the measures taken to apply the Convention(s) concerned, including
information provided by the government concerned in previous article 22 reports.
Where the CEACR has made comments on the application of the Convention(s)
concerned, the draft article 22 baseline report will include a cross-reference to
those comments in NORMLEX. The government will be expected to validate the
information contained in the draft article 22 baseline report and to reply to the
CEACR pending comments. The final article 22 baseline report will have to be
sent to the Office by 1 September at the latest, in accordance with the existing
procedure (submission offline). It will be examined by the CEACR at its 2019
session and the results of the CEACR examination will be published as per the
existing procedure (observation and/or direct request, as the case may be).
(c) As per the existing practice, observations of the social partners and the
government’s responses, could be submitted within the article 22 baseline report
or sent directly to the Office.
(d) The new feature would be that, as of early 2020, information about compliant
implementation of Convention No. 187 could be extracted from the article 22
reports and presented in compliance summary tables, which could be made
available on the ILO website. The baselines could also include any observations
made by the social partners if it is decided that the latter should also be made
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 21
public. Where the CEACR has made comments on the application of the
Convention concerned, the baseline will include a cross-reference to those
comments in NORMLEX.
Following an initial evaluation of the pilot project, extension to other/all subject matters
could be envisaged.
This initiative will be linked to the computerization measures taken as set out above. In
particular, it would make it easier to update the information submitted (see in particular
the link with e-reporting under point (ii) above). The Office will continue to provide
regular updates to the Governing Body on the development of this pilot project.
3.2. Information-sharing with organizations
53. The Office will continue the exchanges and collaborations in supervising the implementation
of standards with other international organizations (e.g. the Council of Europe). Based on
the views expressed during the January and February 2017 consultations, the Office
continues its regular exchange of information with other international organizations. For
example, the Office participates in the Partnership for Effective International Rule-Making
managed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The
partnership offers a voluntary platform to foster collective action among international
organizations and their constituency to promote greater quality, effectiveness and impact of
international rules, regardless of their substantive scope. Ultimately, this work helps to build
greater confidence of domestic regulators and legislators in international rules and support
greater uptake of good quality international instruments in national legislation.
54. The Governing Body at its 334th Session (October–November 2018) welcomed the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution of May 2018 “Repositioning of the United
Nations development system in the context of the quadrennial comprehensive policy review
of operational activities for development of the United Nations System (A/RES/72/279)”. A
separate report before the Governing Body provides an update as well as an action plan
addressing the multiple aspects of implementation of the reform of the United Nations
Development System (UNDS), including the implications for the ILO’s normative and
supervisory work. 47
55. The repositioning of the UNDS is expected to have a number of implications for both the
SRM and the strengthening of the supervisory system:
(a) There can be no sustainable development without social justice. The ILO is the
custodian institution of globally recognized standards that define “full, productive and
freely chosen employment” and decent work for all as a means and an end to sustainable
development. As such, ILO normative work is central to a UNDS repositioned around
a rights-based 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The UN Secretary-General
has sought to give assurances that “all entities [of the UNDS] are better positioned to
fully deliver on their respective mandates, while also achieving greater impact at a
system-wide scale.” 48
(b) International labour standards must add value to defining decent work as a means and
end to sustainable development. To add value, the standard-setting process itself should
be responsive to the changing patterns of the world of work, the protection of workers
47 GB.335/INS/10.
48 Letter of the UNSG to the ILO Director-General, dated 7 November 2018.
GB.335/INS/5
22 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
and the needs of sustainable enterprises. This points to the need for coherence between
the recommendations from the SRM and timely agenda-setting of the Conference in
relation to closing regulatory gaps with new instruments as well as revising and
abrogating obsolete standards.
(c) With respect to the ILO’s mandate and responsibility to promote both the ratification
of and compliance with international labour standards, it is to be noted that the UNGA
has called on all entities of the UNDS to carry out, among other functions: “assisting
countries through normative support, as appropriate, in the context of operational
activities for development of the United Nation system.” 49 The repositioning of the
UNDS to enhance integrated policy advice 50 and normative support should be both an
incentive to accelerate efforts and an opportunity to improve the impact of the ILO
supervisory work. Greater attention will need to be paid to incorporate outputs related
to the ratification and supervision of international labour standards in the Decent Work
Country Programmes (DWCPs) and the United Nations Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAFs), notably technical advice to give effect to recommendations of
the SRM TWG in relation to the ratification of up-to-date Conventions and to
supervisory comments; assistance with reporting obligations; and assistance to
strengthen tripartite consultations on issues under review with the supervisory bodies.
Special attention will need to be paid to integrating into UN Common Country
Analyses (CCA) the alignment of development efforts with international standards and
normative frameworks, including international labour standards. This is particularly
important as UN CCAs are set to inform UNDAF priorities. However, even if
standards-related aspects are not reflected as priorities in the UNDAF, the ILO will
continue to service the supervisory system, including the provision of technical
assistance in respect of comments and recommendations of the supervisory bodies.
(d) As an associated measure the ILO is engaging in designing and delivering a training
package developed for the new generation of UN Resident Coordinators in
collaboration with the ITC-ILO so as to ensure that they are well informed and aware
of the Decent Work Agenda and international labour standards as its foundation.
(e) The ILO is engaging in a series of consultations with the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other UN bodies with a view to
strengthening the labour standards dimension of the integrated policy support a
repositioned UNDS will provide at country level.
Focus area 4: Reach and Implementation
4.1. Clear recommendations of
the supervisory bodies
56. The recommendations made by the supervisory bodies should be clear and provide practical
guidance to member States so as to enhance their effectiveness. Clarity requires a readerfriendly
and up-to-date presentation of the compliance issues and the formulation of
actionable recommendations that leave sufficient space for governments in considering the
ways and means for achieving compliance. Other measures that can enhance transparency
49 UNGA Resolution on the Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for
development of the United Nations system A/RES/71/243, para. 21(b). It is worth recalling that the
repositioning of the UNDS as outlined in UNGA Resolution A/RES/72/279 takes place in the context
of the QCPR review.
50 This UNDS function is separately but specifically referred to in para. 21(a) of A/RES/71/243.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 23
and hence clarity of the comments include cross-referencing comments by creating
hyperlinks in the electronic version of comments by the CEACR and the CAS. In its
secretariat role, the Office is pursuing this objective with the supervisory bodies as they
continue to review their working methods.
57. Clarity must not come at the expense of details: a more complete and elaborate report allows
for a better discussion of cases by the Conference Committee and better guidance for the
constituents on measures conducive to the effective application of ratified Conventions. In
that context, measures are pursued to make the report more reader friendly and in particular
to achieve clarity in the up-to-date presentation of the issues. Recommendations should be
sufficiently specific so as to permit monitoring of any effect given to them.
58. The issue of clarity in the recommendations will continue to be monitored by the
subcommittee on working methods of the CEACR and reviewed jointly by the CEACR and
the Vice-Chairpersons of the CAS during the annual special session of the Committee of
Experts. On the occasion of the most recent joint session of the Committee of Experts and
the Vice-Chairpersons, the CEACR recognized the need for constantly introducing gradual
improvements to produce more user-friendly, precise and concise comments. This was
necessary not only in order to give clear guidance to governments but also to facilitate
follow-up action and technical assistance by the Office while remaining consistent in its
assessment of compliance. 51 The Committee of Experts also attached great importance to
the clarity of the criteria for making a distinction between observations and direct requests,
in order to ensure the visibility, transparency and coherence of the Committee’s work and
legal certainty over time in light of the Committee’s evolving membership and practices.
The Committee was willing to give due consideration to the suggestions made by the two
Vice-Chairpersons in future discussions so as to secure adequate tripartite engagement with
supervisory comments. 52
4.2. Systematized follow-up at national level
59. In their Joint Declaration of 2015, the Employers’ and Workers’ groups expressed interest
in a consistent and transparent follow-up system not only at national level but also at the
level of the ILO as a whole. They felt that the work of the supervisory bodies and other ILO
engagements needed better coordination at country level through a variety of interventions
such as technical assistance, DWCPs, direct contact missions and tripartite meetings.
60. Effect was given to this proposal in the Programme and Budget proposals for 2018–19 and
the most significant output of outcome 2. Hence, the Office has started to promote more
structured ILO interventions to increase compliance by developing a strategic approach to
standards promotion in a number of pilot countries. The aim is to assist countries that have
a significant ILO presence and portfolio of standards-related activities with the development
of a strategy that promotes standards over a period until 2030 – spanning several DWCP
cycles – and covers the full spectrum of standards-related outputs currently found in the
programme and budget: ratification, application (in particular giving effect to supervisory
comments), responding to the recommendations of the SRM TWG, discharging reporting
obligations and capacity building of the social partners to effectively engage in standardsrelated
activity at the national level. Against that background, the Government of Viet Nam
has invited the assistance of the Office to develop a roadmap setting ratification and
51 Report of the CEACR, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 108th Session, 2019,
para. 25.
52 ibid., para. 27.
GB.335/INS/5
24 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
application targets to be achieved by 2030. The first concrete outcomes in both areas are
expected in 2019.
4.3. Consideration of the potential of article 19,
paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d)
61. Article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), are key constitutional provisions that respond to the
inherent need for the ILO supervisory system, and the obligation of member States, to give
effect to the standard-setting decisions of the Conference. These provisions were introduced
to fulfil different purposes, including to: promote the ratification of Conventions; encourage
countries to achieve the objectives of both Recommendations and Conventions; recognize
the efforts made by countries to give effect to the instruments adopted by the Conference,
even in the absence of ratification; inform technical assistance that could be instrumental in
removing obstacles to the ratification of relevant Conventions; and evaluate standards to
inform future standard-setting activities.
62. The request for concrete action arose from the Conference in its 2016 resolution on
Advancing Social Justice through Decent Work. The Conference called on the ILO to
“(e)nsure that there are appropriate and effective linkages between the recurrent discussions
and the outcomes of the Standards Initiative, including exploring options for making better
use of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the ILO Constitution, without increasing the
reporting obligations of member States”. 53 This includes the adoption of appropriate
modalities to ensure the contribution of General Surveys and the related discussion by the
CAS to recurrent discussions. 54
4.3.1. Options for consideration relating to the design,
preparation and follow-up of General Surveys
63. Proposals for enhancing the use of article 19 have in the first instance chiefly related to
General Surveys, in particular the processes relating to the design, preparation and followup
of General Surveys. They outline ways of maximizing the value of article 19,
paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), processes and assisting Members to achieve the ILO’s strategic
objectives, particularly through the ratification and implementation of standards.
64. Various ideas have been put forward, reflected in the table below. Some are part of the
current practice (+), some have not reached a conclusion (-), some have not (yet) been
considered or are work in progress (?).
53 Subparagraph 15.1 of the resolution. The follow-up to the Social Justice Declaration emphasizes
the need for “the fullest possible use” of all the means of action provided under the Constitution of
the ILO to fulfil its mandate. This could include adapting existing modalities of the application of
article 19(5)(e) and (6)(d), without increasing the reporting obligations of member States. In practice,
the adaptation of these modalities has focused on the arrangements for the General Surveys and their
discussion by the CAS to ensure coordination with recurrent discussions.
54 Subparagraph 15.2(b) of the resolution.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 25
Proposed options
65. At its November 2018 session, the subcommittee on working methods of the CEACR gave
particular consideration to the Governing Body’s request for proposals with a view to
optimizing the use made of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the Constitution, in
particular measures to improve the presentation of General Surveys, so as to ensure a userfriendly
approach and format that maximizes their value for constituents. Based on the
advice of the Committee. The secretariat aims at presenting the General Survey in a revised
format by 2020. Already this year, the General Survey is featuring an executive summary
highlighting salient points. The Committee also discussed various modalities for the
examination of General Surveys taking full advantage of the electronic document
management system and other IT enhancements under way. The Committee also had an
opportunity to discuss the pilot project for the establishment of electronic baselines which
would facilitate reporting by governments and information sharing on compliant practices.
The Experts were particularly interested in this project and will continue to follow closely
its development.
4.3.2. Other possible uses of article 19
66. In the second instance, the Office could explore other possible uses of article 19. Further
guidance is sought on whether the Office should prepare additional proposals to make better
use of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), bearing in mind the purposes of these provisions,
with a view to their discussion at the October–November 2019 session of the Governing
Body.
67. The Office could explore using article 19 to follow up on the action taken on
recommendations of the SRM TWG in respect of ratification or denunciation so that a
subsequent recurrent discussion might, for example, respond more effectively to member
States’ needs in respect of the effect to be given to these recommendations through a
coordinated ILO action. Taking the example of OSH instruments, this initiative could be
scheduled as follows.
Design
• Continue the double Governing Body discussion: (i) on the subject and instruments covered; (ii) on the
questionnaire (+)
• SRM TWG inputs integrated in the selection of the subject (?)
• Office support – involvement of the various technical departments concerned and the field (+)
• Review design of questions taking into account the strategic objective of the subsequent recurrent discussion (+)
Preparation
• Use of the field structure to improve the quantity and quality of the responses received (+)
• Computerization and e-reporting to facilitate receipt of inputs from constituents and processing of information (?)
• CEACR invited to consider further measures, such as a meeting with the CAS Vice-Chairpersons to prepare a CAS
discussion (?)
Discussion
and follow-up
• CAS discussion: consideration of modalities – such as support of experts, maximization of time for substantive
discussion and strengthening preparation of conclusions (-)
• Governing Body: introduce a standing item at its November session to enhance follow up and promote ratification
and implementation – e.g. inviting countries to present their experiences or adopting an action plan (-)
• Integration within the work of the ILO and its cooperation with Members, in particular through DWCPs (?)
• Enhance integration into other processes – e.g. feedback to the SRM TWG and ILC for the recurrent discussion
the following year; outreach by field specialists, etc. (+)
GB.335/INS/5
26 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
Table 5. Example
Year 1 SRM TWG completes review of OSH instruments in initial programme of work
Year 2
Governing Body selects these instruments and SRM recommendations for follow-up
under article 19 for all those not having ratified up-to-date OSH instruments
Year 3 Governing Body approves report form, inviting information by February 2019
Year 4
The Office compiles article 19 report with baseline information received with a view to
informing the next recurrent discussion on social protection (labour protection)
4.3.3. Annual Review under the Follow-up to the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work
68. The 2017 Conference resolution and conclusions concerning the second recurrent discussion
on fundamental principles and rights at work included a call for the annual follow-up to the
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work to be more accessible and
visible. 55
69. In 2017, on a pilot basis, member States were given the option of reporting online using an
e-questionnaire tool, while the report forms in pdf format were shared at that same time
should there be a preference to continue reporting in a hard copy version. The pilot was
launched with a view to facilitating reporting for member States, and to enable the
compilation of responses received with a view to further analysis.
70. Once again in 2018, the possibility of reporting online was offered to the governments
concerned. The online reporting tool also had the necessary features for the circulation of
the draft report to the social partners. Fifty-three member States totalling 77 per cent of all
responses received have used the online reporting form. This represents a 16 per cent
increase from 2017. Further considerations in this regard are set out in document
GB.335/INS/4.
Review by the supervisory bodies
of their working methods
Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards (CAS)
71. Informal tripartite consultations on the working methods of the CAS took place 11 times
from June 2006 to 2011. Subsequently, at its 322nd Session (October–November 2014), the
Governing Body decided to re-launch informal tripartite consultations to prepare
recommendations to the 323rd Session of the Governing Body (March 2015), in the context
of decisions taken by the Governing Body concerning the Standards Initiative. 56 The most
recent informal tripartite consultations on the working methods of the CAS were held on
3 November 2018.
72. The informal tripartite consultations continued to prove their usefulness in continuously
improving the working methods of the CAS. From 2016 to 2018, informal consultations
55 Provisional Record 11-1, ILC, 106th Session, 2017, para. 4(d).
56 GB.322/PV, para. 209(3).
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 27
were convened six times. Based on the guidance received from the informal tripartite
consultations, the following improvements are being implemented:
■ More efficient time management with set time limits for delegates’ intervention and list
of registered speakers displayed on screens in the room.
■ Document D.1 provides detailed information on the manner in which the final selection
of cases is made, although some called for improvements, for example in terms of
regional and subregional balance among the cases selected. To increase the visibility
of the criteria set out in document D.1, the Office agreed to publish them in a special
section on the CAS webpage when the long list of cases is made available.
■ Measures regarding the preparation, adoption and follow-up of conclusions have been
in effect since the 107th Session of the Conference (2018): the conclusions should be
made visible on a screen while being read by the Chairperson; and a hard copy of the
conclusions should also be given to the Government representative concerned.
Government representatives concerned have the right to take the floor immediately
after the adoption of the conclusions in respect of their individual case, rather than
having to wait until the conclusions in respect of all individual cases have been read
out and adopted.
■ Time allocated to the general discussions of the CAS is reduced so as to permit
additional time for discussion of the General Survey. With regard to the proposal of
inviting experts to contribute to the discussion on the 57 General Survey, the meeting
considered that the necessary expertise to support the General Survey discussion
resided with the Office and the Conference, and that recourse to external experts would
be appropriate only in exceptional circumstances. The item could, however, be
discussed further.
■ Coordinated sustained measures were needed to deal with cases of serious failure by
member States to respect their reporting obligations. The introduction of electronic
reporting, longer reporting intervals and simplified report forms would be helpful, and
it was expected that the work of the SRM TWG would also help ease the reporting
burden. The Committee of Experts’ decision to institute a procedure for “urgent
appeals” in certain cases was important and governments will be informed that the
Committee of Experts may proceed to examine the substance of a matter even in the
event of continued failure to report. The Office will continue its efforts to support
governments, including through provision of technical assistance to the countries
concerned.
■ Part II of the CAS report will be produced as a verbatim record. Other parts of the report
will also be produced in verbatim format instead of the summary record currently
produced, with the outcomes of discussions, conclusions of individual cases and other
specific results being placed in Part I of the CAS report and the verbatim discussions
in Part II. Internal review has shown that production of a verbatim record would result
in significant time and cost savings, which would permit resources to be directed to
strengthening aspects of the supervisory system, particularly to providing technical
assistance at the country level. Amendments could be made to the verbatim record in
the event that there were errors. The issue of the content and structure of Parts I and II
remains subject to further consultation and reflection by the same meeting.
73. The next meeting of the informal tripartite consultations on the working methods of the CAS
would be held during the 335th Session of the Governing Body (March 2019). It will discuss,
57 Provisional Record 9A(Rev.), ILC, 107th Session, para. 31.
GB.335/INS/5
28 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
among other matters, a proposal to produce all parts of the CAS report as verbatim records;
special centenary arrangements to highlight the achievements and impact of the CAS; a
proposal to invite governments on the long list of possible individual cases to provide any
updated information on application two or three weeks ahead of the Conference; and the
issue of participation in informal tripartite consultations on the working methods.
Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR)
74. In order to guide the CEACR in its reflection on continuous improvement of its working
methods, a subcommittee on working methods was set up in 2001. In 2018, the
subcommittee on working methods met for the 18th time. The subcommittee on working
methods focused its discussions on the Governing Body decision on the Standards Initiative
adopted in November 2018 and in particular the manner in which it might broaden the very
strict criteria for breaking its cycle of review when receiving comments from workers’ or
employers’ organizations under article 23(2), of the ILO Constitution. Further to
paragraph 52(iv) above, the Committee of Experts’ views are reproduced below for ease of
reference: 58
Observations made by employers’and workers’ organizations
94. At each session, the Committee recalls that the contribution by employers’ and
workers’ organizations is essential for the Committee’s evaluation of the application of
Conventions in national law and in practice. Member States have an obligation under article 23,
paragraph 2, of the Constitution to communicate to the representative employers’ and workers’
organizations copies of the reports supplied under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution.
Compliance with this constitutional obligation is intended to enable organizations of employers
and workers to participate fully in the supervision of the application of international labour
standards. In some cases, governments transmit the observations made by employers’ and
workers’ organizations with their reports, sometimes adding their own comments. However, in
the majority of cases, observations from employers’ and workers’ organizations are sent directly
to the Office which, in accordance with the established practice, transmits them to the
governments concerned for comment, so as to ensure respect for due process. For reasons of
transparency, the record of all observations received from employers’ and workers’
organizations on the application of ratified Conventions since the last session of the Committee
is included as Appendix III to its report. Where the Committee finds that the observations are
not within the scope of the Convention or do not contain information that would add value to
its examination of the application of the Convention, it will not refer to them in its comments.
Otherwise, the observations received from employers’ and workers’ organizations may be
considered in an observation or in a direct request, as appropriate.
75. The Committee then distinguished between observations received from employers’ and
workers’ organizations within the year in which the regular government report is due and
those received outside a reporting year.
In a reporting year
95. At its 86th Session (2015), the Committee made the following clarifications on the
general approach developed over the years for the treatment of observations from employers’
and workers’ organizations. The Committee recalled that, in a reporting year, when
observations from employers’ and workers’ organizations are not provided with the
government’s report, they should be received by the Office by 1 September at the latest, so as
to allow the government concerned to have a reasonable time to respond, thereby enabling the
Committee to examine, as appropriate, the issues raised at its session the same year. When
observations are received after 1 September, they would not be examined in substance in the
absence of a reply from the government, except in exceptional cases. Over the years, the
58 Report of the CEACR, Report III (Part A), ILC, 108th Session, 2019, paras 94–102.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 29
Committee has identified exceptional cases as those where the allegations are sufficiently
substantiated and there is an urgent need to address the situation, whether because they refer to
matters of life and death or to fundamental human rights or because any delay may cause
irreparable harm. In addition, observations referring to legislative proposals or draft laws may
also be examined by the Committee in the absence of a reply from the government, where this
may be of assistance for the country at the drafting stage.
Outside of a reporting year
98. The Committee recalls that, in a non-reporting year, when employers’ and workers’
organizations send observations which simply repeat comments made in previous years, or refer
to matters already raised by the Committee, such comments will be examined in the year when
the government’s report is due, in accordance with the regular reporting cycle. In this case, a
report will not be requested from the government outside of that cycle.
99. Where the observations on a technical Convention meet the criteria [set out below],
the Committee will request the office to issue a notification to Governments that the article 23
observations received will be examined at its subsequent session with or without a response
from the government. This would ensure that Governments have sufficient notice while
ensuring that the examination of matters of importance are not further delayed.
100. The Committee would thus review the application of a technical Convention
outside of a reporting year following observations submitted by employers’ and workers’
organizations having due regard to the following elements:
– the seriousness of the problem and its adverse impact on the application of the Convention;
– the persistence of the problem; and
– the relevance and scope of the government’s response in its reports or the absence of
response to the issues raised by the Committee, including cases of clear and repeated
refusal on the part of a State to comply with its obligations.
101. With respect to any Convention (fundamental, governance or technical),
recalling its well-established practice, the Committee will examine employers’ and workers’
observations in a non-reporting year in the year received in the exceptional cases [i.e. those
where the allegations are sufficiently substantiated and there is an urgent need to address the
situation, whether because they refer to matters of life and death or to fundamental human rights
or because any delay may cause irreparable harm], even in the absence of a reply from the
government concerned.
102. The Committee emphasized that the procedure set out in the paragraphs above aims
at giving effect to decisions taken by the Governing Body which have extended the reporting
cycle and called for safeguards in that context, to ensure that effective supervision of the
application of ratified Conventions is maintained. One of these safeguards consists in giving
due recognition to the possibility afforded to employers’ and workers’ organizations to draw the
attention of the Committee to matters of particular concern arising from the application of
ratified Conventions, even in a year when no report is due. The approach above also pays
particular attention to the importance of providing due notice to governments, except in
exceptional circumstances, and in all cases the Committee will indicate its reasons for breaking
the cycle.
Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA)
76. The new members of the Governing Body CFA appointed in June 2017 pursued active and
constructive discussions on the Committee’s working methods in dedicated sittings in
October 2017 and in March and October 2018. The Committee has concluded its reflections
on a number of questions it had been examining concerning the effective communication of
its procedures and mandate to constituents and the strengthening of its tripartite governance.
This can be particularly seen in the continuing work of the CFA subcommittee, which
identifies priority cases for examination and proposes the agenda of the next Committee
meeting with a view to ensuring relative regional balance and rapid treatment of urgent cases.
GB.335/INS/5
30 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
77. Besides its work on the annual report and consideration of the progress on the case
management system and the completion of the compilation of decisions which is described
later in this document, the Committee had further discussions on its working methods, its
contribution to the ILO centenary, reflections on trends in the use of its procedure and
modalities for the examination of article 24 representations referred to it.
78. Objective of the annual report. The annual report is intended to provide useful information
on the use of the CFA procedure throughout the year, supported by statistical data and other
details with regards to the work undertaken by the CFA, the progress made and the serious
and urgent cases examined by the Committee. The first annual report covered the period of
2017 (its March, May–June and October–November 2017 sessions). The statistical
information on cases treated in 2017 set the baseline for comparison on the use of this special
procedure over future years. The Committee will submit an annual report for 2018 at the
Governing Body’s 335th Session (March 2019). The Committee considered that the
presentation of this report to the International Labour Conference CAS offered an important
opportunity to improve its communication and visibility.
79. Modernization of case management and internal methods of work of the Office. The
streamlining of procedures and ensuring greater transparency is being pursued within the
framework of the Governing Body’s discussion in October–November 2018 on the
Standards Initiative (GB.334/INS/5) and the agreement to finance an electronic document
and information management system for the supervisory bodies.
80. Compilation of decisions of the CFA. Following previous decisions of the Committee and
the Governing Body, and recalling the principles of universality, continuity, predictability,
fairness and equal treatment, which it must ensure in the area of freedom of association, the
Committee completed the compilation in concise form of its decisions in more than 3,200
cases over 65 years. The electronic database of the compilation with simple search features
and easy access to the full context of the complaints is now available online and the
compilation is also available in hard copy.
81. Inactive cases. The Committee has considered the question of cases not resolved for lack of
information and the procedures and conditions for considering such cases as closed. The
Committee decided that any follow-up cases that have not received information either from
the government or from the complainant for the last 18 months (or 18 months from the last
examination of the case) will be considered closed. This practice would not be used for
serious and urgent cases. Cases concerning countries that have not ratified the freedom of
association Conventions will be decided on a case-by-case basis depending upon the nature
of the case. Letters will be sent to governments and complainants indicating this decision
and the importance of furnishing follow-up information in relation to the Committee’s
recommendations.
82. The ILO Centenary. The Committee expressed its enthusiasm in contributing to the highlevel
event on freedom of association and collective bargaining called for in the 2018 ILC
resolution concerning the second recurrent discussion on social dialogue and tripartism. The
Committee also proposed that the Centenary year be used as an opportunity for conversations
at the regional and national levels on the promotion of the principles of freedom of
association and collective bargaining as well as on the impact of the special procedure for
submitting complaints and its optimum articulation with national mechanisms.
83. Article 24 representations concerning freedom of association. Having compared its current
practice and procedure with that of ad hoc committees constituted by the Governing Body,
the Committee decided that three of its members would be appointed (one from each group)
to examine a given representation referred to it. The entire case file will be made available
to them and they will be able to meet as many times as considered necessary for the
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 31
conclusion of their work. Where other Conventions are also raised in the representation,
avenues could be explored for ensuring effective communication between the established ad
hoc tripartite Committees where appropriate to ensure coherence in the factual
understanding. The report as finalized by the three members would continue to be presented
as a separate report to the Governing Body and will be able to be considered along with all
other article 24 reports at the end of the Governing Body session.
Draft decision
84. The Governing Body:
(a) welcomed the progress reported on the implementation of the two components
of the Standards Initiative, namely the Standards Review Mechanism (SRM)
and the workplan to strengthen the supervisory system, which was the result
of consensual tripartite decisions;
(b) with respect to the component concerning the SRM, noted the information
provided on the lessons learned and future directions; requested the
Standards Review Mechanism of a tripartite working group (SRM TWG) to
take its guidance into account in continuing its work and to provide a report
for the Governing Body’s second review of the functioning of the SRM TWG
in March 2020; and, to guarantee the impact of that work, reiterated its call
upon the Organization and its tripartite constituents to take appropriate
measures to follow up on all its previous recommendations;
(c) having reviewed, against the common principles guiding the strengthening of
the supervisory system, the report on progress in implementing the ten
proposals of the workplan, welcomed the progress achieved so far and
requested the Office to continue the implementation of the workplan which
should be updated according to its guidance;
(d) approving the approach taken and the timelines proposed, requested the
Office to ensure that action is taken with respect to producing the guide on
established practices across the supervisory system, the operation of the article
24 procedure, the streamlining of reporting, information sharing with other
organizations, the formulation of clear recommendations of the supervisory
bodies, pursuing systematized follow-up at the national level and
consideration of the potential of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d);
(e) with respect to the proposal for a regular conversation between the
supervisory bodies, invited the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of
Association (CFA) to present its annual report to the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards (CAS) as from 2019;
(f) with respect to the proposal for codification of the article 26 procedure,
recalled the decision to consider the steps to be taken after the guide to the
supervisory system is available to constituents, and requested the Office to
provide it with further information in that regard in March 2020;
GB.335/INS/5
32 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
(g) with respect to the proposal to consider further steps to ensure legal certainty,
decided to hold informal consultations in October 2019 and, to facilitate that
tripartite exchange of views, requested the Office to prepare a paper on the
elements and conditions for the operation of an independent body under
article 37(2) and of any other consensus-based options;
(h) with respect to the proposal for review by the supervisory procedures of their
working methods, invited the CAS, the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and the CFA to
continue their regular consideration of their working methods.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 33
Appendix I
Decision taken by the Governing Body at it 334th
Session (October–November 2018) on strengthening
the supervisory machinery 1
The Governing Body, based on the proposals set out in documents GB.334/INS/5 and
GB.332/INS/5(Rev.) and the further guidance provided during the discussion and the
tripartite consultations:
(1) Approved the following measures concerning the operation of the representations
procedure under article 24 of the Constitution:
(a) arrangements to allow for optional voluntary conciliation or other measures at the
national level, leading to a temporary suspension for a maximum period of six
months of the examination of the merits of a representation by the ad hoc
committee. The suspension would be subject to the agreement of the complainant
as expressed in the complaint form, and the agreement of the government. These
arrangements would be reviewed by the Governing Body after a two-year trial
period;
(b) publication of an information document on the status of pending representations
at the March and November sessions of the Governing Body;
(c) members of article 24 ad hoc tripartite committees need to receive all information
and relevant documents from the Office 15 days in advance of their meetings and
members of the Governing Body should receive the final report of article 24 ad
hoc tripartite committees three days before they are called to adopt their
conclusions;
(d) ratification of the Conventions concerned as a condition for membership of
Governments in ad hoc committees unless no Government titular or deputy
member of the Governing Body has ratified the Conventions concerned;
(e) maintaining existing measures and exploring other possible measures to be agreed
upon by the Governing Body for the integrity of procedure and to protect ad hoc
committee members from undue interference; and
(f) reinforced integration of follow-up measures in the recommendations of
committees and a regularly updated document on the effect given to these
recommendations for the information of the Governing Body, as well as
continuing to explore modalities for follow-up action on the recommendations
adopted by the Governing Body concerning representations.
(2) Approved the measures proposed on the streamlining of reporting on ratified
Conventions concerning:
(a) thematic grouping for reporting purposes under a six-year cycle for the technical
Conventions with the understanding that the Committee of Experts further
reviews, clarifies and, where appropriate, broadens the criteria for breaking the
reporting cycle with respect to technical Conventions; and
(b) a new report form for simplified reports (Appendix II of GB.334/INS/5).
(3) Decided to continue to explore concrete and practical measures to improve the use of
article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the Constitution, including with the purpose of
1 GB.334/INS/5, para. 21, as amended by the Governing Body.
GB.335/INS/5
34 GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx
enhancing the functions of General Surveys and improving the quality of their
discussion and follow-up.
(4) Instructed the CFA to examine representations referred to it according to the procedures
set out in the Standing Orders for the examination of article 24 representations, to
ensure that representations referred to it be examined according to the modalities set
out in the Standing Orders.
(5) Encouraged the Committee of Experts to pursue the examination of thematically related
issues in consolidated comments; and invites it to make proposals on its possible
contribution to optimizing the use made of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the
Constitution, in particular by considering measures to improve the presentation of
General Surveys, so as to ensure a user-friendly approach and format that maximizes
their value for constituents.
(6) Invited the CAS to consider, through the informal tripartite consultations on its working
methods, measures to enhance its discussion of General Surveys.
(7) Requested the Office to present at its 335th Session (March 2019) following
consultations with the tripartite constituents:
(a) concrete proposals to prepare the discussion on actions 1.2 (regular conversation
between the supervisory bodies) and 2.3 (consideration of further steps to ensure
legal certainty), including, but not limited to, organizing a tripartite exchange of
views in the second semester of 2019 on article 37(2) of the Constitution;
(b) a report on progress towards the development of a guide on established practices
of the supervisory system, bearing in mind the guidance received on action 2.1
(consideration of the codification of the article 26 procedure);
(c) further detailed proposals on the use of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d), of the
Constitution, including in relation to the Annual Review under the Follow-up to
the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work;
(d) a report on progress towards the development of detailed proposals for electronic
accessibility to the supervisory system for constituents (e-reporting, section 2.1 of
GB.332/INS/5(Rev.)) bearing in mind the concerns raised by constituents during
the discussion;
(e) more information on a pilot project for the establishment of baselines for the
Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006
(No. 187) (section 2.2.2.2 of GB.332/INS/5(Rev.)); and
(f) a report on progress towards completing the Standards Initiative workplan as
revised by the Governing Body in March 2017, including information on progress
made with regard to the review and possible further improvements of their
working methods by the supervisory bodies in order to strengthen tripartism,
coherence, transparency and effectiveness.
GB.335/INS/5
GB335-INS_5_[NORME-190116-1]-En.docx 35
Appendix II
Workplan and timetable for Governing Body discussions on the strengthening of the supervisory system
Governing Body, March 2017
Governing Body,
October – November 2017
Governing Body, March 2018
Governing Body,
October –November 2018
Governing Body, March 2019
1.1. Guide on established practices
across the system
First consideration
Decision that Office
develops a guide
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
1.2. Regular conversation between
supervisory bodies
First consideration
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
2.1. Consider codification of the
article 26 procedure
Guidance on possibility of
Standing Orders
Guidance on possibility of
Standing Orders
Guidance on possibility of
Standing Orders
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
2.2. Consider the operation of the
article 24 procedure
Guidance on initial elements Discussion as per guidance Discussion as per guidance Discussion as per guidance
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
2.3. Consider further steps to
ensure legal certainty
Guidance on whether discussion
should proceed
Guidance on whether discussion
should proceed
Guidance on whether discussion
should proceed
Guidance on possible tripartite
exchange of views
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
3.1. Streamline reporting Examination of different options
Examination of options and decision
to computerize case-management
Continuation of examination
of options
Continuation of examination
of options
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
3.2. Information-sharing with
organizations
Regular action by Office
to be continued
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
4.1. Clear supervisory body
recommendations
Integrated in support
provided by Office
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
4.2. Systematized follow-up at
national level
Integrated in support
provided by Office
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
4.3. Consider potential of article 19 Guidance on initial elements First consideration Further guidance Further guidance
Review of implementation of
Standards Initiative
Committee of the Application
of Standards
Committee of Experts
Ongoing discussion of working methods
Focus area 2: Rules and practices
Focus area 1: Relationships between the procedures
Informal tripartite consultation on working methods
Ongoing discussion of working methods
Focus area 4: Reach and implementation
Focus area 3: Reporting and information
Committee on Freedom
of Association
Review by the supervisory procedures of their working methods
Document No. 67
Minutes of the 335th Session of the Governing Body,
March 2019, paras 199-304
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
335th Session, Geneva, 14–28 March 2019
GB.335/PV
Minutes of the 335th Session
of the Governing Body of the
International Labour Office
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 43
Fifth item on the agenda
The Standards Initiative: Overall review
of its implementation
(GB.335/INS/5)
1. General observations on the implementation
of the Standards Initiative – draft decision 84(a)
199. The Worker spokesperson, highlighting the key relevance of progress made regarding the
Standards Initiative, said that her group welcomed the opportunity to evaluate, in a holistic
manner, the progress made in relation to the Standards Review Mechanism (SRM) and the
strengthening of the supervisory system. The ILO was uniquely placed in the UN system as
a result of its normative framework and mandate consisting of standard-setting, ratification,
implementation, supervision, enforcement and technical support. With regard to evaluating
the progress made so far and future developments, equal importance should be given to
various aspects of the Organization’s framework and mandate. Noting the decision from the
334th Session of the Governing Body, the Workers’ group expressed the hope to further
develop the discussion rather than revisit earlier elements that had been discussed
extensively and decided with a great majority at the previous session. Considering that that
was a document providing a comprehensive review of the Standards Initiative and not a
report inviting the Governing Body to consider taking new decisions on strengthening the
supervisory machinery, the document should not have been marked GB.335/INS/5.
200. The Employer spokesperson expressed his group’s disappointment at the late publication of
the document. However, it reflected the progress and the outcomes which had been achieved
by the Standards Initiative. The Standards Initiative process reflected a strong consensus
among ILO constituents to preserve and improve the ILO supervisory system as one of its
main means of action to address its existing limitations and to adapt it to new needs in the
world of work. He said that, on the occasion of the ILO’s Centenary, the supervisory system
was particularly needed to guide member States in various labour and social issues. Efforts
to improve the transparency, balance and relevance of the system in the world of work should
continue through ongoing support to the supervisory mechanism by the Office and
constituents. The Employers supported subparagraph (a).
201. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia recalled
that the objectives of the Standards Initiative were to enhance the relevance of international
labour standards through the SRM and to consolidate tripartite consensus on an authoritative
supervisory system. The Africa group supported the draft decision.
202. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that the countries
in his region had very high rates of ratification of ILO Conventions and were constructive
participants in ILO initiatives. Freedom of expression, freedom of association, collective
bargaining and social dialogue were key components of their labour legislation and policies.
The group of countries that he represented sought to develop solutions to reinvigorate and
consolidate true tripartism, drawing inspiration from the best practices of other multilateral
organizations; to promote transparency and accountability; and to establish a system free
from selectivity and politicization. The fact that most of the cases before the Committee on
Freedom of Association (CFA) came from Latin America and the Caribbean was a source
of grave concern to the members of his group, as it led them to question the efficiency and
effectiveness of the CFA in ensuring respect for freedom of association principles
GB.335/PV
44 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
worldwide. The CFA was not a regional mechanism, and the disproportionate focus on one
region could not be explained solely by the number of complaints coming from the region.
203. The current working methods of the CEACR were at odds with any concept of good
governance and due process and prevented governments from being able to properly prepare
for and participate in its procedures. The introduction of baseline-based report forms,
bringing baseline information on thematically related Conventions together in a single form,
was welcomed, but raised the question whether countries would be asked to report on all
Conventions or only on one of them. The Office should support the implementation of
practical suggestions and gradual changes with a view to improving the supervisory system,
particularly any proposals regarding the CFA and the CAS that were in line with the
approaches put forward by his group in the context of the Standards Initiative. The Office
should consider more robust changes to the system and make every effort to avoid the
duplication of initiatives and procedures, the saturation of the system, and the overburdening
of States brought about by the examination of a single case in the three main supervisory
bodies.
204. A guide consisting of a web-based tool on established practices of the ILO supervisory
procedures was of vital importance and should include at a minimum: the definition of every
supervisory body; the competence of each body; the requirements for the admissibility of
cases; the procedure for the examination of cases; the effects of recommendations; the time
limits for cases; the terms for the examination of cases; and definitions of what was meant
by closed, follow-up and active cases before the CFA. As to the CEACR, he proposed that
the Office review the selection process of the members of the CEACR; increase transparency
in the selection process; establish a tripartite advisory committee to produce a short-list of
proposed experts, which would then be presented to the Governing Body for decision; ensure
geographical and gender balance in the composition of the CEACR; and ask the CEACR to
explain and justify in detail the grounds for breaking the reporting cycle of a certain country
in a certain context. Moreover, the Chairpersons of the CAS and the Government group
should be able to meet with the CEACR at its November meeting, as the social partners
regularly did.
205. The Office should review and improve the criteria for the selection of cases to be examined
by the CAS, with an emphasis on geographical balance and a balance between developed
and developing countries, to ensure that such criteria were clear, objective and impartial, and
the Governing Body should develop standing guidelines on the selection of cases. The Office
should also encourage the use of new technologies to enable the publication, at least 30 days
prior to the opening of the Conference, of the final list of the 24 countries to be examined by
the CAS. Moreover, it should allow the representatives of the relevant governments to take
the floor following the presentation of the proposed conclusions to the cases concerning
them prior to the adoption of such proposals by the CAS. Furthermore, the Chairperson of
the CAS should be involved in the drafting of conclusions to ensure that the justifications
set forth were technical and that priority was given to truly urgent cases. Prior consultations
on the General Survey should also be established following the publication of the report of
the CEACR to enable proper preparation for the Conference.
206. As to the CFA, voluntary mechanisms based on the recommendation of its subcommittee on
working methods should be created to enable the suspension of proceedings so as to permit
conciliation efforts or other measures at the national level emulating the mechanism that had
been adopted for representations submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. The
CFA should also take into consideration structural constraints for addressing complaints at
the local level and encourage the strengthening of mechanisms and the resolution of cases at
the national level. Lastly, with regard to commissions of inquiry, the Office should codify
the article 26 procedure and establish a hierarchy of norms in order to ensure that the
article 26 procedure would be used only as a last resort. The Office should also formalize
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 45
the rule whereby the establishment of a commission of inquiry suspended the actions of other
supervisory mechanisms directly related to the case. In the light of the above, he was not in
a position to support the draft decision and proposed replacing the word “welcomed” with
“took note of” in order to acknowledge both the progress already made and the steps yet to
be taken. It also proposed omitting “which was the result of consensual tripartite decisions”,
as there was no need to refer to a tripartite consensus, since all Governing Body decisions
were based on such consensuses.
207. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States said that her
group welcomed the progress made thus far under the Standards Initiative. The work of the
SRM TWG was well under way, having already reviewed 160 of the 235 international labour
standards included in its initial programme of work. The changes to the reporting cycle and
the institution of an electronic document management system should enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of the supervisory system, and the modifications to the article
24 procedure should strengthen that process and ensure that it was balanced, objective and
rigorous. IMEC commended the commitment of the tripartite partners and the Office to
strengthening and upholding the supervisory system and supported subparagraph (a), as
originally drafted.
208. A representative of the Director-General (Director, NORMES) said that every effort would
be made to ensure the timely publication of Governing Body documents in the future.
209. The Worker spokesperson, referring to the amendment proposed by the Government
representative of Brazil, said that her group considered a tripartite consensus to be a decision
supported by a considerable majority of the Governing Body. The Governing Body had
adopted a decision, with the support of a considerable majority, at the previous session, and
the Workers did not wish to see that consensus challenged in the wording of subparagraph
(a) of the current draft decision or elsewhere.
210. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin American and the Caribbean. He said that a consensus,
regardless of whether it was tripartite, was the absence of explicit dissent. His group was not
in any way challenging the decision adopted by consensus at the previous session of the
Governing Body and simply wished to point out that all Governing Body decisions were
essentially the result of tripartite consensus.
211. The Chairperson said that, given that the Governing Body was engaged in a tripartite
dialogue, it did not seem necessary to mention the word “consensus” every time a decision
was taken.
212. The Worker spokesperson said that she had understood that the Governing Body would
discuss the proposed amendments in detail at the end of the discussion, at which point
members might also discuss the difference between unanimity and consensus. It was
important to the Workers that the Governing Body should build on the consensus that had
been reached at its previous session.
2. Review of the functioning of the Standards
Review Mechanism (paragraphs 6–21)
– draft decision 84(b)
213. The Employer spokesperson said that the SRM TWG had already delivered a major part of
its initial programme of work and may need to determine a new programme of work once it
was completed. Review of standards by the SRM TWG was only the first step in the process
of keeping ILO standards up to date and relevant. SRM TWG decisions should be followed
GB.335/PV
46 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
up by the Office, the Governing Body, the ILC, other ILO tripartite meetings and the
constituents in ILO member States. He noted that the SRM TWG had determined follow-up
to 63 instruments that had previously been determined to be outdated or in need of revision,
and had classified 14 of the 28 standards it had reviewed as either outdated or as requiring
further action to ensure their continued and future relevance. In addition, 34 standards had
been classified as outdated by the Special Tripartite Committee under the MLC, 2006. To
prevent another such “modernization backlog” from recurring in the future, effective
measures should be taken to ensure standards were gradually and continuously modernized
and updated, without losing sight of the needs of the standards system as a whole. He
welcomed the discussion relating to the shape of new standards and processes for their
adoption and revision as an opportunity to concentrate, refocus and ensure that the standards
system was ‘future proofed’. Ratification and implementation of instruments was crucial.
The extent to which the pioneering approach of the MLC, 2006, which appeared to have
facilitated the promotion of ratification, implementation and supervision of standards, could
be adopted in other areas should be explored. In relation to the lessons learned by the SRM
TWG, not every gap in regulation needed to be filled by standards as other rule-making
could be considered. Further, while the new three classification system was welcomed,
eventually “up to date” would be the only classification, as the other two classifications were
temporary. In addition, the Employer group supported the proposal to provide additional
resources for the SRM TWG and its follow up, the bulk of which should be invested in
creating new sustainable standards. Finally, the statement in paragraph 10 of the document
concerning promoting the ratification or implementation of all active standards could not be
correct, as that included outdated standards proposed for abrogation. His group supported
subparagraph (b).
214. The Worker spokesperson said that the tripartite agreement that all standards remained
legally active unless otherwise decided by the Conference confirmed that all active standards
should be promoted, and allowed the SRM TWG review to take place without questioning
the validity of the body of standards. She was satisfied that the SRM TWG was performing
its mandate to identify gaps in coverage that required standard-setting action as well as
practical and time-bound follow-up action in terms of the promotion of the ratification of
up-to-date instruments. While the SRM TWG had succeeded in reaching consensual
tripartite recommendations over its first four sessions, the discussions had not been easy.
The Workers remained concerned about the absence of adequate follow-up action with
respect to addressing identified gaps in standards, as opposed to the swift action taken to
abrogate or withdraw a large number of instruments. The group would assess the success of
its continued engagement in the SRM TWG on the Organization’s capacity to place
proposals for new standards on the Conference agenda and increase ratification rates of
up-to-date standards, especially those replacing older instruments on the same or similar
subjects. When considering whether standards were outdated, it was necessary to take into
account the fact that there was no automatic obligation on member States to ratify revising
Conventions, thereby denouncing older Conventions. Progress in those two critical areas
would allow movement towards a coherent standards policy that aligned standards
supervision, standard-setting and standards review.
215. The Workers were concerned about the risk of repeating a critical weakness of the Cartier
Working Party, namely the failure to galvanize a serious ratification campaign for up-to-date
standards, the ratification rates of which remained dangerously low. Consequently, while the
action taken by the Office to encourage the ratification of such standards was welcome, a
more proactive and ambitious approach was required. Rather than merely writing to member
States, the Office should engage directly through technical assistance and DWCPs.
Increasing ratification rates of relevant standards also required the political commitment
from member States, including the support of the social partners at the national level. She
requested the Office to inform the Governing Body at its future sessions about the impact
and outcome of the campaign, under way in 136 member States, to promote the ratification
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 47
of 17 up-to-date Conventions related to 30 instruments previously identified as outdated.
With respect to new standards, the effectiveness and credibility of the SRM TWG required
a firm commitment from Employers and Governments to follow up on its recommendations.
It was not acceptable for groups to cherry-pick recommendations, after negotiations to reach
tripartite consensus. The establishment of institutional arrangements for the Conference to
follow up on the standard-setting items identified by the SRM TWG remained an important
priority and the Workers hoped that the discussions under way would soon lead to a feasible
solution as to how to prevent a traffic jam while ensuring action to place proposals on the
Conference agenda. A commitment to dealing with the question of how to transfer
ratifications from older to newer instruments was necessary. A key consideration was to
ensure that no gaps in protection resulted from decisions taken by the SRM TWG. At the
previous meeting, the Workers had reluctantly agreed to recommend abrogation dates for
outdated instruments while there continued to be member States bound by them that had not
ratified the related up-to-date Conventions. In the absence of mechanisms to ensure that
up-to-date Conventions would be ratified in the near future, the Workers would closely
monitor the follow-up to recommendations and would want to see effective action to
improve the ratification rate of up-to-date instruments in order to prevent gaps in protection.
Until her group saw that activities to promote ratification bore fruit, it would not agree to
abrogate outdated instruments without ensuring that new instruments were first ratified.
With those remarks, the Workers accepted subparagraph (b).
216. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia
commended the SRM TWG on the new three classification system for standards. He called
for an increase in the number of Government members participating in SRM TWG meetings
and supported continuous improvement of the preparatory process for them, especially the
organizing of information sessions with member States and progress towards more
transparency. The Africa group reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing efforts to ensure
that appropriate working methods and procedures were respected. He supported
subparagraph (b).
217. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. The group of countries that
he represented had consistently supported the efforts of the SRM to modernize and improve
the standards system, which were in line with his group’s own aims in relation to the
standards system. The group had always maintained its commitments in relation to the
recommendations of the SRM TWG. His group would support subparagraph (b) with no
amendments.
218. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States said that the
relationship between the SRM and standard-setting mechanisms must be strengthened, and
she reiterated two main points in that regard. First, the success of the SRM depended not
only on the work within the working group, but also on the implementation of the group’s
recommended practical and time-bound follow-up actions. The discussions of the two option
papers in 2018 on the way forward would continue at the 2019 meeting, and it is critical that
it has conclusive discussions to ensure that follow-up work is timely, effective and
sustainable. This would be crucial for ensuring that the ILO’s body of standards was up to
date without decreasing the level of protection of workers, and taking into consideration the
needs of sustainable enterprises. Second, the outcomes of the SRM should be fully integrated
into the activities of the Office, including when proposing items for inclusion on the agenda
of the Conference as a matter of institutional priority. IMEC invited the Office to continue
its efforts to find ways to ensure concrete and timely follow-up to the SRM TWG
recommendations with regard to standard-setting. IMEC would appreciate further
explanation from the Office regarding the indication, in paragraph 21, that the Governing
Body would be asked to consider the need for additional resources during its 337th Session.
Lastly, IMEC requested confirmation that the report of the fifth meeting of the SRM TWG
GB.335/PV
48 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
would be discussed by the Governing Body at the 337th Session, and that the functioning of
the SRM would be reviewed at the 338th Session. IMEC supported subparagraph (b).
219. Speaking on behalf of ASEAN, a Government representative of Thailand said that his group
applauded the SRM TWG for its vital contribution in ensuring the relevance and
responsiveness of international labour standards and took note of the lessons learned as well
as the remaining challenges. ASEAN looked forward to the review of the functioning of the
SRM TWG in March 2020, and to further reflecting on how the Organization could optimize
the working group’s recommendations in a sustainable and practical manner, and
systematize their follow-up for substantial and meaningful results. He supported
subparagraph (b).
220. A representative of the Director-General (Director, NORMES), responding to the request
for clarification made by IMEC in relation to paragraph 21, said that the Office took
seriously the Governing Body’s insistence on the need for comprehensive and time-bound
follow-up to all SRM-related recommendations. The Office had set up a mechanism to
coordinate the various follow-up actions taken by colleagues in the field and headquarters,
in accordance with the list of necessary follow-up actions that was added to at each
successive meeting. While up until now the follow-up had been financed through existing
resources, the Office planned to present a concrete proposal with respect to resources to the
Governing Body at its 337th Session to ensure the continued quality of its follow-up to the
SRM TWG recommendations.
3. Workplan to strengthen the supervisory system
– draft decision 84(c)
3.1. Relationships between procedures (paragraphs 30–37)
– draft decision 84(d) and (e)
221. The Worker spokesperson said that the emphasis in paragraph 24 on the role of the
supervisory system in giving effect to the ILO founding values and constitutional objectives
was welcome. The Workers would prefer the guide on established practices across the
supervisory system to be descriptive and to help improve the transparency of and
accessibility to the existing system. The guide itself must not become a vehicle for
introducing changes to current practices. Collaboration with the ITC–ILO on the
development of the Guide was welcome. The Workers remained opposed to regular
meetings of the supervisory bodies, which would undermine the independence of those
bodies, thereby weakening them. However, in line with the Joint Position of the Workers’
and Employers’ groups on the ILO Supervisory Mechanism (13 March 2017), her group
supported the presentation by the CFA of the first annual report by its Chairperson to the
CAS in 2019. She supported subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e).
222. The Employer spokesperson said that, while the proposed guiding principles for the
supervisory system presented at the start of the current session had been rather abstract and
vague, all constituents agreed that the supervisory system must be transparent, protect
workers, take into account the needs of sustainable enterprises to flourish and create jobs,
and be flexible enough to adapt to the changing world of work. It would be desirable to make
the guide on established practices across the supervisory system available, as an electronic
tool, before the Centenary Session of the Conference. It should be regularly updated and not
taken as a pretext for ceasing efforts to remedy identified shortcomings in the supervisory
procedures. The Employers took it that the invitation to the Chairperson of the CFA by the
CAS would operate in line with the March 2017 Joint Position of the Workers’ and
Employers’ groups that required a proper clarification of the role and mandate of the CFA.
The CFA did not have the competence to make interpretations of ratified Conventions and
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 49
had no supervisory function. Its mandate, as clarified in its first annual report and in the
introduction of the new compilation of decisions, should be recalled when its Chairperson
was introduced to the CAS to present its annual report. He welcomed the fact that the
CEACR had begun systematically examining, in its observations, the follow-up given to the
conclusions of cases discussed by the CAS. He urged the Office to ensure that the CEACR
fully accepted the CAS’s findings, interpretations and conclusions as a basis for its own
examinations and observations. In order to facilitate such exchanges between the two
Committees, the Office could provide electronic platforms or other channels. The Employers
supported subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e).
223. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia said that
his group welcomed the proposal for a regular conversation between the supervisory bodies
but would like clarification of when the annual report of the CFA would be submitted and
of the role that the report would play in the examination of the implementation of ratified
Conventions by the CAS. His group supported subparagraphs (d) and (e) of the draft
decision.
224. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He reiterated the
importance of the guide on established practices across the system and proposed two
amendments to subparagraph (c) of the draft decision. Firstly, the word “welcomed” should
be replaced by “noted” because, in the view of a significant majority of governments from
Latin America and the Caribbean, the progress made in strengthening the supervisory system
was insufficient. Secondly, the phrase “and confirmed at its 337th Session” should be added
to the end of the sentence to ensure that the Governing Body re-examined the workplan at
its next session.
225. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States said that her
group supported subparagraph (c) of the draft decision. She also noted it is unclear what
material was encompassed in subparagraph (d) and requested clarification before adopting.
IMEC supported the proposed timeline for providing feedback on the guide on established
practices and welcomed information on how it could be accessed during the consultation
phase. Her group looked forward to the report from the Office on the guide’s delivery at the
next session of the Governing Body and agreed that the conversation on the codification of
the article 26 procedure could be taken up in March 2020, after the review of the guide had
been completed.
226. Her group had supported more regular exchanges between the supervisory bodies, insofar as
they would advance the objective of greater coherence across the supervisory system. IMEC
appreciated that the proposed annual meeting had not been pursued due to concerns of
incurring additional expenses and yielding little utility. She requested further information on
the genesis of the invitation extended to the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the
CAS to meet the CEACR at a special session held for that purpose and asked why the
Chairperson and Reporter of the CAS were not also invited. Her group welcomed the
proposal to invite the Chairperson of the CFA to present the CFA’s annual report to the CAS
and supported subparagraph (e) of the draft decision. She also requested clarification on
whether the Governing Body could extend the invitation to the CFA Chairperson, as drafted,
or whether it must be extended by the CAS itself. In the case of the latter, the Office may
wish to propose an amendment to subparagraph (e).
227. Speaking on behalf of ASEAN, a Government representative of Thailand said that his
comments related to focus areas 1, 2 and 3. His group commended the ongoing
improvements to the supervisory system, including efforts to make it more accessible by
means of the guide on established practices. However, the guide should not replace regular
training and knowledge dissemination at the national level. He reiterated his group’s call for
GB.335/PV
50 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
an independent body under article 37 of the ILO Constitution and its support for the proposed
informal tripartite exchange of views. The outcomes and proposals of that exchange
regarding the establishment of a tribunal should be submitted to the Governing Body by its
March 2020 session.
228. His group welcomed the new reporting arrangements, which promised to improve
operational clarity and reduce the heavy reporting burden on member States. Nevertheless,
regular and accessible training on the online platform should be provided to tripartite
constituents at the national level. His group welcomed the pilot project on establishing
baselines for the article 22 reporting process, which would complement other changes
introduced to streamline reporting. After the pilot project had concluded, it should be
evaluated to examine which information had been made public and how it had been used so
as to reach a decision on extending the project to other ILO standards.
229. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that the words “and
also invited the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards to meet with the Subcommittee on Working Methods of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at its
November–December meetings of 2019 and 2020” should be added to the end of
subparagraph (e) of the draft decision. Paragraph 36 of the document revealed that the
Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the CAS were invited to meet the CEACR to
discuss issues of common interest within the framework of a special session held for that
purpose; the Chairperson of the CAS should also be invited to the same or similar sessions
to afford governments the same opportunity.
230. The Worker spokesperson said that the mandate of the CFA included Conventions as well
as principles on freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining. This was clarified in the annex to the Compilation of decisions of the Committee
on Freedom of Association, the entirety of which had been approved by all three groups of
constituents and which contained references to Conventions throughout. It was also
expressed in the International Labour Conference Resolution of 1970 concerning trade union
rights and their relation to civil liberties. The communication between the Employer and
Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the CAS and the CEACR focused on improving
communication between the two bodies, rather than methodology or content.
231. A representative of the Director-General (Director, NORMES) said that Governing Body
members would receive a password enabling them to access the draft guide by 15 April 2019
and would have one month to provide feedback. The Office aimed to finalize the guide by
the 108th Session (2019) of the Conference, although that would depend on the feedback
received. The second annual report of the CFA would be released the week following the
current session of the Governing Body and would provide non-country-specific statistical
data on its work over the previous year. Subparagraph (d) of the draft decision was intended
to summarize the Governing Body’s previous discussions and decisions on elements of the
workplan.
232. It was true that the CAS retained authority over its agenda and programme of work; the word
“invited” in subparagraph (e) of the draft decision should therefore be replaced by “proposed
that the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) consider inviting the
Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association ...”. The Office was certainly
willing to follow up on the Government representative of Brazil’s suggestion of holding
consultations on the General Survey to enable proper preparation for the Conference. As to
why the Worker and Employer Vice-Chairpersons of the CAS were invited to the special
session of the CEACR but a Government representative was not, it was perhaps to ensure
continuity, although more investigation into the matter was required.
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 51
233. The Employer spokesperson said that his group had never agreed to the Worker
spokesperson’s interpretation of the CFA’s mandate. His group could therefore no longer
support subparagraph (e) of the draft decision, and CFA members should discuss the matter
outside the Governing Body.
234. The Worker spokesperson reiterated that her interpretation of the CFA mandate was based
on the Compilation, which had been drafted and agreed upon by all three groups of
constituents. Any discussion on that point should take place during plenary sessions of the
Governing Body.
235. The Employer spokesperson said that his group’s agreement that the Chairperson of the CFA
should be invited to the CAS was predicated on the CFA having a clear mandate. As that
was no longer the case, the Employer representatives in the CFA needed further
consultations so as to clarify the situation for the Governing Body.
236. The Worker spokesperson said that she had made her point about the CFA’s mandate in
plenary so as to involve all parties in the discussion. Subparagraph (e) of the draft decision
related only to the presentation of the CFA’s annual report to the CAS, as agreed by tripartite
consensus the previous November.
237. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that it was
important that the mandate of each body was legally and politically clear. His group would
support discussions outside the Governing Body to reach a compromise on the issue,
provided that they were tripartite.
3.2. Rules and practices (paragraphs 38–50)
– draft decision 84(d), (f) and (g)
238. The Worker spokesperson said that the Governing Body could return to the discussion of a
codification of the article 26 procedure if the guide on established practices proved to be
insufficient. However, she doubted whether codifying the procedure would improve its
efficiency. The real challenge it faced was that reaching a consensus for the establishment
of a commission of inquiry took a long time and was often impossible, even in serious cases.
239. With regard to the article 24 procedure, her group would be closely monitoring the
suspension of the examination of the merits of representations in order to seek conciliation
at the national level, a measure that would be reviewed after a two-year trial period, to ensure
that it did not create further delays in the procedure. She emphasized the need to maintain a
coherent interpretation of Conventions relating to freedom of association and its related
principles. She would like to know whether the Office planned to explore the other measures
mentioned in paragraph 43(g) of the Office report.
240. Her group supported the proposal to hold informal tripartite consultations on the elements
and conditions necessary for the operation of an independent body under article 37(2) of the
ILO Constitution. It was important that those discussions should enable the ILO to improve
legal certainty with regard to the interpretation of Conventions, especially when it came to
fundamental issues. The questions proposed in paragraph 49 required revision. Question (1),
rather than asking about the number of instances of significant disagreements on major issues
of interpretation, should focus on when an independent body under article 37(2) might be
invoked. The Workers would appreciate an explanation of what was meant by “the existing
ILO internal machinery for handling questions relating to the interpretation” in question (3).
Her group had concerns related to question (4) and was strongly opposed to any measures
that could affect the integrity of the current supervisory bodies. Question (5) required
revision as the Constitution already made it clear what the possible alternatives to
GB.335/PV
52 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
establishing a tribunal were, notably article 37(1). With regard to question (6), she believed
that the pros and cons would become clear after the other questions had been answered. The
answer to question (7) also depended on the answers to the other questions, including
question (8). The questions should therefore be reordered. Tripartite consultations on that
issue should first examine the procedures that could be established under article 37(2) and
then consider the cost of those procedures. Potential costs should neither be overestimated,
nor be the primary consideration.
241. With regard to the parameters of a possible tripartite exchange of views on legal certainty,
the Workers believed that the Office document should focus on the necessary elements for
the operation of an independent body under article 37(2), rather than on other possible
solutions. It was necessary to fully explore options under articles 37(1) and (2) before
considering other suggestions. The informal consultations on those issues should be held
after the 336th Session of the Governing Body in order to allow time for discussion of the
issues within the group.
242. The Employer spokesperson reiterated his group’s support for a staged approach to the
codification of the article 26 procedure. A codification should be considered only if the
clarification of the rules and practices in the guide was insufficient and if it was guaranteed
that a codification would not restrict the existing flexibility of the procedure. His group
appreciated the efforts to improve the article 24 procedure.
243. His group supported the proposal to hold informal tripartite consultations on the issue of
legal certainty in October 2019, and agreed with the content and the order of the questions
set out in paragraph 49 as the basis for the consultations. It was important to address the
issue in a comprehensive manner, considering all options and not limiting the discussion to
article 37(2). The Office document and the related consultations should focus on consensusbased
options. The Office should explore approaches to address possible disagreements
regarding the interpretation of Conventions before they developed into major controversies.
The ILO constituents had the primary responsibility for the functioning of the standards
supervisory system. Related decisions should not be easily outsourced to a new body, as
would be the case if the chosen option were article 37(2). Nevertheless, the Employers were
keen to engage in discussions regarding all possible options. The Employers supported
subparagraphs (d), (f) and (g) of the draft decision.
244. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that article 26 was
a key provision of the Constitution and should be seen as the last resort procedure of the
supervisory system and as superior to article 24. Such an important provision of the
Constitution should be regulated and rely on Standing Orders. More detailed proposals
should therefore be developed on how a greater level of legal certainty could be enjoyed in
respect of the procedure. He proposed that the words “further information” should be
replaced by “detailed proposals” in subparagraph (f).
245. Noting that it was unnecessary and premature to refer to the specifics before the tripartite
consultations had taken place, he proposed the deletion of certain references from
subparagraph (g), so that it would read: “with respect to the proposal to consider further steps
to ensure legal certainty, decided to hold informal consultations in October 2019 and, to
facilitate that tripartite exchange of views, requested the Office to prepare a paper on
article 37(2) and other consensus-based options”.
246. In the light of the comments made by the Worker spokesperson, he emphasized that the cost
of establishing a body under article 37(2) should be considered before discussing the
consequences of its establishment.
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 53
247. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia reiterated
his group’s support for subparagraph (d) of the draft decision. In addition, his group
supported the amendments proposed by the Government representative of Brazil to
subparagraphs (f) and (g).
248. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States noted that
her group was in favour of a staged approach to the codification of the article 26 procedure
and expressed support for subparagraph (f). IMEC welcomed the decision to modify certain
aspects of the article 24 procedure on a trial basis. With regard to future steps to ensure legal
certainty, IMEC found the questions proposed to be addressed in the Office’s background
paper for the informal consultations later in the year to be generally appropriate. The
document prepared by the Office to guide the consultations must include information on
costs, the anticipated workload for such a tribunal, an analysis of its limitations and possible
alternatives to be explored. It was important not to pre-empt the outcome of the discussion.
Information should also be included on the article 37(2) and 37(1) procedures, including
regarding how article 37(1) would work if activated, the options for requesting an opinion
and the procedure for obtaining a decision. Participants in the consultations should be able
to assess the procedure under article 37(2) in terms of its comparative advantages over the
procedure under article 37(1). Her group therefore proposed that the following words should
be added at the end of subparagraph (g): “as well as the article 37(1) procedure”.
3.3. Reporting and information (paragraphs 51–55)
– draft decision 84(d)
249. The Employer spokesperson supported the measures proposed for the streamlining of
reporting, particularly regarding electronic and online reporting. He welcomed the CEACR’s
proposed criteria for breaking its cycle of review when receiving comments from workers’
or employers’ organizations. It was important that observations from the social partners were
used to assess compliance with technical Conventions. The CEACR’s new practice of
addressing in a consolidated manner the issues of application arising under various related
Conventions would help avoid repetitive comments. While the Employers supported that
approach in principle, they would like to highlight that the underlying reason for repetitive
comments was the existence of overlapping provisions in the Conventions. The
consolidation of Conventions on related subjects should therefore be considered.
250. It was unacceptable that the examination of reports received by the deadline could be
deferred for reasons such as the need for translation into the ILO working languages. If more
time was needed for translation, either the deadline should be extended, or the resources for
translation should be increased to avoid deferral.
251. His group would like more information regarding the proposed establishment of baselinebased
reporting, including the concrete benefits of such a procedure.
252. The Employers wondered how compliant practices would be established and whether any
practice that had not been addressed in a comment by the CEACR would be considered to
be compliant.
253. The Employers requested the Office to provide specific information more regularly to the
Governing Body on information sharing and cooperation with other international
organizations, particularly on the objectives and outcomes of such cooperation with regard
to standards-related work. His group would also like more information relating to the
implications of the reform of the UNDS for the ILO’s normative and supervisory work. The
Employers supported subparagraph (d).
GB.335/PV
54 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
254. The Worker spokesperson said that her group supported greater thematic coherence in
reporting but cautioned against blurring the distinct obligations of the member States under
the various Conventions. More transparency with regard to the reasons for the deferral of
examination of reports would increase the credibility of the work of the CEACR. The
Workers would like to see an example of the model electronic article 22 baseline report and
would like to know how it would be shared with the social partners and the governments for
validation purposes. The Workers supported subparagraph (d).
255. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia requested
the Office to provide feedback to the Governing Body at its 337th Session on the
effectiveness of urgent appeals. The practice of urgent appeals must not replace the reporting
obligations of member States. The CEACR must note with regret a member State’s failure
to submit a report in the first year. His group called upon the Office to systematically enhance
technical cooperation in order to ensure the effective and timely compliance of governments
with their reporting obligations. He reiterated his group’s support for subparagraph (d).
256. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He supported
subparagraph (d).
257. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States requested
the Office to provide additional, specific information with regard to Focus Area 3 and
reiterated its request for clarification of all the timelines set out in paragraph 84(d). Recalling
reservations expressed about electronic reporting, her group reiterated its interest to
participate in electronic reporting trials and remained willing to take an active role in
ensuring that the system was fit for purpose with the expectation that there will be ample
opportunities to provide feedback. Her group also advised that the pilot for article 22
baselines should be carefully considered as the initiative develops. IMEC would also like
clarification regarding the government validation process for article 22 baselines and
whether the process would take place each time a baseline was updated. With regard to
information sharing with other international organizations, the ILO should give priority to
raising awareness and understanding of its normative work throughout the UN reform
process. Her group looked forward to updates in that regard.
258. A representative of the Director-General (Director, NORMES) said that in phase 1 of pilot
testing of the e-reporting system, the Office would establish a baseline report using
information previously submitted by the government and the social partners, and information
examined by the CEACR. The baseline report would then be transmitted to the government
for validation and updating, and the social partners would be invited to provide their
comments. The procedure would be followed only within a reporting year; it was not an
additional reporting exercise. The pilot currently involved six member States due to report
in 2019 on the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention,
2006 (No. 187). The lessons learned from the pilot phase would be presented in 2020, and
any expansion of the procedure would be prepared so that it would take place from 2021.
The procedure would reduce the reporting burden on all parties and facilitate the sharing and
comparing of compliant practices, namely practices that had not been identified by the
Committee of Experts as non-compliant.
259. The Office would heed the calls for more details on information-sharing with other
organizations. Increased visibility and understanding of the ILO’s normative work was
important in view of the coordination of UN work at the country level by resident
coordinators. The Office would follow up on the request from the Africa group for technical
assistance on reporting.
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 55
3.4. Reach and implementation (paragraphs 56–70)
– draft decision 84(d)
260. The Worker spokesperson sought assurances as to how the ILO would continue to service
the supervisory system even if standards-related aspects were not reflected as priorities in
the UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs), and pursue DWCPs that allowed
for broader ILO activities at the country level. On the establishment of ILO country offices
and development cooperation projects, the reference in the UN General Assembly resolution
to UN norms and standards should ensure that the normative role of the ILO was recognized,
but it would be important to see how that worked in practice. With regard to UN resident
coordinators, guarantees were needed that ILO standards and the recommendations of the
supervisory system would be adequately reflected in country-level priorities. It was to be
hoped that systematized follow-up at the national level on recommendations of the
supervisory system would lead to increased ratification rates for Conventions.
261. Her group welcomed the proposals to make better use of article 19. Possible follow-up
through article 19 could be one of the criteria for the choice of instruments to be reviewed
by the SRM TWG. However, the SRM TWG may consider it more appropriate to review
instruments following a General Survey, thus the sequence in table 5 would not necessarily
apply in all cases. It was unclear whether follow-up on the implementation of
recommendations under article 19 would be in addition to the instruments selected for
General Surveys. The proposal for the Office to promote denunciations in the context of
follow-up to the SRM TWG was a cause of serious concern, unless those were automatic
denunciations linked to the ratification of up-to-date ILO instruments. No longer using the
General Survey to identify new standards, as indicated in table 5, would defeat one main
purpose of the General Survey, and thus required careful consideration.
262. With respect to the annual reviews, the 2017 Conference resolution concerning the second
recurrent discussion on fundamental principles and rights at work contained a commitment
to assess more fully the efforts made by Members that had not yet ratified the fundamental
Conventions and the Protocol, thus permitting the identification of areas for technical
assistance. The Organization should therefore not focus solely on making follow-up more
accessible and visible, and instead aim to increase ratification levels. She supported
subparagraph (d) of the draft decision.
263. The Employer spokesperson said that clear recommendations from the CEACR would help
governments to take appropriate remedial measures and improve compliance. A balance was
needed, however, between preciseness and the inherent flexibility of provisions of the
Conventions, for example allowing governments to choose the most appropriate course of
action for their situation. A standardized structure and terminology for the CEACR could
also help improve clarity.
264. The Employers acknowledged that the Office was piloting a strategic approach to promoting
standards in ILO interventions in several countries, but stressed the need to promote a proper
pre-ratification process that included full consultation with the social partners. Member
States should be assisted, where necessary, in determining the extent to which ratification
would meet the country’s needs and priorities in labour and social policy, and countries’
abilities to implement and meet their reporting obligations for a Convention should be taken
into account.
265. As to the design, preparation and discussion of General Surveys and their follow-up, the
Employers reiterated their support for the measures that had received tripartite consensus.
The Office should focus on obtaining complete and meaningful reports from as many
governments as possible and encouraging social partners to contribute. Where no
information was provided by governments, the Office should attempt to obtain relevant
GB.335/PV
56 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
information from other reliable sources. Representative conclusions and assessments could
be made only when complete information from member States was available, and only then
could a solid basis be provided for targeted follow-up actions. In view of the wide acceptance
by governments of online reporting on the annual follow-up to the Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Office should explore further measures to
facilitate reporting. The Employers supported subparagraph (d).
266. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia
commended member States that had submitted online reports on the follow-up to the
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. However, as response rates were
low overall, he urged member States to honour their reporting obligations. The Africa group
supported subparagraph (d).
267. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He emphasized the
importance of clarity in the supervisory bodies’ recommendations and proposed that the
Government group should be included in discussions on producing more user-friendly,
precise and concise comments. His group supported subparagraph (d).
268. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States requested
clarification as to whether the Office was proposing a new report on follow-up to the
recommendations of the SRM TWG in addition to that requested to generate the General
Survey, noting that the 2016 Conference resolution on advancing social justice through
decent work had stated that the reporting obligations of member States should not be
increased.
3.5. Review by the supervisory bodies of their working
methods (paragraphs 71–83) – draft decision 84(h)
269. The Employer spokesperson highlighted that there should be an ongoing review and
improvement of the working methods of the supervisory bodies, and noted that the structure
of future CAS reports would be discussed in informal tripartite consultations. Efforts by the
CEACR to consider proposals on improving their reports were appreciated, as was the
extension of criteria to break the review cycle when comments from employers’ and
workers’ organizations were received outside the reporting year.
270. Concerning the CFA, he welcomed efforts to improve efficiency and transparency. It should
be noted that representations under article 24 relating to freedom of association and
collective bargaining were not automatically referred to the CFA. If referred, they should be
treated by the CFA under the article 24 rules, not those of the CFA, meaning that article 24
representations referred to the CFA were considered by an ad hoc committee composed of
three members of the CFA. Article 24 representations should not be assigned a case number,
to maintain a distinction between them and CFA cases. The Employers supported
subparagraph (h).
271. The Worker spokesperson said that, during informal consultations, all constituents had
supported the production of a verbatim report for the CAS. However, her group was against
separating the conclusions from the debate, as they were brief and required the context of
the related discussion to be understood. The swift response of the CEACR to the
observations received from employers’ and workers’ organizations outside a reporting year
was welcome, providing an essential safeguard for the extension of the reporting cycle.
272. She welcomed the compilation of decisions of the CFA and the annual report for submission
to the CAS. The Workers strongly supported the holding of a high-level event on freedom
of association and collective bargaining during the Conference, which should involve an
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 57
exchange of views on enhancing ratification and implementation rates of Conventions
Nos 87 and 98. She asked whether the Office had followed up on the proposal to use the
Centenary year to hold regional and national conversations on promoting freedom of
association and collective bargaining. The Workers’ group supported subparagraph (h).
273. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia encouraged
the continued improvement of the working methods of the supervisory bodies and therefore
supported subparagraph (h).
274. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He noted the concerns in
relation to working methods previously raised by his group. He had no amendments to
subparagraph (h); however, as it did not fully develop the ideas considered during
consultations and discussions on the review of the Standards Initiative, he proposed the
addition of four subparagraphs:
(i) instructed the CFA to include in its working methods the possibility of a suspension of
the consideration of the merits of a case in order to address the allegations by seeking
conciliation or other measures at the national level for a period of six months, and
requested the CFA to provide it with detailed information in that regard for review in
March 2020;
(j) requested the Office to present to the Governing Body detailed proposals regarding a
review of the receivability criteria of CFA complaints for consideration in March 2020;
(k) requested the Office to present to the Governing Body detailed proposals for
consideration in March 2020 on bringing forward the publication of lists of cases
regarding which information is requested from governments at the ILC Committee on
the Application of Standards;
(l) requested the Office to undertake inclusive tripartite consultations with a view to
reviewing the working methods of the supervisory system for consideration in its
October–November 2020 session.
275. Subparagraph (i) proposed a suspension of the consideration of merits of a case, in the same
way as for representations under article 24, which could be introduced initially for a trial
period; the aim was to strengthen national procedures and bodies and avoid overloading the
CFA. Subparagraph (j) referred to a review by the Governing Body of the receivability
criteria, which would provide instructions or guidance to the CFA. Subparagraph (k) aimed
to give governments more time to provide information on specific cases; use of technology
should also be considered to allow groups to agree on the list of cases prior to attending the
Conference. Subparagraph (l) addressed the need for a more structured discussion of the
working methods of the supervisory system.
276. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States expressed
appreciation for the supervisory bodies’ review of their working methods and the resultant
improved efficiency and effectiveness. IMEC supported subparagraph (h).
277. The Worker spokesperson recalled that the Governing Body had adopted a decision on INS/5
at its 334th Session (October–November 2018) after difficult but fruitful discussions and she
had understood that constituents were ready to evaluate the implementation of the Standards
Initiative rather than reopen discussions on it. Regarding proposed new subparagraph (i), the
Governing Body had agreed to conduct a pilot study on the article 24 procedure, and it would
not be helpful to establish a further pilot study on the CFA before the first was complete. As
to (j) and (k), the compromise made by the Governing Body was to proceed on the basis of
GB.335/PV
58 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
its November 2018 decision. The intention of (l) was apparently to revisit the inclusive
tripartite discussions of recent years and the agreed programme of work. It was inevitable
that further improvements to the supervisory system would be needed in future, but the
original draft decision reflected the route to be taken as agreed at the 334th Session of the
Governing Body. The only outstanding aspect had been the potential application of
article 37(2) of the Constitution in the event of major disagreement. Her group supported the
original draft decision with the amendment to subparagraph (g) proposed by IMEC.
278. The Employer spokesperson said that an ongoing review process was clearly necessary for
continuous improvement, and requested time to consult with his group on the proposed new
subparagraphs.
279. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He sought the Workers’
group’s views on his proposed amendments to subparagraphs (a), (f) and (g), which had been
supported by the Africa group. The amendment to subparagraph (c) was a governance issue.
The group of governments he represented were serious about their responsibility to ensure
that the supervisory system was up to date and able to address present and future challenges
in the world of work. The proposed amendments had been considered carefully and he would
welcome careful consideration from the Governing Body. He recalled that countries in his
group were the subject of 80 per cent of cases before the CFA.
280. A Government representative of China said that he understood the position of the significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean, as cases had also been
brought to the CFA in reference to his country. It was important to constantly work on
improvements.
281. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States said that her
group had considered the proposed amendments and supported the original draft decision
with her group’s amendment to subparagraph (g), on the understanding that it referred to a
review of progress to date rather than an opportunity to reopen discussions on the matter. As
the Office had clarified that subparagraph (d) referred to the approach already approved, her
group could endorse it.
282. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He stressed that he was not
suggesting that any previously agreed decisions should be reopened, but that the Governing
Body should discuss how to improve the system in the future and address the long-standing
concerns raised by his group at sessions of the Governing Body and the CAS.
283. The Worker spokesperson clarified that the only amendment accepted by the Workers’ group
was IMEC’s proposed amendment to subparagraph (g). Her group took the concerns of the
other groups seriously. The concerns about the working methods of the supervisory system
had been addressed in bipartite agreements between the Employers’ and Workers’ groups in
2015 and 2017 and in all tripartite discussions; decisions on the Standards Initiative had been
made on the basis of extensive tripartite consultations since 2012, with agreements in 2015,
2017 and 2018. It was time to move forward on the basis of those agreements.
284. The Employer spokesperson expressed his group’s desire to complete the discussion at the
current session, but requested time to consider the proposed amendments.
285. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia said that
the Governing Body could not endlessly pursue perfection. After some time for reflection,
the groups should find consensus.
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 59
286. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that countries in
his region had engaged in efforts to strengthen the supervisory system and contributed
consistently to the SRM. The amendment to the draft decision that they had presented the
previous week sought to further improve the system, which played a fundamental role in the
world of work. While progress had been made, there was always room for further
improvement, in particular with regard to working methods of the supervisory bodies, and
some important topics deserved further consideration. In that light, he put forward a set of
revised amendments that did not ask the Governing Body to make any definitive decisions
but, instead, requested that the working methods of the supervisory system be put on the
agendas of the independent bodies so that they could review the proposals. The revised
amendments also called for further discussion on certain topics.
287. He proposed replacing the words “took note of progress” in subparagraph (a) of the draft
decision with the words “welcomed the efforts of all constituents and the Office towards the
progress” and ending the subparagraph after the words “supervisory system”, as the
reference to consensual tripartite decisions was superfluous. Taking account of views
expressed, he proposed replacing the word “welcomed” with the word “recognized”, rather
than “noted” in subparagraph (c). He further proposed adding the words “and confirmed in
its 337th Session” to the end of the subparagraph. The workplan should be carefully
considered and an agenda of discussions established for further progress as the workplan
embodied an ongoing process, not a one-time decision.
288. The document referred to a special session of the Committee of Experts to which the
Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee on the Application
of Standards were invited. Since there was no voice from the Government bench at that
session and since governments would ultimately be responsible for implementing the
recommendations of the supervisory bodies, arrangements should be made for their
participation.
289. In respect of subparagraph (e), he proposed further amending the words following the date
“2019” to read “and also invited the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) to welcome the Chairperson of the
Government group and the Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee on the Application of
Standards to the CEACR’s special sittings of 2019 and 2020”. In subparagraph (f), the words
“further information” should be replaced by the words “further proposals”, rather than the
“detailed proposals” previously suggested. In subparagraph (g), he withdrew the first part of
his earlier proposed amendment but continued to request the deletion of the words “of any”.
290. He proposed adding new subparagraphs (i) and (j), which would address the working
methods of the CFA and the CAS. Again, the Governing Body would not make any
substantive decisions but would call on those bodies to review certain aspects of their
working methods and leave the door open for future discussion. Proposed new
subparagraph (i) would read: “(i) encouraged further progress of the subcommittee on
working methods of the CFA, including through the consideration of receivability criteria
and other possible measures in order to address the allegations of complaints at the national
level”.
291. Proposed new subparagraph (j) would include more options in the consultations on the
working methods of the CAS, as his region had requested on a number of previous occasions,
and would read: “(j) invited the informal consultations on the CAS working methods to
consider information and technical options, to be prepared by the Office, on the possibility
of anticipating the publication of the definitive and the preliminary lists of cases regarding
which information is requested from governments at the ILC Committee on the Application
of Standards.”
GB.335/PV
60 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
292. He recalled that, at the previous session of the Conference, the governments he represented
had indicated that they did not agree with the working methods adopted by the CAS.
Therefore, he requested the Governing Body to take account of that statement and the
concerns that had been raised. It was important to strengthen the supervisory system to
ensure that it was prepared to face the transformations, opportunities and challenges of the
world of work.
293. The Worker spokesperson said that while she appreciated the commitment of governments
in Latin America and the Caribbean to strengthening the supervisory system, she preferred
the original text of the draft decision. However, she would be prepared to accept the
inclusion, proposed by IMEC, of the words “as well as the article 37(1) procedure” at the
end of subparagraph (g) if there was consensus. Furthermore, since her group wished to
prepare for the proposed informal consultations during the 337th Session of the Governing
Body, she reiterated her request to change the date of those consultations to late
January 2020.
294. The Employer spokesperson said that although he wanted his previous comments with regard
to subparagraph (e) to remain on the record, he would be prepared to support the adoption
of the subparagraph as amended. With regard to subparagraph (g), he agreed with the change
of date of the proposed informal consultations to January and supported the amendment
proposed by IMEC. Having reflected and consulted on a number of other matters, his group
agreed that work should be ongoing and would prefer not to further amend the draft decision
for the time being. The Employers would work with GRULAC to ensure that the necessary
improvements would be made as the need for them arose.
295. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Namibia said that
he supported the amendments proposed by the significant majority of governments from
Latin America and the Caribbean to subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g), and the original
text of subparagraphs (d) and (e). With regard to proposed new subparagraphs (i) and (j), the
consideration of receivability criteria and other possible measures to address the allegation
of complaints at the national level, as well as the advance publication of cases, were matters
that should be addressed in the context of subparagraph (h). The CAS, Committee of Experts
and the CFA should continue to explore new proposals in order to improve their working
methods. The Africa group supported the text of subparagraph (h) as drafted by the Office.
296. Speaking on behalf of ASPAG, a Government representative of Australia said that since the
Standards Initiative was complex, it was crucial to maintain momentum by following the
steps set out in the agreed workplan. It was also important to ensure that the Governing Body
had sufficient time to consider any new proposals for substantive reform before they were
discussed.
297. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of Canada reiterated her group’s
support for the original draft decision, with the small amendment to subparagraph (g) that
she had previously proposed. IMEC supported the workplan as previously decided upon by
the Governing Body and was reluctant to introduce new proposals without having fully
considered their merits and implications. Several of the new proposals concerned matters
that could be, and in some cases already were being, discussed in the context of the
supervisory bodies’ informal review of their working methods. As highlighted in
subparagraph (h) of the draft decision, IMEC would encourage the CAS, the CEACR and
the CFA to continue their regular consideration of their working methods, taking into
account the views and concerns expressed by all tripartite constituents. Understanding that
views differed on the level of progress achieved under the Standards Initiative, IMEC would
be open to accepting the amendments proposed to subparagraph (a) by the significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as their proposal to
replace the word “welcomed” with the word “recognized” in subparagraph (c). With regard
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 61
to the timing of the informal consultations on the operation of article 37(2), IMEC was
willing to be flexible about the date.
298. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that he valued the
support of the Africa group and urged the Office to consider the views of both regions, given
that both regions were under the constant purview of the supervisory mechanisms.
Furthermore, he highlighted that the workplan contained in Appendix II of the document
ended in March 2019, noting that there appeared to be no agreed workplan for the future. He
proposed that the Governing Body should review the workplan in November once it had
been revised by the Office. He took account of the views expressed by the Workers’ and
Employers’ groups and said that he had no issue with adjusting the date for informal
consultations in subparagraph (g); he also accepted the IMEC proposal to include a reference
to the article 37(1) procedure in subparagraph (g). He requested further information on
whether the Office intended to put the ideas relating to working methods contained in
proposed new subparagraphs (i) and (j) to the CFA and the CAS.
299. The Worker spokesperson, drawing attention to subparagraphs (c) and (g) of the draft
decision and the workplan contained in Appendix II of the document, said that the Standards
Initiative required the Governing Body to conduct an evaluation in March 2019, whereas the
Governing Body was proposing to hold that consultation at the end of 2019 or in
January 2020. There seemed to be consensus in the Governing Body to build on the progress
made so far. In the spirit of compromise, the Workers would join IMEC in accepting the
amendment to subparagraph (a).
300. A representative of the Director-General (Director, NORMES) said that the workplan was
designed to provide a visual representation of work completed to date. A new workplan
would be developed on the basis of the decisions taken by the Governing Body and its
implementation would continue, in line with subparagraph (c) of the draft decision. Under
the workplan, discussions on working methods were ongoing in all three of the supervisory
bodies, and would continue. The Office had informed the supervisory bodies of the
Governing Body’s guidance, and would continue to do so; the supervisory bodies took action
on the basis of that guidance, which was also taken into consideration in the discussions on
working methods.
301. Speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, a Government representative of
Romania said that he concurred with the comments made by the Worker spokesperson and
supported the amendment proposed by IMEC to the draft decision.
302. The Employer spokesperson expressed support for the amendment proposed to subparagraph
(a) by the significant majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean.
303. A Government representative of Brazil said that he was speaking on behalf of a significant
majority of governments from Latin America and the Caribbean. He said that those
governments would support the draft decision with its proposed amendment to subparagraph
(a) and the amendment proposed by IMEC to subparagraph (g), with a view to reaching
consensus and continuing a constructive dialogue. His region was engaged with the
supervisory system and committed to continuing to examine proposals under the Standards
Initiative and discuss working methods. The supervisory system was important and needed
to be modernized.
GB.335/PV
62 GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx
Decision
304. The Governing Body:
(a) welcomed the efforts of all constituents and the Office towards the progress
reported on the implementation of the two components of the Standards
Initiative, namely the Standards Review Mechanism (SRM) and the workplan
to strengthen the supervisory system;
(b) with respect to the component concerning the SRM, noted the information
provided on the lessons learned and future directions; requested the
Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM TWG) to take
its guidance into account in continuing its work and to provide a report for
the Governing Body’s second review of the functioning of the SRM TWG in
March 2020; and, to guarantee the impact of that work, reiterated its call to
the Organization and its tripartite constituents to take appropriate measures
to follow up on all its previous recommendations;
(c) having reviewed, against the common principles guiding the strengthening of
the supervisory system, the report on progress in implementing the ten
proposals of the workplan, welcomed the progress achieved so far and
requested the Office to continue the implementation of the workplan which
should be updated according to its guidance;
(d) approving the approach taken and the timelines proposed, requested the
Office to ensure that action was taken with respect to producing the guide on
established practices across the supervisory system, the operation of the
article 24 procedure, the streamlining of reporting, information sharing with
other organizations, the formulation of clear recommendations of the
supervisory bodies, pursuing systematized follow-up at the national level and
consideration of the potential of article 19, paragraphs 5(e) and 6(d);
(e) with respect to the proposal for a regular conversation between the
supervisory bodies, invited the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of
Association (CFA) to present its annual report to the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards (CAS) as from 2019;
(f) with respect to the proposal for codification of the article 26 procedure,
recalled the decision to consider the steps to be taken after the guide to the
supervisory system was available to constituents, and requested the Office to
provide it with further information in that regard in March 2020;
(g) with respect to the proposal to consider further steps to ensure legal certainty,
decided to hold informal consultations in January 2020 and, to facilitate that
tripartite exchange of views, requested the Office to prepare a paper on the
elements and conditions for the operation of an independent body under
article 37(2) and of any other consensus-based options, as well as the
article 37(1) procedure; and
GB.335/PV
GB335_PV-Complete_[RELME-190711-2]-En.docx 63
(h) with respect to the proposal for review by the supervisory bodies of their
working methods, invited the CAS, the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and the CFA to
continue their regular consideration of their working methods.
(GB.335/INS/5, paragraph 84, as amended by the Governing Body)
Sixth item on the agenda
Progress report on the implementation
of the Enterprises Initiative
(GB.335/INS/6(Rev.))
305. The Employer spokesperson recalled that SDG 17 recognized the essential role of the private
sector in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the need for partnerships with the
sector. His group fully supported the Office’s assessment that engagement with enterprises
would enhance the scale, impact and sustainability of its work. Engaging with enterprises of
all sizes and in all regions afforded the Office a better insight into the challenges they faced,
which would help it to develop more practical approaches to problem-solving. He applauded
the diverse nature of the ILO’s engagement with enterprises, including through the business
networks and programmes described in the document. Working with groups of companies
was highly valuable, as collaboration across the private sector often helped enterprises to
face systemic challenges requiring comprehensive resources and would result in useful
benefits to the ILO and those it served. He also applauded the Office’s engagement in
133 public–private partnerships (PPPs).
306. However, the Enterprises Initiative must be more than just a process. The ILO and
enterprises should take steps to leverage the value of their engagement, and the Initiative
must reflect a coherent and purposeful approach. Companies had suggested that the
processes for engaging with the ILO should be quicker and less bureaucratic; the clearance
process for PPPs should take 30 days. Undue levels of ILO bureaucracy could prompt
enterprises to engage instead with peers or in other initiatives. The Office should establish a
clear process with appropriate deadlines to protect its reputation as a reliable partner and to
grant companies a reasonable level of predictability and certainty.
307. With regard to the Common Approach to Due Diligence for Private Sector Partnerships,
which was highly relevant to the Enterprises Initiative, it was illogical that the inter-agency
task team had not consulted with the private sector in its work. Furthermore, some of the
provisions in the outcome document were questionable, such as the exclusionary criteria and
the role given to the UN Global Compact. The Governing Body should receive a full update
on the Common Approach and then decide on its application to the ILO.
308. Despite the acknowledged importance of the Enabling Environment for Sustainable
Enterprises (EESE) programme, it had not been expanded, as decided at the 104th Session
(2015) of the International Labour Conference and confirmed at the 2017 Meeting of Experts
on Decent Work in Export Processing Zones, and was instead still in a review process. The
Office should scale up EESE and roll it out in further countries without delay.
309. As productivity was key to decent work and the discussions on the future of work, the ILO
should have a clear focus on productivity, informed by engagement with companies and
highly productive countries in a holistic approach.
Document No. 68
ILO, The Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations: Its dynamic and
impact, 2003, pp. 1–17
THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS
ON THE APPLICATION OF CONVENTIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
ITS DYNAMIC AND IMPACT
Eric GRAVEL
Chloé CHARBONNEAU-JOBIN
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE GENEVA
Introduction
Since its establishment in 1919, the International Labour
Organization1 has constantly availed itself of international law,
and more precisely international labour standards, as an instrument
for the promotion of social justice. From the very beginning,
it has been evident that without effective standards this
objective would not be achieved. The Organization therefore
took this as its central concern and progressively developed
various supervisory bodies which make it possible to monitor,
after their adoption by the International Labour Conference and
their ratification by member States, the effect given to Conventions
and Recommendations in practice.
The Constitution of the ILO, adopted when the Organization
was first established, set out the obligation for member States
to submit regular reports on their national practice for each of the
Conventions that they had ratified.2 However, it did not set up a
supervisory body with the specific task of examining these
reports, and it therefore fell to the International Labour Conference
to supervise the application of standards during the first
years. It rapidly became apparent that the Conference could not
continue to carry out this task in view of the constantly increasing
number of ratifications and reports, quite apart from the
adoption of new standards every year. In 1926, at its Eighth
1
1 Hereinafter the “ILO” or the “Organization”.
2 Articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution of the ILO.
Session, the Conference therefore adopted a resolution providing
for the establishment of a Committee responsible for examining
the reports submitted, thereby marking the birth of a body
which was to become one of the most important and influential
in the ILO, namely the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations.3 Together with the
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, the
Committee of Experts has become the principal body for the
regular supervision of the application of standards. Its work
constitutes the cornerstone of the ILO’s supervisory system.4 The
present study is intended to analyse both the institutional development
and practical impact of the work of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
over the years, make an assessment of it and, in so far as
possible, draw certain lessons for the future. However, as a
similar study was undertaken in 1977, 5 the present study is
confined to the work of the Committee of Experts over the past
25 years. Furthermore, even though the Committee of Experts
celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2001, it has only been systematically
enumerating cases of progress since 1964. The cases of
progress listed by the Committee therefore necessarily cover only
this period.
The present study is also limited to a thematic analysis of
cases of progress relating to the fundamental Conventions, which
should not in any way serve to obscure the importance of, nor
the fact that numerous cases of significant progress have
occurred over the years with regard to the application of the socalled
priority or technical Conventions. 6 The study therefore
proposes to demonstrate, based on a selection of the examples
listed over the past 25 years, the dynamic nature of the Committee’s
supervisory work. To do so, the first part of the study covers
CEACR: Its dynamic and impact
2
3 Hereinafter the “Committee of Experts” or the “Committee”.
4 For a description of the functioning of these two Committees, please refer to the publication
by the International Labour Standards Department entitled Handbook of procedures relating
to international labour Conventions and Recommendations, ILO, Geneva, 1998.
5 See: The impact of international labour Conventions and Recommendations, ILO,
Geneva, 1977.
6 See in annex 1 a non-exhaustive list of cases of progress relating to priority and technical
Conventions over the past 15 years.
Introduction
3
the composition and functioning of the Committee of Experts.
The second part, which is more empirical, draws up a nonexhaustive
list of the cases of progress enumerated in relation to
the application of the eight fundamental Conventions.7
7 In so doing, this study responds to the call made by the Director-General of the ILO, Mr
Juan Somavia, for the reports of the supervisory bodies to review the status of the application of
standards in general by region or by subject area. Such a review could highlight more success
stories and genuine efforts to improve in the various regions of the world. See: Decent work,
Report of the Director-General, International Labour Conference, 87th Session, Geneva, 1999,
p. 20.
I.The Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations:
Composition and functioning
1. Composition
The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations was set up by the Governing Body,
in accordance with the resolution adopted by the International
Labour Conference in 1926, to examine government reports on
the application of Conventions and other obligations relating to
international labour standards set out in the ILO Constitution. The
Committee held its first session in May 1927. Then composed of
eight members, it examined 180 reports from 26 of the 55 member
States. At that time, the Conference had adopted 23 Conventions
and 28 Recommendations, and the number of ratifications
registered was 229.
Today the number of Conventions adopted by the Conference
has risen to 184, together with 194 Recommendations, while
the number of ratifications registered was 7127 as of April 2003.8
There have also been over 1980 declarations of the application
of Conventions to non-metropolitan territories. Furthermore, the
International Labour Organization now has 176 member States.
The 20 members of the Committee are high-level jurists
(judges of supreme courts, professors of law, legal experts, etc.)
appointed by the Governing Body for renewable periods of three
years. Appointments are made in a personal capacity of persons
who are impartial and have the required technical competence
and independence. From the very beginning, these characteris-
7
8 For constantly updated information on the number of Conventions, Recommendations
and ratifications, please consult the Organization’s official Internet site: www.ilo.org.
tics were found to be essential and of vital importance in ensuring
that the Committee’s work enjoys the highest authority and
credibility. The experts are in no sense representatives of
governments. This independence is guaranteed by the fact that
the experts are appointed by the Governing Body on the recommendation
of the Director-General, and not by proposal of the
governments of the countries of which they are nationals. The
members of the Committee are from all the regions of the world
so that the Committee benefits from direct experience of the
various legal, economic and social systems. Each member of the
Committee acts in a personal capacity.
2. Terms of reference and organization
of the Committee’s work
2.1 Terms of reference
In the beginning, the Committee of Experts was responsible
for considering ways and means of “making the best and fullest
use” of the reports submitted on ratified Conventions. This originally
simple mandate was developed and modified by the
Governing Body at its 103rd Session in 1947 following constitutional
reforms.
Since then, the Committee has been called upon to
examine:
the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on the
measures taken by Members to give effect to the provisions
of Conventions to which they are parties, and the information
furnished by Members concerning the results of
inspection;
the information and reports concerning Conventions and
Recommendations communicated by Members in accordance
with article 19 of the Constitution;
the information and reports on the measures taken by
Member in accordance with article 35 of the Constitution.
CEACR: Its dynamic and impact
8
The Committee is also called upon to carry out certain tasks
in relation to instruments adopted under the auspices of other
international organizations. For example, it examines the reports
by member States which have ratified the European Code of
Social Security.
On the occasion of its 60th anniversary in 1987, the Committee
of Experts recalled the fundamental principles underlying its
work and examined its terms of reference and methods of work.9
The Committee’s task consists of pointing out the extent to which
the law and practice in each State appears to be in conformity
with the terms of ratified Conventions and the obligations that
the State has undertaken by virtue of the ILO Constitution. “Its
function is to determine whether the requirements of a given
Convention are being met, whatever the economic and social
conditions existing in a given country. Subject only to any
derogations which are expressly permitted by the Convention
itself, these requirements remain constant and uniform for all
countries. In carrying out this work, the Committee is guided by
the standards laid down in the Convention alone, mindful,
however, of the fact that the modes of their implementation may
be different in different States.” 10 The Committee recalled that, as
they are international standards, the manner in which their implementation
is evaluated must be uniform and must not be affected
by concepts derived from any specific social or economic system.
2.2 Competence of the Committee
In its evaluation of the conformity of national legislation, the
Committee of Experts exercises a competence which has often
been qualified as quasi judicial, even though it is not a tribunal. 11
It has broad discretion in respect of the application of international
provisions. Despite the fact that the Committee carries
out an exercise involving the interpretation of international
standards and that over the years its case law has acquired
considerable moral force, it is nevertheless the case that by virtue
Part I : Composition and functioning
9
9 International Labour Conference, 73rd Session, 1987, Report III (Part 4A), pp. 7-19, paras.
9-49.
10 Ibid., para. 20.
11 N. Valticos: Traité du droit du travail, 2nd Edition, Dalloz, 1983, p. 587, No. 756.
of article 37 of the ILO Constitution, only the International Court
of Justice is competent to make “definitive interpretations” of
Conventions.12 It is therefore more precise to emphasize that the
Committee of Experts’ observations constitute assessments of the
conformity of the national laws of a member State with the
Conventions that it has ratified, and not definitive interpretations.
To fulfil its function of evaluating the implementation of Conventions,
the Committee has to consider and express its views on the
meaning of certain provisions of Conventions.13
To make such assessments, the Committee of Experts bases
itself on the reports submitted by governments in accordance
with their constitutional obligations.
2.2 Reports submitted by governments
In 1949, the Committee decided to pay special attention to
first reports following ratification (over 200 first reports now have
to be examined nearly every year) and it therefore requested the
Office to prepare comparative analyses of them. Up to 1959, an
annual report was required for each ratified Convention. This
system had to be modified in view of the constantly increasing
number of reports and it was decided only to request a report on
the various Conventions every two years, with a simple general
report each year. In 1976, the cycle for detailed reports was
extended to four years, except for the most important Conventions,
for which the frequency of reporting continued to be every
two years.
In 1993, the Governing Body decided to modify the reporting
system, with detailed reports to be submitted every two years
for a group of instruments known as “priority” Conventions, and
the reporting cycle of “simplified” reports was extended to five
years. At the same time, the Governing Body decided that
governments should submit detailed reports in the event of
major changes affecting the application of Conventions and that
the supervisory bodies could request additional reports where
necessary.
CEACR: Its dynamic and impact
10
12 Ibid., Note 11.13 ILC, 1987, Report III (Part 4A), op. cit., p. 12, para. 21.
13 ILC, 1987, Report III (Part 4A), op. cit., p. 12, para. 21.
Following the Report of the Director-General in 1994,
entitled Defending values, promoting change, the Organization
decided to give priority to strengthening the system for the supervision
of standards. This issue has subsequently been examined
on several occasions by the Governing Body.14 With a view to
ensuring that the ILO’s supervisory machinery remains among
the most advanced and effective in the United Nations system,
certain procedures, including the reporting system, have recently
been the subject of substantial modifications.
Since 1993, the workload relating to the reporting system
has been constantly increasing in view of the rise in the number
of ratifications of Conventions and the admission of new member
States. In 2001, after re-examining the reporting system, the
Governing Body therefore suggested new changes with a view
to strengthening the effectiveness of the supervisory machinery.
While retaining the two-year and five-year reporting cycles, the
Governing Body adopted a system of the grouping of reports
according to subject and the type of Convention, as well as
certain additional procedures.15 The objective of grouping reports
in this manner is to facilitate the collection of information by the
Ministries responsible for labour matters, contribute to improving
coherence in the analysis of reports and allow a more complete
overview of the application of Conventions in a particular field.
More precisely, the Governing Body decided to:
group the fundamental and priority Conventions, with
countries divided alphabetically in even and uneven years
for the submission of reports according to the two-year
reporting cycle;
arrange all the other Conventions by subject groups for the
purposes of reporting according to the five-year cycle;
discontinue detailed reports on fundamental and priority
Conventions, except in certain particular cases;
discontinue the automatic requirement to send a detailed
report if a government fails in its obligation to send a simplified
report; and
Part I : Composition and functioning
11
14 See in particular the following Governing Body documents: GB.268/LILS/6;
GB.277/LILS/2; GB.279/4; GB.280/LILS/3; GB.280/LILS/12/1; GB.282/LILS/5; GB.282/8/2;
GB.283/LILS/6; and GB.283/LILS/6/1.
15 See Governing Body documents GB.283/LILS/6 and GB.283/LILS/6/1.
discontinue the automatic requirement to submit a second
detailed report.
For reporting purposes, the non-fundamental Conventions
have been subdivided into 20 groups of instruments covering
specific subjects. These changes began to be implemented in
2003 for an initial period of five years, following which the
Governing Body will re-examine the issue.
2.4 Working methods
The methods of work of the Committee of Experts have
evolved over the years and in the context of its general terms of
reference. The Committee determines its own methods of work
independently. The Committee meets once a year in Geneva for
nearly three weeks in November-December and its report is
examined at the following session of the International Labour
Conference.
Its meetings are held in private and its documents and
deliberations are confidential. The United Nations is invited to be
represented at appropriate sittings of the Committee. When the
Committee deals with instruments or matters related to the
competence of other specialized agencies of the United Nations
system, representatives of those agencies may be invited to
attend the sitting.
The Committee assigns to each of its members initial
responsibility for a group of Conventions or a subject. The
reports and information received early enough by the Office are
forwarded to the member concerned before the session. The
expert responsible for each group of Conventions or subject may
take the initiative of consulting other members. Furthermore, any
other expert may ask to be consulted before the preliminary
findings are submitted to the Committee in plenary sitting in the
form of draft observations and direct requests. At this stage, the
wording is left at the sole discretion of the expert responsible. All
the preliminary findings are then submitted for the consideration
of the Committee in plenary sitting for its approval.
The documentation available to the Committee includes: the
information supplied by governments in their reports or to the
CEACR: Its dynamic and impact
12
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards; the
relevant legislation, collective agreements and court decisions;
information supplied by States on the results of inspections;
comments of employers’ and workers’ organizations; reports of
other ILO bodies (such as commissions of inquiry, or the Governing
Body Committee on Freedom of Association); and reports of
technical cooperation activities.
The Committee of Experts draws up two types of comments:
observations and direct requests. Observations are written
comments relating to the application of a ratified ILO Convention.
In general, observations are made in cases of serious and
persistent failure to comply with obligations under a Convention.
They are published each year in the report of the Committee of
Experts, which is transmitted to the International Labour Conference.
The observations provide the starting point for the examination
of specific cases by the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards.
In 1957, to avoid overburdening its report, the Committee
decided to address a number of comments directly to governments
instead of including them in its report. Direct requests are
written comments by the Committee of Experts which may deal
with matters of secondary importance or technical issues. They
provide a means of requesting clarifications so that the Committee
can make a better assessment of the effect given to the obligations
deriving from a Convention. As in the case of observations,
they may request a detailed report before the date envisaged for
its submission. Copies of the request are also addressed to the
representative organizations of employers and workers in the
country concerned. The main difference between these two
forms of written comments concerns their dissemination: only
observations are published in the annual report of the Committee
and are therefore publicized to a certain extent.
Where appropriate, the Committee requests the Office to
prepare a comparative analysis of the law and practice of the
ratifying State for examination by the expert responsible. It also
requests the Office to prepare notes for the expert on legal
questions necessary for the examination of the information
provided.
Part I : Composition and functioning
13
Although the Committee’s conclusions traditionally represent
unanimous agreement among its members, decisions can
nevertheless be taken by a majority. Where this happens, it is the
established practice of the Committee to include in its report the
opinions of dissenting members if they so wish, together with
any response by the Committee as a whole. The Committee’s
report is in the first place submitted to the Governing Body and
its final findings take the form of:
a) Part One: a general report in which the Committee reviews
general questions concerning international labour standards
and related international instruments and their implementation;
b) Part Two: observations concerning particular countries on
the application of ratified Conventions, on the application
of Conventions in non-metropolitan territories and on the
obligation to submit instruments to the competent authorities;
c) Part Three: a general survey of instruments on which
governments have been requested to supply reports under
article 19 of the ILO Constitution, which is published in a
separate volume.
Over the years, even though the Committee’s workload,
working methods and responsibilities have evolved, the principles
of objectivity, impartiality and independence which animate
its work have not changed. It continues to examine the application
of Conventions and Recommendations, and of related constitutional
obligations, in a uniform manner for all States. The rights
and obligations under the instruments adopted by the International
Labour Conference are the same for all, and should be
applied in a uniform way in all member States.
2.5 Subcommittee on working methods
The Committee may appoint working parties to deal with
general or especially complex questions, such as general surveys
of reports submitted under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution.
Working parties include members with knowledge of different
legal, economic and social systems. Their preliminary findings
are submitted to the Committee as a whole.
CEACR: Its dynamic and impact
14
The Committee also has the power to examine and revise
its own methods of work. Since 1999, the Committee has been
undertaking a thorough examination of its working methods. In
2001, the Committee paid particular attention to drafting its report
in such a manner as to make it more accessible and to draw the
attention of a larger readership to the importance of the provisions
of Conventions and their application in practice. The
following year, in order guide its reflections on this matter in an
efficient and a thorough manner, the Committee decided to
create a subcommittee.16 The Subcommittee on working methods,
composed of a core group and open to any member wishing to
participate in it, has as a mandate to examine not only the
working methods of the Committee as strictly defined, but also
any related subjects, and to make appropriate recommendations
to the Committee.
The Committee of Experts considered the first recommendations
of the Subcommittee at its session in November 200217.
These recommendations were prepared after a wide-ranging
review of the Committee’s methods of work during which all of
its members had an opportunity to contribute throughout the year.
The principal conclusions of the Subcommittee on working
methods concerned the need for the Committee of Experts to
maintain its independence, impartiality and objectivity in carrying
out its work. Secondly, with a view to promoting the visibility
and influence of the Committee and its work, its members
expressed an interest, where appropriate, in participating in field
missions and in contributing to international conferences or to
training seminars in areas related to their work. Thirdly, the
Committee decided to introduce a number of significant changes
in its working methods. These changes are intended to: further
the Committee’s diversity; increase the synergy between experts,
and particularly between those working on the same groups of
Conventions; ensure the most effective working methods during
particularly high-pressure periods of work; continue to improve
the presentation of its annual report to make it more accessible
to readers; and continue to foster and improve cooperation and
Part I : Composition and functioning
15
16 International Labour Conference, 90th Session, 2002, Report III (Part 1A), p. 14, para. 24.
17 International Labour Conference, 91st session, 2003, Report III (Part 1A), paras. 7 and 8.
good relations between the Committee of Experts and the
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.
It was therefore agreed that the Subcommittee would meet
each year and as often as necessary to monitor these reforms, to
report to the Committee on their implementation and to recommend
any further changes which may be necessary in future.
3. Direct contacts missions
The work of the Committee is essentially a written process.
Nevertheless, the Committee may be called upon to exercise,
request or supervise other functions. In 1967, on the occasion of
its 40th anniversary, the Committee put forward a suggestion
which led to the introduction in 1968 of the procedure of direct
contacts, which consists of on-the-spot missions with a view to
developing dialogue with governments and employers’ and
workers’ organizations in order to overcome difficulties encountered
in the application of Conventions. This procedure has
become commonly used since then and has produced positive
results.
4. Synergy between the various
supervisory bodies of the ILO
The supervisory mechanisms, whether they form part of the
regular system or consist of so-called special procedures, are
closely linked. Indeed, the work of the Committee of Experts
frequently serves as a basis for that of other supervisory mechanisms.
As the Committee recalled in its report on the occasion of
its 60th anniversary in 1987,18 a spirit of mutual respect, cooper-
CEACR: Its dynamic and impact
16
18 ILC, 1987, Report III (Part 4A), op. cit., p. 8, para. 12.
ation and responsibility has always existed in its relations with
other ILO bodies.
The Committee of Experts was created at the same time as
the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.
Although there have at times been differences in approach
between the two Committees, they have developed a close
collaborative relationship, especially in recent years, and each
relies on the work of the other. The Committee of Experts has
also found that its relations are intensifying with the committees
set up to examine complaints and representations under articles
24 and 26 of the Constitution, as was the case for the complaint
concerning the application by Myanmar of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and with the committees examining
a constantly increasing number of representations.
Furthermore, special note should be taken of the links existing
between the Committee of Experts and the Committee on
Freedom of Association. Where a legislative problem arises and
the country concerned has ratified the Conventions in relation to
which a complaint has been brought to the Committee on
Freedom of Association,19 the latter may draw the attention of the
Committee of Experts to the legislative aspects of the case. The
Committee of Experts can then follow developments in the situation
in the course of its regular examination of the Government’s
reports on the Convention in question. When examining the law
and practice of a country in the context of its regular supervision
of the application of Conventions, the Committee of Experts may
also take into account the recommendations adopted unanimously
by the Committee on Freedom of Association. Although
the two Committees differ in their composition, the nature of
their functions and their methods of work, they take as a basis
the same principles, which are universal in scope and cannot be
applied selectively.20’
Part I : Composition and functioning
17
19 It should be noted that a complaint can be made to the Committee on Freedom of
Association against a State which has not ratified the Conventions on freedom of association.
20 For a study of the impact of the Committee on Freedom of Association, see E. Gravel,
I. Duplessis and B. Gernigon: The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years,
ILO, 2nd Edition, 2002.
Document No. 69
ILO, Monitoring compliance with international labour
standards – The key role of the ILO Committee of Experts
on the application of Conventions and Recommendations,
2019
MONITORING COMPLIANCE
WITH INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR STANDARDS
CENTENARY EDITION
2019
The key role of the ILO Committee
of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations
MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR STANDARDS
The key role of the ILO Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE • GENEVA
Copyright © International Labour Organization 2019
First published 2019
Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal
Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization,
on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application
should be made to ILO Publications (Rights and Licensing), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva
22, Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.
Libraries, institutions and other users registered with a reproduction rights organization may make
copies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the
reproduction rights organization in your country.
The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice,
and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or
of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests
solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International
Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them.
Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement
by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial
product or process is not a sign of disapproval.
Information on ILO publications and digital products can be found at: www.ilo.org/publns.
Monitoring compliance with international labour standards: The key role of the ILO Committee
of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
International Labour Office, Geneva, ILO, 2019.
ISBN 978-92-2-133496-5 (print)
ISBN 978-92-2-133497-2 (Web pdf)
international labour standards / supervisory system / committee of experts
13.01.1
Also available in French: Assurer le respect des normes internationales du travail: le rôle essentiel
de la Commission d’experts pour l’application des conventions et recommendations de l’OIT,
ISBN 978-92-2-133499-6 (print), ISBN 978-92-2-133500-9 (Web pdf), Geneva, 2019; and Spanish: Control
del cumplimiento de las normas internacionales del trabajo: el papel fundamental de la Comisión
de Expertos en Aplicación de Convenios y Recomendaciones de la OIT, ISBN 978-92-2-133502-3 (print),
ISBN 978-92-2-133503-0 (Web pdf), Geneva, 2019.
Produced by the Publications Production Unit (PRODOC) of the ILO.
Graphic and typographic design, layout and composition,
printing, electronic publishing and distribution.
The ILO endeavours to use paper sourced from forests managed
in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner.
Code: CMD-WEI-ICA
ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data
The ILO’s Centenary has been the occasion of a series of celebrations and events
throughout 2019. This study was prepared in this context and is part of a list of
Centenary publications which have been aiming at underlying this special year
for the Organization and its constituents, as well as shedding light on the ILO’s
broader activities. This particular publication attempts to look back at some of the
achievements of one of the ILO’s main bodies within its comprehensive supervisory
system of standards, namely the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations.
The first part of the study provides a historical perspective and outlines the origins
and composition of the Committee of Experts. It pays special attention to
the close relationship between the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards and the Committee of Experts and the way the respective functions
of the two bodies have evolved over the years. It also provides useful insights on
the general methodology used by the Committee of Experts as well as on recent
discussions regarding the Committee’s mandate.
The second part of the study proposes a selection of 18 cases, for which significant
progress has been noticed in the implementation of ratified ILO Conventions,
following comments formulated by the Committee of Experts, often in conjunction
with other ILO or UN bodies.
It is to be hoped that this publication will contribute to better disseminate the
important work and contribution of a key body of the ILO supervisory system
and will bear witness to the considerable impact that it has had in recent years.
Corinne Vargha
Director
International Labour Standards Department
ILO, Geneva
FOREWORD
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Preliminary considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Part I. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations: Composition and functioning
1. Origins and composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Terms of reference and organization of the Committee’s work . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1 Terms of reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Recent discussions on, and clarifications regarding,
the Committee’s mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Information treated by the Committee (reports submitted
by governments and comments of the social partners) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. Synergies between the various supervisory bodies of the ILO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Part II. Impact of the Committee of Experts’ work
and analysis of cases of progress
1. The rationale behind identifying a case of progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. Preventive supervision and the issue of causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3. Cases identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
(a) Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Eswatini, Convention No. 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Mali, Convention No. 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Namibia, Convention No. 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
(b) Arab States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Qatar, Convention No. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
(c) Central and South Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Nepal, Convention No. 144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Pakistan, Convention No. 138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Uzbekistan, Convention No. 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monitoring compliance with international 6 labour standards
(d) East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Republic of Korea, Convention No. 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Malaysia, Convention No. 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Myanmar, Convention No. 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
(e) Europe and European overseas territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
French Polynesia, Convention No. 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Georgia, Convention No. 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Republic of Moldova, Convention No. 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
(f) Latin America and the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Argentina, Convention No. 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Costa Rica, Convention No. 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Grenada, Convention No. 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Peru, Convention No. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
(g) North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Canada, Convention No. 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendices
I. Current members of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
II. Chairpersons of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
III. Cases regarding ILO member States for which the CEACR
has expressed its satisfaction since 2009 on specific Conventions . . . . . . . 111
This publication follows a request made by the members of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in 2018 to contribute
to the ILO Centenary year through a study highlighting the achievements
and successes in the implementation of ratified Conventions by ILO member
States recorded by the Committee in the past few decades.
Gratitude and special appreciation must be extended to Eric Gravel, Senior Legal
Officer in the International Labour Standards Department of the ILO, for having
had the vision to convert this request and subsequently for preparing and coordinating
the timely release of this publication. Special thanks must also go to
Paul Peters for his key contribution to this publication, in particular with regard
to the cases of progress listed in Part II of this study.
Appreciation must also be extended to the colleagues of some Departments of the
ILO, namely Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (FUNDAMENTALS), the
Bureau for Employers’ Activities (ACT/EMP) and the Bureau for Workers’ Activities
(ACTRAV), as they provided useful comments and feedback on this study.
Finally, Judge Graciela Dixon Caton, current Chairperson of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, should be
warmly thanked for her continuous support of this project.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For any institution, to be able to commemorate 100 years of existence has to be
considered an important milestone. This is probably even more the case for an
international organization such as the ILO that was established in a very particular
context, on the ashes of the First World War, therefore in a world in which certain
realities or conditions no longer exist or differ profoundly from the ones we
are facing today. The ILO’s Centenary has been the occasion for celebration and
commemoration, as well as forward-looking as the Organization is embarking on
its second century. The speed at which the combined forces of technology, demographic
and climate change, globalization and migration are transforming the
world of work are presenting additional challenges to the national and global institutions
embodying today’s social contract. Some of these challenges have been
laid down and analysed by the Global Commission on the Future of Work in its
2019 Report Work for a brighter future.1 But celebrating the ILO’s Centenary also
provides an opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved in certain key
areas, in particular with regard to the standards-related work of the Organization.
It should be recalled that since its establishment in 1919, the ILO has constantly
availed itself of international law, and more precisely international labour standards,
as an instrument for the promotion of social justice. But from the very beginning,
it has been clear that without effective implementation of such standards,
this objective would not be achieved. The Organization therefore took this as its
central concern and progressively developed various supervisory bodies to help
ensure effective implementation of the instruments adopted. As the promotion
of the ratification and application of labour standards as well as their accountable
supervision have been fundamental means of achieving the Organization’s objectives
and principles of advancing decent work and social justice, it is no surprise
that these principles can be found, inter alia, in the 1919 Constitution, the 1944
Declaration of Philadelphia, the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work, the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization
and the newly adopted ILO Centenary Declaration.2 The supervisory mechanisms
of the ILO are multifaceted and anchored in the Organization’s standards and
principles. While various monitoring mechanisms exist in the context of international
and regional organizations, the ILO’s integrated system of promoting
compliance with labour standards is regarded as unique and particularly comprehensive
at the international level.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Monitoring compliance with international 10 labour standards
Within the ILO supervisory system, the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR or Committee of Experts) is
an independant body responsible for conducting the technical examination of
the compliance of member States with provisions of ratified Conventions (and
Protocols). The CEACR was set up in 1926 and is presently composed of 20 legal
experts from different geographical regions, representing different legal systems
and cultures. The Committee of Experts undertakes an impartial and technical
analysis of how international labour standards are applied in law and practice by
member States, while cognizant of different national realities and legal systems.
In doing so, it must determine the legal scope and content of the provisions of
the Conventions. The CEACR’s technical competence and moral authority is well
recognized by virtue of its composition, independence and its working methods
built on continuing dialogue with governments, taking into account information
provided by employers’ and workers’ organizations.
Seizing the opportunity of the ILO’s Centenary reflections on its past, the present
study attempts to map out some of the major achievements in terms of the
impact of the CEACR’s work through its comments in guiding ILO member States
to fill gaps in compliance with international labour standards. It is intended to
analyse both the institutional development and practical impact of the work of
the Committee of Experts over the years, make an assessment of it and, in so
far as possible, draw certain lessons for the future. The study therefore proposes
to illustrate, based on a selection of examples listed over the past 20 years, the
dynamic nature of the Committee’s supervisory work.3 To do so, Part I of the
study provides an overview of the composition, mandate and functioning of the
Committee of Experts by outlining the major parameters of its action.
Part II, which is more empirical, attempts to take stock of what has been achieved
in recent decades by drawing up a non-exhaustive list of cases of progress enumerated
in relation to the application of several Conventions in 18 countries.
It is divided by subregions and countries and tries to respect an equitable geographical
representation and diversity in the subjects covered by the Conventions.
It should be stressed that this second part, as it is limited to an analysis of cases
of progress relating to certain themes and countries, should not in any way serve
to obscure the importance of, nor the fact that, numerous cases of significant
progress have occurred over the years with regard to the application of other
Conventions and countries.
Graciela Dixon Caton
on behalf of
the 2019 members of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations 4
1. Origins and composition5
The ILO constitutional provisions relating to supervision of the application of ratified
Conventions – the obligation to make annual reports on measures taken
to give effect to ratified Conventions and the procedures for the presentation
of representations and complaints – have been in place since they were first set
out in the 1919 Constitution, which formed Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles,6
establishing the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations. The
Constitution set out the obligation for member States to submit regular reports
on implementation in national law and practice for each of the Conventions that
they had ratified.
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles (the current article 22 of the Constitution),
which introduced the concept of “mutual supervision”, followed a proposal
made by what was then described as the British Empire to the Commission on
International Labour Legislation, and read as follows:
Each of the Members agrees to make an annual report to the International
Labour Office of the measures it has taken to give effect to the provisions of
Conventions to which it is a party. These reports shall be made in such form and
shall contain such particulars as the Governing Body may request. The Director
shall lay a summary of these reports before the next meeting of the Conference.7
The concept of “mutual supervision” among ILO Members emerged from the
work leading to the development of the ILO, based on the precept that ILO
Members would all be bound by the same ratified Conventions, thereby preventing
unfair competition between countries. 8 Each Member would therefore
have an interest in ensuring that the others applied the Conventions that
they had each ratified. Although it had originally been proposed that ratification
of Conventions would be almost automatic by member States, when the
Constitution was adopted the decision as to ratification was left to the discretion
of Members, which were nevertheless under the obligation to bring Conventions
and Recommendations before the competent authorities within one year of their
adoption. However, the provisions concerning the supervisory procedures were
still based on the assumption that ratification would be the general rule and objective.
The report of the Commission on International Labour Legislation, which
drafted the Labour Chapter, emphasized that the supervisory procedures had
“been carefully devised in order to avoid the imposition of penalties, except in
the last resort, when a State has flagrantly and persistently refused to carry out
PART I
The Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations:
Composition and functioning
Monitoring compliance with international 12 labour standards
its obligations under a Convention”. It added that: “… while taking the view that it
will in the long run be preferable as well as more effective to rely on the pressure
of public international opinion rather than economic measures, [it] nevertheless
considers it necessary to retain the latter in the background”.9
However, the Constitution did not set up a supervisory body with the specific task
of examining the reports submitted under Article 408, and it therefore fell to the
International Labour Conference (ILC) to supervise the application of standards
during the first years. It rapidly became apparent that the Conference could not
continue to carry out this task in view of the constantly increasing number of ratifications
and reports, quite apart from the adoption of new standards every year.
Indeed, until 1924, the reports submitted by governments were communicated
to the ILC, first in full and later in a summarized form, in the Report which the
Director-General of the Office submitted to the Conference. The ILC examined
them in the course of the general discussion on the Director-General’s Report. But
as mentioned above, it was soon found that it was not possible by this method
to make the maximum use of the means of mutual supervision of the application
of Conventions afforded by the then Article 408. Recognition of this gave rise to
the need for specific machinery to undertake such an examination.
Therefore, in terms of supervision, the first important development was the establishment
in 1926 of both the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards (CAS) and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
(CEAC – later CEACR) through the same Conference resolution.10 The first resolution
adopted by the Conference recommended that “a Committee of the
Conference should be set up each year to examine the summaries of the reports
submitted to the Conference in accordance with Article 408”.11
The ILC also requested the Governing Body to:
appoint … a technical Committee of experts … for the purpose of making the
best and fullest use of this information and of securing such additional data as
may be provided for in the forms approved by the Governing Body and found
desirable to supplement that already available, and of reporting thereon to the
Governing Body, which report the Director, after consultation with the Governing
Body, will annex his summary of the annual reports presented to the Conference
under Article 408.12
The following extracts from the Record of Proceedings of the ILC in 192613 provide
an insight into the rationale behind the creation of these two bodies:
Further, it may be observed that the Conference and its Committees are essentially
deliberative and political bodies, composed of the representatives of various
interests, national or occupational, and that in general such bodies are not the
best suited for the technical work now under consideration.14
The Committee of experts might therefore be, not a committee set up directly
by the Conference, but a committee created by the Director, on the instructions
of the Conference and with the approval of the Governing Body, to carry out a
particular task in view of the technical preparation of one part of the work of the
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 13
Conference. The Conference itself would conserve its proper political functions,
but it would be advised as to the facts by this technical expert Committee, and
it would, either directly, or through one of its own Committees, decide upon its
attitude and upon what appropriate action it might take or indicate.15
It was thus understood very early on that an effective supervisory system should
involve the combination, on the one hand, of a technical examination involving
certain guarantees of impartiality and independence and, on the other, an
examination by a body of the ILO’s supreme political organ, which would therefore
be of tripartite composition. The International Labour Conference thus had
the foresight in 1926 of complementing the original method of monitoring mutual
compliance with treaty obligations based on dialogue with member States and
social partners alike with a technical preparatory element, therefore providing
for coherent supervision and an enhanced rule of law. Interestingly, for practical
reasons, between 1921 and 1925 neither the Conference nor individual Members
used the Director-General’s summary Report as a basis for further action. As a
result, following their establishment in 1926, the CEACR and the CAS were the
only effective means of supervising ratified Conventions, as the other supervisory
procedures envisaged by the Constitution had not been fully implemented during
that period, 16 and the reference was to focus on the review of annual reports,
so as to render recourse to the other constitutional procedures (representations
and complaints) unnecessary.
At its First Session in May 1927, the Committee of Experts was composed of
eight members, and met for three days. It had to examine 180 reports on the
application of ratified Conventions from 26 of the ILO’s 55 member States. The
Conference had by then adopted 23 Conventions and 28 Recommendations, and
the number of ratifications of Conventions was 229. During that initial session,
it should be recalled that the Organization operated on a vision of harmonizing
national labour legislation among member States at relatively comparable levels
of development and its initial purview was to supervise the application of a relatively
small number of Conventions. Of the 180 reports received for the First
Session of the CEACR, 70 gave rise to “observations” by the CEACR, which also
made a number of remarks and suggestions on the form and content of the
report forms. The following year, the CEACR noted in its report that governments
had furnished the information based on its earlier comments.17
Relationship between the CEACR
and the CAS in the early years
With respect to the relationship between the CEACR and the CAS, when the
two Committees were established, the CAS was to base its examination on the
summary of annual reports produced by the Director-General and the report of
the CEACR. The CAS initially appointed “Sub-Reporters” to conduct an additional
examination of the annual reports, but stopped in 1932 to avoid unnecessary duplication
of the work of the CEACR.18 Instead, the CAS decided to focus on matters
of principle or on any facts that would emerge during its discussions.
Monitoring compliance with international 14 labour standards
The CAS indicated early on that the report of the CEACR was the basis of its deliberations,
while the CAS’s own independent examination was confined to reports
received too late to be examined by the Committee of Experts. During that
period, the CAS examined all observations made by the CEACR, together with
subsequent information received from governments and the views expressed by
delegates. Despite this “double examination” of reports, the working methods of
the CEACR and the CAS gradually differed. While the CEACR examined reports
and other written information provided by the Office, the procedures of the
CAS progressively developed around the opportunity given to member States
to submit explanations either orally or in writing. Already in 1928, the CAS recognized
that the work of the CEACR had rendered useful results and the Governing
Body decided to renew the appointment of the CEACR for one year on the understanding
that its mandate would be tacitly renewed annually, unless opposition
was raised.19
Then, in 1939, the CAS commented on the double examination process in its
report and stated – in order to urge member States to submit their reports in a
timely manner – that this system placed member States on a footing of equality
in respect of the supervision of the application of ratified Conventions. It added
that the examination of reports by the CEACR and the CAS differed in certain
respects: the CEACR consisted of independent experts whose examination was
generally limited to a scrutiny of the documents provided by governments while
the CAS was a tripartite organ, made up of representatives of governments,
workers and employers, who were in a better position to go beyond questions of
conformity and, as far as practicable, verify the day-to-day practical application of
the Conventions in question.20 The CAS explained that in this system of mutual
supervision and review “… the preparatory work carried out by the Experts plays
an important and essential part”.21
Post-war period
The CEACR and the CAS could not function between 1940 and 1945. Following the
Second World War, the ILO reviewed its role, particularly in relation to standard
setting and the supervisory machinery. Thus, the second important development
in the supervisory system occurred with amendments to the Constitution which
were adopted in 1946. These amendments enlarged the scope of supervision,
based on the experience of the work of the CEACR and the CAS in the pre-war
years. The reforms recognized the important role of standards in achieving
the objectives of the ILO. As the ILC records reflect, the amendments to the
ILO Constitution which the Conference adopted at its 29th Session (Montreal,
September–October 1946) provided for a considerable extension of the system
of reports and information to be supplied by member States in respect of
Conventions and Recommendations. During that session, it was discussed that although
the pre-war system had offered a rather reliable impression of the extent
to which national laws were in conformity with international labour standards, it
did not provide a clear picture of the extent to which those laws were effectively
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 15
applied. The 1946 amendments thus introduced significant changes to a number
of articles of the Constitution including articles 10, 19 and 22, 26–34, 35 and 37.
Among them the following changes were of particular interest:
(i) the obligation of each Member to report on measures taken to submit to the
competent national authorities Conventions and Recommendations newly
adopted by the ILC;
(ii) the obligation to submit information and reports on unratified Conventions
and on Recommendations when so requested by the Governing Body;
(iii) the obligation to communicate reports and information under articles 19
and 22 to the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations of the
Member concerned.
After 1947, no further adjustments were made either by the Conference or by
the Governing Body to the mandate of the supervisory bodies. However, certain
adjustments were made to their working methods by the Governing Body, in
particular concerning the number of the members of the CEACR, the classification
of Conventions and Recommendations, the report forms and the cycle and
schedule of reports. The supervisory bodies themselves have also made continuous
adjustments to their working methods over the years (see below, section 3).
Direct contacts and technical assistance
While the work of the CEACR is essentially a written process, on the occasion of
its 40th anniversary in 1967, the Committee put forward a suggestion which led
to the introduction the following year of the procedure of direct contacts, which
consists of on-the-spot missions visiting the country with a view to developing
dialogue with governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations in order
to overcome difficulties in the application of Conventions. This procedure initiated
by the CEACR was further developed by the CAS and supported by the
Governing Body. Originally intended to address problems relating to the application
of ratified Conventions, the direct contacts procedure was extended in 1973
to cover difficulties in fulfilling the constitutional obligations of the submission of
Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities, the submission
of reports and information under articles 19 and 22 and possible obstacles
to ratification. This procedure has become commonly used since then and has
produced positive results.
In the early 1970s, over 150 Conventions had been adopted. Meanwhile, decolonization,
in particular, had not only increased the Organization’s membership to
121 Members but had started to alter the couching of international labour standards
and their supervision. The introduction of flexibility clauses in Conventions
and, more generally, of standards less geared towards predominantly legislative
compliance and more towards the sound orientation of policies and institutions
needed to realize social justice in newly independent States, increasingly inspired
the Committee of Experts and the CAS to invite member States to rely on the
gradually expanding technical cooperation activities of the Organization.
Monitoring compliance with international 16 labour standards
Appointment and membership of the CEACR:
Then and now
Prior to the adoption of the 1926 resolution establishing the CEACR, the
Chairperson and Reporter of the Committee on Article 408 explained that the
method of appointment of the members of the CEACR should be left to the
Governing Body, but that they “should essentially be persons chosen on the
ground of expert qualifications and on no other ground whatever”.22 The criteria
for appointment to the CEACR experienced continuity, although the number of
experts and the geographical balance evolved rapidly in response to the CEACR’s
increased workload and the diversification of ILO membership. In 1927 and
1928, the membership of the CEACR consisted of eight experts and a substitute
member. The experts were initially appointed for the duration of the CEACR’s twoyear
trial period,23 although as from 1934, they were appointed for a renewable
three-year period.24 The number of experts rose to 11 in 1932, with one member
from an “extra-European” country. In 1939, the CEACR had 13 members, nine from
European countries and four from non-European ones.
In 1945, the Governing Body appointed nine experts for the 13 vacant seats, which
was the authorized number prior to the Second World War. Of those, five had
been members of the CEACR prior to 1939. Following a request by the CEACR
for the reinforcement of its membership, which had dropped to ten, and for experts
qualified to examine the application of Conventions in non-metropolitan
territories, the Governing Body appointed three additional experts by March 1948,
including the first female expert.
In 1951, the CAS recommended that the Governing Body examine the possibility of
lengthening the duration of the sessions and of adding once more to the number
of experts.25 As from the beginning of the 1950s, the sessions of the CEACR were
lengthened to an average one-and-a-half weeks and its membership rose from
13 to 17 members.
In November 1962, the Governing Body appointed an additional member to
ensure broader geographical distribution, with the CEACR’s membership increasing
to 18 in 1962 and 19 in 1965. The membership of the CEACR reached its
current level of 20 experts in 1979. The issue of the geographical composition of
CEACR membership took on greater importance in view of the ILO’s increased
membership, and constituents debated the emphasis to be given to personal
qualifications versus the need to ensure geographical distribution. Some recalled
that “geographical distribution, though important, was not the prime consideration”
as “the main requirements for membership were competence, integrity
and the ability to make comparative study of the provisions of national legislation
and ILO instruments”.26
In 2002, the CEACR itself decided to establish a 15-year membership limit for all
its members, representing a maximum of four renewals after the first three-year
appointment. The experts also decided that the election of their Chairperson for
a three-year term would be renewable once.
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 17
Today, the 20 members of the Committee are high-level legal experts (judges
of the International Court of Justice, of national Supreme Courts or other courts
of law, as well as professors of law specialized in labour issues) appointed by
the Governing Body for renewable periods of three years. As indicated above,
appointments have always been made in a personal capacity of persons who
were recognized as impartial and had the required technical competence and
independence. From the very beginning, these characteristics were found to be
of vital importance in ensuring that the Committee’s work enjoyed the highest
authority and credibility. The experts are in no sense representatives of governments
and this independence has been guaranteed by the fact that they
are appointed by the Governing Body on the recommendation of the Director-
General, and not by proposal of the governments of the countries of which they
are nationals.
2. Terms of reference and organization
of the Committee’s work
2.1 Terms of reference
The Conference resolution of 1926 which led to the establishment of the
Committee of Experts described its purpose as “making the best and fullest
use” of the reports on ratified Conventions. Since the constitutional reforms of
1946, and in pursuance of its terms of reference, as revised by the Governing Body
at its 103rd Session (Geneva, 1947), the Committee was called upon to examine:
(i) the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on the measures taken
by Members to give effect to the provisions of the Conventions to which they
are parties, and the information furnished by Members concerning the results
of inspections;
(ii) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
(iii) information and reports on the measures taken by Members in accordance
with article 35 of the Constitution.
The Committee is also asked to exercise certain functions in relation to instruments
adopted under the auspices of other international organizations. In 1956,
based on a request by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, the
Governing Body assigned the CEACR the task of examining country reports on
the European Social Security Code to ascertain the conformity of legislation in
ratifying countries.27 The CEACR started this examination following the entry into
force of the Code in the 1960s.
On the occasion of its 60th anniversary in 1987, the Committee of Experts recalled
the fundamental principles underlying its work and examined its terms of reference
and methods of work.28 The Committee emphasized that its task consisted
of pointing out the extent to which the law and practice in each State appeared
Monitoring compliance with international 18 labour standards
to be in conformity with the terms of ratified Conventions and the obligations
that the State has undertaken by virtue of the ILO Constitution. It added that:
… its function is to determine whether the requirements of a given Convention
are being met, whatever the economic and social conditions existing in a given
country. Subject only to any derogations which are expressly permitted by the
Convention itself, these requirements remain constant and uniform for all countries.
In carrying out this work, the Committee is guided by the standards laid
down in the Convention alone, mindful, however, of the fact that the modes of
their implementation may be different in different States. 29
The Committee also recalled that year that, as ILO Conventions are international
standards, the manner in which their implementation is evaluated must be uniform
and must not be affected by concepts derived from any specific social or
economic system.
General methodology and the CEACR’s annual report
The methods of work of the Committee of Experts have evolved over the years
and in the context of its general terms of reference. The Committee determines
its own methods of work independently. At present, the Committee meets once
a year in Geneva for nearly three weeks in November–December and its report
is examined at the following session of the International Labour Conference. 30
Its meetings are held in private and its documents and deliberations are confidential.
When the Committee deals with instruments or matters related to the
competence of other specialized agencies of the United Nations system, representatives
of those agencies may be invited to attend the sitting. The Committee
assigns to each of its members initial responsibility for a group of Conventions or
a subject. The reports and information received early enough by the Office are
forwarded to the member concerned before the session. The expert responsible
for each group of Conventions or subject may take the initiative of consulting
other members. Furthermore, any other expert may ask to be consulted before
the preliminary findings are submitted to the Committee in the plenary sitting
in the form of draft comments. At this stage, the wording is left at the sole discretion
of the expert responsible. All the preliminary findings are then submitted
for the consideration of the Committee in the plenary sitting for its approval.
The documentation available to the Committee includes: the information supplied
by governments in their reports or to the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards; the relevant legislation, collective agreements and
court decisions; information supplied by States on the results of inspections;
comments of employers’ and workers’ organizations; reports of other ILO bodies
(such as commissions of inquiry, or the Governing Body Committee on Freedom
of Association); and reports of technical cooperation activities.
Although the Committee’s conclusions traditionally represent unanimous
agreement among its members, decisions can nevertheless be taken by a majority.
Where this happens, it is the established practice of the Committee to include
in its report the opinions of dissenting members if they so wish, together
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 19
with any response by the Committee as a whole. The Committee’s report is in
the first place submitted to the Governing Body for information and its final
findings take the form of:
(a) Part I: A General Report in which the Committee reviews general questions
concerning international labour standards and related international instruments
and their implementation.
(b) Part II: Observations concerning particular countries on the application of
ratified Conventions, on the application of Conventions in non-metropolitan
territories and on the obligation to submit instruments to the competent
authorities.
(c) Part III: A General Survey of instruments on which governments have been
requested to supply reports under article 19 of the ILO Constitution, which is
published in a separate volume.
The annual report of the Committee of Experts is submitted to the plenary session
of the Conference in June each year, where it is examined by the CAS, which,
as indicated above, is an ILC tripartite standing committee. The CAS discusses
the findings in the CEACR report and selects a number of observations for discussion.
Governments referred to in these observations are invited to respond to
the CAS and provide further details about the matters at hand. The CAS draws
up conclusions in which it recommends governments to take specific measures
to remedy a problem or to ask the ILO for technical assistance. In the General
Report of the CAS certain situations of particular concern are highlighted in special
paragraphs.31
Observations and direct requests
In order to conduct its work efficiently, the Committee of Experts has found it
necessary in many cases to draw the attention of governments to the need to
take action to give effect to certain provisions of Conventions or to supply additional
information on given points. Its comments are drawn up in the form of
either “observations”, which are reproduced in the report of the Committee, or
“direct requests”, which are not published in the Committee’s report, but are
communicated directly to the governments concerned and are available online.32
Observations are generally used in more serious or long-standing cases of failure
to fulfil obligations. They point to important discrepancies between the obligations
under a Convention and the related law and/or practice of member States.
They may address the absence of measures to give effect to a Convention or to
take appropriate action following the Committee’s requests. They may also highlight
progress, as appropriate.
Direct requests allow the Committee to be engaged in a continuing dialogue with
governments often when the questions raised are primarily of a technical nature.
They can also be used for the clarification of certain points when the information
available does not enable a full appreciation of the extent to which the obligations
are fulfilled. Direct requests are also generally used for the examination of
Monitoring compliance with international 20 labour standards
first reports supplied by governments on the application of Conventions in order
to initiate a dialogue with a government.
The Committee has always attached great importance to the clarity of the criteria
for making a distinction between observations and direct requests, in order to
ensure the visibility, transparency and coherence of its work and legal certainty
over time. This distinction was the outcome of a long gestation initiated in 1957.
That year, the Committee started to address a number of comments directly to
governments instead of including them in its report. This distinction between
observations and direct requests permitted the Committee to simplify the procedure
in case of requests for supplementary information of comments on minor
points and reduce the size of its report, but in the process enabled the Committee
to gradually clarify issues of secondary importance with governments at earlier
stages of their institutional development. The criteria involved careful consideration
of both timing and substance. Even though these criteria might appear
clear at first sight, their application sometimes called for a delicate balancing.
The Committee has needed some room for reasoned discretion in this area, with
a view to maintaining dialogue with governments and facilitating effective progress
in the application of ratified Conventions.
Special notes (double footnotes)
In response to requests by the CAS, the Committee of Experts began in 1957 to
identify serious and urgent cases requiring governments to provide information
to the CAS. These special notes of the CEACR have become familiarly known as
“double footnotes”. The Committee indicates with such footnotes at the end of
its comments the cases in which, because of the nature of the problems encountered
in the application of the Conventions concerned, it has deemed appropriate
to ask the government to supply a report earlier than would otherwise have been
the case and, in some instances, to supply full particulars to the Conference at
its next session.
In order to identify cases for which it inserts these footnotes, the Committee uses
the following basic criteria:
• the seriousness of the problem; in this respect, the Committee emphasizes that
an important consideration is the necessity to view the problem in the context
of a particular Convention and to take into account matters involving fundamental
rights, workers’ health, safety and well-being, as well as any adverse
impact, including at the international level, on workers and other categories
of protected persons;
• the persistence of the problem;
• the urgency of the situation; the evaluation of such urgency is necessarily case
specific, according to standard human rights criteria, such as life-threatening
situations or problems where irreversible harm is foreseeable; and
• the quality and scope of the government’s response in its reports or the absence
of response to the issues raised by the Committee, including cases of
clear and repeated refusal on the part of a State to comply with its obligations.33
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 21
A new dynamic in improving working methods in recent decades
Consideration of its working methods by the Committee of Experts has been
an ongoing process since its establishment. In this process, the Committee has
always given due consideration to the views expressed by the tripartite constituents.
Regarding its examination of governments’ reports and comments
of social partners, the Committee has often recalled that it was relying exclusively
on written evidence and that there were no oral hearings or scope for oral
arguments.
Over the years, the Committee of Experts has sought to deliver a rigorous, consistent
and impartial assessment of compliance with ratified Conventions, constantly
introducing gradual improvements to produce more user-friendly, precise
and concise comments. This has been necessary not only in order to give clear
guidance to governments but also to facilitate follow-up action and technical
assistance by the Office.
Subcommittee on working methods
Since the CEACR, within the mandate given to it by the ILC and the Governing
Body, has the power to examine and revise its own methods of work, it decided,
in 2001, to pay particular attention to drafting its report in such a manner as to
make it more accessible and to draw the attention of a larger readership to the
importance of the provisions of Conventions and their application in practice. The
CEACR’s review of its methods was prompted by the discussions in the Governing
Body of ILO standards-related activities, as well as the desire to effectively address
its growing workload. The following year, in order to guide its reflections on this
matter in an efficient and a thorough manner, the Committee decided to create a
subcommittee. 34 The subcommittee on working methods, initially composed of a
core group and open to any member wishing to participate in it, has as a mandate
to examine not only the working methods of the Committee as strictly defined,
but also any related subjects, and to make appropriate recommendations to the
Committee. The subcommittee therefore reviews the methods of work with the
aim of enhancing the CEACR’s effectiveness and efficiency, by endeavouring to
streamline the content of its report and improving the organization of its work
with a view to increasing it in terms of transparency and quality.
The subcommittee met on three occasions between 2002 and 2004. During its
sessions in 2005 and 2006, issues relating to its working methods were discussed
by the CEACR in the plenary sitting. From 2007 to 2018, the subcommittee met
at each of the Committee’s sessions.
Recent developments
In 2013, the Committee of Experts held for the first time an informal information
meeting with representatives of governments. During that meeting,
the members of the Committee of Experts emphasized once again that the
Committee’s mandate was defined by the International Labour Conference
Monitoring compliance with international 22 labour standards
and the Governing Body. The members of the Committee of Experts also provided
information on a number of aspects related to their work. These included:
a succinct history of the Committee and the evolution of its composition and
mandate; its role in the context of the ILO supervisory system, with particular
emphasis on its relationship with the Conference Committee on the Application
of Standards; the sources of information used in carrying out its work and the
preparatory work and examination of comments during its plenary sittings.
The Committee of Experts added that its efforts to streamline its comments
were solely aimed at improving the coherence, quality and visibility of its work,
without losing substance. 35
Another interesting development relating to working methods took place in 2017.
Based on the discussion of the subcommittee on working methods that year,
the Committee of Experts decided to institute a practice of launching “urgent
appeals” in cases corresponding to the following criteria:
• failure to send first reports after ratification for the third consecutive year;
• failure to reply to serious and urgent observations from employers’ and workers’
organizations for more than two years;
• failure to reply to CEACR repetitions relating to draft legislation when developments
have intervened. 36
In addition, the following year, based on the guidance of the Governing Body,
the CEACR continued its recent practice of adopting a single comment to address
in a consolidated manner the issues of application arising under various
related Conventions for one country. These types of consolidated comments have
been adopted in the fields of social security, maritime issues, wages, working
time, occupational safety and health, labour inspection and child labour. This
has allowed the CEACR to avoid repetitive comments under thematically related
Conventions and has helped to ensure greater coherence in the treatment of the
related information by country. For the countries concerned, one advantage is
that comments are more easily readable and provide a more coherent and holistic
analysis by subject of the issues to be addressed.
Finally, it should be recalled that throughout all these years, as the Committee’s
workload, working methods and responsibilities have evolved, the principles
of objectivity, impartiality and independence which animate its work have not
changed. It continues to examine the application of Conventions, Protocols and
Recommendations, and of related constitutional obligations, in a uniform manner
for all States. And as efforts are directed towards improving the visibility of the
Committee’s work, this could not only facilitate more efficient work in the CAS,
but also help the tripartite constituents – in particular governments – to better
understand and identify the Committee’s requests. This could lead to greater
implementation of, and compliance with, international labour standards.
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 23
2.2 Recent discussions on, and clarifications regarding,
the Committee’s mandate
Despite the fact that the Committee of Experts carries out an exercise involving a
certain degree of interpretation of international standards and that over the years
its observations have acquired considerable moral force, it should be stressed
that by virtue of article 37 of the ILO Constitution, only the International Court
of Justice is competent to make “definitive interpretations” of Conventions. It is
therefore more precise to emphasize that the Committee of Experts’ observations
constitute assessments of the conformity of the national laws of a member
State with the Conventions that it has ratified, and not definitive interpretations.
To make such assessments, the CEACR has recalled over the years that
under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, resort
to preparatory works of an instrument can occur to confirm a good faith interpretation
in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of
the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose or to determine
the meaning when the interpretation: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous
or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. In
the ILO, reference is made simultaneously to the text of the international labour
standard and to its preparatory work. This is respectful of the input made by tripartite
constituents during the framing of an instrument and of the unique tripartite
structure of the ILO that gives an equal voice to workers, employers and
governments to ensure that the views of the social partners are closely reflected
in labour standards and in shaping policies and programmes.
Tripartite consensus on the ILO supervisory system is therefore an important
parameter for the work of the Committee of Experts which, although an independent
body, has never functioned in an autonomous manner. Divergences of
views between constituents therefore may have an impact on the Committee’s
work and requires it to pay particular attention to abiding strictly by its mandate
and its core principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality.
Recent clarifications
Following tensions in the tripartite consensus related to certain aspects of the
supervisory system that culminated in the early 2010s, the Committee recalled
during its session of November 2012 that, since 1947, and during the past 50-plus
years, it had regularly expressed its views on its mandate and methods of work.
Since 2001, it had done so even more thoroughly through the efforts of its subcommittee
on working methods (see section 2.1 above). In its 2013 report, the
CEACR made several detailed observations regarding its mandate in the spirit
of assisting ILO constituents in their understanding of the CEACR’s work. 37 On
that occasion, the Committee recalled three elements of particular relevance: (i)
it had repeatedly stressed its status as an impartial, objective, and independent
body, with members appointed by the tripartite Governing Body in their personal
capacity precisely because of that impartial and independent status; (ii) it had
regularly clarified that, while its terms of reference did not authorize it to give
Monitoring compliance with international 24 labour standards
definitive interpretations of Conventions, in order to carry out its mandate of evaluating
and assessing the application and implementation of Conventions, it had
to consider and express its views on the legal scope and meaning of the provisions
of these Conventions; and (iii) as from at least the 1950s, it had expressed
its views on the meaning of specific ILO instruments in terms that inevitably reflected
an interpretive vocabulary.
The Committee further stressed that its mandate derived from three main principles.
First, assessment and evaluation of textual meaning was logically integral
to the application of ratified Conventions. In this regard, the Committee noted
that it needed to bring to the attention of the CAS: (i) any national laws or practices
not in conformity with the Conventions, which inevitably required the evaluation
and, thus, a certain degree of interpretation, of the national legislation and
the text of the Convention; and (ii) in conformity with its working methods, the
cases of progress in the application of standards, which also required a degree
of interpretation.
Second, the equal treatment and uniformity of the application of Conventions assured
predictability. The Committee highlighted in this regard that its approach to
examining the meaning of Conventions also prioritized achieving equal treatment
for States and uniformity in practical application. This emphasis was essential to
maintaining principles of legality, which encouraged governments to accept its
views on the application of a Convention and, in this manner, promoted a level
of certainty needed for the proper functioning of the ILO system.
Third, the Committee stressed that its composition, that is, independent persons
with distinguished backgrounds in the law and direct experience of the
different national legal systems to which Conventions were applied, helped to
ensure a broad acceptance within the ILO community of its views on the meaning
of Conventions. The Committee’s independence was importantly a function of
its members’ occupations, principally as judges from national and international
courts and as professors of labour law and human rights law. This independence
was also attributable to the means by which members were selected. They were
not selected by governments, employers or workers, but rather by the Governing
Body upon recommendation of the Director-General. The Committee’s combination
of independence, experience and expertise continued to be a significant
further source of legitimacy within the ILO community.
In its 2013 report, the Committee further recalled that it directed its non-binding
opinions and conclusions to governments, social partners and the CAS pursuant
to its well-established role in the ILO supervisory structure. While aware that
its guidance was taken seriously in certain specific settings, both by domestic
courts and international tribunals, the Committee considered that this reflected
respect for its independent and impartial nature and for the persuasive value of
its non-binding analyses and conclusions. The Committee recalled that those
analyses or conclusions could only become authoritative in any “binding” sense
if the international tribunal, or instrument, or the domestic court independently
established them as such.
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 25
The Committee also underscored the substantial individual and collective work it
carried out in reviewing the application of Conventions which further benefited
from an intensive exchange of views from a diversity of legal, social and cultural
backgrounds. Finally, the Committee recalled that its mandate had to, by necessity,
be understood within the framework of the ILO Constitution, which firmly
anchored the aims and objectives of the Organization as being the elimination of
injustice, hardship and privation and the fostering of social justice as the means
for ensuring universal and lasting peace.
The Committee finally recalled that its guidance was part of the so-called international
law landscape. Like the work of independent supervisory bodies created
within other UN organizations addressing human rights and labour rights, the
Committee’s non-binding opinions or conclusions were intended to guide the
actions of ILO member States by virtue of their rationality and persuasiveness,
their source of legitimacy and their responsiveness to a set of national realities
including the informational input of the social partners. At the same time, the
Committee observed that it was only before the ILO supervisory machinery that
the social partners could bring forward their concerns relating to the application
of Conventions.
Following these detailed observations, the Committee of Experts decided to include
in 2014 the following statement regarding its mandate in its report:
The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
is an independent body established by the International Labour Conference
and its members are appointed by the ILO Governing Body. It is composed of
legal experts charged with examining the application of ILO Conventions and
Recommendations by ILO member States. The Committee of Experts undertakes
an impartial and technical analysis of how the Conventions are applied in
law and practice by member States, while cognizant of different national realities
and legal systems. In doing so, it must determine the legal scope, content and
meaning of the provisions of the Conventions. Its opinions and recommendations
are non-binding, being intended to guide the actions of national authorities.
They derive their persuasive value from the legitimacy and rationality of
the Committee’s work based on its impartiality, experience and expertise. The
Committee’s technical role and moral authority is well recognized, particularly
as it has been engaged in its supervisory task for over 85 years, by virtue of its
composition, independence and its working methods built on continuing dialogue
with governments taking into account information provided by employers’
and workers’ organizations. This has been reflected in the incorporation of the
Committee’s opinions and recommendations in national legislation, international
instruments and court decisions.38
In 2015, the Committee noted that the statement of its mandate (which has been
since reiterated in all its yearly reports) was welcomed by the Governing Body
and had the support of the tripartite constituents.39
Monitoring compliance with international 26 labour standards
2.3 Information treated by the Committee (reports submitted
by governments and comments of the social partners)
Reporting cycle
As indicated above, article 22 of the ILO Constitution calls on governments of ILO
member States to provide reports detailing the steps they have taken in law and
practice to apply the ILO Conventions they have ratified. The article also allows
the Governing Body to decide in which form and at which time intervals reports
on each Convention are requested. While reports on each Convention had to be
sent on an annual basis during the early years following the ILO’s establishment,
the reporting cycle has been gradually extended over time, to decrease the
workload of both governments and the CEACR. Since 2012, reports on the eight
fundamental and four governance Conventions are due every three years. The
reporting cycle for all other Conventions had been five years since 1993, but was
extended to six years following a decision of the Governing Body in November
2018. Reports can however also be requested at shorter intervals. For example,
the CEACR can request a government to send a report in reply to comments it
has made on the government’s previous report within a shorter period. All reports
due in one year have to reach the Office between 1 June and 1 September,
to be reviewed during the CEACR’s meeting in November.
Furthermore, the Governing Body in its November 2018 decision expressed its
understanding that the Committee of Experts would further review, clarify and,
where appropriate, broaden the criteria for “breaking the reporting cycle” with respect
to technical Conventions. 40 The Committee thus proceeded with the review
of the criteria mentioned above. The Committee indicated that it would review
the application of a technical Convention outside of a reporting year following
observations submitted by employers’ and workers’ organizations having due
regard to the following elements:
• the seriousness of the problem and its adverse impact on the application of
the Convention;
• the persistence of the problem; and
• the relevance and scope of the government’s response in its reports or the absence
of response to the issues raised by the Committee, including cases of
clear and repeated refusal on the part of a State to comply with its obligations.
Finally, it is important to stress that, as the functioning of the supervisory system
is based primarily on the information provided by governments in their reports,
both the Committee of Experts and the CAS have, for a number of years, considered
that failure by member States to fulfil their obligations in this respect
should be given the same level of attention as non-compliance relating to the
application of ratified Conventions.
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 27
Participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations
In the early years of the supervisory system, both the CEACR and the CAS repeatedly
expressed concern at the lack of comments from employers’ and workers’
organizations based on the question added to the report forms in 1932. It was
only in 1953 that the CEACR could note comments received from workers’ organizations
in two countries. In 1959, it indicated that comments had been received
from nine countries.41
In the early 1970s, the CEACR began giving special attention to the obligation
for Members, under article 23 of the Constitution, to communicate reports to
the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, by which greater participation
of workers and employers was to be promoted. During that period,
the convergence of views between the Employers’ and Workers’ groups on promoting
compliance with standards led to further developments in the work of
the CEACR. This, combined with the growth of the international trade union
movement, contributed to the increased participation of employers’ and workers’
organizations in the process of the supervision of standards. By the mid-1970s, a
series of measures had been taken to strengthen tripartism in ILO activities, including
supervision, resulting in important changes in the workload and methods
of work of the CEACR. The adoption of the Tripartite Consultation (International
Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), established the requirement for
ratifying States to consult the representatives of employers and workers on certain
standards-related matters, including their reports on ratified Conventions.
Until the early 1980s, most comments were submitted together with the governments’
reports, while only a few were sent directly to the Organization. By 1986,
the CEACR was able to note that there had been a considerable increase in the
comments received, from 9 in 1972 to 149 in 1985. The following period witnessed
an even greater increase in the number of comments received from employers’
and workers’ organizations, which rose from 183 in 1990 to 1,004 in 2012 and 1,325
in 2017. A small decrease (due to a smaller number of submissions made on the
General Survey) was noted in 2018 with 745 observations received.
In recent years, the CEACR has recalled consistently that the contribution by employers’
and workers’ organizations was essential for the Committee’s evaluation
of the application of Conventions in national law and in practice. Member States
have an obligation under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution to communicate
to the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations copies of the
reports supplied under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution. Compliance with
this constitutional obligation is intended to enable organizations of employers and
workers to participate fully in the supervision of the application of international
labour standards. In some cases, governments transmit the observations made by
employers’ and workers’ organizations with their reports, sometimes adding their
own comments. However, in recent years, in the majority of cases, observations
from employers’ and workers’ organizations are sent directly to the Office which,
in accordance with the established practice, transmits them to the governments
concerned for comment, so as to ensure respect for due process. Where the
Monitoring compliance with international 28 labour standards
Committee finds that the observations are not within the scope of the Convention
or do not contain information that would add value to its examination of the application
of the Convention, it will not refer to them in its comments. Otherwise,
the observations received from employers’ and workers’ organizations may be
considered in an observation or in a direct request, as appropriate.
At its 86th Session (2015), the Committee made the following clarifications on
the general approach developed over the years for the treatment of observations
from employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee recalled that, in a
reporting year, when observations from employers’ and workers’ organizations
are not provided with the government’s report, they should be received by the
Office by 1 September at the latest, so as to allow the government concerned to
have a reasonable time to respond, thereby enabling the Committee to examine,
as appropriate, the issues raised at its session the same year. When observations
are received after 1 September, they would not be examined in substance in the
absence of a reply from the government, apart from exceptional cases. Over the
years, the Committee has defined exceptional cases as those where the allegations
are sufficiently substantiated and there is an urgent need to address the
situation, whether because they refer to matters of life and death or to violations
of fundamental human rights or because any delay may cause irreparable harm.
In addition, observations referring to legislative proposals or draft laws may also
be examined by the Committee in the absence of a reply from the government,
where this may be of assistance for the country at the drafting stage. 42
Reports on unratified Conventions:
From technical examination to General Surveys
Following the 1946 constitutional amendment and a 1948 decision of the
Governing Body, the CEACR examined for the first time government reports on
unratified Conventions in 1950. The CEACR’s analysis and findings, which were
submitted to the CAS, took the form of a survey intended to portray a comprehensive
picture of the state of the law and practice in all countries on certain
important matters falling within the competence of the ILO, with a focus on the
reasons preventing or delaying the ratification of Conventions.
The following years, the examination of reports on unratified Conventions and
on Recommendations was strengthened and in November 1955, with a view
to reinforcing the work of the CAS, the Governing Body approved a proposal
by its Committee on Standing Orders and the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations, which was supported by the CAS, that the CEACR
should undertake, in addition to a technical examination on the application of
Conventions, a study of general matters, such as positions on the application of
certain Conventions and Recommendations by all governments. Such studies,
now known as “General Surveys”, were intended to cover the Conventions and
Recommendations selected for the submission of reports under article 19 of the
Constitution. As the reports requested under article 19 were grouped around one
or two central themes each year, it was proposed that the reports provided under
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 29
article 22 of the Constitution might also be taken into consideration. This practice
was endorsed by both the CAS and the Governing Body so as to allow for a
“fuller examination of the situation existing in the various countries in the field
covered by these Conventions”.43 The CEACR carried out its first such examination
in 1956 and, as from that year, the CAS has consistently discussed the General
Surveys of the CEACR.
Today, these General Surveys allow the Committee of Experts to examine the
progress and difficulties reported by governments in applying labour standards,
clarify the scope of these standards and occasionally indicate means of
overcoming obstacles to their application. In doing so, the General Surveys
also provide importance guidance to national legislators as well as to the ILO,
on possible action to be taken with regard to the standards. More recently,
General Surveys have played a role in informing the recurrent discussions of the
International Labour Conference, which periodically review the effectiveness of the
Organization’s various means of action, including standards-related action in responding
to the diverse realities and needs of member States with respect to each
of the strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda. Increasingly, they may
be expected to inform the work of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite
Working Group, a recently established body, which is mandated to ensure that the
ILO has a clear, robust and up-to-date body of international labour standards that
respond to the changing patterns of the world of work, for the purpose of the protection
of workers and taking into account the needs of sustainable enterprises.
Reports concerning the submission of instruments
to the competent authorities
Under article 19(5)(b), (6)(b) and (7)(b) of the ILO Constitution, member States are
required to submit, as a general rule, every instrument within 12 months of its
adoption to the authority or authorities, within whose competence the matter
lies, to consider the adoption of legislation or other action to implement it. These
member States then have to submit a report to the Office, detailing the action
they have taken in this regard.
In 1954, the Governing Body approved for the first time a draft memorandum
containing details on the extent of the obligation to submit Conventions and
Recommendations to the competent authorities. The most recent revision of
this memorandum was adopted in 2005. It describes the extent of the obligation
and the aims and objectives of the submission, stating that the main aim
of submission is to promote measures at the domestic level for the ratification
and implementation of the instruments and to bring them to the knowledge of
the public. It furthermore clarifies the form of submission, the time limits and
other technical aspects.
In its annual report, the CEACR reviews the information related to the submission
of instruments and formulates comments on cases of non-compliance with
this obligation.
Monitoring compliance with international 30 labour standards
3. Synergies between the various
supervisory bodies of the ILO
The supervisory system of the ILO has had to develop over time to meet changing
societal realities and challenges. As mentioned above, these various mechanisms
have long been cited as among the most advanced and best functioning in the
international system, probably because they are the result of a combination of actions
by different ILO bodies – the supervisory bodies, the ILC and the Governing
Body. While the regular system of supervision focuses on the examination of periodic
reports submitted by member States on the measures they have taken to
implement the provisions of ratified Conventions and to give effect to unratified
Conventions and Recommendations (articles 19, 22, 23 and 35), the special procedures
(a representation procedure and a complaint procedure of general application
– articles 24 and 26 to 34 – together with a special procedure for freedom
of association) are driven by complaint-based mechanisms.
But the different supervisory procedures of the ILO serve a common purpose:
the effective observance of international labour standards, particularly in relation
to ratified Conventions. The existing connections between the supervisory
mechanisms therefore operate in respect of obligations freely assumed by the
Organization’s member States through the ratification of Conventions, although
obligations in respect of unratified instruments are also an important area of attention
for the supervisory bodies.
The CEACR and the CAS:
Complementary and mutually reinforcing
As noted above, the Committee of Experts was created at the same time as
the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. While there have
at times been differences in approach between the two committees, they have
developed a solidly collaborative relationship and each relies on the work of the
other. In fact, a spirit of mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility has consistently
prevailed in the Committee’s relations with the International Labour
Conference and its Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee
of Experts takes the proceedings of the CAS into full consideration, not only in
respect of general matters concerning standard-setting activities and supervisory
procedures, but also in respect of specific matters concerning the way in which
States fulfil their standards-related obligations.
Over the years, both the CAS and the CEACR have regularly examined their
working methods with their continual concern to coordinate the operation of
the various supervisory procedures so that they would be complementary and
mutually reinforcing. Until 1955, the CAS discussed all the cases contained in
the CEACR reports. In the mid-1950s, the first decisions were taken to allow the
CEACR and the CAS to deal with their increasing workload. A certain division of
labour was progressively established between the CAS and the CEACR. At the
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 31
beginning, both Committees examined successively all the issues arising out of
the annual reports. However, in 1955, the CAS adopted the “principle of selectivity”
so that it could concentrate only on cases in which the CEACR had drawn
attention to definite discrepancies between the terms of ratified Conventions
and national law and practice. 44
As from the 1990s, two practices enhanced the mutual understanding between
the Committee of Experts and the CAS. Since 1993, the Vice-Chairpersons of
the CAS 45 have been invited to a special session of the Committee each year,
providing them with a platform to express their views, proposals and concerns.
Conversely, carrying out a Governing Body decision, the Director-General invites
the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts to attend sessions of the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards. This provides the CEACR with insights
into how the tripartite CAS addresses its General Report, the cases it has
selected for discussion from the Committee of Experts’ report and its General
Survey. This practice has been considered useful with the potential to further
reinforce the respective roles of both bodies.
In 1994, on the occasion of the ILO’s 75th anniversary, the CEACR recalled developments
in the practice of the two Committees, and concluded that the division
of functions was “one of the keys to the success of the ILO’s supervisory system
in that the complementary nature of the independent examination carried out
by the Committee of Experts and the tripartite examination of the Conference
Committee on Standards makes it possible to maintain a desirable balance in
the treatment of cases”. 46
More recently, the 2015 report of the Committee of Experts noted that a transparent
and continuous dialogue between the CAS and the CEACR proved invaluable
for ensuring a proper and balanced functioning of the ILO standards
system. The CAS and the CEACR could be regarded as distinct but inextricably
linked as their activities are mutually dependent. Then, in its 2019 report, the
CEACR recognized that its independent nature helped the fruitful dialogue in
which the two bodies had been engaging and that any evolution of the supervisory
system should be based on the system’s strengths. International labour
standards constituted not only the main source of international labour law but
also the foundation of national labour law in many countries throughout the
world. International labour standards had managed to exert this influence and
maintain their relevance over the years largely thanks to the supervisory body
comments linking ratified Conventions to constantly changing national circumstances,
and through the integration of these recommendations and comments
in numerous decisions reached by national judicial bodies. The Committee of
Experts’ comments would not have produced the same results if they were not
enhanced by the political impact of discussion at the Conference Committee
in a tripartite context. An important condition for maintaining the impact of
the experts’ comments was the coherence between the two bodies, based on
their complementary mandates and the cooperation they had built over time.
In addition, conscious of the synergies between the two bodies, the Committee
Monitoring compliance with international 32 labour standards
of Experts had been referring to the conclusions reached by the CAS in many of
its comments.47 Finally, in its most recent reports, the Committee of Experts has
recalled that it placed special emphasis on the conclusions of the CAS, carefully
and systematically reviewing their follow-up in its own comments.
The CEACR and the complaint-based mechanisms
As illustrated above, the supervisory mechanisms, whether they form part of
the regular system or consist of so-called special procedures, are closely linked.
Indeed, the work of the Committee of Experts frequently serves as a basis for
that of other supervisory mechanisms.
It is a well-established practice in the supervisory system that the CEACR follows
up on the effect given by governments to the recommendations made by
tripartite committees (article 24) and Commissions of Inquiry (article 26). The
governments concerned are therefore requested to indicate in their reports
under article 22 the measures taken on the basis of these recommendations.
The related information is then examined by the regular supervisory machinery.
As such, it becomes part of the ongoing dialogue between the government, the
CEACR and the CAS. Examination of a case by the CEACR and subsequently
by the CAS may be suspended in the event of a representation or complaint
in relation to the same case.48 When the Governing Body has decided on the
outcome, the CEACR’s subsequent examination may include monitoring the follow-
up to the recommendations of the body which examined the representation
or complaint.
With regard more specifically to the Committee on Freedom of Association
(CFA), its procedure provides for the examination of the action taken by governments
on its recommendations. Under the CFA rules of procedure, where
member States have ratified one or more Conventions on freedom of association,
examination of the legislative aspects of the recommendations adopted
by the Governing Body is often referred to the CEACR by the Governing Body.
The attention of the CEACR is specifically drawn in the concluding paragraph of
the CFA’s reports to possible discrepancies between national law and practice
and the terms of the Convention. However, it is made clear in the procedure that
such referral does not prevent the CFA from examining the effect given to its
recommendations, particularly in view of the nature and urgency of the issues
involved. Since its 236th Report (November 1984), the CFA has highlighted in
the introduction to its Report the cases to which the attention of the CEACR
has been drawn.49
Part I. The CEACR: Composition and functioning 33
Synergies between the CEACR
and other UN and non-UN monitoring bodies
Apart from other ILO supervisory bodies and mechanisms, the CEACR has also
established links with other international monitoring bodies. This mainly concerns
the UN treaty bodies, which supervise the application of UN human rights treaties.
Many of the subjects treated by ILO instruments are also relevant to UN human
rights treaties. A number of the guarantees contained in these treaties overlap
with the obligations under ILO Conventions. This concerns for example the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which, inter alia,
contains guarantees concerning freedom of association and the right to organize,
occupational safety and health or fair wages. Other such overlapping provisions
are also contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination
of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities or the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination.
Many of the countries which have ratified ILO Conventions have also ratified
UN human rights treaties with corresponding provisions. If there is a case of
non-compliance with these provisions, the case will often be treated both by the
CEACR and one or several UN supervisory bodies. Over the years, this has led
to the development of synergies between these bodies, with the UN bodies in
many cases quoting comments of the CEACR and urging the respective governments
to respond to them. Similarly, the CEACR has also, in many cases, quoted
comments made by these supervisory bodies in its reports in order to reinforce
its own statements. 50
There are also a number of regional multilateral treaties which treat issues relevant
to ILO standards, such as the European Social Charter or the Social Charter of
the Americas. In the case of the European Committee on Social Rights, it has
established links with the CEACR for countries that have ratified both treaties. 51
Sources of international law applied at the national level
The CEACR, through its comments on compliance with international labour
standards, has also exerted some influence on the decisions of domestic or international
courts. 52 In numerous countries, ratified international treaties apply automatically
at the national level. Their courts are thus able to use international
labour standards to decide cases on which national law is inadequate or silent,
or to draw on definitions set out in the standards, such as of “forced labour” or
“discrimination”. The use of these standards by the highest courts of certain countries,
as observed by the CEACR for many years, bears witness to their acceptance
and use at the national level. In this way, national and international systems for
the regulation of labour are a mutual source of inspiration.
PART II
Impact of the Committee of Experts’ work
and analysis of cases of progress
1. The rationale behind identifying a case of progress
In 1964, the CEACR started to record cases of progress in its report, noting that
a considerable number of governments had taken account of its past observations
and had amended their legislation and/or practice accordingly.53 Within
cases of progress, a distinction between cases of satisfaction and cases of interest
was formalized in 1979.54 In general, cases of interest cover measures that are
sufficiently advanced to justify the expectation that further progress would be
achieved in the future and regarding which the Committee would want to continue
its dialogue with the government and the social partners. The Committee’s
practice has developed to such an extent that cases in which it expresses interest
may encompass a variety of measures. The paramount consideration is that the
measures contribute to the overall achievement of the objectives of a particular
Convention. This may include:
• draft legislation that is before parliament, or other proposed legislative changes
forwarded or available to the Committee;
• consultations within the government and with the social partners;
• new policies;
• the development and implementation of activities within the framework of a
technical cooperation project, or following technical assistance or advice from
the Office;
• judicial decisions, according to the level of the court, the subject matter and
the force of such decisions in a particular legal system, would normally be
considered as cases of interest unless there is a compelling reason to note a
particular judicial decision as a case of satisfaction.
The Committee expresses satisfaction in cases in which, following comments it has
made on a specific issue, governments have taken measures through either the
adoption of new legislation, an amendment to the existing legislation or a significant
change in the national policy or practice, thus achieving fuller compliance with their
obligations under the respective Conventions. In expressing its satisfaction, the
Committee indicates to governments and the social partners that it considers the
specific matter resolved. The reason for identifying cases of satisfaction is twofold:
• to place on record the Committee’s appreciation of the positive action taken
by governments in response to its comments; and
• to provide an example to other governments and social partners which have
to address similar issues.
Monitoring compliance with international 36 labour standards
At its 80th and 82nd Sessions (2009 and 2011), the Committee made the following
clarifications on the general approach developed over the years for the identification
of cases of progress:
(1) The expression by the Committee of interest or satisfaction does not necessarily
mean that it considers that the country in question is in general conformity
with the Convention, and in the same comment the Committee may
express its satisfaction or interest at a specific issue while also expressing
regret concerning other important matters which, in its view, have not been
addressed in a satisfactory manner.
(2) The Committee wishes to emphasize that an indication of progress is limited
to a specific issue related to the application of the Convention and the nature
of the measure adopted by the government concerned.
(3) The Committee exercises its discretion in noting progress, taking into account
the particular nature of the Convention and the specific circumstances of the
country.
(4) The expression of progress can refer to different kinds of measures relating
to national legislation, policy or practice.
(5) If the satisfaction or interest relates to the adoption of legislation or to a draft
legislation, the Committee may also consider appropriate follow-up measures
for its practical application.
(6) In identifying cases of progress, the Committee takes into account both the
information provided by governments in their reports and the comments of
employers’ and workers’ organizations.55
While recording cases of progress has become an essential part of the Committee
of Experts’ work, the extent to which people, workers and employers alike, have
benefited, often in a lasting manner, from the legal and social changes which
occur when the national legislation/situation are brought into conformity with
international labour standards can be sometimes challenging to measure. Indeed,
in practice, not everything can be measured accurately. As experience shows,
law and its effective implementation is a complex issue. For the purpose of this
publication, as will be illustrated below, it was necessary to make certain choices,
steering clear of analysing everything, but emphasizing the diversity, profundity,
permanence and progression of the impact of the work carried out by the CEACR.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 37
2. Preventive supervision and the issue of causality
The difficulties encountered by the ILO supervisory bodies and in particular the
CEACR in helping eliminate divergences between national law and international
labour instruments have various origins. Firstly, there may exist difficulties of an
economic or social nature preventing the implementation of and compliance with
the Conventions ratified by a specific State. These sometimes consist of premature
ratifications, with the State marking its adhesion to the principle through its
ratification, but not yet having the means to ensure effective compliance with
the Convention. Similar problems have also been noted in the past in the case
of newly independent States. In other instances, political difficulties may delay
the adoption of measures to remove the divergences noted by the Committee.
Political issues may range from serious internal problems to the difficulties experienced
by the government in obtaining the adoption of the necessary amendments
by parliament. These may be combined with difficulties of a legal nature,
such as those encountered on occasion by federal States when the measures to
be taken lie within the competence of the constituent units of the federation. 56
But as mentioned above, the impact of the Committee of Experts’ work as part
of the overall supervisory system cannot be measured solely in the light of the
cases of progress enumerated. In this respect, the indirect or a priori impact of
the Committee’s work should not be overlooked. In practice, the Committee of
Experts can exercise considerable preventive supervision. This impact is by its
nature difficult to quantify. It consists, for example, of the comparative analysis
of draft legislation bringing to light the incompatibility of certain provisions of
the draft text with the Convention concerned. Such an examination, even before
the entry into force of the law, offers the legislative authorities of a member State
the possibility to make the necessary amendments. As a result, the law will probably
not be the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts subsequently,
unless real problems of application arise.
With regard to preventive supervision, reference should also be made to the direct
requests that the CEACR sends out each year to certain governments. These
direct requests, in which the Committee generally seeks clarifications from governments
and enters into dialogue with them, do not appear in the Committee’s
report. As a result, the measures taken pursuant to direct requests and their
effectiveness will never appear in the figures of cases of progress. Furthermore,
the Committee notes each year a number of cases in which it appears, from the
first report on the application of a Convention, that new measures of a legislative
or other nature have been adopted shortly before or after ratification.
The question may also sometimes arise as to how to establish a causal link
between the observations of the Committee of Experts and the measures taken
by the governments concerned. The process of supervising application, to be
effective, necessarily requires a certain degree of collaboration by member
States. The outcome of the Committee’s work can be measured on the basis of
a whole range of sources of information, including the indications provided by
Monitoring compliance with international 38 labour standards
the governments concerned, those transmitted by employers’ and workers’ organizations,
draft legislation submitted to the Office and requests for technical
assistance. In this respect, the information that can be provided by workers’ and
employers’ organizations takes on a certain importance by making it possible for
the Committee to keep itself informed of cases in which, for example, the government
concerned did not provide the requested information.57
The causal link between an observation by the Committee of Experts and a case
of progress can be more difficult to establish where the Committee’s comments
have not given rise to immediate action and several years have passed before
the government concerned took the necessary measures to give effect to those
comments. In such cases, it should be recalled that throughout whatever period
necessary, the Committee of Experts – sometimes alongside other bodies of the
supervisory system – would continue to follow a case, pursuing its examination
of the problems of application which had arisen and reiterating its previous comments
until it would be able to note a change in line with its observations.
Admittedly, the rise in the number of cases of progress over the years has been
linked to the increase in ratifications and the amount of reports submitted. But
the cases of progress noted by the CEACR cannot be assessed solely on the basis
of figures, which cannot by themselves claim to give a real and detailed picture
of the developments in the situation. The analysis must therefore be both quantitative
and qualitative.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 39
The following figures provide a statistical overview regarding the cases of
progress recorded by the CEACR.
Since 1964, the CEACR has been recording the number of cases in which it was
able to express its satisfaction following positive measures taken by governments
in line with its comments. As of 2019, the total number of these cases had risen
to 3,077. This number has been increasing steadily over the years (fig. 1).
Since 1964, there have been an average of 54 new cases of satisfaction per year
(fig. 2).
As of 2001, the CEACR also began to record the cases in which it expressed its
interest. As of 2019, their total number had risen to 4,168, with 219 new cases on
average every year.
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
500
3500
0
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Figure 1
40
60
80
100
20
120
0
1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Figure 2
Monitoring compliance with international 40 labour standards
Regarding the distribution of the cases of satisfaction among the different types
of Conventions, a fairly even distribution between “fundamental” and “technical”
Conventions can be noted. Both types make up about 88 per cent of all cases,
leaving the remaining 12 per cent to the “governance” Conventions (fig. 3).
This distribution has however changed over time, as the share of cases on “fundamental”
Conventions has steadily risen since the 1980s, only interrupted by a
slight decrease at the end of the 1990s (fig. 4).
This trend is also reflected in the distribution of cases of interest, whose number
has only been recorded since 2001, and of which almost 50 per cent concern
“fundamental” Conventions, with another 23 per cent related to “governance”
and the remaining 29 per cent concerning “technical” Conventions.
Technical (46%)
Governance (12%)
Fundamental (42%) Figure 3
Figure 4 (%)
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Fundamental
Governance
Technical
25
50
75
100
0
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 41
Among the cases on “fundamental” Conventions, a fairly even distribution
between the four subjects of “child labour”, “forced labour”, “discrimination” and
“freedom of association and collective bargaining” can be noted (fig. 5).
This distribution has however changed several times over the years, that is, while
the share of “forced labour” and “discrimination” cases increased in the 1970s, but
decreased towards the 2000s, the share of “freedom of association” cases has
steadily risen since the end of the 1970s, however with a shorter period of decline
between 2000 and 2010. “Child labour” cases, on the other hand, had two
peaks, one in the 1970s and one which began in 2000 and still continues today,
probably coinciding with the adoption of Conventions Nos 138 and 182 in 1973
and 1999 (fig. 6).
Child labour (29%)
Discrimination (17%) Forced labour (22%)
Freedom of association
and collective bargaining (32%)
Figure 5
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
100
0
75
50
25
Child labour
Forced labour
FOA
Discrimination
Figure 6 (%)
Monitoring compliance with international 42 labour standards
Among the “technical” Conventions, the largest share of cases of satisfaction
has been related to “social security”, “seafarers” as well as “working time” and, to
a slightly lesser extent, “maternity protection” and “wages” (fig. 7).
The regional distribution of cases of satisfaction is fairly balanced, although
Europe is the region with the most cases (fig. 8).
This distribution has however also changed over time. One noticeable trend is,
for example, a decline of cases from Europe over the years (fig. 9).
Europe (38%)
Africa (22%)
Asia and
Oceania
(14%)
Latin America and
the Caribbean
(25%)
North America (1%)
Social
security
(34%)
Working time (17%) Seafarers (18%)
Maternity protection (8%)
Wages (7%)
Social policy (5%)
Indigenous peoples (4%)
Dockworkers (4%)
Fishers (2%)
Migrant workers (1%)
Figure 7 Figure 8
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
75
50
25
Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean
Africa
Asia and the Pacific North America
100
0
Figure 9 (%)
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 43
The distribution of cases of satisfaction by type among the regions is quite
similar (fig. 10).
Finally, it should be noted that the synergies between the CEACR and the other
ILO supervisory bodies, especially the CAS, have also been reflected in the record
of cases of progress over the years.
Figure 10 (%)
75
50
25
Europe Africa Asia and the Pacific Americas
0
100
Fundamental
Governance
Technical
Monitoring compliance with international 44 labour standards
3. Cases identified
The following section provides a selection of cases of progress presented by
subregions and countries. As indicated above, the examples which follow have
been selected out of a concern to indicate the most notable cases of progress
recorded in the various regions of the world, and quite clearly make no claim to
being exhaustive. As it is not possible to list, analyse and quantify everything, it
has been necessary to make choices with a view to achieving an equitable geographical
representation and diversity in the subjects covered by the Conventions.
Furthermore, as mentioned in section 1 of Part II, the expression of satisfaction by
the CEACR does not entail that the country in question is in general conformity
with the Convention concerned as sometimes other important issues may still
not have been addressed adequately.
Cases of progress
(a) Africa
Eswatini
Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
The case relates to a number of Eswatinian laws, which considerably limited
the ability of trade unions to organize and to freely implement their activities.
For many years, the CEACR commented on these laws, pointing out their nonconformity
with Articles 2, 3 and 10 of Convention No. 87. Following a longstanding
dialogue of the CEACR with the Government, in combination with
comments of the CAS and the CFA, as well as technical assistance provided by
ILO experts, several amendments to these laws were passed between 2010 and
2017, addressing most of the CEACR’s comments.58
Case background
Eswatini has been a Member of the ILO since 1975 and has ratified 33 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 87.
The case deals with a number of sections in Eswatini’s Industrial Relations Act
(IRA) as well as other laws and regulations, which the CEACR considered not to
be in compliance with Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87.
These laws restricted the ability of trade unions to initiate industrial action, such
as a State of Emergency Proclamation, the Public Order Act and the Suppression
of Terrorism Act, which enabled the authorities to suspend strikes and other trade
union activities, such as demonstrations or boycotts, for reasons of public safety.
The CEACR also commented on sections of the IRA which allowed for the referral
of labour disputes to lengthy compulsory arbitration procedures, as well as on
the mandatory supervision of strike ballots by a national arbitration commission.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 45
Furthermore, the Committee of Experts commented on sections of the IRA which
appeared to restrict the right to organize and other trade union rights for prison
staff, sanitary services staff and domestic workers.
The CEACR also raised concerns over the possibly intimidating effect of a number
of sections of the IRA, which prescribed the civil and criminal accountability of
union leaders for damages resulting from industrial action.
Finally, the Committee of Experts referred to provisions which restricted the
ability of workers to freely organize their administration and activities, such as
laws which allowed for the deregistration of trade unions under certain conditions,
as well as statutory restrictions on the nomination of candidates and eligibility
for union office.
Dialogue with the Government
Due to the longevity of the issues mentioned, with some of them dating back
to the 1960s and 1970s, the Committee of Experts had, for several decades, formulated
observations on them, establishing a long-standing dialogue with the
Government. Furthermore, due to the case’s urgency, it was also examined by
the CAS, which discussed it 15 times since 1996, sometimes on a yearly basis. The
CFA has also dealt with several cases related to these issues, such as the excessive
use of emergency laws to restrict trade union activities and the deregistration of
unions, and recommended to the Government to proceed with the amendment
of the laws. These discussions and comments were paralleled by several ILO direct
contacts missions to Eswatini, including several high-level missions, to provide
technical assistance to the Government in its efforts to resolve these issues.
Over the years, these combined efforts led to several measures taken by the
Government to address the CEACR’s comments, namely two substantial amendments
to the IRA, which were adopted in 1996 and 2000. While these reforms
addressed a number of issues previously highlighted by the CEACR, they however
also left other issues unresolved and, in some cases, even introduced provisions
which raised new concerns for the Committee of Experts.
In 2005, the CAS urged the Government to accept another high-level mission to
Eswatini to establish a meaningful framework for social dialogue, and to discuss
the discrepancies between the national law and Convention No. 87. At the mission’s
proposal, the Government and the social partners of Eswatini signed an
agreement undertaking to set up a Special Consultative Tripartite Committee
to make recommendations to the competent authorities to eliminate these discrepancies.
Meanwhile, the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) of the Department of
Labour of the Government also set up a special committee to draft amendments
to the IRA to address some of the CEACR’s comments. This Committee submitted
proposals for such amendments in 2008.
Monitoring compliance with international 46 labour standards
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
Following further comments of the CEACR and the CAS, which concerned the
postponement of the adoption of the LAB’s proposed amendments and the
apparent inactivity of the Special Consultative Tripartite Committee as well as
another high-level mission to the country, a new amendment to the IRA was
adopted in 2010. It provided for the right to organize for domestic workers, shortened
the compulsory arbitration procedures for labour disputes to 21 days and
ensured that a supervision of strike ballots by the national arbitration commission
could only occur upon request of a trade union.
Furthermore, the Government reported that it had started discussions to lift certain
restrictions on trade union rights for sanitary workers and prison staff and to
amend the Public Order Act as well as the sections of the IRA on civil and criminal
liability of union leaders. It also stated that the above-mentioned State of
Emergency Proclamation had been invalidated by a constitutional amendment
adopted in 2006, which was however disputed by the social partners.
The Committee of Experts took note of this amendment with satisfaction but also
encouraged the Government to proceed with addressing the other outstanding
issues in an observation published in its 2012 report.
In 2014, another amendment to the IRA was adopted, which restricted the prohibition
of strikes for sanitary services to the maintenance of a “minimum service”
and amended the sections on civil and criminal liability of union leaders
with regard to industrial action, in accordance with the comments made by
the CEACR. This amendment was noted with satisfaction by the Committee of
Experts in its 2015 report. The other proposed amendments were however not
adopted as they continued to be discussed in the Special Consultative Tripartite
Committee, the LAB as well as the Cabinet.
In 2017, another major legislative reform was adopted, addressing many of the
remaining comments of the CEACR. It included new laws, which amended
the Public Order Act and the Suppression of Terrorism Act, deleting provisions
which risked enabling the unreasonable suppression of industrial action by the
authorities. Furthermore, the Legislative Assembly passed a new Correctional
Services Act, which fully recognized the right to organize for the members of the
Correctional Services and thus to prison staff.
In its 2019 report, the Committee of Experts noted these further changes with
satisfaction and commended the Government and the other stakeholders involved
for their efforts in pursuing these reforms and for the substantial progress
they had achieved, solving many issues, which had been outstanding for a long
time. The CEACR also encouraged the Government to pursue its efforts towards
ensuring that this new legislation would be fully implemented with a view to
guaranteeing conformity with the Convention.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 47
Mali
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
The case relates to a long-standing issue with the 1992 Labour Code of Mali,
in particular its provision on equal remuneration, which only referred to equal
remuneration for “equal working conditions” and not the broader concept
of “equal remuneration for work of equal value” as set out in Article 2(1) of
Convention No. 100. Noting this discrepancy, the CEACR, over several years
and in many comments published in its reports, engaged in a dialogue with
the Government, asking it to amend the relevant provision to fully reflect the
requirements of Article 2(1). Following these comments, a reform process was
eventually initiated in the country, which led to the amendment of the Labour
Code, incorporating the “equal value” principle. 59
Case background
Mali has been a Member of the ILO since 1960 and has ratified 34 ILO Conventions,
including Convention No. 100.
In 1992, a new Labour Code was enacted in the country. Section L.95 of this Code
guaranteed equal remuneration of workers, regardless of sex, for “equal conditions
of work, qualifications and output”. Noting this information, the CEACR
however recalled that the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value
required by Article 2(1) of Convention No. 100 was broader than the mere equal
pay for “equal conditions of work” set forth by the Code, as it not only compared
the remuneration between similar types of work but also between types of work,
whose conditions might be different, but whose value is equal.
Noting this discrepancy, the Committee of Experts, in a direct request of 1993,
asked the Government to re-examine its legislation in view of this principle.
Dialogue with the Government
In its reply to the comments of the CEACR, the Government indicated in 1994
that it did not consider section L.95 to infringe Article 2(1) of the Convention as
this provision ensured that there was no gap between the wage rates of men
and women workers unless the output of men was superior to that of women
workers. In another direct request of 1995, the Committee of Experts however
reiterated that, in view of how section L.95 was phrased, referring only to “equal
conditions of work”, it did not ensure that workers performing work of equal value
would be remunerated equally, and that the principle of the Convention was not
fully implemented. The Committee reiterated these comments in its following
reports in 1997, 1999 and 2000.
In its 2001 report, the Government acknowledged the “equal value” principle,
and reported that the application of the latter was indeed guaranteed in Mali, as
it was contained in several collective agreements and also reflected in the law.
Upon the CEACR’s request in its 2002 report to supply examples of such collective
Monitoring compliance with international 48 labour standards
agreements or legal provisions, the Government, in its following reports, was
however not able to provide any concrete examples. The Committee of Experts,
in its reports of 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 was thus again bound to
repeat its previous comments and asked the Government to report on concrete
measures taken to ensure the implementation of the principle of equal pay for
work of equal value.
Following these ongoing comments of the CEACR, the Government, in its 2008
report, announced that a review of the existing Labour Code had taken place
and that new legislative proposals, to bring the Code into conformity with the
Convention, had been put forward. It did not however elaborate on the exact content
of these proposals. The Committee of Experts, in its 2009 report, expressed
its hope that this reform process would encompass an amendment of section
L.95 to incorporate the “equal value” principle, and asked the Government to provide
more detailed information on the legislative proposals.
In its 2010 and 2014 reports, the Government confirmed that the legislative
reform was indeed aimed at an amendment of section L.95 but did not report
any concrete progress on the adoption of a new law which would ensure the incorporation
of the “equal value” principle. The CEACR again repeated its previous
comments in two more direct requests of 2011 and 2015, urging the Government
to continue the reform and align section L.95 of the Labour Code with Article 2(1)
of Convention No. 100.
The dialogue with the Government was further expanded in 2016, when the UN
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in its concluding
observations, joined the Committee of Experts and asked the Government to
amend its law to ensure the implementation of the “equal value” principle.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In 2017, an amendment to the Labour Code, which modified section L.95, was
finally adopted. In an observation published in its 2018 report, the CEACR noted
with satisfaction that the new section L.95 contained a definition of the term “remuneration”,
which corresponded to that of the Convention, and fully reflected
the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value
since it provided that “any employer is required to ensure, for the same work or
work of equal value, equal remuneration for employees, whatever their origin, sex,
age, status or disability”. It also provided that “occupational categories and classifications
and criteria for occupational promotion must be common to workers
of both sexes” and that “job classification methods must be based on objective
considerations”. The Committee of Experts therefore asked the Government to
keep it informed of the application in practice of this new law and encouraged it
to take all necessary measures to ensure the full implementation of the principle
of equal pay for work of equal value for all workers in Mali.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 49
Namibia
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
The case relates to gaps in the Namibian law regarding the implementation of
Article 3(b) and(c) of Convention No. 182, concerning the prohibition of the use,
procuring or offering of children for prostitution, pornography or any kind of
illicit activities. After a number of comments of the CEACR, in which it urged
the Government to address these issues and achieve compliance with the
Convention, as well as similar comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child, a new Child Care and Protection Act was adopted in 2015, which fully
addressed the identified gaps.60
Case background
Namibia has been a Member of the ILO since 1978 and has ratified 15 ILO
Conventions, including, in 2000, Convention No. 182.
After having received the first report of the Government on the Convention’s implementation,
the Committee of Experts asked for more information on the implementation
of Article 3(b), concerning the use, procuring or offering of a child for
prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances,
as well as Article 3(c), regarding the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit
activities, in two direct requests addressed to the Government in 2004 and 2006.
After having received the Government’s reply, the CEACR, in another direct request
of 2008, noted that the Namibian Immoral Practices Act of 1980 contained
a section which prohibited the use or offering of children for prostitution by their
parents or guardians, and another section which punished the procurement of
any female for prostitution. It noted that Article 3(b) of the Convention had not
been fully implemented as the law did not punish the use, offering or procuring
of children other than girls for prostitution by persons who are not the children’s
guardians or parents.
Concerning child pornography, the Committee of Experts noted that the Immoral
Practices Act only punished those committing “indecent or immoral acts” with
children under 16 years by persons who are more than three years older than the
child and who are not married to him or her. In this regard, the CEACR recalled
that the Convention prohibits the use, procuring or offering of all children under
18 years for pornography, irrespective of the offender’s age and his or her relation
with the child. The Committee of Experts also requested a definition of the term
“indecent or immoral act”, to ensure that it encompassed pornography.
Concerning Article 3(c) of the Convention, the CEACR noted that it had not been
fully implemented, as the relevant legislation did not appear to prohibit the use,
procuring or offering of a child for all illicit activities, in particular for the production
and trafficking of drugs, one of the main criminal activities in which children
were involved in the country.
Monitoring compliance with international 50 labour standards
The CEACR thus asked the Government to take measures to fully prohibit the
use, procuring or offering of boys and girls for prostitution, pornography and illicit
acts like drug trafficking and to provide information on the measures taken
in this regard.
Dialogue with the Government
Following these comments, the Government initiated legislative reforms and
informed the CEACR of a number of measures taken in this regard. In a direct
request of 2010, the Committee of Experts took note of the Government’s statement
that a new Combating of the Abuse of Drugs Bill had been introduced to
the National Assembly, which prohibited the trafficking, sale and possession of
drugs. The CEACR noted, however, that the Government’s report did not indicate
if the Bill contained provisions on the prohibition of the use, procuring or offering
of children for these activities.
The CEACR further took note of the Government’s statement that a draft Child
Care and Protection Bill, prohibiting the use, procuring or offering of children for
prostitution, pornography or any kind of illicit activity, had been prepared and
submitted for adoption to the National Assembly. The Committee thus urged the
Government to complete the adoption of this Bill in the near future.
In its following report on Convention No. 182, the Government was however not
able to report substantial progress on the adoption of the above-mentioned laws,
especially the Child Care and Protection Bill. The Committee of Experts furthermore
took note of the Government’s 2011 report to the UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child, in which the Government had stated that criminal and sexual
exploitation of children had occurred in the country both through children being
prostituted, and through adults taking advantage of needy children by providing
basic necessities in return for sex.
The CEACR formulated an observation in its 2012 report, in which it urged the
Government to proceed with the adoption of the Child Care and Protection Bill
and to take all necessary measures to fully implement the Convention. The CEACR
was furthermore joined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which, in its
2012 report, acknowledged the pertaining issue of sexual and other exploitation
and abuse of children in Namibia and urged the Government to address these
problems and follow the recommendations of the ILO Committee of Experts.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
After the Government in its 2012 report was not in a position to report any progress
on the reforms, in 2014, it indicated that the new Child Care and Protection
Act (CCP Act) had been adopted by the Namibian National Assembly.
This Act contained provisions prohibiting the use, procuring or offering of a child
for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation and for the purpose of production
or trafficking of drugs and imposed a fine or imprisonment on any person
contravening this prohibition.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 51
In its 2016 report, the Committee of Experts took note with satisfaction of the
adoption of the CCP Act and commended the Government for addressing its
previous comments. It encouraged the Government to ensure the effective implementation
of the new Act and to provide information on its application in practice
in its following reports, as well as to continue addressing remaining issues
concerning the worst forms of child labour in the country.
(b) Arab States
Qatar
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
The case relates to widespread incidents of forced labour of migrant workers in
Qatar. These practices were largely due to a sponsorship system which prohibited
migrant workers from leaving the country or changing their employment
without their employer’s permission, as well as other abusive practices, such as
the confiscation of workers’ passports by employers or the withholding of wages.
They also concerned a lack of enforcement of legislation against forced labour,
due to an insufficient access of migrants to complaint mechanisms and lawsuits
as well as an insufficient labour inspection system and a lack of imposition of
dissuasive penalties on abusive employers. After noting reports of international
workers’ organizations alleging these problems, the CEACR and the CAS urged
the Government to address them. Furthermore, complaint-based procedures,
first through a representation under article 24 and then a formal complaint
under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, were lodged against Qatar, following
which the ILO Governing Body decided to send a high-level tripartite mission
to the country to assess the problem. The mission confirmed the allegations
made in the complaints, which prompted the Governing Body and the CEACR
to renew their previous comments, urging the Government to address the
issue. As a follow-up to these calls, a number of legislative reforms and other
measures were adopted by the Government, which abolished the sponsorship
system and introduced various protections for migrant workers against abusive
practices. Noting these developments, the Governing Body decided to close
the article 26 complaint and agreed to the conclusion of a comprehensive
technical cooperation programme between the ILO and Qatar to support the
ongoing reform measures. With the support of ILO technical advisory services,
a number of milestones have been reached since then. The programme has
adopted a twin-track approach firstly on strengthening the legal framework,
and secondly on its application and enforcement, including effectively raising
awareness about those transformations among workers, employers and the
general public.61
Case background
Qatar has been a Member of the ILO since 1972 and has ratified six ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 29.
Monitoring compliance with international 52 labour standards
Qatar is a high-income economy, backed by one of the world’s largest reserves of
natural gas and oil. Like other countries in the Gulf, Qatar has turned to migrant
labour to help support its rapid development. The country therefore has a large
population of migrant workers, many of whom are employed in construction.
In a communication to the ILO Governing Body dated 16 January 2013, the
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Federation
of Building and Wood Workers (BWI), made a representation under article 24 of
the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Qatar of the rights of migrant
workers in the country under Convention No. 29.
They referred to the fact that the recruitment of migrant workers and their
employment were governed by Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating a sponsorship or
kafala system. Under this system, migrant workers who had obtained a visa
needed a sponsor, who had to do all the necessary paperwork to obtain the residence
permit. The law then forbade workers to change their sponsoring employer
without his or her consent. Workers also could not leave the country temporarily
or permanently unless they had an exit permit issued by the sponsor. Workers
who left their job without permission could be reported to the authorities as
having absconded and could be detained and face fines, deportation or criminal
charges. Furthermore, while workers could issue a complaint to the Labour
Ministry against an employer’s refusal to grant an exit permit, the Ministry almost
never overturned the employer’s decision, rendering this mechanism ineffective.
In addition, the complainants alleged that there existed widespread practices of
employers confiscating the passports of workers upon their arrival, which also
prevented them from freely leaving the country. They alleged that although this
practice was illegal under Qatari law, these laws were not properly enforced and
therefore not respected by employers. Furthermore, they stated that high recruitment
fees prior to departure and travel fees left many workers in debt and in
need of keeping their jobs in Qatar regardless of the conditions of employment.
The complainants also reported the existence of other abusive labour practices
towards migrants such as the non-payment of wages for several months, the provision
of accommodation with poor sanitation and no electricity, and hazardous
working conditions which often resulted in injury or even death. In addition, they
alleged that employers often failed to provide residence visas for their workers,
despite being required to do so by law. This practice of leaving workers “undocumented”
restricted their freedom of movement as they were at risk of being
detained, and prevented them from obtaining basic medical or banking services.
The complainants also indicated that migrant workers were often offered a substantially
different contract from what was promised in the country of origin or
that the contract they had concluded was altered.
The complainants indicated that, by restricting the possibility for migrant workers
to leave the country or change employer, they were effectively prevented from
freeing themselves from abusive labour practices, which in many cases resulted
in them becoming victims of forced labour.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 53
In addition, the complainant organizations alleged that in most cases no or insufficiently
dissuasive penalties were imposed on employers violating forced
labour laws. Due to a lack of labour inspections, the burden to make complaints
was placed on the workers, who often lacked the necessary information on such
mechanisms. The workers also faced language barriers and often did not have
any income or legal accommodation throughout the complaint procedure or
court process, which made the pursuit of a remedy more difficult. As a result,
only very few successful complaints and court cases had been filed against abusive
employers.
In March 2013, the representation submitted by the ITUC and the BWI was declared
admissible by the ILO Governing Body and an ad hoc tripartite committee
was set up to examine it.
These developments were noted by the CEACR, which, pending this examination,
decided to defer its consideration of the issue of forced labour of migrant
workers in Qatar until the publication of the recommendations made by the ad
hoc committee.
Dialogue with the Government
In its reply to these allegations, the Government did not agree that there was
widespread existence of forced labour in the country, recalling that the national
law guaranteed all workers the freedom to conclude or end employment contracts
and to leave work at any time.
With reference to the kafala system, the Government stated that this system did
not lead to objectionable practices, and that it safeguarded the balance between
employers’ rights and the rights of migrant workers.
It also stated that it paid special attention to meeting its obligations towards
migrant workers and endeavoured to combat all forms of forced or compulsory
labour by coordinating with the embassies of the labour-exporting countries to
follow up on the situation of migrant workers and to resolve any individual infringements
by enterprises. The Government further indicated that it had concluded
many bilateral agreements with sending countries, which prescribed the
terms to be included in the consolidated labour contracts and prescribed better
conditions than the ones specified in the legislation.
With regard to the confiscation of passports, the Government indicated that this
practice had occurred in the past, but no longer took place as employers committing
such acts would be held legally accountable and would be subject to
administrative penalties.
Regarding the delaying or non-payment of wages, it did not deny that such cases
occurred but claimed that they had diminished due to the measures taken by
the Government.
Regarding the lack of complaint mechanisms, the Government stated that it allowed
migrant workers to make complaints and that although the number of
Monitoring compliance with international 54 labour standards
complaints received had declined, the Ministry was undertaking measures to
facilitate the process.
Noting these comments, the ad hoc committee, in its recommendations published
in 2014, nevertheless concluded that many of the allegations of the ITUC
and the BWI were credible and that forced labour of migrant workers was still an
issue in the country. It therefore asked the Government to review the functioning
of the kafala system to ensure that it did not place migrant workers in a situation
of increased vulnerability. It also recommended that the Government ensure reasonable
access to justice for migrant workers and that adequate penalties were
applied for violations relating to legislation against forced labour.
These recommendations were approved by the ILO Governing Body in March
2014. Shortly after, at the ILC in June 2014, several delegates at the Conference
lodged a formal complaint on the same issue against Qatar under article 26 of
the ILO Constitution. This complaint was declared receivable by the Governing
Body in November 2014.
In 2015, the CEACR noted the indication of the Government that a bill had been
drafted to repeal the kafala system. It also indicated stepped-up efforts to ensure
that workers’ passports would not be withheld, as well as the facilitation of the
access of workers to complaint procedures and the strengthening of the labour
inspection service. Taking note of this information, the Committee of Experts
nevertheless considered that most of the legislation and practices allowing for
the exploitation of migrants workers were still in place in the country and urged
the Government to take concrete and timely measures to address them.
In June 2015, the case was discussed by the CAS. In its conclusions, the CAS
equally urged the Government to abolish the kafala system and replace it with
a work permit that would allow the worker to change employer and leave the
country. It also asked the Government to work with sending countries to ensure
that recruitment fees were not charged to workers and to ensure that contracts
signed in the sending countries were not altered in Qatar. Furthermore, it urged
the Government to vigorously enforce the legal provisions on passport confiscation,
to facilitate access to the justice system for migrant workers and to hire
additional labour inspectors.
At the Governing Body in November 2015, the Government submitted a report
in reply to the article 26 complaint. In this report, it indicated the adoption of a
new law to alter the kafala system, which allowed workers to change their employer
without their employer’s consent after five years or upon the expiration of
their contract. It also removed the requirement for workers to obtain their employer’s
consent to leave Qatar but still required them to obtain an exit permit
from the authorities. Noting this information, the Governing Body requested the
Government to receive a high-level tripartite visit to assess the impact of all of
these measures, including the impact of the newly adopted law.
This mission was carried out shortly after, in March 2016. The mission report,
while acknowledging the above-mentioned measures taken by the Government,
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 55
confirmed most of the allegations made in the complaint, such as an abusive
use of the kafala system, the widespread confiscation of passports, the alteration
of contracts after arrival, expensive recruitment fees, the withholding of
wages, and widespread hazardous and exploitative working conditions, as well
as a lack of enforcement of anti-forced labour laws and an inadequate access
of migrant workers to justice. At its session in March 2016, the Governing Body
acknowledged this report and urged the Government to follow up on the issues
identified by the mission.
In its 2016 report, the CEACR noted the outcome of the high-level mission, as
well as further reports submitted to it by the ITUC and other social partners.
It also noted the Government’s reply to these reports. From this information, it
concluded that the legislative changes adopted in 2015 did not fully abolish the
abusive kafala system, as the law still tied workers to employers for up to five
years and workers continued to be prevented from freely leaving the country, as
the law still allowed employers to object to the approval of exit visas, following
which workers had to go through lengthy appeal procedures.
Regarding the issues of recruitment fees, contract substitution, withholding
of wages, exploitative labour conditions and passport confiscation, the CEACR
noted the Government’s indication that it had adopted various measures to tackle
these problems. These included the signing of additional agreements with labour-
sending countries, the improvement of the access of workers to their contracts
and visa information and information on their rights, the implementation
of a “wage protection system” and the intensification of labour inspections. It
however also noted indications of the high-level mission report and the ITUC that,
in spite of these measures, the abusive practices were still widespread and that
many of them were only implemented for large companies, not the many small
ones through which migrant workers were subcontracted and which employed
most of the migrant workforce.
Regarding the issue of the access of migrants to the courts and to other complaint
mechanisms, the CEACR noted the Government’s indication that a number
of awareness-raising measures for migrants had been undertaken and support
services, helping workers to submit their complaints, had been set up. It however
also noted the indication in the report of the high-level mission that, despite
these measures, most of the migrants, especially those in small enterprises, were
not aware of the mechanisms and did not have access to them.
In view of these outstanding issues, the CEACR reiterated its previous comments,
urging the Government to adopt timely and effective measures to address all of
the issues highlighted by the mission report and the ITUC.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
Following these new comments, the Government, in October 2017, sent a communication
to the ILO Governing Body in which it indicated a range of additional
measures that had been taken.
Monitoring compliance with international 56 labour standards
It, inter alia, indicated the adoption of a new law in 2017, which made it compulsory
for both workers and employers to submit a dispute over the employment
relationships to the Labour Ministry for settlement. If the settlement was not
successful, it was referred to a specialized dispute resolution committee created
for this purpose, which issued a binding decision within a period not exceeding
three weeks. Against this decision, an appeal to the court was possible. The
Government also indicated the adoption of a second law, providing specific protections
for migrant domestic workers, who had been especially vulnerable to
forced labour practices.
Regarding the change of employer, the Government announced that it had
removed the constraints previously imposed on migrant workers in switching
employer and confirmed that a change was now possible for a worker upon submitting
a simple online notification to the Government. Furthermore, regarding
the difficulties for migrants to leave the country, the Government indicated the
adoption of another law. This new law explicitly provided for the right of workers
to return to their home countries upon notifying their employers. The only reasons
for a rejection of the departure were the existence of claims against the worker,
an open court proceeding against him or her, or a criminal sentence imposed on
the worker. The new law furthermore introduced a grievance committee, to which
migrant workers could appeal in case their departure was denied and which had
to be decided within three days. Against the grievance committee’s decision
another appeal to the Ministry was possible, which had to be decided within
48 hours. The Government furthermore indicated additional awareness-raising
campaigns about these mechanisms.
In addition, the Government also indicated a range of other measures aimed at
protecting migrant workers against abusive practices, such as the extension of
its wage protection system to small companies, an improvement of systems to
detect and prevent occupational health and safety issues or a better protection
against abusive recruitment fees and contract alteration.
Noting this information as well as reports from social partners and other international
actors, according to which, due to the Government’s measures, the
forced labour situation had considerably improved in the country, the Governing
Body decided in October 2017 to close the complaint procedure under article 26
and agree to a comprehensive three-year technical cooperation programme to
support the ongoing labour reform measures. This programme would report
annually
to the Governing Body until 2020. Through this initiative, the Government
of Qatar expressed a commitment to align its laws and practices with international
labour standards and fundamental principles and rights at work, including
by implementing related comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, in
particular those of the CEACR, which had initiated this whole process. An ILO
Project Office was subsequently established in Qatar’s capital, Doha, in April 2018,
which is supporting the Government’s labour reform agenda. Since the start
of the technical cooperation programme, the ILO has been collaborating with
the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs (ADLSA),
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 57
as well as other ministries in the Government, including the Ministry of Interior,
the Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry of Justice. A number of labour
reforms were introduced, three of which marking the end of the sponsorship
system in 2020:
• Law No. 13 of 2018 suppressed the exit visa for workers covered by the
Labour Law, with a possible exception to be granted by the Ministry of
Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs upon the request of
an employer with respect to no more than 5 per cent of their workforce and
based on a justification based on the nature of their work;
• Extending the coverage of Law No. 13 of 2018, a Ministerial Decision suppressing
exit permits for workers under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior including
domestic workers was adopted in October 2019 and should enter into
force in January 2020;
• A draft Law granting labour mobility to migrant workers was endorsed by the
Council of Ministers in October 2019 and should enter into force in January 2020.
The CEACR will continue its examination of these developments and its dialogue
with the Qatari authorities in order to ensure continued progress and full compliance
with the Convention.
(c) Central and South Asia
Nepal
Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards)
Convention, 1976 (No. 144)
The case relates to a declaration of a state of emergency issued by the
Nepalese King in 2005, following which many rights of workers’ and employers’
organizations were suspended, trade union activities were interrupted and trade
unionists were arbitrarily arrested. These events impeded the proper functioning
of tripartite consultations between the Government and the social partners,
conflicting with Convention No. 144, which requires such consultations. Following
comments of the CEACR, the CAS and the CFA, urging the Government to
reinstate a proper system of tripartite consultations in Nepal, as well as several
ILO technical assistance missions to the country, a new interim Constitution was
adopted, which enshrined the principle of tripartite consultations in one of its
articles. Furthermore, in the following years, the Government was able to report
the reinstatement of proper institutions for tripartite dialogue and the holding
of regular tripartite consultations on a range of subjects. In 2015, the interim
Constitution was replaced by a new Constitution, which upholds the previously
suspended rights of workers and employers and their organizations.62
Case background
Nepal has been a Member of the ILO since 1966 and has ratified 11 ILO Conventions,
including Convention No. 144.
Monitoring compliance with international 58 labour standards
In 2005, the Committee of Experts noted the Government’s report on the implementation
of Convention No. 144 in which it confirmed that, by ratifying the
Convention, it had accepted tripartite cooperation as a basis for the formulation of
laws and policies and decision-making regarding the application of international
labour standards. The Government affirmed the Convention’s full implementation
and referred to various measures taken to apply it, like the creation of an institutional
mechanism for tripartite consultations, as well as the undertaking of
tripartite cooperation on various issues such as occupational safety and health,
child and forced labour or HIV/AIDS.
In June of the same year, the application of Convention No. 144 by Nepal was
however the subject of a discussion in the CAS. During the discussion, representatives
of Nepalese workers’ and employers’ organizations provided information
according to which the King of Nepal had assumed direct executive powers in
February 2005 and had declared a state of emergency. In the aftermath of this decision,
a number of constitutional rights, including freedom of association and the
right to organize as well as the right to freedom of expression and assembly, were
suspended and hundreds of citizens were arbitrarily detained, including nearly
two dozen trade union activists. Furthermore, trade union offices were monitored,
searched and at times closed down, union meetings were forbidden and rallies
were banned, while the registration of several union organizations was refused.
Noting this information, the CAS expressed its deepest concern at the situation
in the country and invited the Government to take all appropriate measures to
promote tripartite dialogue on international labour standards in the country. It
also suggested to the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to
facilitate and promote social dialogue in Nepal.
Dialogue with the Government
Following this discussion, the Committee of Experts, in its 2006 report, associated
itself with the conclusions of the CAS and expressed its deep concern at
the lack of respect for fundamental rights in the country and its impact on the
exercise of tripartite consultations. It also urged the Government to ensure that
the principle of tripartite consultations under Convention No. 144 was respected
in law and in practice and recalled that the ILO was available to provide technical
assistance to the Government in this respect.
Following a complaint lodged in 2005, the case was also examined by the CFA,
which, in its conclusions published in March 2006, equally urged the Government
to refrain from any undue interference in trade union affairs and to issue appropriate
instructions to the relevant authorities to ensure that acts of interference
in trade union internal affairs did not occur.
Following these comments, the Committee of Experts, in an observation published
in its 2007 report, noted an improvement of the situation due to a number
of measures taken by the Government to address the comments. It, inter alia,
noted the Government’s indication that many acts and regulations were in the
process of being amended to address the changed political context. It also
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 59
noted that an interim constitutional statute had been adopted which re-enacted
some of the constitutional guarantees which had been suspended. Finally, the
Government also indicated that it had requested both workers’ and employers’
organizations to come together and make recommendations on reforms to improve
the situation. However, while welcoming these measures, the Committee of
Experts also noted reports of Nepalese social partners, which indicated that the
situation in the country was still giving rise to concern as to the full respect of the
rights of workers and employers and the principle of tripartite consultations.
Following these comments, the Government accepted to receive a technical
assistance mission of the ILO, which was carried out in April 2007. The mission,
which focused on social dialogue, brought together the Government and the
social partners and provided an opportunity for identifying the practical obstacles
to the effective implementation of Convention No. 144 in Nepal.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In an observation published in its 2009 report, the CEACR noted with interest that
a new interim Constitution had come into force in Nepal. Its article 154 established
a National Labour Commission as a new institutional mechanism for tripartite
consultations. It also noted that a corresponding Labour Commission Act had
been drafted to implement article 154. Furthermore, it noted the Government’s
indication that it was consulting with representatives of the social partners at
various levels while preparing reports to the ILO and that 79 such consultations
had been conducted during the reporting period.
In another observation published in its 2013 report, the Committee of Experts
noted the Government’s further indication that it had been promoting social
dialogue on a bipartite and tripartite basis wherever and whenever possible and
that tripartism had been firmly institutionalized in the country, with all the major
policy decisions and legislative initiatives being the result of tripartite consultations
and consensus. The Government further indicated that all committees
established under the Ministry of Labour and Employment which were related to
labour, industrial relations, occupational safety and health and child labour, were
tripartite in their composition. The CEACR further noted that a National Labour
and Employment Conference was held in July 2012 and was organized with technical
and financial support from the ILO Nepal Office. The conference concluded
with the endorsement of a declaration, referring to the development and promotion
of good labour relations and the creation of a trusted tripartite environment.
Welcoming this information, the Committee of Experts commended the
Government for the progress it had achieved in the implementation of Convention
No. 144 and asked it to keep it informed of any additional measures taken with
regard to promoting tripartite consultations in the country.
In 2015, a new Constitution was adopted in Nepal, which replaced the previous
interim one and which upholds all of the fundamental guarantees relevant to
the proper functioning of tripartite consultations, including freedom of association
and the right to organize, freedom of expression or freedom of assembly.
Monitoring compliance with international 60 labour standards
Pakistan
Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
The case relates to gaps in the Pakistani legislation, which did not provide for the
prescription of a minimum working age of 14 years as well as a minimum age of
18 years for hazardous working activities, in combination with a list determining
these hazardous activities. Noting that the lack of the prescription of such
minimum ages conflicted with Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 138, the CEACR
urged the Government to bring its laws into conformity with the Convention.
Following these comments and comments from other international bodies
as well as ongoing consultations between the Pakistani Government and ILO
experts, new laws prescribing a minimum working age and a list of hazardous
working activities were adopted in two of the five provinces of Pakistan, while
similar draft laws are being debated in the remaining provinces.63
Case background
Pakistan has been a Member of the ILO since 1947 and has ratified 36 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 138.
According to article 11(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, no child below the age
of 14 years shall be engaged in any hazardous employment.
This Constitutional guarantee was implemented by sections 2 and 3 of the
Pakistani Employment of Children Act of 1991, which prohibited the employment
of children under 14 years of age in night work and a number of hazardous occupations
listed in the law’s Schedule. Other types of hazardous work not to be
performed by children under 14 years were also listed in the Employment of
Children Rules of 1995.
In 2010, in a request addressed directly to the Government, the CEACR noted
that, at the time of the ratification of Convention No. 138, Pakistan had specified
14 years as the applicable minimum working age. The Committee of Experts therefore
reminded the Government that according to Article 2 of the Convention, any
employment of children under 14 years had to be prohibited in the country, not just
certain types of hazardous work as prescribed by the Employment of Children Act.
It furthermore recalled that according to Article 3 of the Convention, the minimum
age for admission to any type of hazardous work must be 18 years. The Committee
thus referred to the fact that the national law did not prohibit the performance
of hazardous working activities for children aged between 14 and 17 years. While
pointing to this gap in the implementation of Convention No. 138, the Committee
of Experts however also noted the Government’s indication that it had elaborated
a draft Employment and Service Conditions Act, which would prohibit the
employment of any child below 14 years and ban a number of hazardous working
processes for children under 18 years. The Committee thus urged the Government
to take the necessary measures to ensure the adoption of this Act and in general
to ensure the full implementation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 61
Dialogue with the Government
After having received the Government’s 2010 report on Convention No. 138, the
CEACR noted that it contained no information on further progress made regarding
the adoption of the draft Employment and Service Conditions Act or
any other laws on minimum working ages. In an observation published in its
2011 report and repeated in its 2012 report, the Committee of Experts urged the
Government to address its previous comments and to proceed with the adoption
of the draft Act. The CEACR was furthermore joined by the UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child which, in its 2009 report, also indicated concerns regarding
the low and variable minimum ages in the national law.
In reply to these comments, the Government, in its 2013 report to the CEACR,
indicated that, following a constitutional amendment, the power to legislate on
labour matters had been transferred to the provincial level. The CEACR further
noted that, following this amendment, Pakistan had participated in an ILO technical
assistance programme. This programme resulted in the development of
action plans, by each of the provincial governments, to address the comments
of the Committee of Experts, including the adoption of legislation establishing
a minimum working age and prohibiting the employment of children under
18 in hazardous work. The Government indicated that the provinces, in coordination
with the federal Government, had drafted a Prohibition of Employment
of Children Act, to prohibit the employment of children below the age of 14 and
the employment of persons under 18 years in hazardous types of work. The
Government further indicated that these drafts would soon be introduced to the
provincial legislative assemblies. The Committee furthermore noted information
from the ILO’s International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (ILO–
IPEC) that, as of October 2012, the drafting of lists of prohibited hazardous child
labour activities had been initiated in all of the provinces.
Noting this information, the CEACR, in an observation published in its 2014 report,
again urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the
draft Act prohibiting the employment of persons under 14 and under 18 for hazardous
types of work, as well as the legislation determining the prohibited types
of hazardous work, would soon be adopted in each province.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In 2015 and 2016, in two of the five provinces of Pakistan – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
and Punjab – laws were adopted, which contained lists of types of hazardous
work prohibited to young persons under 18 years of age in accordance with the
comments of the CEACR. These lists were determined in consultation with the
representative workers’ and employers’ organizations and discussed at the level
of Provincial Tripartite Consultative Committee, as required by the Convention.
Furthermore, the new laws specified a minimum age for admission to work of
14 years in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 15 years in Punjab.
Monitoring compliance with international 62 labour standards
In its 2018 report, the Committee of Experts noted these legislative changes with
satisfaction. It also noted the Government’s indication that in the remaining three
provinces of Pakistan – Islamabad Capital Territory, Balochistan and Sindh – draft
laws providing for a minimum working age of at least 14 years and a list of hazardous
working activities had been proposed. It therefore asked the Government
to take the necessary measures to ensure the adoption of these draft laws in
all remaining provinces. The CEACR also asked the Government to ensure the
effective implementation of these laws and in general to take all appropriate
measures to eradicate child labour, in particular its worst forms, in all of Pakistan.
Uzbekistan
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
The case relates to the widespread use of forced labour of schoolchildren by
local Uzbek authorities for the national cotton harvest, conflicting with ILO
Convention No. 182 on the worst forms of child labour. After having raised this
issue with the Uzbek Government, the CEACR, joined by the CAS and several
other UN supervisory bodies, engaged in a dialogue with the Government,
urging it to address the problem and eradicate this practice. While initially
downplaying the issue, the Government eventually accepted the implementation
of several national and international monitoring missions to assess the number
of affected children and established a Decent Work Country Programme with
the ILO, through which it undertook a number of measures to tackle the issue,
which drastically reduced the number of children forced to work in the cotton
harvest in the country.64
Case background
Uzbekistan has been a Member of the ILO since 1992 and has ratified 14 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 182.
Forced labour as well as the employment of persons under 18 years in hazardous
working conditions is prohibited by the Uzbek Constitution and the Penal Code.
Furthermore, according to a Decree signed by the Uzbek Prime Minister in 2008,
any kind of child labour specifically in the harvesting of cotton is forbidden.
However, despite these laws, as of 2008, the CEACR began receiving reports from
the International Organization of Employers (IOE) as well as the International Trade
Union Confederation (ITUC) and other trade union federations about the widespread
use of forced child labour in the national cotton harvest in at least 12 of
Uzbekistan’s 13 regions. According to these reports, up to 1.5 million schoolchildren
were forced by the local authorities to leave their schools and harvest cotton for
up to three months per year. The reports further indicated that this involvement
was not the result of family poverty, but state-sponsored mobilization to benefit
the Government, that forced labour involved children as young as 9 years of age
and that these children were required to work every day, including weekends,
with the work being hazardous, involving carrying heavy loads, the application of
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 63
pesticides and took place in harsh weather conditions, with accidents reportedly
resulting in injuries and deaths.
Together with the reports of the IOE and the ITUC, the Committee of Experts
also noted observations made by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN Committee
on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the UN Human Rights
Committee, which confirmed these allegations and urged the Government to
take all necessary measures to ensure that the involvement of school-aged children
in cotton harvesting was in full compliance with the international labour
standards on children. The CEACR also noted a 2010 publication of the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) equally mentioning growing concerns over
the seasonal mobilization of children for the cotton harvest in Uzbekistan as well
as the 2009 UN Universal Periodic Review on Uzbekistan, which also discussed
this issue.
In an observation published in its 2010 report, the CEACR reminded the
Government that by virtue of Article 3(a) and (d) of Convention No. 182, forced
labour and hazardous work were considered as the worst forms of child labour
and that, by virtue of Article 1, member States were required to take immediate
and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of such acts,
as a matter of urgency. The Committee of Experts also recalled that by virtue
of Article 7(1) of the Convention, ratifying countries were required to ensure the
effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions giving effect to the
Convention. Concluding that the widespread use of forced and hazardous labour
of minors in the cotton harvest constituted a clear violation of the Convention,
the CEACR urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures
to eradicate it.
Dialogue with the Government
The case was selected by the CAS for discussion in 2010. In the discussion, the
Government of Uzbekistan referred to a number of measures taken to ensure the
enforcement of the national laws against forced and child labour, including the
implementation of a national action plan for the application of ILO Conventions
Nos 138 and 182. The Government however downplayed the statements made by
the social partners and the UN supervisory bodies, stating that the coercion of
large numbers of children to participate in the cotton harvest did not exist. The
CAS, noting the numerous reports detailing the problem as well as the broad
consensus among UN bodies over the issue, concluded that forced child labour
in the cotton harvest remained a problem of grave concern in practice and urged
the Government to take the necessary measures against it. It also encouraged the
Government to accept a high-level ILO tripartite observer mission with full timely
access to all situations and relevant parties, including in the cotton fields, in order
to assess the implementation of Convention No. 182.
In its 2010 report to the CEACR, the Government however repeated its previous
statement and indicated that almost all of the cotton produced in the country
Monitoring compliance with international 64 labour standards
was done on private cotton farms, and that the well-developed education system
prevents the exaction of forced labour from children. It also referred to a number
of measures taken against child labour under the national action plan but did not
indicate any concrete results regarding these measures. The Government was also
not prepared to accept the request for a high-level observation mission. Taking
note of these statements, the Committee of Experts, in its 2011 report, reaffirmed
its previous comments that forced child labour in cotton harvesting remained
a problem and urged the Government to take concrete and timely measures to
tackle the issue as well as to accept the high-level observer mission to enable an
independent assessment of the problem.
During the 2011 Conference, the case was again discussed by the CAS, which expressed
regret over the lack of cooperation from the Government. It also repeated
its request for a high-level monitoring mission. These comments were repeated by
the CEACR in an observation published in its 2012 report, in which the Committee
of Experts also took note of new reports by the ITUC according to which cotton
fields in the country had been strictly patrolled by police and security personnel
in an attempt to prevent independent monitoring of the situation.
The renewed request for a monitoring mission was again not accepted by the
Government. However, in its 2012 report to the CEACR, the Government indicated
the adoption of a new Decree, which approved additional measures for the implementation
of Convention No. 182, including measures to maintain effective monitoring
of child labour in agriculture and measures to strengthen the monitoring
of the attendance of pupils as well as steps to establish personal responsibility of
heads of educational institutions concerning their full attendance.
In its 2013 report, the CEACR noted that, according to various sources, in 2012, as
a result of these new measures there had been a decline in the number of children
working in the cotton harvest. The Committee of Experts nevertheless concluded
that the problem was still widespread and therefore repeated its previous
observations and urged the Government to accept an ILO monitoring mission.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In 2013, another discussion of the case took place in the CAS. This time, however,
the existence of the problem was fully recognized by the Government. The
Government also indicated its willingness to engage in broad technical cooperation
with the ILO to tackle the issue and to accept the monitoring of the 2013
cotton harvest with ILO technical assistance. As a follow-up, a round-table discussion
organized by the Government with the ILO, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), UNICEF, the European Commission and the representatives
of national and international workers’ and employers’ organizations took place,
during which the implementation of a monitoring mission, composed of both
ILO and national monitors, was agreed.
The mission’s participants monitored the 2013 cotton harvest, undertaking inspection
visits all across the country. In its 2014 report, the CEACR noted with interest
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 65
that the mission was met with good and productive collaboration and cooperation
on the part of the authorities and that, although several cases of forced child
labour were detected, the mission report concluded that it appeared that forced
child labour was no longer used on a systematic basis in the 2013 cotton harvest.
The Committee of Experts also took note of the Government’s statement that
relevant follow-up measures to reintegrate children into educational institutions
had been taken in child labour cases detected by the mission. The Government
further indicated its willingness to cooperate with the ILO on a wider basis within
the framework of a Decent Work Country Programme. The CEACR welcomed
this significant progress made towards the full application of the Convention
and urged the Government to pursue and strengthen its efforts in this regard.
In its 2015 report, the CEACR noted further monitoring efforts from the
Government that took place during the 2014 cotton harvest, as well as measures
undertaken jointly with the national social partners to implement ILO
Conventions, including systematic education and awareness-raising seminars
on the worst forms of child labour. It also noted with interest the development
and adoption of a Decent Work Country Programme, which was concluded
between the Government, the social partners and the ILO in 2014 and which, as
one of its priorities, aimed at ensuring that conditions of work and employment
in agriculture, including in the cotton-growing industry, were in conformity with
ILO Conventions Nos 138 and 182. The Committee of Experts further took note
of international monitoring missions during the 2014 cotton harvest according to
which while a few cases of children picking cotton had still been detected, 91 per
cent of students were present in the visited educational institutions and several
directors of professional colleges and heads of farms were held administratively
responsible for forcing children to work.
In its following reports in 2016 and 2017, the CEACR took further note of reports
of the IOE and the ITUC that a rapid development in the country towards a complete
eradication of child labour was taking place. It also noted the reports of
subsequent national and international monitoring missions to the country which
indicated that the Uzbek authorities had taken a range of measures to reduce
the incidence of child labour and make it socially unacceptable. The Committee
of Experts therefore commended the Government for its efforts and urged it to
maintain these measures and keep them under review so as to ensure the complete
eradication of child labour in the country.
Monitoring compliance with international 66 labour standards
(d) East Asia
Republic of Korea
Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)
The case relates to comments from the Korean social partners which alleged
a number of shortcomings of the labour inspection service of the Republic of
Korea, with regard to the Government’s obligations under Convention No. 81.
These issues related to a lack of training of inspectors, insufficient collaboration
between the inspection service and the social partners, an under-representation
of women among the inspection staff and an insufficient number of inspections
due to an insufficient overall number of inspectors. Following several comments
of the CEACR and the CAS asking the Government to address these issues and
to ensure a proper functioning of its labour inspection service in line with the
Convention, the Government adopted a number of measures, responding to the
issues which had been highlighted.65
Case background
The Republic of Korea has been a Member of the ILO since 1991 and has ratified
29 ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 81.
In an observation published in its 2000 report, the CEACR noted comments from
the Korea Employers’ Federation (KEF) according to which the function of the
labour inspection services to provide technical information and advice, prescribed
by Article 3 of Convention No. 81, needed to be reinforced in the country as there
was a lack of specific training or educational programmes for inspectors. The KEF
furthermore alleged that the requirement to ensure collaboration between the
labour inspectorate and employers’ and workers’ organizations under Article 5 of
the Convention was not properly met.
Along with the KEF, the Committee of Experts also noted comments from the
Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), pointing to the low proportion of
women in the labour inspection staff, which only accounted for 12 per cent of all
inspectors. In view of Article 8 of the Convention which prescribes that women
and men shall be eligible for appointment to the inspection staff and considering
that women accounted for 41 per cent of Korean employees, the FKTU thus
stressed the need for the Government to make further efforts to increase the
number of female inspectors.
Noting these reports, the CEACR asked the Government to express its views on
the comments of the KEF and the FKTU.
Dialogue with the Government
In its reply to the KEF’s comments, the Government indicated that inspectors
received training courses on the provision of technical advice and information
to workers and employers on an annual basis. The Committee of Experts however
also noted that the provision of such technical advice was included in the
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 67
regulation on duties of labour inspectors. In an observation published in its 2004
report, it thus asked the Government to provide more information on the way
inspectors were trained and how this training helped them to give such advice.
Regarding the KEF’s comments on tripartite coordination between the labour
inspection services and the social partners, the Government indicated that an
Industrial Safety and Health Policy Deliberation Committee (ISHPDC) had been
set up, which was a tripartite body and which had deliberated and coordinated
major policy issues in the area of industrial safety and health. The CEACR asked
the Government to provide more information on the work of the ISHPDC.
Regarding the FKTU’s comments, the Government explained that the number
of women inspectors had been on the rise and had increased by 8.3 per cent
between 1999 and 2001. It also stated that the Ministry of Labour had already requested
an increase in the number of female inspection staff at regional labour
offices. The Committee of Experts thus expressed its hope that the Government
would, in the following years, provide more information on progress made in this
respect.
Dialogue with the Government was further enhanced when the case was included
on the list of individual cases discussed by the CAS in June 2004. During the
discussion, the Government reaffirmed that, since the ratification of Convention
No. 81, it had made the utmost efforts to ensure that the Korean labour inspection
service operated in line with the principles and provisions of the Convention.
The Employer members of the CAS however urged the Government to provide
detailed information on the increase in the number of women inspectors in the
inspection services, as well as on the promotion of collaboration between the inspection
services and the social partners. The Worker members also placed emphasis
on the question of gender representation in the inspectorate but, more
generally, referred to a general shortage of labour inspectors in the country, which
prevented the service from conducting a sufficient number of inspections. They
furthermore indicated that the huge workload imposed on inspectors prevented
them from receiving sufficient training. In its conclusions, the CAS urged the
Government to ensure compliance with all Articles of Convention No. 81, recalling
the importance of proper training of inspectors, the collaboration of inspectors
with social partners and the need to increase the number of female inspectors.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In 2005 the Government did not send a new report on Convention No. 81 and the
CEACR was bound to repeat its previous comments; however, in its 2006 report,
the Government indicated a number of measures taken in response to the comments
formulated by the CAS and the CEACR.
In its 2007 report, the Committee of Experts thus noted with satisfaction that new
training programmes for labour inspectors had been conducted in 2005, covering
the law on individual labour relations, collective industrial relations, methods of
investigation and the prevention of labour disputes.
Monitoring compliance with international 68 labour standards
It also noted with interest that a bill to revise the Industrial Safety and Health Act,
which regulated the ISHPDC, had been drafted, which ensured a more efficient
operation and more professional deliberation of this committee as well as a better
involvement of external health and safety experts in its work.
Finally, the CEACR also noted the Government’s indication that it had planned
steps to increase the recruitment of women labour inspectors and that the share
of female inspectors had already risen to 17.6 per cent.
In its following report published in 2008, the Committee of Experts further noted
with satisfaction a steady progress made by the Government in increasing the
share of female inspectors, which had further risen to 22 per cent. It also noted
with interest that 375 new inspectors had been appointed, which prompted a
significant increase in the number of inspections.
In its 2011, 2012 and 2015 reports, the CEACR noted a further increase in the
number of inspections. While also noting that some compliance issues with regard
to the Republic of Korea’s obligations under Convention No. 81 remained, it commended
the Government for its progress made so far and encouraged it to address
all remaining issues in view of achieving full compliance with the Convention.
Malaysia
Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention,
1925 (No. 19)
The case relates to long-standing issues with a Malaysian law on employment
injury benefits for workers, which grouped foreign workers, working for up to
five years in the country, into a different scheme than national workers, providing
for far lower benefits than the scheme for national workers. Recalling that this
different treatment of foreign and national workers constituted a violation of the
equal treatment principle under Article 1(1) of Convention No. 19, the CEACR as
well as the CAS for many years urged the Government to amend its legislation
to bring it into line with the Convention. While the Government initially showed
reluctance to make changes to the schemes, these comments eventually led
to the initiation of a reform process in the country and finally, with the help of
ILO technical experts, to the drafting and adoption of new laws extending the
employment injury scheme of national workers to foreigners.66
Case background
Malaysia has been an ILO Member since 1957 and has ratified five ILO Conventions,
including Convention No. 19.
Since 1993, the national legislation applicable to Peninsula Malaysia and the
state of Sarawak transferred foreign workers, employed in Malaysia for up to
five years, from the Employees’ Social Security Scheme (ESS), which provided
for periodical payments to victims of industrial accidents, to the Workmen’s
Compensation Scheme (WCS), which only provided for a one-time lump-sum
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 69
payment. Furthermore, the WCS did not grant invalidity pensions in case of permanent
total invalidity and the WCS benefit in case of permanent partial disability
represented only 6.5 per cent of the ESS benefit.
After noting this discrepancy, the CEACR, in its 1996 report, recalled that the
unequal treatment of foreigners with regard to payments for industrial accidents
conflicted with the principle of equality of treatment between nationals
and non-nationals with regard to compensation for industrial accidents under
Article 1(1) of Convention No. 19. It therefore asked the Government to amend the
law in order to guarantee the same treatment for foreign and national workers.
Dialogue with the Government
After the publishing of the CEACR’s comments, the case was picked up by the
CAS, which discussed it in 1997 and 1998. In its conclusions, the CAS also concluded
that the level of benefits granted under the ESS was significantly higher
than the one guaranteed by the WCS. It therefore insisted that foreign workers be
granted the same protection as Malaysian nationals and asked the Government
to amend its law accordingly. Furthermore, as a follow-up, an ILO high-level technical
advisory mission visited the country in May 1998 to examine ways of giving
effect to the conclusions of the CAS.
In its 1998 report to the CEACR, the Government stated that it was planning to
review the coverage of foreign workers under the ESS and to propose amendments
to the Social Security Act of 1969. In the following years, the Government
was however not able to report any progress made in adopting such amendments
and only repeated its intention to review schemes. The CEACR was thus
bound to repeat its previous comments.
In its 2003 report, the Government indicated that it had undertaken studies to
review the two schemes and that these studies had found that in general terms
there was equity in the protection, as the WCS had features that were superior
and not available under the ESS, such as the payment of transport costs of injured
workers to their home country. The Government furthermore referred to the
great practical difficulty of extending the ESS to foreigners due to the difficulty of
obtaining accurate, vital information about beneficiaries residing abroad. Noting
this information, the CEACR nevertheless recalled that the payments granted
to national workers under the ESS were far higher than those under the WCS
and that this situation constituted unequal treatment of foreign workers under
Article 1(1) of the Convention. In its 2004 report, the Committee of Experts therefore
repeated its previous comments and asked the Government to change the
law accordingly.
In its 2009 and 2011 reports, the CEACR was bound to repeat its previous comments,
as the Government did not change its position and reiterated that it considered
both schemes to be equal.
In 2011, the case was again discussed by the CAS. It urged the Government to
take immediate steps to bring national law and practice into conformity with
Monitoring compliance with international 70 labour standards
Article 1(1) to respect the system of automatic reciprocity instituted by the
Convention between the ratifying countries and to avail itself of the technical
assistance of the ILO to resolve administrative difficulties by concluding special
arrangements with the labour-supplying countries under Article 1(2) and (4) of
the Convention.
As a response, the Government indicated in its 2011 report that a technical committee
within the Ministry of Human Resources would, with the participation
of all stakeholders, pursue the formulation of the right mechanism and system
to administer the issue. In doing so, it would consider the three options of extending
ESS coverage to foreign workers, the creation of a special scheme for
foreign workers under the ESS, and raising the level of the benefit provided by
the WCS. Furthermore, an ILO mission visited the country in October 2011 to support
the Government with these efforts. Noting this information, the CEACR in its
2012 report expressed the hope that the new technical committee would soon
be able to make concrete proposals on amendments to the law and urged the
Government to continue with the planned legislative reforms.
While the Government, in its 2012, 2013 and 2014 reports, was not able to indicate
any progress, in its 2015 report, it informed the Committee of Experts that it had
decided to extend the ESS to foreign workers, subject to certain modifications
to ensure the administrative practicability of the scheme. The CEACR, in its 2016
report, noted this information with interest and urged the Government to proceed
with the reform.
In its 2016 and 2017 reports, the Government was however again not able to
report any substantial progress on the adoption of the planned changes to the
ESS. The case was therefore again discussed by the CAS in 2017 and 2018. The
CAS repeated its earlier comments from 2011, urging the Government to finally
proceed with the adoption of the announced extension of the ESS and to align
its law and practice with Convention No. 19. It also asked the Government to continue
to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to proceed with the reform.
The CEACR, in its 2017 and 2018 reports, endorsed the conclusions of the CAS
and once again called upon the Government to take immediate, pragmatic and
effective steps to ensure compliance with Convention No. 19.
Work in progress and way forward
In reply to these comments, the Government, in its 2018 report, indicated that,
while it was taking serious efforts to shift the protection of foreign workers from
the WCS to the ESS, it had taken concrete actions and developed a timetable to
achieve the extension of the ESS to foreigners. To ensure a smooth extension, it
indicated that a transition period had been envisaged in order to establish implementation
mechanisms, databases, road maps and engagement sessions with
stakeholders and social partners. It also indicated that the transition period was
planned to last a maximum of three years. Finally, the Government also accepted
an ILO direct contacts mission to help implement these changes.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 71
The CEACR, in its 2019 report, welcomed these statements and expressed the
hope that the Government would take advantage of the direct contacts mission
to implement its comments and the conclusions of the CAS and to finally achieve
full compliance with Convention No. 19.
Following these further comments, several laws where adopted in Malaysia in
early 2019, which repealed previous legislation on employment injury schemes
and allowed for the transfer of foreign workers to the employment injury schemes
of national workers. Although the Government has taken some positive measures,
especially in recent months, the CEACR will undoubtedly continue its examination
of the case and its dialogue with the Malaysian authorities until all issues have
been resolved in order to ensure full compliance with Convention No. 19.
Myanmar
Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
The case relates to a number of Myanmar laws which inhibited the free
establishment and organization of workers’ and employers’ organizations and
imposed a trade union monopoly, in violation of freedom of association and the
right to organize under ILO Convention No. 87. For several decades, the CEACR
as well as the CAS had commented on these issues and urged the Government
to bring the national law into conformity with the Convention. In 2011 and
2012, the Government of Myanmar, in consultation with ILO technical experts,
drafted and adopted a number of laws repealing the trade union monopoly and
the restrictions on the registration of employers’ and workers’ organizations.
Following these legislative changes, the establishment and registration of
numerous independent trade unions and employers’ organizations in Myanmar
have been reported.67
Case background
Myanmar has been a Member of the ILO since 1948 and has ratified 24 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 87.
For many decades, a number of laws were in force in Myanmar which were considered
by the CEACR to seriously impair the exercise of freedom of association
and other rights under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Convention No. 87, by imposing
a trade union monopoly and prohibiting the establishment of any independent
trade unions and employers’ organizations.
Among the laws highlighted by the CEACR was a 1964 law, which established a
compulsory system for the organization and representation of workers and imposed
a single trade union, and the 1926 Trade Union Act, which prescribed a
minimum membership requirement of 50 per cent of workers for trade unions
to be legally recognized. Other problematic laws were a 1988 Order, which outlawed
any organizations the establishment of which had not been authorized
Monitoring compliance with international 72 labour standards
by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and a 1908 law, which criminalized membership
or participation in any “illegal organization”. Finally, the CEACR also highlighted
a 1988 Order, which prohibited any gathering of five or more people with the
intention of “creating a disturbance or committing a crime” and the 1929 Trade
Disputes Act, which empowered the President to refer trade disputes to courts
of inquiry or to industrial courts.
Dialogue with the Government
In view of the persistent gaps in compliance with Convention No. 87, the CEACR,
for over 50 years, published observations in its reports in which it urged the
Government to align the national legislation with the Convention by guaranteeing
workers’ and employers’ organizations the right to freely establish and organize
their administration and activities. Due to the urgency of the issue, the case
was also picked up by the CAS, which, since 1987, discussed it 19 times and, in
its conclusions, equally urged the Government to amend the above-mentioned
laws. As a follow-up to these discussions and comments, the Government was
offered technical assistance by ILO experts to tackle the issue, which it accepted
on several occasions.
Nevertheless, despite these efforts, the Government, in its replies to the comments
of the CEACR and the CAS, for a long time downplayed the issue and indicated
that it did not consider the legislation to prevent workers and employers from establishing
independent associations. It was however not able to provide any evidence
of any such association operating legally in the country and only referred to
a number of welfare organizations for workers, which the CEACR did not consider
to be acting as trade unions. On the other hand, the Committee of Experts noted
that independent trade unions, which were established in Myanmar, such as the
Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), were forced to operate clandestinely
and their members were often imprisoned for exercising their union activities.
Following further comments of the CEACR and the CAS highlighting these
issues, the Government announced in 1989 that it had started drafting a new
Constitution which would make express provision for freedom of association and
the right to organize. It furthermore announced various amendments to some
of the laws highlighted by the Committee of Experts. However, despite these
announcements, the Government, in the following years, was not able to report
any progress on these legislative reforms. The CEACR and the CAS thus had to
repeat their previous comments and urged the Government to follow up on the
announced amendments.
In 2003, the dialogue with the Government took another turn when a complaint
was lodged against Myanmar before the CFA, concerning both the lack of a
legislative framework guaranteeing freedom of association, as well as the continued
persecution and imprisonment of leaders of independent trade unions.
In its recommendations, published in 2008, the CFA joined the CEACR and the
CAS and asked the Government to amend the above-mentioned laws and protect
the rights of workers and employers.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 73
In the meantime, the Government had announced in 2005 the first reconvening
of the National Convention to draft the new Constitution, which had started
sessions on 20 May 2004 and had conducted clarifications and deliberations,
dealing with basic principles, such as the forming of workers’ and employers’ organizations,
which would provide a framework for drafting detailed legal provisions.
The Committee of Experts, in its 2006 report, thus urged the Government
to continue this process and communicate any further steps taken towards the
adoption of the Constitution.
At the beginning of 2008, the drafting of the Constitution was finally completed
and its text was approved by referendum. The Constitution guaranteed all workers
and employers the right to organise and worker and employer organisations the
right to freely organise their administration and activities. As a consequence,
a legislative framework on trade union rights was established and the initial
steps for the establishment of trade unions at the basic level were taken. In the
following period, basic workers’ organizations were formed in 11 industrial zones.
Furthermore, the legislative assembly began to review and revise the provisions
of the 1964 Law on the trade union monopoly, the 1929 Trade Disputes Act, the
1926 Trade Union Act and the other laws limiting trade unions and employer
rights, to bring them into conformity with the new Constitution.
While noting these reforms, the Committee of Experts, in its 2009 report, nevertheless
observed that, apart from the establishment of unions at the most basic
levels, the national law still did not provide a legal basis for the exercise of freedom
of association in Myanmar. Regarding the new Constitution, it furthermore referred
to a broad exclusionary clause in its section 354 which subjected the exercise
of freedom of association and the right to organize to “the laws enacted for
State security” and the maintenance of public order, which the CEACR considered
as continuing to enable violations of freedom of association in law and practice.
It also regretted the exclusion of the social partners and civil society from any
meaningful consultation in the reform process. The Committee of Experts thus
urged the Government to finally adopt the necessary measures to ensure the
full guarantee of the rights of workers and employers under Convention No. 87
by the Constitution as well as the national law and practice. A request along the
same lines was made by the CAS, which again discussed the case in 2009, 2010
and 2011.
Work in progress and way forward
In its 2013 report, the CEACR noted with satisfaction that, following another technical
assistance mission of the ILO to the country, a new Labour Organizations
Law (LOL) was adopted in 2011 and came into force in 2012. The Law contained
provisions on the establishment of workers’ and employers’ organizations as well
as their functions, duties, rights and responsibilities and provided for the repeal of
the 1926 Trade Union Act and the 1964 Law, which imposed the trade union monopoly.
It also noted the Government’s indication that 2,761 basic labour organizations,
146 township labour organizations, 22 region or state labour organizations,
Monitoring compliance with international 74 labour standards
eight labour federations and one labour confederation as well as 26 basic employers’
organizations had been registered under the new law.
The CEACR furthermore noted with satisfaction that other laws had been
adopted, which repealed the two 1988 Orders on unlawful assembly and on the
forming of organizations, as well as the 1929 Trade Disputes Act.
While the CEACR commended the Government for the progress it had made, it
however also noted a few remaining gaps in the LOL and the other new laws as
well as a number of problems with their implementation in practice, which impeded
the achievement of full compliance with Convention No. 87. It thus continued
to encourage the Government to work on the full implementation of the
Convention in new observations published in its 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 reports.
In 2018, the CAS discussed the case another time, commending the Government
for the progress made so far but also urging it to close remaining gaps in
compliance.
(e) Europe and European overseas territories
French Polynesia
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention,
1958 (No. 111)
The case relates to gaps in the labour law applicable to French Polynesia
with regard to the implementation of Article 1 of Convention No. 111. It
mainly concerned a too narrow scope of the provisions on the prohibition of
discrimination, which did not cover all aspects of employment and also did not
adequately address sexual harassment. It also concerned the list of prohibited
grounds of discrimination in the law, which did not include all of the grounds
required by the Convention. After noting these gaps, the CEACR, in several direct
requests, urged the Government to adopt legislative reforms to respond to these
shortcomings. Following these comments, the Legislative Assembly of French
Polynesia adopted an amendment to the labour law, which addressed most of
the gaps identified by the Committee of Experts.68
Case background
French Polynesia is an overseas collectivity of France, which itself has been a
Member of the ILO since 1919. France has ratified 127 ILO Conventions, the second
largest ratification rate among ILO member States, including Convention No. 111,
which it has declared applicable to French Polynesia.
In a 2008 request addressed directly to the Government, the CEACR noted that,
while under the penal law applicable to French Polynesia, certain forms of sexual
harassment were prohibited, the applicable labour law did not contain any protection
against sexual harassment at the workplace, specifically its most important
forms, quid pro quo and hostile working environment harassment. Noting this
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 75
information, the Committee of Experts underlined that, in order to ensure an
effective protection of workers against sexual harassment at the workplace, it
must not only be addressed in the penal law, but provisions on the protection
against sexual harassment should also be included in the labour legislation.
Recalling its general observation of 2002 on this issue, the CEACR reiterated that
sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex prohibited under
Article 1(1)(a) of Convention No. 111. The Committee of Experts thus asked the
Government to indicate the measures taken in law and practice to prohibit, prevent
and punish sexual harassment in employment and to indicate whether it
planned to include provisions on this matter in the labour legislation.
Dialogue with the Government
In another direct request of 2013, the Committee of Experts noted the
Government’s information that, although the applicable Penal Code had been
amended, adding new offences related to sexual harassment, another 2011
amendment to the applicable labour law had not addressed harassment at
work. The CEACR concluded that the labour law, unlike the Penal Code, still did
not contain any provisions concerning sexual harassment. In this respect, the
Committee of Experts noted however that, according to the Government’s report,
draft legislation concerning sexual harassment was being drawn up and was due
to be adopted by the Assembly of French Polynesia. The CEACR requested the
Government to keep it informed on the adoption of this law and to take the necessary
steps to prevent and prohibit sexual harassment at work.
The Committee of Experts further noted that according to the newly amended
labour law, discrimination at the workplace was only prohibited regarding “an
offer of employment, recruitment or an employment relationship”. In this regard,
the CEACR highlighted that the protection against discrimination in accordance
with Article 1 of Convention No. 111 must cover all aspects of employment and occupation,
including access to vocational training, access to employment and to
various occupations, and also terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore,
the Committee of Experts noted that the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination
in the law did not cover all of the grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the
Convention, missing “colour” and “social origin”. It also noted that the list, while
missing the ground of “race”, referred to “membership or non-membership of
an ethnic group”. In this regard, the CEACR recalled that even though discrimination
against an ethnic group constitutes racial discrimination, the notion of racial
discrimination under the Convention was much broader. In light of these gaps
in the implementation of the Convention, the CEACR asked the Government to
extend the scope of these provisions to encompass all aspects of employment
and all prohibited grounds listed by Article 1(1)(a).
Monitoring compliance with international 76 labour standards
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In an observation published in its 2017 report, the CEACR noted with satisfaction
the adoption of a new Law in French Polynesia in 2013, which amended the applicable
labour law. With regard to its previous comments, it noted that this law
introduced new provisions to the Labour Code, which, both for the private and
the public sector, expanded the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination at the
workplace, adding the new grounds of “membership or non-membership of a
nation or race” and “physical appearance”. The Committee of Experts concluded
that these new grounds covered the concepts of “race” and “colour” required by
Convention No. 111. It noted however that despite these legislative changes, the
ground of “social origin” in the Convention was still missing from the list of prohibited
grounds.
In addition, with regard to the scope of the anti-discrimination provisions, the
Committee of Experts noted with satisfaction that the law now contained a
non-exhaustive list of aspects of employment covered by the protection, namely
dismissal, remuneration, incentives or distribution of shares, training, classification,
reclassification, assignment, qualifications, promotion, transfer and contract
renewal, and access to internship or a training course in an enterprise. It also
noted that the section now referred explicitly to direct and indirect discriminatory
measures.
With regard to sexual harassment, the CEACR noted with satisfaction that the
new law introduced provisions on sexual harassment both to the labour law covering
the private sector as well as the one for the public sector. It further noted
that these provisions defined and prohibited both quid pro quo and hostile
working environments and provided for the protection of victims and witnesses
against any form of reprisal (sanctions, dismissal, direct or indirect discriminatory
measures) and also for disciplinary sanctions against persons who commit
harassment. Finally, it noted that the provisions also required the employer to
take measures to prevent and address sexual or psychological harassment, including
the establishment of a procedure for reporting harassment and awareness-
raising actions.
In view of all of these changes, the Committee of Experts concluded that, with the
exception of the inclusion of “social origin” as a prohibited ground of discrimination,
all of the gaps in the law concerning the implementation of Convention
No. 111, which it had previously identified, had now been addressed and asked
the Government to keep it informed of the application in practice of these new
laws. It also encouraged it to proceed with its reforms in order to achieve full
compliance with the Convention.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 77
Georgia
Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
The case relates to a number of provisions in Georgia’s 2006 Labour Code,
which the CEACR considered not to be in conformity with Articles 3 and 10 of
Convention No. 87. Following comments from the CEACR and other international
bodies as well as ongoing consultations between the Georgian Government and
ILO experts, an amendment to the Labour Code was adopted in 2013, which
addressed the comments of the Committee of Experts.69
Case background
Georgia has been a Member of the ILO since 1993 and has ratified 17 Conventions,
including Convention No. 87.
In 2006, the Georgian legislature adopted a new Labour Code, which, inter alia,
repealed the previous laws on collective agreements and on collective labour disputes.
This reform addressed some issues previously highlighted by the CEACR,
such as requirements on pre-announcements of strike lengths and excessive
strike balloting requirements. The new Code however also contained a number
of provisions, which raised concerns of the CEACR with regard to their compatibility
with Articles 3 and 10 of Convention No. 87.
These issues were at first addressed by the Committee of Experts in 2007, in a
direct request to the Georgian Government.
One provision highlighted by the CEACR was section 49(5) of the Code, which
stated that, after a warning strike, social partners shall participate in amicable
settlement procedures pursuant to the Labour Code. Furthermore, section 48(5)
of the Code stated that if an agreement had not been reached within 14 days or if
a party had avoided participating in the amicable settlement the other party was
entitled to submit the dispute to the court or arbitration, creating the risk of a dispute
being resolved by an arbitrator, against the will of one of the social partners.
In this regard, the Committee of Experts highlighted that a provision which permits
either party to unilaterally submit a dispute for compulsory arbitration effectively
undermines the right of workers to have recourse to industrial action. It
thus stated that recourse to arbitration should be limited to situations for which
a strike prohibition can be allowed, that is, only for “essential services”, for public
servants exercising state authority and for acute emergencies.
Furthermore, the CEACR commented on section 51(4) and (5) of the Code, which
stated that a strike by employees informed about the termination of their contract
before the labour dispute arises was illegal and that, if the right to strike
arose before the termination of the time-based contract, the strike was considered
illegal after the expiration of the term of the contract. The Committee of
Experts considered these provisions to infringe the right to industrial action of
Monitoring compliance with international 78 labour standards
the workers concerned, especially because they limited the workers’ ability to go
on sympathy and protest strikes, which, as indicated by the Government, were
considered legal under the national legislation. Finally, the CEACR also referred
to section 49(8) of the Code, which was violating trade union rights.
Dialogue with the Government
In its first reply to the direct request, the Government acknowledged some of
the concerns of the Committee of Experts and announced the drafting of new
amendments to the Labour Code, though without mentioning concrete proposals.
On other issues, it however indicated that it did not see any need for an
amendment of the above-mentioned sections.
In particular, regarding the provisions on arbitration, the Government highlighted
that, despite section 48(5), a strike could be declared regardless of whether an
appeal to court or arbitration had been filed and that recourse to the arbitration
was not compulsory. While it confirmed the CEACR’s notion that a referral
of a case to arbitration against one party’s will became possible after the 14-day
period had expired, it still did not consider the amendment of the provision necessary.
The Government also dismissed the necessity to amend section 51(4)
and (5) of the Code.
Furthermore, while acknowledging that the maximum duration requirement in
section 49(8) limited the right to strike, it referred to the possibility of workers to
initiate a new strike after the 90-day period. This was however not considered sufficient
by the Committee of Experts, which referred to the organizational burden
of unions to initiate new strikes every 90 days.
After analysing the Government’s replies, the Committee of Experts formulated
another direct request on these issues in 2008 and then an observation in 2010
and 2012, urging the Government to amend the laws it had highlighted.
These ongoing comments of the CEACR, in conjunction with efforts of other ILO
bodies, prompted the initiation of a reform process in the country.
After a discussion before the CAS during the 2009 Conference on a parallel
case concerning Convention No. 98, the Government agreed to initiate national
tripartite consultations to examine possible amendments to the labour law.
Shortly after, a memorandum was signed between the Georgian Ministry of
Health, Labour and Social Affairs as well as the national workers’ and employers’
federations, GTUC and GEA, to institutionalize social dialogue in the country.
As a follow-up, the social partners started to regularly hold sessions to discuss
issues concerning the labour legislation with an emphasis on the issues of compliance
with Convention No. 87. Then, in November 2009, a Decree was issued
by the Prime Minister of Georgia, which formalized and institutionalized the
National Social Dialogue Commission, and declared the creation of a tripartite
working group to review and analyse the conformity of the national legislation
with the findings and observations of the CEACR and to propose the necessary
amendments.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 79
Meanwhile, over the course of 2009, the ILO started to provide technical assistance
to the Georgian tripartite constituents to advance the process of review of the
labour legislation. Furthermore, in October 2009, an ILO tripartite round table was
held in Tbilisi, which discussed the current status of national labour legislation,
the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and the promotion of tripartism
in Georgia.
In 2010, the dialogue with the Government was further enhanced, when the CEACR
was joined by the European Committee on Social Rights, which, in its 2010 conclusions
on Article 6-3 and 6-4 of the European Social Charter, expressed concerns
similar to the ones of the CEACR regarding infringements of the right to strike.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
All of these efforts led to the discussion of concrete legislative proposals and the
drafting of amendments to the Georgian Labour Code, backed by the ongoing
technical assistance of ILO experts. As a result, the Labour Code was amended
in June 2013.
In its 2015 report, the CEACR took note with satisfaction of the substantial changes
made to the Labour Code, which had addressed the issues it had highlighted.
The Committee of Experts, inter alia, noted that the new section 48(8) now stated
that disputes of social partners could only be referred to arbitration upon mutual
consent of both parties. Furthermore the amendment also lifted all limits on strike
duration and led to the deletion of section 51(4) and (5).
Despite the substantial progress noted by the CEACR, it however also noted a
few other issues it had highlighted which had not been fully addressed by the
2013 reform. This mainly concerned sections 50(1) and 51(2) of the Labour Code
as well as Order No. 01-43/N of 2013, which allow for the prohibition of industrial
action or if the activity “cannot be suspended due to the type of technological
process”, and which determines the list of services connected with the life, safety
and health to include those that do not constitute essential services in the strict
sense of the term.
In its 2017 report on Convention No. 87, the Georgian Government did however
state that amendments to these provisions were being discussed with the
relevant state institutions and social partners, and that the results of the discussions
would be submitted to the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission for
decision. The CEACR thus asked the Government to keep it informed of the outcome
of these discussions and of any further legislative amendments adopted
as a result.
Monitoring compliance with international 80 labour standards
Republic of Moldova
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. 111)
The case relates to a Moldovan law against discrimination at work, which did
not include all of the prohibited grounds of discrimination required by ILO
Convention No. 111. Following a number of direct requests and observations, in
which the CEACR urged the Government to ensure that all prohibited grounds
listed in the Convention were explicitly mentioned in the law, the Government
amended its Labour Code, adding the prohibited grounds of “race”, “political
opinion” and “social origin” and, in another amendment a few years later, the
ground of “colour”. 70
Case background
The Republic of Moldova has been a Member of the ILO since 1992 and has ratified
42 ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 111.
The Moldovan Labour Code of 1997 prohibited discrimination in employment, in
accordance with Convention No. 111. However, among the prohibited grounds of
discrimination listed in the Code, not all of the grounds required by Article 1(1)(a)
of the Convention were included, namely the grounds of “race”, “colour”, “political
opinion” and “social origin”.
In a direct request of 2000, the CEACR noted this gap and requested the
Government to inform it of any measures taken or envisaged to extend the protection
against discrimination to the grounds provided for in Convention No. 111.
Dialogue with the Government
While reporting no further progress in its 2002 report, the Government, in its 2005
report, indicated the adoption of a new Labour Code in 2003, which contained
several provisions in line with the Convention, including, under section 8(1), the
prohibition of any direct or indirect form of discrimination. The list of the prohibited
grounds of discrimination attached to these provisions also encompassed
“race”, “political opinion” and “social origin”. The only ground missing from the
list in Article 1(1)(a) of Convention No. 111 was thus “colour”. In an observation published
in its 2006 report, the Committee of Experts, while noting these legislative
changes with interest, recommended the Government further amend the law
by also adding this ground to the list.
In its 2006 and 2009 reports to the CEACR, the Government did not report
any changes to the law and stated that it considered the ground of “colour” to
be covered by a provision of the Labour Code which prohibits discrimination
based on “other criteria which are not linked to the professional qualifications of
the workers”. The CEACR, taking note of this information, however recalled the
importance of including explicit references to all the grounds enumerated in
Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention in the legislation in order to fully protect workers
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 81
against such types of discrimination. In observations published in its 2007 and
2010 reports, it once again urged the Government to further amend the law, in
line with its previous comments.
In reply to the Committee’s comments, the Government indicated in its 2010
report that the submission of a new draft law to Parliament had taken place
and that it would amend the Labour Code, by, inter alia, adding “skin colour”
to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The CEACR, in its 2011 report,
welcomed these developments and urged the Government to proceed with the
adoption of the new law.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In its 2015 report, the CEACR noted with satisfaction the adoption of a law
amending the Labour Code, which added “skin colour” to the list of prohibited
grounds. It further noted with interest the adoption of another law in 2012,
which generally aimed at preventing and combating discrimination and ensuring
equality of all persons in the country and which also prohibited discrimination
based on all the grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Assessing
that the list in Article 1(1)(a) had now been fully implemented, the Committee of
Experts commended the Government for these reforms and asked it to keep it
informed of their application in practice.
(f) Latin America and the Caribbean
Argentina
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
The case relates to shortcomings by Argentina in the implementation of ILO
Convention No. 182, which were identified by the CEACR concerning the lack
of adoption of a detailed list of hazardous working activities prohibited for
minors as well as the lack of an explicit penalization of the use of minors for
prostitution in Argentina’s Penal Code. After urging the Government to address
these shortcomings, the CEACR engaged in a constructive dialogue with the
Government, joined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which
ultimately led to the adoption of a number of amendments to the respective laws,
establishing the list of hazardous activities and penalizing child prostitution.71
Case background
Argentina has been a Member of the ILO since 1919 and has ratified 81 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 182.
Under the Argentinian laws on work contracts and on the employment of young
people, the employment of minors under 18 years of age in activities that are
difficult, hazardous or unhealthy is prohibited. However, in a direct request addressed
to the Government in 2005, the CEACR noted that these laws and their
Monitoring compliance with international 82 labour standards
implementing regulations did not foresee a detailed and exhaustive list of the
types of work that would fall under the category of “hazardous”, “difficult” or
“unhealthy”.
Against this background, the Committee of Expert recalled that, under Article 4(1)
of Convention No. 182, the types of hazardous work must be determined by national
laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the social
partners and taking into consideration relevant international standards, including
Paragraph 3 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999 (No. 190).
The CEACR thus asked the Government to add such a detailed list of hazardous
activities to its legislation, taking into consideration Recommendation No. 190.
Furthermore, the CEACR noted that section 125 bis of the Penal Code on sexual
exploitation of minors only criminalized people offering minors under 18 years
for prostitution but not clients using these minors for prostitution, as required
by Article 3(b) of the Convention. The Committee of Experts requested the
Government to indicate in which manner the Argentinian legislation enabled the
prosecution and punishment of such acts.
Dialogue with the Government
Following the comments of the CEACR, the Government indicated that a draft
decree regulating the types of work which are hazardous to children had been
prepared and that the activities included in Paragraph 3 of Recommendation
No. 190 had been taken into consideration. The Committee of Experts, in a direct
request of 2007, noted this information and expressed its hope that the draft
decree would be adopted as soon as possible.
It further noted that the Government had not provided information on any measures
taken to amend section 125 bis of the Penal Code or otherwise ensure the
prohibition of the use of a child for the purpose of prostitution, in accordance
with Article 3(b) of the Convention. The CEACR thus repeated its previous comments
on this issue.
As it did not receive any information on progress made on these reforms the
following year, the CEACR again repeated its comments in an observation published
in its 2011 report, urging the Government to align its legislation with the
Convention. In doing so, it was also joined by the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child, which, in its 2010 conclusions, followed the same line as the CEACR and
asked the Government to ensure the full implementation of Convention No. 182.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In its 2014 report, the Argentinian Government indicated that a draft of the new
Decree listing the hazardous activities had been approved by the Cabinet of
Ministers and only required the President’s approval. In its 2018 report, the CEACR
noted with satisfaction that the Decree had finally been adopted and that it
covered all of the working activities listed in Paragraph 3 of Recommendation
No. 190, in line with the Committee’s previous comments.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 83
Furthermore, concerning the issue of child prostitution, the Committee of Experts,
in its 2015 report, had noted with interest the adoption of Act No. 26.482, which
modified the Penal Code to include a prohibition of the offering, promotion and
commercialization of minors for prostitution thus also penalizing clients using
minors for prostitution, as had been requested by the Committee of Experts.
While the CEACR noted in its 2018 report that child prostitution and other worst
forms of child labour continued to exist in the country, it acknowledged that these
legislative changes represented an important step forward and expressed its hope
that the Government would continue its constructive dialogue with the ILO supervisory
system and ensure the effective implementation of the newly adopted laws.
Costa Rica
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,
1949 (No. 98)
The case relates to persistent gaps in the enforcement of the Costa Rican laws
against anti-union discrimination. These issues led to many cases of unionists
not being sufficiently protected against discriminatory dismissals and other
acts of harassment, which the Committee of Experts considered to infringe
their rights under Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98. Following comments
from the CEACR and other international bodies, as well as ongoing consultations
between the Costa Rican Government and ILO experts, a new law was finally
adopted in 2016, which introduced various measures to drastically reduce the
length of proceedings of anti-union discrimination cases and to improve the
enforcement of court rulings issued in this regard.72
Case background
Costa Rica rejoined the ILO in 1944, after having been a Member from 1920 to
1927. It has ratified 51 ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 98.
Costa Rican trade unions have, for many years, complained about frequent cases
of anti-union harassment, especially in the private sector, where the unionization
rate was already low and where the few existing unions often faced discriminatory
treatment from employers. Over the years, many such cases have been dealt
with by the CFA, which, on many occasions, urged the Government to improve
the legal protection of unionists against such acts.
In 1993, following comments of the CEACR, the Costa Rican legislature adopted
new laws prohibiting anti-union discrimination and establishing punishable offences
for committing such acts. However, shortly thereafter, shortcomings in
the implementation of these laws were reported by national and international
trade unions.
The unions’ reports alleged that the slowness of procedures in cases of anti-union
discrimination could translate into a period of four to eight years before obtaining
Monitoring compliance with international 84 labour standards
a final court ruling. The trade unions furthermore complained that, even after a
final ruling on a reinstatement order had been obtained, no legal mechanism
obliged employers to comply with this order.
The Committee of Experts, taking note of these reports, stated in an observation
published in its 1997 report that the insufficient legal protection of unionists
against acts of discrimination and harassment in the country was not in compliance
with Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98. It thus asked the Government
to respond to these allegations and to propose concrete measures to address
these issues.
Dialogue with the Government
In its response to the comments of the CEACR, the Government acknowledged
the existence of problems with regard to the length of the procedures and
showed its willingness to tackle the issue. It also referred to concrete measures
taken, especially with regard to lengthy administrative procedures, which slowed
down the overall proceedings.
Taking note of these efforts, the Committee of Experts nevertheless formulated a
new observation in its 1999 report, noting that the average length of proceedings
was still too long and their implementation not sufficiently effective. It repeated
this observation for several years in its following reports.
Due to the urgency of the issue, the case was also picked up by the CAS, which
discussed it in 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2006. In its conclusions, the CAS acknowledged
the Government’s willingness to tackle the problem and took note of the
measures it had taken, but also urged it to strengthen these efforts in order to
progress on all pending issues.
Both the CEACR and the CAS offered the Government to avail itself of ILO technical
assistance to address the issue, which the Government accepted. Over the
course of the following years, several technical assistance missions, as well as a
high-level assistance mission, were carried out by the ILO to support the Costa
Rican Government and social partners in their efforts to address the gaps in compliance
with Convention No. 98.
In response to these comments, the Government initiated a reform process
and, in consultation with the social partners, submitted a bill to the Legislative
Assembly in November 1998, which addressed anti-union discrimination in various
ways. It, inter alia, foresaw the implementation of a 14-day long expeditious court
procedure for the reinstatement or compensation of workers dismissed on unjustified
grounds. However, although the bill enjoyed support of the social partners,
its adoption was delayed for several years and eventually abandoned.
In 2005, the Government submitted a new bill to the Legislative Assembly which
it had drafted in consultation with the judicial authorities and with the support
of ILO technical experts. The bill addressed the problem of judicial delays by revising
and simplifying previous judicial procedures as well as introducing a special
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 85
process for the protection of workers affiliated to trade unions and providing protection
against acts of anti-union discrimination. Despite support from the social
partners, the Government did not however succeed in adopting the draft law and
the bill was held off in consultations in the Legislative Assembly.
Meanwhile, in search of other ways to tackle the issue, the Government encouraged
the use of alternative dispute settlement procedures to resolve union harassment
cases and to this end put in place an arbitration body, which decreased
the number of anti-union discrimination cases reaching the courts. It also initiated
training programmes for labour judges, a greater computerization of proceedings
and other measures to decrease the average length of labour court proceedings,
which reduced the labour courts’ case backlogs.
In view of the still unresolved issue, the dialogue with the Government was further
enhanced in 2006, when the CFA, which had already been dealing with numerous
individual cases of discrimination of Costa Rican unionists, received two
general complaints on the slowness of anti-union discrimination proceedings
from Costa Rican trade unions and the ITUC. In its recommendations on these
cases, published in 2007 and 2010, the CFA equally urged the Government to
proceed with the announced legislative reforms to tackle the pending problems.
Furthermore, in 2008, the CEACR was also joined by the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which urged the Government to strengthen
its efforts to address anti-union harassment, which it repeated in its 2016 report.
Meanwhile the CEACR continued recalling its previous comments and urged
the Government to proceed with the adoption of the proposed reform bill in observations
published in its 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 reports. These comments
were then again picked up by the CAS, which rediscussed the case in
2009 and 2010.
All of these comments prompted the Government to intensify its efforts to pass
the announced reform bill and to start consultations with all stakeholders involved
to seek consensus for the law. The bill was finally approved by the Legislative
Assembly in September 2012. Shortly after, it was however vetoed by the executive
authorities on the ground of its unconstitutionality. The Committee of Experts
thus again repeated its previous comments in its 2013 and 2014 reports, urging
the Government to proceed with the bill’s adoption.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
Following the veto, further consultations on the bill were held and new amendments
to it were agreed. The new law was finally adopted in January 2016 and
entered into force in July 2017. It focused on improving the enforcement of anti-
union discrimination laws through the introduction of new expeditious court
proceedings for all discrimination cases, including the possibility of issuing interim
rulings to suspend the effects of the challenged acts and allow for the provisional
reinstatement of a worker. The law also foresaw special burdens of proof for the
employer when there is no agreement on certain aspects, such as the reasons for
Monitoring compliance with international 86 labour standards
the termination of the contract, as well as the reorganization and specialization
of labour courts, the provision of free legal assistance and various types of trade
union immunity provisions intended to increase the effectiveness of protection
against anti-union discrimination.
The CEACR therefore noted with satisfaction in 2017 the adoption of the new law
and asked the Government to provide information on its impact in practice. It
also expressed its hope that these legislative changes would pave the way for reducing
the length of anti-union discrimination proceedings as well as improving
the implementation of rulings issued in these proceedings.
Grenada
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
The case relates to a provision in the 2002 Minimum Wage Order of Grenada,
which prescribed a different minimum wage rate for male and female agricultural
workers. Recalling that this provision was not in conformity with Article 2(1) of
ILO Convention No. 100, which prohibits any distinction in the determination
of wages based on gender, the CEACR urged the Government to amend the
law. Following these comments, an agreement between the social partners
of Grenada was reached, which supported the position of the Committee of
Experts. As a response, a reform process was initiated by the Government, which
finally led to an amendment of the Order establishing equal minimum wage
rates for all agricultural workers regardless of their gender. 73
Case background
Grenada has been a Member of the ILO since 1979 and has ratified 34 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 100.
In a request addressed directly to the Government in 2004, the CEACR noted
that the previously adopted Minimum Wage Order of Grenada, which set forth
minimum wages for male and female workers working in the areas of agriculture,
catering, construction, domestic employment, industry, security and shops, set
the minimum wage for male agricultural workers at $5.00 per hour while setting
the wage for female agricultural workers at $4.75. Recalling that Article 2(1)
of Convention No. 100 prohibits any distinction in the determination of wages
based on gender, the Committee thus noted that the Order conflicted with the
Convention and asked the Government to amend it accordingly.
Dialogue with the Government
While the Government did not send a reply to the CEACR’s comments in 2004
and 2005, it indicated in its 2006 report that, although it was true that the Order
provided for different rates for men and women, it also, in another section, stated
that men and women who perform the same tasks shall receive the same wage.
Noting this information, the Committee of Experts however reaffirmed that the
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 87
Order expressly established different wage rates based on sex for agricultural
workers and that these provisions should be removed from the law in order to
achieve full compliance with the Convention. This position was repeated by the
Committee in an observation published in its 2007 report.
In its 2008 report, the Committee of Expert furthermore noted that both the
Grenada Employers’ Federation and the Grenada Trade Union Council had
agreed with the CEACR’s comments and that the Department of Labour of the
Government had therefore proposed an amendment to the law.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
While the Government, in 2009 and 2011, did not provide any further information
on the adoption of the new law, in its 2012 report it indicated that the Minimum
Wage Order had been replaced by a new Order, which came into force in
January 2011. It furthermore indicated that this new Order provided for a uniform
minimum wage for agricultural workers, regardless of their gender.
In an observation, published in its 2013 report, the Committee of Experts took note
of this legislative change with satisfaction, noting that the reform had addressed
its previous comments by removing the different minimum wage rates for male
and female agricultural workers. It also asked the Government to keep it informed
of the application in practice of the new law and any other changes made to it.
Peru
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
The case relates to the Peruvian Penal Code, which, while containing penal
offences on human trafficking and a few other types of compulsory labour, did
not contain specific provisions criminalizing forced labour in all its forms, as
required by Article 25 of ILO Convention No. 29. After having highlighted this
gap, the Committee of Experts urged the Government to adopt new legislation,
which would introduce such penal offences. Following these comments, the
Government, with the assistance of ILO technical experts, initiated a reform
process which led to the drafting and adoption of an amendment to the
Peruvian Penal Code. This amendment added various new offences, addressing
forced labour in all its different forms.74
Case background
Peru has been a Member of the ILO since 1919 and has ratified 76 ILO Conventions,
including Convention No. 29.
For many years, Peru has dealt with various forms of forced labour existing in
the country. This, inter alia, concerned debt bondage inflicted on indigenous
peoples in agriculture, stock raising and forestry, situations of forced labour in the
illegal gold-mining sector, trafficking in persons or the exploitation of women in
Monitoring compliance with international 88 labour standards
domestic service. For a number of years, the Committee of Experts examined
the steps taken by the Government to address these issues.
After taking note of the Government’s replies to various requests it had addressed
to it, the CEACR, in 2009, noted that the Peruvian law did not contain any legislation
addressing the issue of forced labour in an integral manner and that the
State would therefore have to update the criminal, labour and civil legislation on
this subject. In an observation published in its 2009 report, the Committee of
Experts underlined that, in order to reduce forced labour, it was essential that
the perpetrators of such practices were punished by sufficiently dissuasive penalties,
and that according to Article 25 of Convention No. 29, the implementation
and strict enforcement of such penal offences with dissuasive penalties was required.
It thus urged the Government to adopt legislation specifically criminalizing
forced labour in all its forms.
Dialogue with the Government
In 2007, the Peruvian Government established a National Committee to Combat
Forced Labour (CNLCTF) and approved a National Plan to Combat Forced Labour
(PNLCTF), the objective of which was to address structural issues and take coordinated
measures to resolve situations of forced labour. One of the objectives
of the National Plan was to align the national legislation with international standards
in order to create a legal basis for action to combat forced labour. In its 2009
report, the CEACR urged the Government to follow through with this Plan and
adopt appropriate penal sanctions.
In its 2010 report, the Government however indicated that although a legislative
proposal was being studied, which would be introduced to the Congress, no new
penal offences on forced labour had been adopted. The Government also indicated
that other provisions of the national legislation were already addressing
forced labour, such as section 168 of the Penal Code, which provided for a sentence
of imprisonment for any person who forced or threatened another person
to work without receiving the corresponding remuneration, and section 153 which
criminalized trafficking in persons and defined its constituent elements.
Taking note of this information, the Committee of Experts, in an observation
published in its 2011 report, recalled that Convention No. 29 establishes a broader
concept of forced labour than trafficking in persons or work without remuneration
and that, in view of the principle of the strict interpretation of penal law, the
introduction of legislation criminalizing forced labour in all its forms was crucial. It
therefore expressed its hope that the Government would, within the implementation
of the PNLCTF and with the support of the CNLCTF, continue its efforts to
adopt the announced legislative proposal.
In the following years, the Government availed itself of ILO technical assistance
and welcomed ILO technical experts to the country, providing it with support
for various measures to combat forced labour, including the elaboration of new
penal offences.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 89
After reporting no progress on the drafting of a new penal law in its 2012 report,
the Government, in its 2013 report, stated that a subcommittee of the CNLCTF
had drafted a proposed amendment to the Penal Code, which would introduce
new offences concerning forced labour, taking into account the CEACR’s
comments. It indicated the upcoming submission of this draft to the National
Human Rights Council, which would then introduce the bill to Congress. The
Committee of Experts, in its 2014 report, took note of this information, and urged
the Government to proceed with the adoption process.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
After consultations over the proposed draft law had continued for several years,
the Peruvian Government finally adopted the amendment to the Penal Code in
February 2017 through Legislative Decree No. 1323. This law introduced a new provision
to the Code, which criminalizes “forced labour”, defining it as “subjecting
or obliging a person, by whatever means or against his/her will, to perform work
or service, whether paid or not”, and provides for penalties of imprisonment of
up to 12 years (which could reach 25 years in case a victim dies), as well as another
provision criminalizing “slavery and other forms of labour and sexual exploitation”.
Furthermore, the Consolidating and Disseminating Efforts to Combat
Forced Labour in Brazil and Peru project, a trilateral technical cooperation initiative
funded by the US Department of Labor (USDOL), and implemented by
the ILO in Brazil and Peru (2013–15), contributed to this result through technical
assistance on the formulation of the forced labour penal type and the development
of technical and regulatory discussions within the framework of the CNLCTF.
The CNLCTF involved the participation of different government actors, workers’
and employers’ organizations and civil society.
In its 2018 report, the CEACR noted with satisfaction the adoption of the new
law, confirming that these amendments to the Penal Code met the requirement
for penal offences for forced labour under Article 25 of Convention No. 29. It also
requested the Government to keep it informed of the law’s implementation in
practice and encouraged the Government to continue its efforts towards the full
eradication of all forms of forced labour in the country.
Monitoring compliance with international 90 labour standards
(g) North America
Canada
Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162)
The case relates to Articles 3 and 10 of Convention No. 162, according to which
ratifying States shall ensure the strictest possible protection of workers against
asbestos and, as far as practicable, prohibit the use of the substance. On various
occasions in its reports, the CEACR noted comments of Canadian trade unions
that, while Canada continued to be one of the largest producers of asbestos,
up-to-date scientific studies and guidance of both national research institutes,
the ILO and the WHO indicated that a complete ban of asbestos in Canada
was scientifically recommended and would be feasible without important
economic consequences. The Committee of Experts, supported by the CAS,
therefore invited the Government to engage in consultations with social
partners with a view to updating national laws on asbestos in line with current
scientific standards, in accordance with Convention No. 162. Following these
comments, the Government engaged in a legislative reform process, which
led to the adoption of new laws banning most production and use of asbestos
in the country.75
Case background
Canada has been a Member of the ILO since 1919 and has ratified 36 ILO
Conventions, including Convention No. 162.
In an observation published in its 2011 report, the CEACR noted that Canada was
among the main producers of asbestos in the world. It also recalled that according
to Article 3 of Convention No. 162, ratifying States shall take measures for the prevention,
control of and protection of workers against asbestos and, according to
Article 10, they shall, where technically practicable, prohibit asbestos and replace
it with less harmful substances.
In this regard, it further noted comments of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC),
the most representative Canadian trade union federation, according to which
there existed a compelling body of evidence showing that the most efficient
way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases was to stop producing and using it.
The CLC further referred to guidance published by the ILO and the WHO which
recommended banning asbestos, such as the National Programme for the
Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases (NPEAD), a programme specifically
designed by the ILO and the WHO for countries with a high asbestos production
and usage, which envisages the replacement of asbestos by other materials
or products or the use of alternative technology. The CLC also indicated that, if
planned properly, job losses due to an asbestos prohibition could be effectively
offset by developing a positive employment transition process that is linked to
the prohibition of asbestos and the promotion of alternative technology.
Part II. Impact of the CEACR and analysis of cases of progress 91
Noting that, in light of the comments formulated by the CLC, the prohibition
and replacement of asbestos in Canada seemed “technically practicable” under
Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention, the Committee of Experts requested the
Government to provide information on measures taken with a view to revising
current regulations on the use of asbestos.
Dialogue with the Government
The comments of the CEACR drew the attention of the CAS, which discussed
the case during the 2011 Conference. In its conclusions, the CAS highlighted the
importance of adopting the strictest standards for the protection of workers’
health as regards exposure to asbestos and noted that the Convention placed an
obligation on governments to keep abreast of technical progress and scientific
knowledge, which was particularly important for a country like Canada, being one
of the main producers of asbestos. It also invited the Government to engage in
consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations on the application
of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention, in particular taking into account the evolution
of scientific studies and technology since the adoption of the Convention,
as well as the findings concerning the dangers of exposure to asbestos of the
ILO, the WHO and other recognized organizations.
Following these comments, the CEACR, in its 2012 report, noted information provided
by the Government that a number of legislative and other measures had
been taken in several Canadian provinces to strengthen the protection of workers
against asbestos, taking into account the most up-to-date scientific data and
technical knowledge. The Government further stated that, in all Canadian provincial
jurisdictions as well as at the federal level, reviews of occupational safety
and health laws and regulations regarding asbestos had been undertaken, in
consultation with representatives of workers and employers, in accordance with
Article 4 of Convention No. 162. It also indicated that due to the already existing
federal and provincial laws and regulations, the use of asbestos in the country
was very limited and in many cases prohibited. The Government therefore maintained
that relevant laws and regulations in the country were in conformity with
the Convention.
The Committee of Experts however also noted statements of the CLC and other
trade unions which considered that the state of scientific and technical information
pointed to a need for a total ban of asbestos and that the Government had
not taken due account of this information.
In view of these comments, and recalling that, according to Convention No. 162,
Canada was required to adopt the strictest standards for the protection of
workers’ health against exposure to asbestos, the CEACR recalled its previous
comments requesting the Government to continue its consultations with the
national social partners to discuss the revision of national standards on asbestos
in view of up-to-date scientific studies.
Monitoring compliance with international 92 labour standards
In response to the CEACR’s comments, the Government, in its 2012 report, stated
that since November 2011, no asbestos production had taken place in the country.
It further indicated that consultations with the social partners regarding the possible
review of the federal laws on asbestos were taking place. Welcoming this
information, the CEACR, in an observation published in its 2013 report, encouraged
the Government to continue these consultations and the ongoing reform
process and to inform it of any legislative changes resulting from this process.
Closing gaps in compliance and way forward
In its 2018 report, the Committee of Experts noted with interest that, in December
2016, the Government had published a Notice of intent to develop regulations
that would prohibit all future activities with respect to asbestos and products
containing asbestos. The Notice received comments from three industry associations,
eight labour organizations and non-governmental organizations, and six regional
stakeholders. It further noted that subsequently, a consultation document
describing the proposed regulatory approach had been published in April 2017,
and that the responses received to the document would be considered in the
development of the proposed regulations, the adoption of which was planned
for 2018. The CEACR welcomed this initiative and requested the Government to
provide it with a copy of the new regulations, once adopted.
Shortly after the Committee had formulated its comments, a new law banning
most of the production and use of asbestos in Canada was adopted by the
Canadian legislature, which took effect in October 2018. This new legislation, as
well as all other positive measures taken so far by the Canadian Government
within the context of its ongoing constructive dialogue with the CEACR and the
CAS, will be reassessed by the CEACR in its next regular examination of the application
of Convention No. 162 by Canada.
CONCLUSION
The brief historical background laid out in Part I of this study provides ample
evidence that international labour standards have been and remain a major instrument
for the Organization in its objective of promoting social justice and that
standards-related activities are an indispensable tool for giving effect to the concept
of decent work. Based on its Constitution, the ILO has deployed a series of
means, all of which are intended in one manner or another to increase the effectiveness
of its action in the field of standards. The Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations is, in this respect, the oldest of
the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms, together with the CAS, for the achievement of
compliance and the effective implementation of international labour standards.
The considerable number of cases of progress noted by the CEACR since it started
recording them in 1964 provides an impressive illustration of the efforts made
by governments to ensure that their national law and practice are in conformity
with the ILO Conventions they have ratified. The 18 cases selected in Part II of
this study were meant to highlight major achievements in this regard, even if
in some of these cases, certain issues remain unresolved and further progress
can still be achieved. From these specific examples, it could be argued that the
ILO, through the joint action of its various bodies, has been able to counter the
criticisms of inertia levelled on some occasions at international or multilateral
organizations with the intention of reducing the significance of their action to
mere declarations of principles, without any real practical impact. Contrary to
the critique that international legal monitoring bodies often receive, the CEACR,
within the comprehensive ILO supervisory system, has demonstrated that relentless
supervision through constructive dialogue on the application of standards
can have real, practical and tangible effects in domestic jurisdictions, and thus
on the daily lives of working men and women. In this regard, if the success or
failure of the ILO’s supervisory system were to be measured in terms of the results
obtained and their permanence, the number of cases of progress recorded
by the CEACR can serve to demonstrate that the supervisory system has largely
fulfilled its functions in recent decades..
But as outlined throughout the study, the success of the Committee of Experts is
due in large part to the synergy that exists with the other components of the ILO’s
supervisory system, such as the CAS, the CFA and the special supervisory bodies
set up under Articles 24 and 26. As noted above, the positive results achieved
must indeed be placed within the context of the ILO’s mechanisms as a whole,
in which there is a balance between technical instances, whose members are
Monitoring compliance with international 94 labour standards
selected for their independence and legal expertise, and representative tripartite
bodies, which are composed of Government, Workers’ and Employers’ delegates.
By their very nature, the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms cannot be static in their
conception or functioning. Their effectiveness is drawn from their capacity to
confront the difficulties which arise, adapt and develop new approaches and
draw the greatest advantage from the tripartite nature of an Organization that
is universal in its vocation. This dynamic of adaptation will continue for as long
as the ILO’s tripartite constituents show the will to enhance and strengthen the
Organization’s standards-related work.
In its 2019 report to the Conference, the Committee of Experts highlighted the
fact that several targets in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development had
the potential to simultaneously benefit from and raise the profile of the standards
supervisory work in the ILO’s second century. For instance, Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 8.7 targets the end of forced labour and child labour and
so is aligned with some of the most widely – and for Convention No. 182 nearly
universally – ratified fundamental Conventions. The same holds true for standards
related to the promotion of full and productive employment and decent work for
all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities,
and of equal pay for work of equal value – targeted in SDG 8.5. The relevance of
the Committee of Experts’ comments in relation to the application of standards
on equal opportunity and treatment and employment policy is also evident in
relation to SDG 10.
But at the same time, as the CEACR recalled in its latest report, it would appear
that such reassurances of the contemporary relevance of international labour
law and its supervision do not warrant complacency. In this context, the supervisory
bodies will need to remain vigilant of the challenges to the effective supervision
and implementation of international labour standards ahead. Some
of these relate to the rapid transformations in the world of work itself and the
commensurate attention international supervision will have to pay to the timely
valuation of new and complex problems. Over and above the diverging scenarios
regarding the future of work (that is, whether jobs will be destroyed or created
and labour standards lowered or enhanced), one of the main challenges to which
technological progress will give rise is to identify how, in this transitional context,
assistance can be provided to enterprises and workers to help them adapt to new
jobs (both physically and in terms of skills) as this will likely be an ongoing and
dynamic process throughout a person’s working life.
Against this background, it should be recalled that the ILO was for a long time
the only international organization to maintain that the concept of economic
development necessarily had to include a social dimension. The first Director-
General of the ILO, Albert Thomas, wanted social concerns to prevail over economic
interests. The current Director-General, Guy Ryder, has given new impetus
to this debate by affirming with force that in today’s world, in view of the economic,
social, technological and environmental transformations caused by all
aspects of globalization, the ILO’s mandate to strive for a better future for all in
Conclusion 95
the world of work requires it, in its quest for social justice, to continue to reach
out to all, but in particular to the most vulnerable. This vision has been reflected
in “the human-centred approach
for the future of work” contained in the recently
adopted ILO Centenary Declaration.76 In this context, supervisory functions
such as monitoring compliance with international labour standards and helping
member States meet their international obligations to improve the working lives
of women and men will continue to be a relevant and useful means towards fulfilling
that vision.
NOTES
1. ILO: Work for a brighter future, Report of the Global Commission on the Future of Work, Geneva, 2019.
2. All these key documents are available through the NORMLEX database at: www.ilo.org/normlex.
3. As similar studies were undertaken in 1977 (see ILO: L’impact des conventions et recommandations
internationales du travail, Geneva, 1977), and 2003 (see ILO: The Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations: Its dynamic and impact, Geneva, 2003) on the impact of
the CEACR’s work, the present study will confine itself to the work of the Committee of Experts since
the early 2000s.
4. See Appendix I for the names and a brief CV of the 2019 members of the CEACR.
5. This section is partially based on a paper which had been prepared for the informal tripartite consultations
of 19 September 2012 as a follow-up to the discussions which had taken place in the CAS in 2012.
The paper provided a synopsis of the background to the establishment and role of the CEACR in the ILO
supervisory system and is called The ILO supervisory system: A factual and historical information note.
6. ILO: Official Bulletin, Vol. 1, Apr. 1919–Aug. 1920, pp. 332–345.
7. ibid.
8. There are numerous references to the concept of “mutual supervision” in the reports of the Governing
Body, International Labour Conference, CEACR and CAS. See for example: ILO: Report of the Director,
International Labour Conference, 14th Session, 1930, Appendix to the Second Part, p. 288; ILO: Record of
Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 19th Session, 1935, Appendix V, p. 750; Governing Body,
49th Session, June 1930, p. 479; Governing Body, 73rd Session, October 1935, Appendix X, p. 480.
9. ILO: Official Bulletin, Vol. 1, Apr. 1919–Aug. 1920, p. 266. The reference to economic sanctions in the 1919
Constitution was deleted when the Constitution was amended in 1946.
10. ILO: Resolution concerning the methods by which the Conference can make use of the reports submitted
under Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles [current article 22 of the ILO Constitution], Record of
Proceedings, International Labour Conference, Eighth Session, 1926, Vol. I, Appendix VII, p. 429; in accordance
with the resolution, the two committees were named, respectively, “Committee of the Conference”
and “Committee of Experts”.
11. ibid.
12. ibid.
13. ibid., pp. 239–240.
14. ibid., Appendix V, p. 396.
15. ibid., Appendix V, p. 398.
16. ibid., Appendix VII, p. 429.
17. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 11th Session, 1928, Vol. II, p. 458.
18. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 16th Session, 1932, Appendix V, p. 671.
19. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 42nd Session, October 1928, p. 546.
20. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 25th Session, 1939, Appendix V, p. 414.
21. ibid.
22. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, Eighth Session, 1926, p. 239. The Office
indicated that the members of the CEACR should “possess intimate knowledge of labour conditions
and of the application of labour legislation. They should be persons of independent standing, and they
should be so chosen as to represent as far as possible the varying degrees of industrial development
and the variations of industrial method to be found among the States Members of the Organisation.”
Monitoring compliance with international 98 labour standards
23. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 33rd Session, October 1926, pp. 384–386; and 34th Session, January
1927, pp. 59 and 67–68.
24. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 68th Session, September 1934, p. 292.
25. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 34th Session, 1951, Appendix VI, para. 23.
26. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 159th Session (June–July 1964), Statement by the Employers’ group,
p. 49.
27. When asked for its views by the Governing Body, the CEACR welcomed the suggestion, considering
that its examinations in this respect could “promote uniformity in the interpretation” of identical obligations.
The Governing Body approved the procedure in 1956. ILO: Minutes, Governing Body, 132nd Session,
June 1956, p. 32 and Appendix XI, pp. 79–80.
28. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 73rd Session, 1987,
pp. 7–19, paras 9–49.
29. ibid., para. 20.
30. In 1996, the dates of the CEACR’s sessions were moved from February–March to November–December.
31. ILO: The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
– A dynamic and impact built on decades of dialogue and persuasion (Geneva, 2011).
32. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 108th Session, 2019,
para. 70.
33. ibid., para. 77.
34. ILO: ibid., 90th Session, 2002, p. 14, para. 24.
35. ILO: ibid., 103rd Session, 2014, para. 30.
36. ILO: ibid., 107th Session, 2018, paras 9–10.
37. ILO: ibid., 102nd Session, 2013, paras 26–35.
38. ILO: ibid., 103rd Session, 2014 and subsequent years.
39. ILO: ibid., 104th Session, 2015, para. 24.
40. Governing Body, 334th Session, October–November 2018, GB.334/INS/5.
41. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part I), International Labour Conference, 43rd Session, 1959,
para. 25. In one case, when an observation from a workers’ organization had been sent directly to the
Office, the CEACR asked for the observation to be sent to the government concerned for comments and
for that practice to be followed in future cases.
42. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 105th Session, 2016,
paras 58–63.
43. ILO: Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference, 38th Session, 1955, Appendix V, p. 590.
44. ILO: ibid., Appendix V, p. 583, paras 6–7.
45. The CAS is composed of Government, Employers’ and Workers’ delegates. It elects a Chairperson,
who is always a Government delegate, and two Vice-Chairpersons, a Workers’ and an Employers’ delegate.
The three Chairpersons agree on the conclusions of the Committee. The Committee also elects a
“Reporter”, who presents the outcome of the discussions in the CAS to the plenary of the International
Labour Conference.
46. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 81st Session, 1994,
para. 39.
47. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 108th Session, 2019,
paras 24–26.
48. Governing Body, 301st Session, March 2008, GB.301/LILS/6(Rev.), para. 69.
49. ILO: Freedom of Association: Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association,
sixth edition (Geneva, 2018).
50. A good example of such collaboration was the recent case on the application of the ILO Worst Forms
of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), by Uzbekistan, which is treated in more detail in Part II of this
publication. In this case, the CEACR was joined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women and the UN Human Rights Committee in commenting on mass-scale incidents of
forced labour of children in the country’s cotton harvest.
Notes 99
51. See, for instance, the case of Georgia which is also treated in Part II of this publication.
52. See, for example, ITC–ILO: International Labour Law and Domestic Law: A training manual for judges,
lawyers and legal educators (edited by X. Beaudonnet), first edition, Part 1, chapter 2 (ITC Publications,
2010).
53. ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts submitted to the 48th Session (1964) of the International
Labour Conference, para. 16.
54. ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts submitted to the 48th Session (1964) of the International
Labour Conference, para. 122.
55. ILO: CEACR General Report, Report III (Part A), International Labour Conference, 101st Session, 2012,
paras 59–60.
56. Such issues were already discussed in N. Valticos: Droit international du travail, second edition (Paris,
Dalloz), 1983, pp. 575–576.
57. ibid., p. 601.
58. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), published in
1990–91, 1993, 1995–2000, 2006–07 and 2018.
59. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Mali published in 1993–95, 1997, 1999–2003,
2005–11, 2014–15 and 2018.
60. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Namibia published in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010,
2012–13 and 2016.
61. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Qatar published in 2012, 2014–15 and 2017.
62. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Nepal published in 2005–07, 2009, 2011, 2013–14
and 2016.
63. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Pakistan published in 2010–12, 2014 and 2018.
64. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Uzbekistan published in 2010–11 and 2013–17.
65. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on the Republic of Korea published in 2000, 2004,
2006–08, 2011–12 and 2015.
66. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Malaysia published in 2001–04, 2007, 2009
and 2011–19.
67. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Myanmar published in 1990, 1992–93, 1995–98,
2000, 2002–04, 2006–11, 2013, 2015 and 2017–19.
68. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on French Polynesia published in 2006, 2008,
2011–13, 2017 and 2019.
69. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Georgia published in 2006–08, 2010, 2012,
2015 and 2018.
70. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on the Republic of Moldova published in 2000, 2003,
2006–07, 2010–11, 2015 and 2017.
71. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Argentina published in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011,
2015 and 2018.
72. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Costa Rica published in 1995–96, 1999, 2000,
2002, 2004–07, 2009–10, 2012–14 and 2017.
73. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Grenada published in 2004–08, 2010, 2012–13
and 2018.
74. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Peru published in 2009, 2011, 2013–14 and 2018.
75. See observations and direct requests of the CEACR on Canada published in 2011–13 and 2018.
76. ILO Centenary Declaration, adopted by the International Labour Conference, 108th Session, Geneva,
2019.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Most of the documents used for this study have been produced by the ILO. In the
study, it was appropriate in the first place to highlight the work of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. The yearly reports
of the CEACR have therefore been used as the principal source for the study. These
reports are available on the International Labour Standards Department website:
www.ilo.org/normes
• Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Annual report containing:
General Report: comments on compliance by member States with reporting
obligations, cases of progress and the relationship between international labour
standards and the multilateral system (Report III (Part 1A)).
Observations: comments on the application of Conventions in ratifying States
(Report III (Part 1A)).
General Survey: examination of law and practice in a particular subject area in
member States that have or have not ratified the relevant Conventions (Report III
(Part 1B)).
Secondly, the study required the use of the work from the various bodies of the ILO
standards system:
• Report of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
Report containing:
General Report
Examination of individual cases
Published separately as the Record of Proceedings of the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference.
• Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association
Published three times a year as a Governing Body document and in the ILO
Official Bulletin.
• Reports of committees established to examine representations (article 24)
Published in Governing Body documents.
• Reports of Commissions of Inquiry (article 26)
Published in Governing Body documents and in the ILO Official Bulletin.
• Record of Proceedings of the International Labour Conference
Published annually from 1919 to 2014 and again in 2019.
All of the above are available in the NORMLEX database at: www.ilo.org/normlex
Monitoring compliance with international 102 labour standards
Internet resources used for the study
• NORMLEX is a trilingual database (English, French and Spanish) which brings
together information on international labour standards (such as information on
ratifications, reporting requirements, comments of the ILO supervisory bodies,
etc.), as well as on national labour and social security legislation. It has been
designed to provide full and easily usable information on these subjects.
• NATLEX is a trilingual database (English, French and Spanish – as well as
numerous texts in the original language) on labour, social security and human
rights law. It includes nearly 90,000 legislative texts from 196 countries and over
160 territories, provinces and other entities.
These databases are accessible through the international labour standards
website at: www.ilo.org/normes
Preparation of the study also required reference to the reports of technical assistance
or other missions carried out by ILO officials. The information that they contain is
regularly reported in the work of the CEACR and of the CAS. However, the mission
reports are internal working documents and their dissemination is subject to the
Office’s discretion.
Finally, a number of publications by the ILO International Labour Standards
Department, or by other authors who have written on international labour law, have
been used in the study, with particular reference to the following:
• The ILO supervisory system: A factual and historical information note,
Information paper prepared in the context of the Informal Tripartite
Consultations (19–20 February 2013) (Geneva, ILO).
• Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions
and Recommendations, Centenary edition (Geneva, ILO).
• Freedom of Association: Compilation of decisions of the Committee on
Freedom of Association, sixth edition (Geneva, ILO, 2018).
• Internal arrangements for the treatment of information received on the
application of ratified Conventions and instructions for the preparation of draft
comments for submission to the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (NORMES/2019) (Geneva, ILO, 2019).
• Report of the Global Commission on the Future of Work – Work for a brighter
future (Geneva, ILO, 2019).
• Rules of the Game: An introduction to the standards-related work of the
International Labour Organization, International Labour Standards Department,
Centenary edition (Geneva, ILO, 2019).
• The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations: Its dynamic and impact (Geneva, ILO, 2003).
• The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years (Geneva, ILO, 2001).
• The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour
Conference: A dynamic and impact built on decades of dialogue and
persuasion (Geneva, ILO, 2011).
Bibliography 103
• L’impact des conventions et recommandations internationales du travail
(Geneva, ILO, 1977).
• N. Valticos: Droit international du travail, second edition (Paris, Dalloz, 1983).
• ITC–ILO: International Labour Law and Domestic Law: A training manual for
judges, lawyers and legal educators, first edition (ITC publications, 2010).
• “The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations: Progress achieved in national labour legislation”, in
International Labour Review (2006, Vol. 145, No. 3).
• “International labour standards: Recent developments in complementarity
between the international and national supervisory systems”, in International
Labour Review (2008, Vol. 147, No. 4).
• Protecting labour rights as human rights: Present and future of international
supervision, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the 80th
Anniversary of the ILO CEACR, Geneva, 24–25 November 2006, ILO.
• Research Handbook on Transnational Labour Law (Edward Elgar Publishing,
2015).
APPENDIX I
Current members of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
Mr Shinichi AGO (Japan) – Professor of Law, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto;
former Professor of International Economic Laws and Dean of the Faculty of
Law at Kyushu University; member of the Asian Society of International Law, the
International Law Association and the International Society for Labour and Social
Security Law; Judge, Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal.
Ms Lia ATHANASSIOU (Greece) – Full Professor of Maritime and Commercial
Law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Faculty of Law);
elected member of the Deanship Council of the Faculty of Law and Director of
the Postgraduate Programme on Business and Maritime Law; President of the
Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Maritime Law held in
Piraeus (Greece) every three years; Ph.D. from the University of Paris I-Sorbonne;
authorization by the same university to supervise academic research; LL.M.
Aix-Marseille III; LL.M. Paris II Assas; visiting scholar at Harvard Law School and
Fulbright Scholar (2007–08); member of legislative committees on various commercial
law issues. She has lectured and made academic research in several foreign
institutions in France, Italy, Malta, United Kingdom, United States, among
others. She has published extensively on maritime, competition, industrial property,
company, European and transport law (eight books and more than 60 papers
and contributions in collective works in Greek, English and French); practising
lawyer and arbitrator specializing in European, commercial and maritime law.
Ms Leila AZOURI (Lebanon) – Doctor of Law; Professor of Labour Law at the
Faculty of Law at Sagesse University, Beirut; Director of Research at the Doctoral
School of Law of the Lebanese University; former Director of the Faculty of Law
of the Lebanese University until 2016; member of the Executive Bureau of the
National Commission for Lebanese Women; Chairperson of the national commission
responsible for the preparation of the reports submitted by the Government
of Lebanon to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) until 2017; legal expert for the Arab Women Organization;
member of the “ILO Policy Advisory Committee on Fair Migration” in the
Middle East.
Mr Lelio BENTES CORRÊA (Brazil) – Judge at the Labour Superior Court (Tribunal
Superior do Trabalho) of Brazil; former Labour Public Prosecutor of Brazil; LL.M. of
the University of Essex, United Kingdom; former member of the National Council
of Justice of Brazil; Professor at the Instituto de Ensino Superior de Brasilia;
Professor at the National School for Labour Judges.
Monitoring compliance with international 106 labour standards
Mr James J. BRUDNEY (United States) – Professor of Law, Fordham University School
of Law, New York; Co-Chair of the Public Review Board of the United Automobile
Workers Union of America (UAW); former Visiting Fellow, Oxford University, United
Kingdom; former Visiting Faculty, Harvard Law School; former Professor of Law,
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; former Chief Counsel and Staff
Director of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Labor; former attorney
in private practice; and former law clerk to the United States Supreme Court.
Mr Halton CHEADLE (South Africa) – Professor Emeritus at the University of
Cape Town; former Special Adviser to the Minister of Justice; former Chief Legal
Counsel of the Congress of South African Trade Unions; former Special Adviser to
the Labour Minister; former Convener of the Task Team to draft the South African
Labour Relations Act.
Ms Graciela DIXON CATON (Panama) – Former President of the Supreme Court
of Justice of Panama; former President of the Penal Court of Cassation and of the
Chamber of General Business Matters of the Supreme Court of Panama; former
President of the International Association of Women Judges; former President
of the Latin American Federation of Judges; former National Consultant for the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); currently Judge of the Inter-American
Development Bank Administrative Tribunal; Arbitrator at the Court of Arbitration
of the Official Chamber of Commerce of Madrid; Arbitrator at the Center for
Dispute Resolution (CESCON) of the Panamanian Chamber of Construction, as
well as for the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Panamanian Chamber
of Commerce; and legal adviser and international consultant.
Mr Rachid FILALI MEKNASSI (Morocco) – Doctor of Law; former Professor at the
University Mohammed V of Rabat; member of the Higher Council of Education,
Training and Scientific Research; consultant with national and international public
bodies, including the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
and UNICEF; National Coordinator of the ILO project “Sustainable Development
through the Global Compact” (2005–08).
Mr Abdul G. KOROMA (Sierra Leone) – Judge at the International Court of Justice
(1994–2012); former President of the Henry Dunant Centre for Humanitarian
Dialogue in Geneva; former member and Chairman of the International Law
Commission; former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone
to the United Nations (New York) and former Ambassador Plenipotentiary to the
European Union, Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and many countries.
Mr Alain LACABARATS (France) – Judge at the Court of Cassation; former
President of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation; former President of the
Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation; member of the Higher Council of the
Judiciary; member of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary and
the Consultative Council of European Judges (Council of Europe); former Vice-
President of the Paris Regional Court; former President of the Paris Appellate
Court Chamber; former lecturer at several French universities and author of
many publications.
Appendix I 107
Ms Elena E. MACHULSKAYA (Russian Federation) – Professor of Law, Department
of Labour Law, Faculty of Law, Moscow State Lomonosov University; Professor of
Law, Department of Civil Proceedings and Social Law, Russian State University
of Oil and Gas; Secretary, Russian Association for Labour and Social Security Law
(2011–16); member of the European Committee of Social Rights; member of the
President’s Committee of the Russian Federation on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (non-paid basis).
Ms Karon MONAGHAN (United Kingdom) – Queen’s Counsel; Deputy High Court
Judge; former Judge of the Employment Tribunal (2000–08); practising lawyer
with Matrix Chambers, specializing in discrimination and equality law, human
rights law, European Union law, public law and employment law; advisory positions
include Special Adviser to the House of Commons Business, Innovation and
Skills Committee for the inquiry on women in the workplace (2013–14); Honorary
Visiting Professor, Faculty of Laws, University College London.
Mr Vitit MUNTARBHORN (Thailand) – Professor Emeritus of Law, Chulalongkorn
University, Thailand; former United Nations University Fellow at the Refugee
Studies Programme, Oxford University; former United Nations Special Rapporteur
on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography; former
United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; former Chairperson of the United
Nations Coordination Committee of Special Procedures; Chairperson of the
United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Ivory Coast (2011); former member,
Advisory Board, United Nations Human Security Fund; Commissioner of the
United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (2012–16); recipient
of the 2004 UNESCO Prize for Human Rights Education; former United
Nations Independent Expert on Protection against Violence and Discrimination
Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity; member of UNESCO Board
on Global Education Monitoring Report.
Ms Rosemary OWENS (Australia) – Professor Emerita of Law, Adelaide Law
School, University of Adelaide; former Dame Roma Mitchell Professor of Law
(2008–15); former Dean of Law (2007–11); Officer of the Order of Australia; Fellow
of the Australian Academy of Law (and Director (2014–16)); former editor and currently
member of the editorial board of the Australian Journal of Labour Law;
member of the scientific and editorial board of the Révue de droit comparé du
travail et de la sécurité sociale; member of the Australian Labour Law Association
(and former member of its National Executive); International Reader for the
Australian Research Council; Chairperson of the South Australian Government’s
Ministerial Advisory Committee on Work–Life Balance (2010–13); Chairperson
and member of the Board of Management of the Working Women’s Centre
(SA) (1990–2014).
Monitoring compliance with international 108 labour standards
Ms Mónica PINTO (Argentina) – Professor of International Law and Human
Rights Law and former Dean at the University of Buenos Aires Law School;
Associate member of the Institut de droit international; President of the World
Bank Administrative Tribunal; Judge at the Inter-American Development Bank
Administrative Tribunal; member of the ICSID Panel of Conciliators and Arbitrators;
Vice-President of the Advisory Committee on Nominations for the International
Criminal Court; member of the International Advisory Board of the American
Law Institute for the Fourth Restatement on Foreign Relations; appeared before
different human rights bodies, arbitral tribunals and the International Court of
Justice as a counsel and as an expert, and is currently serving as an arbitrator;
served in different capacities as a human rights expert for the UN; Visiting
Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, University of Paris I and II, University
of Rouen; taught at The Hague Academy of International Law; author of various
books and numerous articles.
Mr Paul-Gérard POUGOUÉ (Cameroon) – Professor of Law (agrégé), Professor
Emeritus, Yaoundé University; guest or associate professor at several universities
and at the Hague Academy of International Law; on several occasions,
President of the jury for the agrégation competition (private law and criminal
sciences section) of the African and Malagasy Council for Higher Education
(CAMES); former member of the Scientific Council of the L’Agence universitaire
de la Francophonie (AUF) (1993–2001); former member (2002–12) of the Council
of the International Order of Academic Palms of CAMES (2002–12); member of
the International Society for Labour and Social Security Law, the International
Foundation for the Teaching of Business Law, the Association Henri Capitant
and the Society of Comparative Law; Founder and Director of the review Juridis
Périodique; President of the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights
in Central Africa (APDHAC); Chairperson of the Scientific Board of the Labour
Administration Regional African Centre (CRADAT); Chairperson of the Scientific
Board of the Catholic University of Central Africa (UCAC).
Mr Raymond RANJEVA (Madagascar) – President of the Madagascar National
Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences; former member (1991–2009), Vice-
President (2003–06) and Senior Judge (2006–09) of the International Court
of Justice (ICJ); President of the Chamber formed by the ICJ to deal with the
Benin–Niger frontier dispute (2005); Bachelor’s Degree in Law, University of
Madagascar, Antananarivo (1965); Doctorate of Law, University of Paris II; agrégé
of the Faculties of Law and Economics, Public Law and Political Science Section,
Paris (1972); Doctor honoris causa of the Universities of Limoges, Strasbourg and
Bordeaux-Montesquieu; former Professor at the University of Madagascar (1981–
91) and other institutions; former First Rector of the University of Antananarivo
(1988–90); member of the Malagasy delegation to several international conferences;
Head of the Malagasy delegation to the United Nations Conference on
Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1976–77); former first Vice-President
for Africa of the International Conference of French-speaking Faculties of Law and
Political Science (1987–91); member of the Court of Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce; member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport; member
Appendix I 109
of the Institute of International Law; member of numerous national and international
professional and academic societies; Curatorium of the Hague Academy
of International Law; member of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace;
President of the African Society of International Law since 2012; former Vice-
Chairman of the International Law Institute (2015–17); Chairperson of the ILO
Commission of Inquiry on Zimbabwe.
Ms Kamala SANKARAN (India) – Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and
currently Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli;
Former Dean, Legal Affairs, University of Delhi; member, Working Group on
Migration, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation; member, Task Force
to Review Labour Laws, National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised
and Informal Sector, Government of India; member, International Advisory Board,
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations;
Fellow, Stellenbosch Institute of Advanced Study, South Africa (2009 and 2011);
Visiting South Asian Research Fellow, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies,
Oxford University (2010); Fulbright Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Georgetown
University Law Center, Washington, DC (2001).
Ms Deborah THOMAS-FELIX (Trinidad and Tobago) – President of the Industrial
Court of Trinidad and Tobago since 2011; Judge of the United Nations Appeals
Tribunal since 2014; former President and Second Vice-President of the United
Nations Appeals Tribunal; former Chairperson of the Trinidad and Tobago Securities
and Exchange Commission; former Chairperson of the Caribbean Group of
Securities Regulators; former Deputy Chief Magistrate of the Judiciary of Trinidad
and Tobago; former President of the Family Court of Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines; Hubert Humphrey Fulbright Fellow; Georgetown University Leadership
Seminar Fellow; and Commonwealth Institute of Judicial Education Fellow.
Mr Bernd WAAS (Germany) – Professor of Labour Law and Civil Law at the
University of Frankfurt; Coordinator and member of the European Labour Law
Network; Coordinator of the European Centre of Expertise in the field of labour
law, employment and labour market policies (ECE); President of the German
Society for Labour and Social Security Law; member of the Executive Committee
of the International Society for Labour and Social Security Law (ISLSSL); member
of the Advisory Committee of the Labour Law Research Network (LLRN).
APPENDIX II
Chairpersons of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
• Mr Jules GAUTIER (France): 1933–36
• Mr Paul TSCHOFFEN (Belgium): 1927–32; 1937–38; 1940; 1945–61
• Mr Georges SCELLE (France): 1939
• Mr Ramaswami MUDALIAR (India): 1962–69
• Mr Enrique GARCÍA SAYÁN (Peru): 1970–75
• Sir Adetokunbo ADEMOLA (Nigeria): 1976–86
• Mr José Maria RUDA (Argentina): 1988–94
• Sir William DOUGLAS (Barbados): 1987; 1995–2001
• Ms Robyn A. LAYTON (Australia): 2002–07
• Ms Janice BELLACE (United States): 2008–09
• Mr Yozo YOKOTA (Japan): 2010–12
• Mr Abdul KOROMA (Sierra Leone): 2013–18
• Ms Graciela DIXON CATON (Panama): 2019–
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2019 Africa Cabo Verde C.182
Côte d’Ivoire C.138
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
C.111
Eswatini C.87
Guinea C.29
Morocco C.105, C.182
Mozambique C.138, C.182
Niger C.182
Americas Ecuador C.138
El Salvador C.182
Arab States Iraq C.100
Asia and the Pacific Malaysia C.182
Viet Nam C.29
Europe Albania C.138
Poland C.87, C.98
2018 Africa Benin C.105
Cabo Verde C.155
Liberia C.87
Mali C.100
Uganda C.182
Americas Argentina C.182
Chile C.138
El Salvador C.144
Guatemala C.98
Mexico C.87
Peru C.29
Trinidad and Tobago C.138, C.182
APPENDIX III
Cases regarding ILO member States for which
the CEACR has expressed its satisfaction
since 2009 on specific Conventions
Monitoring compliance with international 112 labour standards
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2018 Asia and the Pacific China – Macau Special
Administrative Region
C.182
Lao People’s Democratic Republic C.138
Pakistan C.29, C.105, C.138
Europe Belarus C.29
Belgium C.138
Bosnia and Herzegovina C.138
Ireland C.98
Italy C.137
Sweden C.168
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
C.182
Turkey C.138
2017 Africa Angola C.138, C.182
Liberia C.111
Niger C.98, C.154
Seychelles C.182
Zambia C.138
Americas Bahamas C.182
Canada C.87, C.160
Chile C.87, C.98
Costa Rica C.87, C.98
Cuba C.87, C.98
Paraguay C.138
United States C.147
Uruguay C.73
Asia and the Pacific Australia C.87
Kiribati C.87, C.98
Philippines C.17
Europe Albania C.87
Belarus C.111
Belgium C.155
Bosnia and Herzegovina C.87
France – French Polynesia C.111
France – New Caledonia C.111
Ireland C.182
Appendix III 113
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2017 Europe Republic of Moldova C.111
Spain C.81
Switzerland C.102, C.182
2016 Africa Kenya C.138
Madagascar C.127
Mozambique C.87, C.98
Namibia C.182
Swaziland C.87
Americas Barbados C.135
Brazil C.155
Cuba C.81
Ecuador C.87
Mexico C.182
Panama C.107
Peru C.87
Arab States Kuwait C.138
Asia and the Pacific Fiji C.87
Philippines C.111
Samoa C.98
Europe Netherlands – Aruba C.138
Serbia C.98
2015 Africa Benin C.105, C.138
Egypt C.149
Niger C.135
Senegal C.13
Americas Antigua and Barbuda C.182
Argentina C.138
Barbados C.118
Colombia C.81
Costa Rica C.138
Cuba C.138
Ecuador C.169
Honduras C.81
Mexico C.161
Suriname C.182
Uruguay C.111, C.161, C.167
Monitoring compliance with international 114 labour standards
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2015 Arab States Bahrain C.182
Jordan C.98
Asia and the Pacific Australia C.182
Bangladesh C.182
Fiji C.182
Europe Albania C.182
Austria C.138
Cyprus C.138, C.182
France C.149
Georgia C.87, C.98
Lithuania C.87
Republic of Moldova C.111
Turkey C.87
United Kingdom C.98
2014 Africa Central African Republic C.52
Liberia C.182
Libya C.103
Malawi C.138
Mauritius C.14, C.100
Nigeria C.19, C.155
United Republic of Tanzania C.138, C.182
Uganda C.29, C.182
Zimbabwe C.87
Americas Argentina C.3
Plurinational State of Bolivia C.87
Colombia C.24
Ecuador C.121, C.130
Grenada C.99
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines C.182
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela C.9
Arab States Lebanon C.138, C.182
Yemen C.138
Asia and the Pacific Japan C.102
Malaysia C.95
Samoa C.138, C.182
Appendix III 115
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2014 Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina C.87
Czech Republic C.132
Denmark C.52
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
C.138
2013 Africa Algeria C.87
Burkina Faso C.17, C.138, C.161,
C.182
Cape Verde C.81
Egypt C.87
Guinea C.182
Niger C.105
Rwanda C.138
Americas Bahamas C.138
Grenada C.100
Panama C.98
Saint Lucia C.87
Trinidad and Tobago C.182
United States C.182
Arab States Jordan C.182
United Arab Emirates C.138, C.182
Asia and the Pacific Australia C.155
Japan C.19
Malaysia C.182
Myanmar C.29, C.87
Pakistan C.18
Philippines C.90
Timor-Leste C.98
Europe Bulgaria C.98
Croatia C.119
Hungary C.29, C.98
Ireland C.182
Portugal C.6, C.77, C.78
Romania C.87
Turkey C.98, C.105
Ukraine C.87
Monitoring compliance with international 116 labour standards
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2012 Africa Algeria C.182
Angola C.17
Benin C.6, C.161
Botswana C.182
Burundi C.29, C.182
Central African Republic C.105
Democratic Republic of the Congo C.119
Ethiopia C.155
Gabon C.123
Lesotho C.138, C.182
Mauritius C.160
Morocco C.182
Namibia C.182
South Africa C.138, C.182
Swaziland C.87
Tunisia C.118
Uganda C.138
Americas Antigua and Barbuda C.138
Belize C.98
Brazil C.138, C.155, C.161
Costa Rica C.102, C.111
Dominica C.138
El Salvador C.138, C.182
Guatemala C.182
Nicaragua C.138
Panama C.87
Peru C.138, C.169
Suriname C.182
Uruguay C.111, C.155, C.182
Arab States Iraq C.115
Kuwait C.138
Oman C.182
Asia and the Pacific China – Macau Special
Administrative Region
C.115
Japan C.98
Republic of Korea C.150
Appendix III 117
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2012 Asia and the Pacific Lao People’s Democratic Republic C.29
Malaysia C.138
New Zealand C.160
Pakistan C.98
Sri Lanka C.138, C.182
Europe Azerbaijan C.138
Bulgaria C.120
Croatia C.155
Cyprus C.95, C.182
France C.166
France – New Caledonia C.127
Italy C.139
Luxembourg C.155
Republic of Moldova C.105
Netherlands C.182
Romania C.98, C.138
Spain C.44, C.182
Sweden C.129
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
C.182
United Kingdom –
British Virgin Islands
C.94, C.98
United Kingdom – St Helena C.17
2011 Africa Cape Verde C.19
Côte d’Ivoire C.138, C.182
Egypt C.138, C.182
Kenya C.98, C.105, C.129
Mauritius C.87, C.98
Swaziland C.98
Togo C.138, C.182
Americas Argentina C.87, C.138
Colombia C.13
Cuba C.155
Jamaica C.81, C.182
Kiribati C.105
Mexico C.161
Monitoring compliance with international 118 labour standards
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2011 Americas Panama C.16, C.87, C.182
Paraguay C.182
Peru C.139
Uruguay C.98, C.184
Arab States Jordan C.81, C.182
Kuwait C.87, C.98
Saudi Arabia C.100
Asia and the Pacific Bangladesh C.81
China C.23
China – Macau Special
Administrative Region
C.138
Papua New Guinea C.182
Philippines C.87, C.98
Thailand C.182
Europe Albania C.138
Belgium C.87
Croatia C.138, C.162
Czech Republic C.132
France C.81, C.129, C.148,
C.149
Italy C.127
Norway C.81
Portugal C.98, C.155, C.162
San Marino C.103
Slovakia C.115
Spain C.87, C.148
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
C.87
Turkey C.29, C.98
United Kingdom C.98
2010 Africa Botswana C.111
Central African Republic C.182
Côte d’Ivoire C.182
Gabon C.105
Gambia C.98
Kenya C.111
Appendix III 119
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2010 Africa Lesotho C.111
Liberia C.105
Madagascar C.138
Mauritius C.26, C.105, C.138
Mozambique C.182
Rwanda C.17
United Republic of Tanzania C.105, C.182
Uganda C.182
Americas Barbados C.102, C.128
Bolivia C.87, C.98, C.100,
C.169
Brazil C.115, C.152
Colombia C.87, C.98, C.154
El Salvador C.87, C.151
Mexico C.155
Nicaragua C.98, C.105, C.182
Panama C.98
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines C.105
Uruguay C.151, C.155
Arab States Kuwait C.106
Syrian Arab Republic C.139
United Arab Emirates C.182
Asia and the Pacific Afghanistan C.139
Australia C.98, C.158
China – Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region
C.81
Japan C.147
Malaysia – Sarawak C.14
Mongolia C.138
Viet Nam C.155
Europe Denmark C.87, C.129
Finland C.150
Germany C.3
Greece C.29, C.81, C.147,
C.180
Malta C.132
Monitoring compliance with international 120 labour standards
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2010 Europe Netherlands C.152
Norway C.169
Portugal C.115
Romania C.100, C.183
Slovakia C.100
Slovenia C.148
Spain C.138
Sweden C.129, C.167
Switzerland C.81
United Kingdom C.81
United Kingdom – Isle of Man C.151
2009 Africa Algeria C.81
Burkina Faso C.3
Djibouti C.100
Kenya C.100, C.138
Liberia C.87
Mauritius C.94
Senegal C.6, C.120
Uganda C.17, C.105
Zambia C.138
Americas Argentina C.138
Colombia C.87
Ecuador C.138
Honduras C.138
Nicaragua C.138
Panama C.98
Arab States Jordan C.29, C.81
Asia and the Pacific Bangladesh C.106
China – Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region
C.97
Malaysia C.98
Europe Belgium C.111
Bulgaria C.106
Croatia C.162
Cyprus C.105
Denmark C.81
Appendix III 121
Year Region Countries Conventions Nos
2009 Europe Finland C.128, C.130
France C.81, C.158
Georgia C.138
Latvia C.81
Netherlands C.98, C.103
Portugal C.103, C.132
Romania C.14
Slovenia C.129
Spain C.87
Switzerland C.173
Turkey C.138
Ukraine C.111
United Kingdom – Isle of Man C.180
United Kingdom – Jersey C.98
Document No. 70
Part XIII of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, 1919
OFFICIAL
BULLETIN
GENEVA
1923
005286
INTERNAT[ONAL LABOUR
OFFICE
VOLUME I
APRIL '1919-AUGUST 1920
CHAPTER VI.
Part XIII of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles.
'l'he Treaty of Peace of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919.
Its Part XIII (Labour), the text of which is reproduced below, was
also incorporated (a) as Part XIII, Articles 332-372, in the Treaty
of Peace with Austria, signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10 Septeniber
1919 ; (b) as Part XII, Articles 249-289, in the Treaty of
Peace with Bulgaria, signed at Neuilly-sur-Seine, 27 November
1919 ; and (c) as Part XIII, Articles 315-355, in the Treaty of Peace
with Hungary, signed at Trianon, 4 June 1920.
The text of Part XIII of •the Treaty of Versailles is as follows
Part. XIII.
LABOUR.
SECTIoN 1.
ORGANISATION OF LABOUR.
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment
of universal peace, and such a peace can be established
only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice,
hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to
produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world
are imperilled ; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently
required: as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of
work, including the establishment of a maximum working day
and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention
of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the
protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury
arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young
persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection
of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than
their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association,
the organisation of vocational and technical education and other
measures
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions
of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which
desire to improve the conditions in their own countries
The HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, moved by sentiments of
justice and humanity as well as by the desire to secure the permanent
peace of the world . agree to the following
CHAPTER 1.
ORGANISATION.
ARTICLE 387.
A -permanent organisation is hereby established for the promotion
of the objects set forth in the Preamble.
The original Members of the League of Nations shall be the
Members of this organisation, and hereafter membership
of the League of Nations shall carry with it membership of the
said organisation.
ARTICLE 388.
The permanent organisation shall consist of
1. A General Conference of Representatives of the Members
and, -
2. An International Labour Office controlled by the Governing
Body described in Article 393.
ARTICLE 389.
The meetings of the General Conference of Representatives of
the Members shall be held from time to time as occasion may
require, and at least once in every year. It shall be composed of
four Representatives of each of the Members, of whom two shall
be Government Delegates and the two others shall be Delegates
representing respectively the employers and the wo.rkpeople of
each of the Members.
Each Delegate may he accompanied by advisers, who shall
not exceed two in number for each item on the agenda of the
meeting. When questions specially affecting women are to be
considered by the Conference, one at least of the advisers should
be a woman.
The Members undertake to nominate non-Government Delegates
and advisers chosen in agreement with the industrial organisations,
if such organis-ations exist, which are most representative
of employers or workpeople, as the case may be, in their
respective countries.
Advisers shall not speak except on a request made by the
Delegate whom they accompany and by the special authorisation
of the President of the Gonference. and may not vote.
.....1. •1*. •
334
A Delegate may by notice in writing addressed to the President
appoint one of his advisers to act as his deputy, and the
adviser, while so acting, shall be allowed to speak and vote.
The names of the Delegates and their advisers will he communicated
to the International Labour Office by the Government
of each of the Members.
The credentials of Delegates and their advisers shall he subject
to scrutiny by the Conference, which may, by two-thirds of the
votes cast by the Delegates present, refuse to admit any Delegate
or adviser whom it deems not to have been nominated in accordance
with this Article.
AaTIcLE 390.
Every Delegate shall be entitled to vote individually on all
matters which are taken into consideration by the Conference.
If one of the Menthers fails to nomin ate one of the non-Government
Delegates whom it is entitled to nominate, the other non-
Government Delegate shall be allowed •to sit and speak at the
Conference, but not to vote.
If iii accordance with Article 389 the Conference refuses
admission to a Delegate of one of the Menihers, the provisions
of the present Article shall apply as if that Delegate had not been
nominated.
ARTICLE 891.
The meetings of the Conference shall be held at the seat of the
League of Nations, or at such other place as may be decided by
the Conference at a previous meeting by two-thirds of the votes
cast by the Delegates present.
ARTIcLE
The International Labour Office shall be established at the
seat of the League of Nations as part of the organisation of the
League.
ARTICLE 393.
The International Labour Office shall be under the control of
a Governing Body consisting of twenly-four persons, appointed in
accordance with the following provisions
The Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall
he constituted as follows
Twelve persons representing the Governments
Six persons elected by the Delegates to the Conference representing
the employers
Six persons elected by the Delegates to the Conference representing
the workers.
Of the twelve persons representing the Governments eight shall
be nominated by the Members which are of the chief industrial
importance, and four shall be nominated by the Members selected
for the by the Govertinient Delegales to the Conference,
excluding the Delegates of the eight Members mentioned above.
Any question as to which are the Members of the chief industrial
importance shall be decided by the Council of the League
of Nations.
The period of office of the members of the Governing Body
will be three years. The method of filling vacancies and other
similar questions may be determined by the Governing Body sill)-
ject to the approval of the Conference.
The Governing Body shall, from lime to time, elect one of its
members to act as its Chairman, shall regulate its own procedure
and shall fix its own times of meeting. A special meeting shall be
held if a written request to that effect is made by at ten
members of the Governing Body.
P aol.
There shall be a Director of the International Labour Office,
who shall be appointed by the Governiiig Body, and, subject to
the instructions of the Governing Body, shall be responsible for
the efficient conduct of the International Labour Office and for
such other duties as may be assigned to him.
The Director or his deputy shall attend all meetings of the
Governing Body.
ARTICLE' 395.
The staff of the International Labour Office shall be appointed
by the Directo.r, who shall, so far as is possible with due i'egard
to the efficiency of the work of the Office, select persons of different
nationalities. A certain number of these persons shall he
women.
ARTICLE 396.
The functions of the International Labour Office shalt include
the collection and distribution of information on all subjects relating
to the international adjustment of conditions of industrial life
and labour, and particularly the examination of subjects which
it is proposed to bring before the Conference with a view to the
conclusion of international conventions, and the conduct of such
special investigations as may be ordered by the Conference.
It will prepare the agenda for the meetings of the Conference.
It will carry out the duties required of it by the provisions of
this Part of the present Treaty in connection with international
disputes.
It will edit and publish in French and English, and in such
other languages as the Governing Body may think desirable, a
periodical paper dealing with problems of industry and employment
of international interest.
Generally, in addition to the functions set out in this Article,
it shall have such other powers anclduties as may be assigned to
it by the Conference.
- ..- - -,. '-.-
336
ARTICLE 397'.
The Government Departments of any of the Members which
deal with questions of industry and employment may communicate
directly with the Director through the Representative of
their Government on the Governing Body of the International
Labour Office, or failing any such Representative, through such
other qualified official as the Government may nominate for the
purpose.
ARTICLE 398.
The International Labour Office shall be entitled to the assistance
of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations in any
matter in which it can he given.
ARTICLE 399.
Each of the Members will pay the travelling and subsistence
expenses of its Delegates and their advisers and of its Representatives
attending the meetings of the Conference or Governing
Body, as the case may be.
All the other expenses of the International Labour Office
of the meetings of the Conference or Governing Body shall be
paid to the Director by the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations out of the general funds of the League.
The Director shall be responsible tn the Secrethry-General of
the League for the proper expenditure of all Inolleys paid to him
in pursuance of this Article.
CHAPTER II.
PROCEDURE.
ARTICLE 400.
The agenda for all meelings of the Conference will be settled
by the Governing Body, who shall consider aiiy suggestion as to
the agenda that may be made by the Government of any of the
Members or by any representative organisation recognised for the
purpose of Article 389.
ARTICLE 401.
The Director shall act as the Secretary of the Conference, and
shall transmit the agenda so as to reach the Members four months
before the meeting of the Conference, and, through them, the
non-Government Delegates when appointed.
337
ARTICLE 402. ' . .
Any of the Governments of the Members may formally.object
to the inclusion of any item or items in the The grdumts
for such objection shall be set forth in a reasoned statement nOdressed
to the Director, who shall circulate it to all the Members
of the Permanent Organisation.
Items to which such objection has been made -shall hot, however,,
be excluded from the agenda, if at the Conference .a majority
of two-thirds of the votes cast by the Delegates present is in
favour of considering them.
If the Conference decides (otherwise than under the
ing paragraph) by two-thirds of the votes cast by the Delegates
present that any subject shall, be considered by the Conference,
that subject shall be included in the agenda for the following
ARTICLE 403. ' ,
'The Conference shall regulate its own procedure, shall elect its
own President, and may appoint committees to consider and
report on any matter. , , ' -
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Part of the
present Treaty, all matters shall be decided by a. simple majority
of the votes cast by the Delegates present.
The voting is void unless the total number of votes cast is
to half the number of the Delegates attending the Conference.,,
ARTICLE 404.
The Conference may add to any committees which it appoints
technical experts, who shall be assessors without power to vote.
ARTICLE 405.
When the Conference has decided on the adoption of proposals
with regard to an item in the agenda, it will rest with the
Conference to determine whether these proposals. should take the
form: (a) of a recommendation to be submitted to the Members
for consideration with a view to effect being given to it by national
legislation or otherwise, or (b) of a draft international converition
for ratification by the Members.
In either case a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast by the.
Delegates present shall be necessary on the final vote for the
adoption of the recommendation or draft convention, as the case
may be, by the Conference.
In framing any recommendation or draft convention, of general
application the Conference shall have due regard to those
countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development
of industrial organisation or other special circumstances make the
industrial conditions substantially different and shall suggest the
modifications, if any, which it considers may be required tom.eet
the case of such countries.
9')
338
A copy of the recommendation or draft convention shall be
authenticated by the signature of the President of the Conference
and of the I)irector and shah be deposited with the Secrektry-
General of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General will coinmunicate
a certified copy of the recommendation or draft convention
to each of the Members.
Each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period
of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference,
or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances
to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable
moment and in no case later than eighteen months from
the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation
or draft convention before thu authority or authorities
within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of
legislation or other action.
In the case of a recommendation, the Members will inform
the Secretary-General of the action taken.
In the case of a draft convention, the Member will, if it obtains
the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence
the matter lies, communicate the formal ratification of the
convention to the Secretary-General arid will take such action as
may be necessary to make effective the provisions of such convention.
If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken
to iiiake a effective, or if the draft
fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within
whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest
upon time Member.
In the case of a federal State, the power of which to enter into
conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, li shall
be in the discretion of that Government to treat a draft convention
to which such limitations apply as a recommendation oniy,
and the provisions of this Article with respect to recommendations
shall apply in such case.
The above Article shall be interpreted in accordance with the
following
In no case shall any Member be asked or reguired, as a result
of the adoption of any recommendation or draft convention by
the Conference, to lessen the protection afforded by its existing
legislation to the workers concerned.
ARTICLE 406.
Any convention so ratified shall be registered by the Secretary-
General of the League of Nations, but shall only he binding upon
the Members which ratify it.
ARTICLE 407.
If any convention coming before the Conference for final consideration
fails to secure the support of two-thirds of the votes
339
cast by the Delegates present, it shall nevertheless be within the
right of any of the Members of the Permanent Organisation to
agree to such convention among themselves.
Any convention so agreed to shall be communicated by the
Governments concerned to the Secretary-General of the League
of Nations, who shall register it.
ARTICLE 408.
Each of the Members agrees to make an annual report to the
International Labour Office on the measures which it has taken
to give effect to the provisions of conventions to which it is a
party. These reports shall be made in such form and shall contain
such particulars as the Governing Body may request. The Director
shall lay a summary of these reports before the next meeting
of the Conference.
ARTICLE 409.
In the event of any representation being made to the International
Labour Office by an industrial association of employers
or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any
respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any
convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate
this representation to the Government against which
it is made, and may invite that Government to make such statement
on the subject as it may think fit.
ARTICLE 410.
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the
Government in question, or if the statement when received is not
deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall
have the right to publish the representation and the statement,
if any, made in reply to it.
ARTICLE 411.
Any of the Members shall the right to file a complaint
with the International Labour Office if it is not satisfied that any
other Member is securing the effective observance of any convention
which both have ratified in accordance with the foreging
Articles.
The Governing Body may, if it thinks fit, before referring such
a complaint to a Commission of Enquiry, as hereinafter provided
for, communicate with the Government in question in the manner
described in Article 409.
If the Governing Body does not think it necessary to communicate
the complaint to the Government in question, or if, when they
have such communiêation, no statement in reply has been
received within a reasonable time which the Governing Body c'nsiders
to be satisfactory, the Governing Body may apply for
340
appointment of a Commission of Enquiry to consider the complaint
and to report thereon.
The Governing Body may adopt the same procedure either of
its own motion or on receipt of a complaint from a Delegate to
the Conference.
When any matter arising out of Articles 410 or 411 is being
considered by the Governing Body, the Government in question
shall, if not already represented thereon, he entitled to send a
representative to take part in the proceedings of the Governing
Body while the matter is under consideration. Adequate notice
of the date on which the matter will be considered shall be given
to the Government in question.
ARTICLE 412.
The Commission of Enquiry shall be constituted in accordance
with the following provisions
Each of the Members agrees to nominate within six months of
the date on which the present Treaty comes into force three persons
of industrial experience, of whom one shall he a representative
of employers, one a representative of workers, and one a person
of independent standing, who shall together form a panel from
which the members of the Commission of Enquiry shall be drawn.
The qualifications of the persons so nominated shall he subject
to scrutiny by the Governing Body, which may by two-thirds of
the votes east by the representatives present refuse to accept the
nomination of any person whose qualifications do not in its opinion
comply with the requirements of the present Article.
Upon the application of the Governing Body, the Secretary-
General of the League of Nations shall nominate three persons,
one from each section of this paimi, to constitute the Commission
of Enquiry, and shall designate one of them as the President of
the Commission. None of these three persons shall be a person
nominated to the panel by any Member directly concerned in the
complaint.
ARTICLE 413.
The Members agree that, in the event of the reference of a
complaint to a Commission of Enquiry under Article 411, the%
will each, whether directly concerned in the complaint or iiot,
place at the disposal of the Commission all the information in
their possession which bears upon the subject-matter of the
complaint.
ARTICLE 414.
When the Commission of Enquiry has fully considered the
complaint, it shall prepare a report embodying its findings on
all questions of fact relevant to determining the issue between the
parties and containing such recommendations as it may think proper
as to the steps which should be taken to meet the complaint
the time within which they should he taken.
341
It shall also indicate in this report measures, if any, of
an economic character against a defaulting. Government which
it considers to be appropriate, and which it considers other Governments
would be justified in adopting.
ARTICLE 415.
The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall communicate
the report of the Commission of Enquiry to each of
the concerned in the complaint, and shall cause it
to be published.
Each of these Governments shall within one month inform
the Secretary-General of the League of Nations whether or not
it accepts the recommendations contained in the report of the
Commission; and if not, whether it proposes to refer the coinplaint
to the Permanent Court of International Justice of the
League of Nations.
ARTICLE 416.
In the event of any Member failing to take the action required
by Article 405, with regard to a recommendation or draft coilvenlion,
any other Member shall be entitled to refer the' matter to
the Permanent Court of International Justice.
ARTICLE 417.
decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice
in regard to a complaint or matter which has been referred to it
in pursuance of Article 415 or Article 416 shall be final.
ARTICLE 418.
The Permanent Court of International Justice may affirm, vary
or reverse any of the findings or recoimnendations of the Commission
of Enquiry, if any, and shall in its decision indicate the
measures, if any, of an economic character which it considers to
he appropriate, and which other Governments would be justified
in adopting against a defaulting Government.
AR'I'ICLE 419.
In the event of any Member failing' to carry oat within the
time specified the recommendations, if any, contained in the
report of the Commission of Enquiry, or in the decision of the
Permanent Court International Justice, as the case may he,
any other Member may tak'e against that Member the measures
of an economic character indicated in the report of the Commission
or in the decision of the Court as appropriate to the case.
ARTICLE 420.
The defaulting Government may at any time inform the Governing
Body that it has taken the steps necessary to comply with
342
the recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry or with those
in the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
as the case may be, and may request it to apply to the Secretary-
General of the League to constitute a Commission of Enquiry to
verify its contention. In this case the provisions of Articles 412,
413, 414, 415, 417 and 418 shall apply, and if the report of the
Commission of Enquiry or the decision of the Permanent Court
of International Justice is in favour of the defaulting Government,
the other Governments shall forthwith discontinue the measures
of an economic character that they have taken against the defaulting
Government.
i'v:a TI 1.
GENERAL.
ARTICLE 421.
The Members engage to apply conventions which they ha cc
ratified in accordance with the provisions of this Part of the
present Treaty to their colonies, protectorates and possessions
which are riot fully self-governing
(I) Except where owing to the local conditions the convention
is inapplicable, or
(2) Subject to such modifications as may be necessary to
adapt the convention to local conditions.
each of the Members shall notify to the International
Labour Office the action taken in respect of each of its colonies,
protectorates and possessions w-hich are not fully self-goverilng.
ARTICLE 422.
Amendments to this Part of the present Treaty which are
adopted by the Conference by a majority of two-thirds of Ihe
votes cast by the Delegates present shall take effect when ratified
by the States whose rej5resentatives compose the Council of the
League of Nations and by three-fourths of the Members.
ARTICLE 423.
Any question or dispute relating to the interpretation of this
Part of the present Treaty or of any subsequent convention concluded
by the Members in pursuance of the provisions of this
Part of the present Treaty shall be referred for decision to the
Permanent Court of International Justice.
343
CHAPTER IV.
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE 44.
The first meeting of the Conference shall take place in October,
1919. The place and agenda for this meeting shall be as specified
in the Annex hereto.
Arrangements for the convening and the organisation of the
first meeting of the Conference will be made by the Government
designated for the purpose in the said Annex.- That Government
shall be assisted in the preparation of the documents for submission
to the Conference by an International Committee constituted
as provided in the said Annex.
The expenses of the first meeting and of all subsequent meetings
held before the League of Nations has been able to establish
a general fund, other than the expenses of Delegates and their
advisers, will be borne by the Members in accordance with the
apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of
the Universal Postal Union.
ARTICLE 425.
Until the League of Nations has been constituted alicommunications
which under the provisions of the foregoing Articles
should be addressed to the Secretary-General of the Leagu.e will
be preserved by the Director of the International Labour. Office,
who will transmit them to the Secretary-General of the League.
ARTICLE 426.
Pending the creation of a Permanent Court of International
Justice, disputes which in accordance with this Part of the present
Treaty would be submitted to it for decision will be referred
to a tribunal of three persons appointed by the Council of the
League of Nations.
344
ANNEX.
FIRST MEETING OF ANNUAL LABOUR CONFERENCE. 1919.
The place of meeting will Washington.
The Government of the United States of America is requested
to convene the Conference.
The International Organising Committee will consist of seven
members, appointed by the United States of America, Great
Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Switzerland. The
Committee may, if it thinks necessary, invite other Members to
appoint representatives.
Agenda:
(1) Application of principle of the 8-hours day or of the 48-
hours week.
(2) Question of preventing or providing against unemployment.
(3) Women's employment:
(a) Before and after child-birth, including the question of
maternity benefit;
(b) During the night;
(c) In unhealthy processes.
(4) Employment of children
(a.) Minimum age of employment
(b) During the night;
(c) in unhealthy processes.
(5) Extension and application of the International Conventions
adopted at Berne in 1906 on the prohibition of
night work for women employed hi industry and the
prohibition of the use of white phosphorus in the
manufacture of matches.
SECTION II.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
ARTICLE 427.
The HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, recognising that the wellbeing,
physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners
is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to
further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in
Section I, and associated with that of the League of Nations.
They recognise that differences of climate, habits and customs,
of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict
uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate
attainment. But, holding as they do that labour should not be
regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there
are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which
all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as
their special circumstances will permit.
Among these methods and principles, the following seem to
the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES to be of special and urgent
importance:
First. — The guiding principle above enunciated that labour
should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article
of commerce.
Second. The right of association for all lawful purposes hy
the employed as well as by the employers.
Third. — The payment to the employed of a wage adequate 10
maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood
in their time and country.
Fourth. — The adoption of an eight hours day or a forty-eight
hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has
not already been attained.
Fifth. The adoption of a rest of at least twenty-four
hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Sixth. — The abolition of child labour and the imposition of
such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall
permit the continuation of their education and
their proper physical development.
Seventh. — The principle that men and women should receive
equal remuneration for work of equal value.
Eighth. — The standard set by law in each country with
respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard
to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully
resident therein.
Ninth. Each State should make provision for a system of
inspection in which women should take part, in order to
ensure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for
the protection of the employed.
Without claiming that these methods and principles are either
complete or final, the ITIGI-I CONTRACTING PARTIES are of
opinion that they are well fitted to guide the policy of the League
of Nations ; and that, if adopted by the industrial communities who
are Members of the League, and safeguarded in practice by an
adequate system of such inspection, they will confer lasting benefits
upon the wage-earners of the world.
L - —r. — r a - —-——— —— — —
Document No. 71
ILC, 8th Session, 1926, Record of Proceedings,
Committee on Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles,
pp. 238–260
SOCIETE DES NATIONS
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE
DU TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
CONFERENCE
HUITIEME SESSION
GENEVE -- GENEVA
1926
EIGHTH SESSION
VOLUME I. ·· PREMIERE, DEUXIEME ET TR0ISIEME PARTIES.
VOLUME I. - FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD PARTS.
BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DU TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
0ENEVE - GENEVA
1926
Le PRESIDENT - Si personne ne demande
la parole, nous procederons au vote
sur la proposition ,d'adoption d'un troisieme
alinea a !'article 7 E. En voici le
texte :.
« Tout delegue, OU tout conseiller technique
autorise par eorit a cet effet par l_e
delegue auquel il est adjoint, aura le dro1t
d'assister aux seances des Commissions
visees dans le present paragraphe et jouira
de tous les droits • des membres desdites
Commissions, a !'exception du droit de
vote.»
Ceux qui sont pour l'adoption de cette
proposition sont pries de bien vouloir lever
la main.
interpretation : The PRESIDENT : If no other
Delegate wishes to speak we can take a vote on
this point. A vote will be taken on the amendment
which you will find at the foot of page XVI. and
the top of page XVIII of No. 8 of the _Provisw.nal
Record : " Any Delegate, or any tehmal adviser
who has received a written authonsat10n for the
purpose from th Delegate to whom he is attaclied,
shall be entitled to be present at the meetmgs
of the Committees referred to in the present paraaraph
and shall have the full rights of the members
f suh Committees, except the right to vcte. "
(ll est procede au vote a mains levees.
La proposition est adoptee par 67 voix contre
0.)
288
( A vote is taken by show of hands. The
amendment is adopted by 67 votes to 0.)
Le PRf=SIDENT - La Commission propose
a la Conference de renvoyer au Conseil
d'administration pour etude, puis a la
dixieme session de la Conference, les amendements
qui sont inc:J.iques a la page XIX du
N° 8 du Compte rendu provisoire et dont la
lecture nous retarderait trop.
Y a-t-il une opposition ?
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT : The second
proposal of the Committee is that the Confernce
should refer to the Governing Body for exammation
and report to the Tenth Session of the Conference
the following amendments, and the amendments
in question are to be found on pages XIX
and XX of No. 8 of the Provisional Record. If there
is no opposition, I will take it that that is adopted
unanimously.
(La proposition est adoptee a l'unanimite.)
(The proposal is adopted unanimously.)
Le PRESIDENT -- L'ordre du jour appelle
maintenant le rapport de la Commission
de !'article 408. Je prie le President
de cette Commission de bien vouloir prendre
place au Bureau. On trouvera le rapport
de cette Commission dans le N° 6 du
Compte rendu provisoire, a la page VI.
interpretation : The PRESIDNT : . The next
item on the agenda is the consideration of tlie
Report of the Committee on,tArticle 408. I will
a:sk the Chairman and Reporter to come to the
platform. The Report of the Committee is_ t? be
found on page VI in No. 6 of the Provisional
Record.
Mr. WOLFE (British Empire), Chairman
and Reporter of the Committee on the
examination of annual reports unde1·
Article 408 - Mr. President, I do not
propose to weary the Conference at this
stage of its proceedings with a long statement
on the results of the work of this Committee.
The matters under review were
discussed at great length, not only in the
Committee itself, but in the various Groups
of the Conference, and I think it is probably
true to say that the whole Conference is
familiar with the matters at issue, and that
therefore it will not wish me to delay it
long with a further expose of the position.
I will begin by saying that I am not in
quite the same happy position as ,the Chairman
of the Committee on the double-discussion
procedure and the Chairman of tht•
Committee on Standing Orders, in being
able to say that this is a unanimous Report.
In fact, the Report was ultimateiy adopted
by 23 votes to 6, a considerable majority
which in itself, I think, is proof that it can
be recommended with confidence to the
Conference, and I would add to that that
the apprehensions which led to a certain
amount of opposition have, I hope and
believe, been somewhat allayed and removed
in the meantime, and I imagine that
it is not impossible that, when we come to
take the vote on the Report, we shall find
that the Conference is, on the whole, agreed
to adopt it as it stands, subject to certain
amendments with which I will deal in a
moment.
Now, Sir, the proposals are simple. You
are all aware that, under Article 408, Members
are required to present an annual
report. You are also aware that when that
report is presented, it must be presented in
the form laid down by the Governing Body,
and that the duty of the Director of the
International Labour Office is to summarise
it and to submit it to this Conference
annually. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen,
what has happened in the past and what
has happened this year has been this, that
the summaries have occupied a very large
amount of space, ranging from 200 to 300
pages. That large volume, taken in addition
to the considerable volume of the
Director's Report, has made it almost
impossible--indeed it has made it actually
impossible-for the Delegates to the Conference
to discuss the reports with profit
and in detail. In consequence, it was
generally agreed that some step further
should be taken. I do not believe that there
is any dispute as to the necessity for a further
step. The question was : What should
the further step be ?
It was decided accordingly by the Committee
that what was required was a preparatory
examination of the reports by
some body which would bring into light
the particular points to which the attention
of the Conference should be directed. Arguments
for one form of committee and
another were considered ; but finally it
seemed to the Committee by a majority
that the proper course would be to appoint
a small Committee of experts chosen not
by virtue of their national origin, chosen
not by virtue of representing any particular
form of opinion, but chosen solely on the
basis of their qualifications. It has been
asked what was meant by the qualifications,
and on that I wou1d reply that the
sort of qualifications that we had in mind
was knowledge of international legislation
and experience of international labour conditions.
Those are the qualifications, and
no other qualifications, except personal
ability, are in question. That was the first
proposal which commended itself to the
Committee.
Now, Sir, the second question, assuming
that the Committee was to be appointed,
was: by whom was it to be appointed ?
and the third was : what were its functions
to be ? As regards the method of appointment,
it was decided ultimately that this
should be in the hands of the Governing
Body, though the Governing Body would
clearly have directions given to it, in that,
as I have previously said, the persons
chosen should essentially be persons chosen
011 the ground of expert qualifications and
on no other ground whatever.
Then there is the question of the functions
of the Committee, and that I believe
is the sole point which excited apprehension,
and which perhaps still, in some
quarters, may excite some ,slight apprehen-
239
sion, which I hope that I shall be able to
remove. In the first place, I wish it to be
clearly understood that this Committee can
in no way infringe on the Treaty rights
given by Articles 409-420. Nothing that the
Conference could do here, nothing that we
could do in committee, could affect those
rights ; therefore it must be clearly understood
that this Committee is in no sense a
statutory committee-if I may use the word
-under Articles 409-420. It is purely
an explanatory committee, it is purely
a technical committee, and if I may envisage
the way in which I imagine it will work,
it would be the following. Let us imagine
that country X has sent in a report ; let us
imagine that the Committee is examining
the report and finds that, within the limits
of the questionnai,re settled by the Governing
Body, there is some lacuna, something
missing in the reply. The Committee would
then invite the Office, through the Director,
to ask the State in question to supply further
information. It would be perfectly
open to the State to refuse to supply the
information, it would be perfectly open to
the State to supply the. information in the
form which it thinks is best. Thereafter,
when the information, or no information,
has reached the Committee, the Committee
will limit itself strictly to saying : " The
following are the facts with regard to this
particular reply." The Committee will
neither be invited μor authorised to express
an opinion on the nature of the reply or to
pass a censure or to offer praise of the
work of ratification in any nation-not at
all. Its sole duty will be ,to register definitely
what the facts are and to register
those facts in a way which has hitherto been
impossible because of the great volume of
material with which we have to deal. Then
it is proposed that, when the material so
adjusted has been received, it shall go to the
Director who, either through the Governing
Body or direct, will forward it to the Conference.
It is then proposed that, as a matter
of machinery, the Conference shall
annually appoint a Committee of its own
members to examine the report as rendered
by the Director as a general summary and
by his expert Committee, as pointing to particular
facts to which attention should be
directed. Therefore, Mr. President, it
seemed to the Committee as a whole that
we had devised an instrument which,
without infringing on any part of the
Treaty, without infringing on the rights of
any members of tlH• Conferencf', would
materially assist their labours, and it is
solely as a means of assisting the labours
of the Conference that this is proposed.
Now, Sir, before coming to the amendments
which are presented I would like to
say one more word. It is no good con·
cealing from the Conference, it would be
foolish and it would be unfair to conceal
from them that, in proposing this additional
Committee, there is the hope that we shall
render application more solid and more
frequent. It has been said in some quarters
that if we insist on having further
information we shall get fewer rntifications.
I cannot believe that anybody advances
what I may describe as so sinister ,an
argument seriously ; because what can it
mean ? It could only mean, if it were
advanced seriously, that States which ratify
do so without the intention of applying, and
that they do not wish that fact to become
apparent. Well, Sir, I know very well that
that is not in the mind of any of the Slates
here. It is certainly not in the mind of the
C.ommitteP ; hut I do suggest that to
advance the argument that, if further
information is forthcoming, States will not
ratify, is to throw a reflection, an entirely
unnwrited rt'flection, on the integrity and
the honour of States. It is the i1Jelie1f of the
Committee, and it is my personal belief,
that aH States here who enter into obigations
intend to carry thm out and for tihe
most part do carry them out. It is my
belief that all States here would welcome
the opportunity of proving to the world that
they have in fact carried out their obligations.
Thus, not only should we achieve
a greater mutual self-confidence as a result
of this procedure, but we should be able to
prove to the world at large that the common.
taunt which is so often levelled at our
work, namely, that our Conventions are
purely paper Conventions, would be finally
and completely dissipated, and we should be
able to prove lo the world by the best possible
means, by actual fact, that when we
pass Conventions, and when they are
ratified a definite measure of social
progress has followed. For that reason, Mr.
President, I strongly advocate the Report as
a whole, and the Resolution contained in it,
to the votes of this Conference.
There remains only one thing for me to
say. I have two amendments, one in the
name of Mr. Arthur Fontaine, the senior
French Delegate, and the other in the name
240
of Count de Altea, the senior Spanish Delegate.
As regards Mr. Arthur Fontaine's
amendment, it appears to me, as Chairman
and Reporter of the Committee, to fall
entirely within the general scheme as proposed
by the Committee, and merely to
underline and emphasise more clearly what
the actual intentions of the Committee were.
I should therefore personally, and on
behalf of the Committee, have no difficulty
in accepting Mr. Arthur Fontaine's amendment.
As far as Count de Altea's amendment is
concerned, the position is rather different.
It is true to say that the one point which was
unanimously adopted by the Committee
was the Committee of the Conference. I
do not think therefore that I am authorised,
as Chairman and Reporter of the Committee,
to accept an amendment which definitely
negatives part of the labours of the
Committee ; but in order to secure that it
shall be possible for the Conference to take
this particular point separately from the
rest of the Committee's proposals, which
are perfectly distinct and perfectly coherent
with the first part, I shall ask the President,
when we come to vote, to take this point
first and the other point second. When
that happens I should like to say to the
Conference what I said to the Committee,
that it appears to me that these two parts
of the Committee's resolution are nol necPssarily
required one for the other. It would
be quite possible to adopt either or both,
but to reject either does not necessarily hurt
or alter the value of the other. In these
circumstances, Mr. President, I venture to
recommend the Report of the Committee,
with the amendment of Mr. Arthur Fontaine,
to the votes of the Confen'nct'.
Traduction: M. WOLFE (Empire britannique),
President et Rapporteur de la Cornrnission de ['article
408: M. le President, Messieurs les delegues,
je ne voudrais pas abuser de votre patience par
une longue declaration exposant les travaux . de
la Commission qui a eu a s'occuper de la quest10n
de l'article -t.08. Cette question a d'ailleurs ete
discutee longuement a la Commission et lle l'a
ete egalement. par chacun des groupes qm composent
cette Conference. Tous le delegues sot
familiarises avec le probleme qm leur est presente.
Malheureusement, je ne me trouve pas clans une
situation si heureuse que celle clans laquelle etaient
les Presidents de la Commission de la double
discussion et de la Commission du Reglement,
etant donne que je ne puis pas vous presenter un
rapport adopte par l'unani_mite de la Com1!1issi<n Neanmoins, le rapport qm vous est soumrs a ete;
adopte par 2a voix contre 6, ce qui constitue pourtant
une serieuse majorite, grace a laquelle le
rapport de la Commission se recommande a l'attention
bienveillante de la Conference.
On a indique que certaines apprehesions s sont manifestees a l'egard de propos1t10ns qm
vous ont ete faites par la Commission. J e crois
savoir que depuis que le rapport de la Commission
a ete depose, ces apprehensions ont ete, clans une
certaine mesure, apaisees. J'esperc que ce rapport
pourra etre adopte, sinon it l'unanimite, du rnoins
a une forte majorite, mais sous reserve d'un
certain nombre d'indications dont j'aurai l'occasion
de vous parler tout :\ l'heure.
Les propositions pr{,scntees par la Commission
sont tres sirnples. Vous connaissez tous l'articlc 408
du Traitc de Paix, qui stipule que les Mcrnbres
de !'Organisation doivent adresser au Bureau
un rapport annucl exposant les mesures rl'application
prises :\ l'egard des conventions ratifiees
par eux.
Ce rapport, stipule le memc article, doit ctre
presente sous la forme etablie par le Conseil d'administration.
D'autre part, cet article donnc au
Directeur le devoir de prPsenter :\ la Conference
un resume des rapports adresscs par les Etats
Membres de l'Organisation.
Pratiquement, que s'est-il passt jusqu'a pn:,sent
·t Le Directeur s'est trouve en presence de
la necessite d'etablir un rapport allant jusqu'it
250 et meme aoo pages. Ce rapport, en dehors
de celui proprement dit du Directeur qui est
considerable, est d'une importance telle qu'il
etait pratiquement impossible aux delegues et
it la Conference de le discuter avec profit et d'une
maniere detaillee. Tout le monde a done ete d'avis
qu'un certain nombre de mesures s'imposaient,
cte maniere a rendre plus fructueux le resume etabli
conformement it l'article 408. La Commission g11e
vous avez instituee pour etudier ce probli.,me a
deci,-te cc qui suit : elle a pense que l'cxamen
des rapports adrcsses conformcment it l'article 408
devait se faire par un organe special et quc l'institution
d'un orgar,isrne nouveau ne devait nullement
porter atteinte aux droits que la Conference detient
elle-meme.
II a semble a la rnajoriU, de votre Commission
qu'il convenait de designer une petite Commission
ct'experts nommee non pas en consideration de
leur nationalite ou de leurs opinions, mais uniquement
sur la base de leurs qualifications. Et alors,
quels devraient etre les titres de ces experts "? Dans
l'esprit de la Commission, les personnes designees
comme membres de la Commission d'cxperts
devraient l'etre uniquement en raison de lcurs
connaissances approfondies de la legislation internationale
du travail et de leur experience en
matiere de conditions du travail envisagees du point
de vue international.
L'idee d'une Commission d'experts etant admise,
deux problemes se posaient immediatement a
l'attention de la Commission : 1 ° celui de savoir
par quelle autorite cette Commission d'experts
serait designee ; 2° celui de determiner quelles
seraient les attributions de la Commission d'experts.
Pour le premier point, a savoir l'autorite qui
serait appelee a designer les experts, la Commission
a ete d'avis que c'etait le Conseil d'administration
du Bureau international du Travail qui
devait avoir cette tache, etant entendu qu'il
designerait cette Commission en tenant comptc
des qualifications exigees des membres.
Pour le deuxieme point : attributions de la
Commission, il semble qu'il ait suscite un certain
norribre de craintes et je voudrais m'efforcer a
l'heure actuelle de les apaiser.
II a ete entendu au sein de la Commission que
la Commission d'experts dont on envisageait la
designation ne devait porter nullement atteinte
aux droits qui sont etablis par les articles 409 a
420 du Traite de Paix. II etait entendu que la
Commission qui serait constituee ne serait nullement
une sorte de Commission statutaire au
sens de la constitution de !'Organisation. Comme
je l'ai indique tout a l'heure, elle devait etre
purement technique et sa methode de travail
devait etre celle d'un organisme envisageant
la question uniquement du point de vue technique.
241
II etai! entendu qu'elle aurait a voir les rapports
adresses par les Membres et resumes par le Directeur
pour voir s'il y avait certaines lacunes a combler,
certains points qui n'etaient pas suffisamment
eclaircis.
Imaginons, par exemple, que la Commission
d'cxperts, en examinant le rapport d'un Etat
presente conforrnc',mcnt it l'article 408 decouvr
qu'il manque ccrtaines observations. L Commission
demandera alors au Bureau de prier l'Etat
dont il s'agit d'adrcsser des informations complementaircs
sur le point en question. II serait
entendu quc le pays vis{ aurait parfaiternent la
facult{, de refuser d'adresser lcs informations
compl6mcntaires demandecs, 011, s'il le prefcre,
il pourrait adresscr les informations sous la forme
qu'il jugerait utile. Supposons done que l'Etat
consentc it adresscr it la Commission d'experts
les informations dcmandees. II serait entendu
que la Commission sc lmrnerait a examiner l'ensemble
du rapport uniqucment du point de vue
des faits. Elle sc gardera bien de formuler unc
opinion sur Jes rapports des Etats, de formuler
une critique ou meme une louange. La Commission
se borncra a cnregistrer les faits clans la
mesurc oi1 ccla Jui scra possible.
Lorsqnc la Commission aura enregistre et
rassemble tous les elements, elle lcs transmettra
au Conseil d'administration, qui lui-meme, a son
tour, les fera parvcnir :'t la Conffrence.
La Conference designerait chaquc annee une
Commission qui serait chargec d'cxaminer les
rapports etablis conformement a Particle 408
tels qu'ils auront etc', r{>sumes par le Directeur
et completes, le cas c,cheant, par la Commission
d'experts.
L'ensemble de la procedure qui vous est proposee
n'est nullement contrairc aux prescriptions du
Traite de Paix. Elle a simplement pour objet
de faciliter les travaux de la Conference. II serait
dangcrcux de cacher it la Conference certains
elements. La Commission, en vous proposant cet
ensemble de mesures, a eu naturellement pour
but de rcndre !'application des conventions plus
strictc et plus etlicacc. Ccrtaines personnes ont
formule la critique suivante : si vous insistez trop
pour l'application des conventions, n'allez-vous
pas courir le risque de voir diminuer le nombre des
ratifications "?
II nous semble qu'un tel argument est cynique
et ne peut ctre pris au serieux. En effet, cela reviendrait
il dire quc Jes Etats qui ratifient des conventions
n'ont nullcmcnt l'intention de les appliquer.
II nous semble que ce n'est nullement clans
l'esprit de la Commission ni clans l'esprit d'aucun
Etat represcnte ici a la Conference. Un tel argument
contesterait la bonnc foi des Etats et porterait
atteinte a leur honneur.
Nous somrnes tous convaincus que lcs Etats
ont pleinement l'intention d'appliquer les conventions
qu'ils ratifient. Nous pensons qu'ils seront
tous heureux d'avoir l'occasion de fournir la
preuve de leur bonne foi.
Pour ces differents motifs, j'ai l'honneur de
vous proposer l'adoption du rapport de la Commission
et les differentes resolutions qui y sont
contenues. Je voudrais, avant de terminer, faire
allusion a deux amendemcnts apportes, l'un par
M. Arthur Fontaine, premier delegue de la France,
l'autre par M. le comte de Altea, premier delegue
de l'Espagne.
Pour l'amendement apporte par M. Arthur
Fontaine, ii me semble qu'il est parfaitement en
harmonie avec la conception generale qui inspire
les propositions de la Commission.
Cct amendcment se borne a preciser la portee
de ces propositions et je crois que, comme President
et rapporteur de la Commission, je puis
vous declarer en son nom qu'elle est prete a
l' accepter.
Pour ce qui est de l'amendement depose par
M. le comte de Altea, la position est sensiblement
differente.
Je crois qu'il y a un point sur lequel_ °:ous
avons tous ete d'accord, au sein de la Comm1ss1on,
16
c1 est l'opportunite de la constitution d'une
commission pour l'examen des rapports deposes
conformement a !'article 408.
En _qalite_ de, Presdent et rapporteur de Ja
Comm1sswn, Il m est d1fficile d'accepter l'amendement
presente par M. de Altea, parce que cet
amendement ne parait detruire u ne conclusion a
laquelle la Commission est arrivce et modifier
de fond en comble le sens de ses travaux
'outefois, afin de donner it la Conference· l'occaswn
de e pro?o?cer su,r cet amendement, je
de?iandera tout a l heure a M. le President, lorsqu
on en v1endra au vote, de vouloir bien mettre
aux voix en premier lieu l'amendcment de M. le
comte de Altea.
J'ajoute un mot : les deux parties des resolutio
s _p resenees ,Pa la Commission ne sont pas
s<?hdaires, . c es-a-chre qu'on peut parfaitement
b1en les d1ssoc1er et voter sur une partie, puis
sur l'autre.
Je termine en recommandant a votre bienveillance
_ le rapport de la Commission qui, je crois,
contnbuera a assurer d'une manUrc plus heureuse
et :plus efficace le fonctionnement de notre institution.
M. SOKAL (Pologne) - Je demande la
parole pour la motion d'ordre suivante : Je
prierai les membres de Ja Conference de
vouloir bien prendre les Statuts et Reglcments
t'i la page 31 et d'y relire I'article 1:3
ainsi corn;u :
Propositions entrainant des depenses.
Toute resolution ou motion entrainant
des depenses doit, tout d'abord, etre renvoyee
au Conseil d'administration, lequel,
apres examen de son Comite du budget, fait
connaitre son avis a la Conference. L'avis
du Conseil d'administration est communique
aux delegues au plus tard vingtquatre
heures avant que la •Conference ne
rprocede a la discussion de la motion ou
resolution. »
Je m'adresse done a M. le President ;pour
lui demander si une discussion de la resolution
dont ii s'agit est possible sans avoir
l'avis du Consehl d'administration.
lntrpretation:. Mr. SOKAL (Poland) : I wish
to bn_ng _up a pomt of order. On page 30 of the
Constitution and Rules, Article 13 or the Standing
Orders of the Conference reads as follows :
. " Any moion or resolution involving expenditure
shall . m the first instance be referred to
the_ Go".ernmg Body, which, after consultation
of _1t_s Fmance Committee, shall communicate its
opm10n to the Conference. This communication
shall be circulated to the Delegates at least
2 hours before the motion or resolution is
discussed by the Conference.''
I vie'Y of this, I would ask the President if
a_ d1scuss1n at the present moment on the Resolut10n
submitted by the Committee is possible.
Le SECRETAIRE GENERAL - L'article
lu par M. Sokal est formel. Je m'etonne
simplement, puisque ,beaucoup de membres
242
etaient ,presents au sein de la Commission,
- et meme des membres du Conseil - que
ce soit en seance de Conference et au
moment ou .Je rapport est ap,porte qu'on
souleve !'objection.
Mais nous avons une chance : notre
Conseil d'administration se reunit aujourd'hui.
Nous allons consulter notre Conseil
d'administration a 3 heures. A 4 heures ou
4 h. 30, nous ,pourrons communiquer a la
Conference la resofotion du Conseil. Et si
M. Sokal insiste pour la prise en consideration
de !'article 13 du Reglement, nous nous
·unirons demain, a 4 h. 30, pour le vote
fmal concernant cette motion.
lnerpretation: 'l'he SECRETARY-GENERAI
In vi_ew of the fact that the Committee itse4Jf'
contams members of the Governina Body l
a_m _somewhat surprised that it is only° at the full
s1ttmg ?f th Confeenc that this point has
been aised. l'he Article m question does indeed
contam formal provisions on the matter. .For
utely, however, the Governing Body is meeting
. 0- ay. We can consult it when it meets at
3 p.m '.,. and at 4 or 4.30 p.m. we shall be in
a pos1t10n _to communicate to the Conference
the Gover1:1mg Body's resolution. Should Mr.
Sokal so ms1st, we can have the final vote
to-morrow.
M. PAUWELS (Belgique) - Monsieur le
President, je me permets de faire remarquer
que !'argument a ete invoque a la Commission
par un representant du groupe patronal.
Je dois dire que la Commission a ete
d',a:i d :pouvoir passer outre, parce qu'elle
de1ber 1t precisement sur une suggestion
presentee par le Conseil d'administration
et tendant a la nomination d'une comn
ission pour examiner les rapports presentes
en vettu de l' article 408.
. J'i . tenu a mettre la chose au point et
preciser que !'argument avait ete apporte
a la Commission qui avait donne son avis.
. lnterprefatiun :_Mr. PAUWBLS (Belgium): This
a question which was raised in the Committee
Y an Emp!orers' Delegate. The Committee
was of he opm10n that this was not a case where
he Article _should be applied, because the Governmg
-';Jody itself had raised the question of th
appomtment of a Commit.tee of experts.
e
Sir JOSEPH COOK (Australia) - I do
not think the Article apipJies to a proposal
of this kind. As I understand it the
Artiole only applies w1hen there
,
is a
concrete and definite proposition for the
expenditure of money. The :proiposa1l is to
set up some machinery; it says nothing
about expenditure. you have to read
expenditure into it for yourselves. There
is no definite proiposal for eXJpenditure of
any kind ; it is possible that the whole thing
will be done voluntari1ly and in an honorary
capacity. This clause clearly does not
relate to the mere setting up of machinery ;
otherwise it would have to refer everything
that takes place to the Governing Body for
the same purpose. 1f machinery incidentaI,Iy
invo'1ves ex1penditure, then this would
not be corvered. It is only when there is a
direct proposal for the expenditure of
money that the Standing Order very
pr oiperily says that money must not be
voted without first consulting the Governing
Body.
Traduction: Sir JOSEPH COOK (Australie) :
Jc ne crois pas que !'article que l'on a invoque
puisse s'appliquer dans le cas present. A mon avis,
11 ne doit etre pris en consideration que si l'on se
trouve en presence d'u ne proposition bien detinie
et concrete entrainant une depense. lei, il s'agit
de creer un organisme. II n'y a pas de proposition
concrete d'engager une depense. Evidemment,
la creation de cet organisme peut aboutir a des
depenses. Mais le travail peut aussi etre fait par
des experts benevoles et ne pas entrainer de
depenses.
Jc crois que dans le cas present !'article en question
ne peut s'appliquer, car nous ne sommes pas
saisis d'une proposition precise relative a des
depenses et sur laquelle le Conseil d'administration
devrait etre consulte au prealable.
Mr. WOLFE (British Empire), Chairman
and Reporter of the Committee on the
examination of annual reports under
Article 408 - Mr. Pauwels' statement is
perfectly true. The ,point was raised at the
Committee ; ibut as Mr. Sokal is not a
member of that Committee, probably he did
not know that it had been raised. It is
therefore not to be wondered at that he
brought up the question, and he cannot be
accused of wishing to delay matters. It was
raised by a member of the Employers'
Group. It is perfectly useless to refer the
matter back to the Governing Body, because
the Governing Body has considered it and
has asked the Conference to make recommendations.
The Governing Bodypresumably
in the belief that the Conference
might accept its resolution-has
already made such provision in the budget
as would he necess. uy to meet any
expenditure entailed.
The decision of the Committee, of course,
is not binding on the Cm.Lference, but I do
suggest that the reasons which led my
Committee not to accept that proposal from
an Employers' Delegate app,ly equally in the
present instance. I think, therefore, that if
we proceed, we are fully in Rccordance with
243
the Standing Orders. I wouJd therefore
suggest that the President should rule that
we may proceed without reference back.
Had it not been the case that the Governing
Body had dec1ided the matter, I shouJd have
been strongly in favour of a reference back,
because, very rightly, all questions of
eXJpenditure must be, in the first p:lace,
settled m the Governing Body by its
appropriate organ, namely, its Finance
Committee.
Traduction: M. WOLFE (Empire britannique),
President et Rapporteur de la Commission de t' article
408 : Les explications qui ont ete donnees
par M. Pauwels sont absolument exactes. La
question des depenses a ete soulevee au sein de
la Commission A. Sokal n'etait pas present a cc
moment et pac suite il ne pouvait pas le savoir
au moment de son interventwn actuelle. II n'avait
certainement pas !'intention de faire la moindre
obstruction a nos debats. La question a en effet
ete soulevee a la Commission par un representant
patronal, et ii a ete rappele a 1a Commission qu'il
etait inutile de renvoyer cette question au Conseil
puisque celui-ci s'eta1t deja prononce a cc sujet,
en cnargeant la Conference de traiter la question.
Le Conseil avait deja du prevoir les depenses que
cela pourrait entramer. La decision de la Commission
ne lie pas la Conference.
J e pense, dans les conditions presentes, que nous
avons le droit de pou rsuivre 1a discussion sans
enfreindre les regles qui viennent de nous etre
rappelees. Si le Consed ne s'etait pas prononce
sur cc point, j'aurais ete en faveur du renvoi de la
questio11 au Conseil, parce que j'estime que le Conseil,
et en particulier le Comite du budget, doivent
etre saisis de toutes les questions impliquant des
depenses.
M. SOKAL (Pofogne) - J'etais pr.esent a
la Commission lorsque !'objection fut souIevee.
Je crois que la Commission a passe
outre. J'estime que la Conference doit se
conformer a son propre Reglement. L'artide
13 est valable. Par consequent, la
Conference ne peut pas discuter cette question
sans en avoir refere au Conseil. II n'est
pa exact que le Conseil ,Iui-meme a saisi la
Conference de cette ·proposition. Le Conseil,
sans avoir discute la question, a tout simplement
transmis a la Conference une proposition
britannique. Cette proposition
n'etait pas conforme aux propositions de la
Commission. Cette resolution prevoit !'institution,
comme Sir Joseph Cook l'a dit,
d'un mecanisme. II faut que le Conseil
d'administration donne son avis a la Conference
sur la possibilite de !'institution de
ce mecanisme. I1 me semble qu'il est
evident par contre que Sir John Cook
n'a pas raison quand ii dit que l'article 13
ne s'applique pas .a une proposition prevoyant
seulement un mecanisme sans proposer
une deipense. Evidemment, si fa Conference
decide d'instituer un tel mecanisme,
les depenses vont suivre et, conformement a
l'article 13 de votre Reglement, le Conseil
d'administration doit etre saisi et doit donner
son avis. J'estime que nos travaux
doivent se conformer au Reglement que
vous avez vote vous-memes. Par consequent,
je demande le renvoi de la question au
Conseil.
Interpretation: Mr. SOKAL (Poland): I have
two points to make. In the first place, I was
present at the Committee when the Committee
examined this very point ; but because the Committee
decided not to follow the Standing Orders,
I do not think that is any reason for the Conference
taking the same attitude. Article 13 must be
applied.
In the second place, I wish to say that it was
not exact that the Governing Body transmitted
this proposal to the Conference, and thus to this
Committee. All that the Governing Body did was
to communicate the proposal of the British Government.
In any case the Resolution of the Committee
differs from the proposal of the British Government,
because the Resolution of the Committee sets up
definite machinery for examining these reports,
and on this proposal the Governing Body must
give an opinion in accordance with Article 13.
Sir Joseph Cook, I venture to maintain, is wrong
in saying that Article 13 only applies in case of
a definite proposal for expenditure, for in setting
up machinery such as a Committee you are bound
to involve expenditure. Our work in this Conference
must be based on its own Standing Orders,
and for that reason I urge that this matter be
referred in the first place to the Governing Body
Le PRESIDENT - M. Sokal a demande
mon opinion si je ne me trompe. Je dois
dire forme1lement que M. Sokal me parait
avoir raison ; pour prevenir toute incertitude
et, d'autre part, etant donne l'heure, je
pense qu'il vaut mieux le satisfaire et suivre
strictement l'article 13 du Reglement, c'esta-
dire renvoyer cette proposition au Conseil
d'administration qui se reunira cet apresmidi
pour I'examiner et faire connaitre son
avis a la Conference. J'esipere que la Conference
pourra avoir ,connaissance d e cet avis
a,vant le commencement de fa prochaine
seance pleniere, c'est-1a-dire avant 4 heures;
ensuite nous pourrons proceder, en suivant
strictement le Reglement, a la discussion de
ce point d e I'ordre du jour.
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: It seems to
me that Mr. Sokal has asked for my ruling on this
matter. I will say then that, according to the
strict interpretation of Article 13, it seems to me
244
that Mr. Sokal is right. I consider that the Conference
would do better to adhere strictly to its
Standing Orders on the matter, that the Committee
should refer the question to the Governing Body,
which meets this afternoon, and then I hope that
the report of the Governing Body on the matter
can be submitted to the Conference before its
meeting this afternoon at 4 o'clock.
Mr. WOLFE (British Empire), Chairman
and Reporter of the Committee on the
examination of annual reports under
Article 408 - Just one word, Mr. President.
I should be the last, and my Committee
would be the last, to wish to offend ag,ainst
any rules, and therefore naturally I bow
to your ruling. We do not in the least wish
to burke discussion in the Governing
Rody or elsewhere ; but I do want to say
here and now hat when Mr. Sokal says
that this is not a resolution of the Governing
Body, but a resolution of the British
Government, it must follow that Mr. Sokal
has not n•ad the resolution itself, which
begins by saying that the Governing Body,
considering certain things, suggests that the
Conference should do various things. If
the Governing Body had meant that the
British Government suggested various
things, presumably it has sufficient control
of the English and French ilanguages to use
the words it means, and not other words.
Traduction: M. WOLFE (Empire britannique),
President et Rapporteur de la Commission de l' article
408 : Je tiens a ajouter un mot. Je serais le
dernier a vouloir proposer que l'on enfreigne
le Reglement et, par suite, j'accepte la decision
du President en cette matiere ; mais quand M.
Sokal nous dit qu'il s'agit la d'une resolution du
Gouvernement britannique, je dois en conclure
qu'il n'a pas lu les textes. Le preambule de la resolution
prise par le Conseil d'administration est
parfaitement clair.
M. SOKAL (Pologne) - .Te n'ai jamais
dit cela.
Interpretation: Mr. SOKAL (Poland) : I did not
say that.
( La seance est levee ii 13 heures.)
(The Conference adjourned at 1 p.m.)
Afrique du Sud :
M. Cousins.
M. Freestone.
M. Pocock.
M. Curran.
Allemagne:
M. Feig.
M. Hering.
M. Vogel.
M. Millier.
Argentine:
M. Pinto.
M. Dell'Oro • Maini.
M. Viola.
Australie:
Sir .Joseph Cook.
M. McNeil.
M. Beasley.
Autriche:
M. Hawelka.
M. Montel.
M. Schmidt.
M. Weigl.
Belgique:
M. Mahaim.
M. Julin.
M. earlier.
M. Mertens.
Bresil:
M. de Montarroyos.
M. de Mello.
M. Dias.
Empire britannique :
M. Wolfe.
M. Baker.
M. Snedden (suppleant
de Sir James Lithgow).
Mlle Bondfield (suppleant
de M. Pugh).
Bulgarie:
1\:1. Bobochevskv.
M. Nicoloff.
M. Danoff.•
Canada:
M. Riddell.
M. Pacaud.
M. Robb.
M. Merson (suppleant
de M. Moore).
245
Delegues presents a la seance.
Chili:
M. Eliodoro Yanez.
M. Valrles-Mendeville.
Chine:
M. Chao Hsin Chu.
M. Chi Yung Hsiao.
Cuba:
M. de Aguero y Bethancourt.
M. Vidal Caro.
M. Guiral.
M. Domenech.
Danemark:
M. Bramsnaes.
M. Lassen.
M. Oersted.
M. Jacobsen ( suppleant
de M. Madsen).
Espagne:
M. le Comte de Altea.
M. Gascon y Marin.
M. de Biedma.
M. Martinez Gil
(suppleant de M.
Caballero).
Esthonie:
M. Grohmann.
M. Varna.
M. Masik.
M. Gustavson.
Finlande:
M. Mannio.
M. Valvanne.
M. Palmgren.
M. Halme.
France:
M. Arthur Fontaine.
M. Jules Gautier.
M. Marchegay
(suppleant de M.
Lambert-Ribot).
M. Jouhaux.
Grece:
M. Zakkas.
M. Agalopoulos.
M. Kou]ouras.
M. Kalomiris.,
Hongrie:
M. deMarffy-Mantuano
M. Nagy de Szentgericze.
M. de Tolnay.
M. Jaszai.
lnde:
Sir Atul Chatterjee.
Sir Louis Kershaw.
Sir Arthur Froom.
M. Lajpat Rai.
Etat libre d' lrlande :
M. Hearne (suppleant
de M. McGilligan).
M. Deegan.
M. Roycroft.
M Duffy•
ltalie:
M. de Michelis.
M. Gerbi (suppleant de
M. Ingianni).
l\L Olivetti.
M. Cucini (suppleant
de M. Rossoni).
Japon:
M. Miyasaki.
M. Mayeda.
1\:1. Matsukata.
M. Narasaki.
Lettonie:
l\L Rubuls.
M. Duzmans.
M. Kurau.
M. Visna.
Lithuanie:
M. Zaunius.
Norvege:
M. Thorsen.
M. Hansen.
M. Salvesen (suppleant
de M. Odfjell).
M. Steendal.
Pays-Bas:
M. Zaalberg.
M. Folmer.
M. de Beaufort.
M. Brautigam.
Perou:
M. Paulet.
Pologne:
M. Sokal.
M. Gawronski.
M. Trepka.
M. Teller.
Portugal:
l\I. Rodriguez (suppleant
de M. Ferreira).
Roumanie:
M. Comnene.
Royaume des Serbes,
Croates et Slovenes :
M. Petrovitch.
M. Y eremitch.
M. Tchourtchine.
M. Topalovitch.
Siam:
M. Sanpakitch Preecha
Suede:
M. Hennings.
M. Molin.
M. Lagergren
(suppleant de M.
Larson).
M. Johanson.
Suisse:
M. Pfister.
l\L Giorgio.
M. Cagianut (suppleant
de l\L Tzaut).
M. Schilrch.
Tchecoslovaquie:
M. Pokorny.
M. Hodac.
M. Stefka.
Uruguay:
M. Fernandez y Medina.
M. Charlone.
Venezuela:
l\L Zumeta.
8011th Africn :
Mr. Cousins.
Mr. Freeston('.
Mr. Pocock.
Mr. Curran.
Germany:
Mr. Feig.
Mr. Hering.
Mr. Vogel.
Mr. Miiller.
Argentina:
Mr. Pinto.
Mr. Dell'Oro Maini.
Mr. Viola.
, I nstra lia :
Sir ,Joseph Cook.
Mr. Mceil.
Mr. Beasley.
Austria:
Mr. Hawelka.
Mr. Montel.
Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Weigl.
Belgium:
Mr. Mahaim.
Mr. Julin.
Mr. Carlier.
Mr. Mertens.
Brazil:
Mr. de Montarroyos.
Mr. de Mello.
Mr. Dias.
British Empire:
Mr. Wolfe.
Mr. Baker.
Mr. Snedden (substitute
for Sir James
Lithgow).
Miss Eondfield (substitute
for Mr. Pugh).
Bulgaria:
Mr. Bobochevsky.
Mr. Nicoloff.
Mr. Danoff.
Canada:
Mr. Riddell.
Mr. Pacaud.
Mr. Robb.
Mr. Merson (substitute
for Mr. Moore).
246
Delegates present at the Sitting.
Chi/r:
Mr. Valdes-Mendeville.
Mr. Echegoyen.
('hill((:
Mr. Chao Hsin Chu.
Mr. Chi Yung Hsiao.
Cuba:
Mr. cle Agiicro y Bethancourt.
Mr. Vidal Caro.
Mr. Guiral.
Mr. Domenech.
1Jemn11rk:
Mr. Bramsnaes.
Mr. Lassen.
Mr. Oersted.
Mr. ,Jacobsen (substitute
for Mr. Lassen).
Spnin:
Count de Altea.
Mr. Gascon y Marin.
Mr. de Riedma.
Mr. Martinez Gil
(substitute for Mr.
Caballero).
Rsthonirt:
Mr. Grohmann.
Mr. Varma.
Mr. Masik.
Mr. Gustavson.
Finland:
Mr. Mannio.
Mr. Valvanne.
Mr. Palmgren.
Mr. Halme.
France:
Mr. Arthur Fontaine.
Mr. ,Jules Gautier.
Mr. Marchegay
(substitute for Mr.
Lambert-Ribot).
Mr .. Jouhaux.
Greece:
Mr. Zakkas.
Mr. Agalopoulos.
Mr. Koulouras.
Mr. Kalomiris.
Hungary:
Mr. de MarffyMantuano.
Mr. Nagy de Szentgericze.
Mr. de Tolnav.
Mr. ,Jaszai.
India:
Sir Atul Chatterjee.
Sir Louis Kershaw.
Sir Arthur Froom.
Mr. Lajpat Rai.
Irish Free ,','tale :
Mr. Hearne (substitute
for Mr. McGilligan).
Mr. Deegan.
Mr. Roycroft.
Mr. Duffy.
Italy:
Mr. de Michelis.
Mr. Gerbi ( substitute
for Mr. Ingianni).
Mr. Olivetti.
Mr. Cucini (substitute
for Mr. Rossoni).
.Japan:
Mr. Mivasaki.
Mr. Mayeda.
Mr. Matsukata.
Mr. Narasaki.
Latvia :
Mr. Rubuls.
Mr. Duzmans.
Mr. Kurau.
Mr. Visna.
Lithuania:
Mr. Zaunius.
Norway:
Mr. Thorsen.
Mr. Hansen.
Mr. Salvesen (substitute
for Mr. Odfjell).
Mr. Steendal.
Netherlands:
Mr. Zaalberg.
Mr. Folmer.
Mr. de Beaufort.
Mr. Brautigam.
Peru:
Mr. Paulet.
Poland:
lY[r. Sokal.
Mr. Gawronski.
Mr. Trepka.
Mr. Tellt"r.
Rourn1111ia :
Mr. Rodriguez (substitute
for Mr. Ferreira).
Ki-11{?dom of the Serbs,
Croats and Slovenes :
Mr. Petrovitch.
Mr. Yeremitch.
Mr. TchourtchinP.
Mr. Topalovitch.
Siam:
Mr. Sanpakitch
Preecha.
Swede11:
Mr. Hennings.
Mr. Molin.
Mr. Lagergren (substitute
for Mr. Larson).
Mr. Johanson.
Switzerland:
Mr. Pfister.
Mr. Giorgio.
Mr. Cagianut (substifor
Mr. Tzaut).
Mr. Schiirch.
Czechoslovakia :
Mr. Pokorny.
Mr. Hodac.
Mr. Stefka.
Uruguay:
Mr. Fernandez y Medina.
Mr. Charlone.
Venezuela:
Mr. Zumeta.
247
TREIZIEME SEANCE. - THIRTEENTH SITTING.
Vendredi, 4 juin 1926, 16 h.
Friday, 4 June 1926, 4 p.m.
Presidence de ,vlgr. Nolens.
President: _Mgr. Nolens.
Le PRESIDENT --- .Te rappellt> que la
Conference a dfride ce matin de renvoyer
la resolution sur !'article 408 au Conseil
d'administration, lequel, apres examen de
son Comite du budget, devait faire connaitre
son avis a la Conference.
.Je prit> Monsieur le President du Conseil
d'administration de communiquer a la Conference,
si possible, l'avis du Conseil.
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: You will
remember that this morning the Conference
referred to the Governing Body the proposal
submitted to it by the Committee on Article 408.
I shall ask the Chairman of the Governing Body
to report on behalf of the Governing Body.
M. ARTHUR FONTAINE (France), President
d11 Conseil d'administration - Le
Conseil d'administration, sur le rapport de
son Comite du budget, et apres avoir constate
que la depense probable serait d'environ
6.000 francs, a donne un avis favorable
a la proposition. II a seulement fait
remarquer que, ne pouvant pas s'engager
pour plusieurs annee.s, il priait la Commission
d'indiquer que l'essai aurait lieu pour
un, deux ou trois ans, au lieu de mettre :
pour deux ou trois ans.
Interpretation: Mr. ARTHUR FONTAINE
(France), Chairman of the Governing Body: On the
report of the Finance Committee, and learning
that the expense of such a Committee would
probably be about 6,000 francs per year, the Governing
Body arrived at a favourable opinion upon
the question. It was, however, pointed out that
the Finance Committee could not make any
engagement for more than one year. Therefore
it was proposed that the Committee should be
asked to change its text, so that the Committee
should be set up for " one, two or three years ."
Le PRESIDENT - Nous pouvons maintenant
continuer la discussion sur la resolution.
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: Now that
the Conference has heard the report from the
Governing Body, the discussion will continue on
the Resolution.
Mr. BEASLEY (Australia) - Mr. President
and Delegates, all I wish to do is to
express my disappointment at the Resolution
which has been put forward by the
Chairman of this Committee. I listened
very attentively to what Mr. Wolfe had to
say, and I feel disposed to extend to him
the same compliment as was extended to
him by the Irish Workers' Delegate when
speaking on the Director's Report, that is
to say, he said quite a good deal, but it did
not mean anything. I was of the opinion
that the Committee would make some attempt
to explain to us that they were prepared
to bring forward something by which
the Governments, should they fail to ratify,
would be to some extent forced to do so. But
apparently such is not the case. It seems
that the intention of quite ,a number of the
Members of the Conference is just to utilise
the Office for the purpose of compiling
statistics, and this Committee will only go
into a class of work which the Director has
done for a number of years. Of course, that
might be quite all right, and it will no doubt
be quite in keeping with the view which has
been expressed by many of the Delegates
here -al-ready. They are not anxious that
the International Labour Office should go
deeply into the question of the economic
problems confronting the world to-day.
.Just imagine for a moment ,taking this
clause into consideration : "And fuat careful
examination of the information contained
therein is carlculated to throw light upon
the practical value of the Conventions
themselves and to further their genem1l
ratification." Just consider the matter
from the point of view of the Government
which Mr. Wolfe represents, namely, the
question whether this Committee and the
rnmpiling of 'the information would be the
means of forcing the British Government to
give effect to the question of general
ratification, even of the Washington Convention.
You hearid Mr. Wolfe speak at
some length of the failure of his Government
to ratify that Convention, and
I cannot for the life of me see that a Committee
which is set up here will tend in
any way to bring about a state of affairs by
which ratification might be brought about
by the Government which Mr. Wolfe
represents. I should have thought that the
Committee would have gone into the
matter from the point of view of the
workers and that
that they were
something which
they woucrd have shown
going to recommend
would tend to further
ratification. As a Workers' Delegate I want
to see some action taken in this matter ;
we do not want mere words. Again I wish to
Pxpress my keen disappointment at the
proposals which have 'been submitted to the
Conference.
Traduction: M. BEASLEY (Australie): Jc tiens
seulement a exprimer le desappointement que
j'ai eprouve en presence de la resolution qui nous
a ete presentee par la Commission. J'ai ecoute
Jes explications que M. Wolfe nous a donnees.
II a dit beaucoup de choses : mais je me permettrai
de Jui dire qu'au fond cela ne signifie rien. J'esperais
que la Commission ferait des propositions
susceptibles d'obliger, dans une certaine mesure,
Jes Gouvernements a appliquer les conventions.
Or, ii semble que l'on veuille seulement utiliser
le Bureau international du Travail pour la compilation
de statistiques. La Commission que l'on se
propose d'instituer n'aura pas d'autre mission
que de faire le travail dont le Directeur du Bureau
s'acquittait jusqu'a present. Cela nous montre
que le Bureau ne veut pas aller au fond des ques-
248
tions economiques qui interessent actuellement
le monde. En effet, on nous dit que si l'on adoptait
la resolution l'examen attentif des renseignements
contenus das les rapports permettrait de connaitre
la valeur pratique des conventions et d'aider
en general a leur ratification. Vous a':ez entendu
dernierement M. Wolfe vous exphquer pour
quelles raisons son Gouvernement r.i'a pas eneo!e
pu ratifier la convention de Washmgton. r: JC
ne crois pas que !'institution de la Comm1ss10n,
dont la creation est proposee, donnera des esult:1ts
pratiques et contribuera a amener la ratJficat10n
du Gouvernement britannique. Je tiens a repeter
ce que j'ai dit au debut. Nous, delegues ouvriers,
nous ne nous contentons pas de paroles, nous
voulons des actes. Je tiens a exprimer encore une
fois le desappointement que j'ai eprouve.
M. MAHAIM (Belgique) - Messieurs,
j'aborde cette tribune, au sujet de cette
question, dans un sentiment d'embarras. Je
me rends tres bien compte de !'importance
de la question qui est posee devant vous, .
ainsi que des intentions qui ont anime les
auteurs de cette proposition.
Le Gouvernement britannique et un
grand nombre d'amis du Bureau international
,du Travail et de !'Organisation permanente
du Travail voient, dans !'application
rigoureuse, elargie meme, de !'article
408, un moyen d'affermir encore l'ceuvre
de ,J'Or:ganisation permanente du Travail et
de rendre plus efficace et plus etendue la
legislation internaHonale du travail.
Sous ce rapport la, je suis completement
d'accord avec les auteurs de la proposition.
Quand on examine le systeme des sanctions
determinees p,ar le Traite de paix, on constate
qu'il existe ,des reclamations qui sont
non seuilement a la disposition de toutes les
organisations patronailes et ouvrieres, mais
aussi, pour ainsi dire, du public. Mais la
reclamation ne va pas plus loin que le
Conseil d'administration.
Ensuite, il y a la plainte. La plainte est a
la disposition des Gouvernements, des
Membres qui ont ratifie, et aussi des delegues
a la Conference ; mais c'est une procedure
extremement grave. Elle conduit a
une enquete et eHe a jusqu'a la Cour permanente
de Justice. La sanction pent entrainer
jusqu'au hlocus economique et financier.
Autrement dit, elle ne peut etrc appliquee
que ,dans ,des cas scandaleux, que dans
des cas dans lesquels il est absolument
necessaire d'avoir une intervention internationale
et generale.
On a pense alors que, pour assurer
davantage !'execution des conventions ratifiees,
il y avait lieu de trouver un systeme
que j'appellerai intermediaire, rpar l'examen
attentif du raipport annueJ que les Etats
ayant ratifie doivent presenter au Bureau.
Lisez !'article 408. Le role du Bureau est
simplement un role mecanique. II doit resumer
les rapports purement et simplement,
rien de plus. Seulement, si vous Iisez la
premiere partie de !'article, vous voyez que
!'intention des auteurs a tout de meme ete
de ne pas laisser absolument sans surveillance,
si j'ose employer ce mot, !'application
des conventions, puisque, en demandant un
rapport annuel aux Etats, ils ont voulu que
la Conference soit informee, rpar les parties
elles-memes, des mesures qui ont ete prises
a la suite des conventions.
Et, en donnant au Conseil d'administration
le droit de faire rediger le questionnaire
sur ,la base duqueil les rapports
doivent etre faits, le Traite de Paix organise
certainement un systeme de controle de
!'application des conventions. Faut-il le
renfor,cer ? Faut-il !'augmenter ? Fau1t-il
aHer plus loin et organiser tout un systeme
nouveau qui, en fait, rerpresente un nouve, au
controle pour les Etats qui ont ratiifie.
Evidemment, c'est tentant. Je comprends
tres bien, notamment, que les Etats qui ont
ratifie des conventions demandent aujourd'hui
que l'on ouvre ,J'cel sur I'application
des conventions par les autres. Je comr
:ends tres hien cela. Mais il ne faut pas
nous dissimuler qu'il y a a cette mesure
quelque danger. Le premier danger, c'est
que toute espece d'organisme de controle
ainsi institue sorte de ses attributions.
Y ous nommez des experts inoffensifs, et
ils deviennent facilement des inspecteurs.
Allez un peu plus loin : laissez-Jes correspondre
avec les Gouvernements, Iaissez-les
ordonner des enquetes, et vous avez alors
tout un systcme de surveillance des Etats.
,Je ne suis pas de ceux qui ont peur de
choses semblables. Je reconnais tres bien
que toute !'organisation nouvelle du droit
international, et ·a la Societe des Nations et
chez nous, implique des limitaltions nouvelles
de la souverainete des Etats. Chaque
fois que nous signons un traite, nous Iimitons
notre souverainete. Nous ,le savons
bien. Le mot meme n'est pas de nature a
m'effrayer. Mais, en presence du petit
nombre de ratifica,tions, ii y a lieu de se
demander si ce reniforcement du controle, si
cette institution d'un organisme qui pourrait
aisement sortir de ses attributions et
gener les administrations interieures des
Etats, est bien opportun.
C'est pourquoi j'ai demande aux auteurs de
la proposition de nous donner les assurances
249
et ,les garanties que le systeme dont on vent
faire l'essai ne conduira ,pas a des abus.
.Je veux aussi avoir des apaisements sur un
point qui m'inquiete. Un certain nombre de
mes collegues ont exprime l'avis qu'en renfon;:
ant ainsi le controle de !'application des
conventions on aUailt rendre encore plus
difficile et plus rare la ratification des conventions.
Ils font observer que !'attitude des
Etats qui ont dej,a ratifie, et qui son1t
inquiets de ,ce qui nous est 1propose aujourd'hui,
n'est pas de nature a fadliter la ratification
et a engager d'autres Et: ats ,a entrer
dans la meme voie.
D'autre part, ii y a une partie de la
proposition a laquelle iil me semble difficile
de nous raHier. C'est la ,partie de la resolution
qui vous demande de faire nommer
par la Conference une Commission qui rapportera
immediatement devant la Conference.
n faut etre 1pratique ; il faut voir les
chases comme elles sont. Nous venons ici
pour quinze jours, trois semaines, mettez
meme pour un mois, iI me parait impossible
de tirer des rapports, de l'etuide documentaire
des rapports, autre chose que ce que
le Directeur en aura tire. Je ne vois pas
la possi!bilite de nommer une Commission
de la •Conference qui soit capable d'etudier,
dans leur detail, les rapports de fa<;on a
presenter des resultats pratiques.
Ah ! si vous voulez seulement - ,comment
dirai-je - attraire devant la Conference
un cel'tain nombre d'Etats plus ou
moins recailcitrants ? Eh bien, ce n'est pas
au moy,en d'une Commission de c e genre
qu'il :faut essayer de le faire. Il faut avoir
des faits precis, et il faut avoir une autre
procedure. Je considererais, pour ma part,
comme extremement dangereux d'organiser
ici un tribunal - on a idit un conseil ,de
guerre - qui serait improvise.
Autre chose est l'etude par les exper.ts,
pendant l'intervalle des Conferences et sous
Ja direction du Bureau. Au point de vue
legal, je ne vois pas de diffi.cu'lte a ce que
ce Comite soit adjoint au Directeur par le
Conseil d'adminis1tration. Le Conseil d'administration,
ayant le droit de rediger le
questionnaire, pent s'entourer de toutes les
informations necessaires, ,de tons les renseignements
utiles. Par consequent, en ce qui
me concerne, je suis tout dispose a accepter
la proposition. Pour le moment, je ne
demande qu'une chose, c'est que les
apprehensions que j'exprime ici - et que
I
: _j'ai de.fa exprimees devant le grouip·e gouvernementa1
- soient _ dissipees. Si vous
frouvez un systeme satisfaisant pour ecarter
lous ,ces !dangers, toutes ces aprprehensions,
.ie ne demande rpas mieux que de voter Ja
proipositio,n. Je tiens a dire - on I'a deja
rlit, Je crois que c'est ]'honoo-able M. Wolfe
- que nous avons, nous autres, une 'bonnc
consicience. On peut venir nous demander
lout ce qu'on veut sur l'application des
co,nventions auc nous avons ralifiees. .Te
suis 'bien persuade qu'il n'v aura rien a
reorendre a notre conduite. Nous ne
demandons qu'une chose, c'est que tous Jes
Etats uuissent en dire autant. Ge n'est done
pas une question personnelle ; mais je
reoelc aue la grande apprehension que j'i,
c'est aue le svsteme aui ipeut se iustifier par
Iui-meme, au ,poinl de vue du fond, soit de
nature :'1 diminuer ou :\ empec;her les ratifications
futures.
lulrvrdntinn_: Mr. iw:AHAJM (RP fo-ium): I am
SPP<ikmrr on this QUPshon with f PP!inrrs of sc,me
embarr"sment. I 11ndPrshlnd fullv thP imnort;1
n,-.e of the nnestion before us. J 11nderst;1nd
fnllv thP intPntions pf thP mithors of this Proosal
R'.'t], thP British fiovPr PrnPnt. ann th p m;n
frJPnils of thP Office and of thP Tntni,<>tinnal
1,,.. ho11 Orrr<>nis;1tinn sPe in a strict ;1nnlic;1tinn
of . Art1rlP 408 of the Treatv a mP;1ns of strPnQ"themnq
_the . work of the Orp-anis<>tion and nf
exenilnll" mtnn:ci tinnal l:cihonr lPrrisl<>tion. On
th, nomt I :cim m f111l ap-rPPrnPnt with t}, p :>ntJinrs
of th P prnnos:cil. WhPn. howpvpr, WP PX<>miPP thP
svstpm of s<indions !Riel ilown in thP 'T'rp:,tv of
P."ce, we finn th:cit it cont:ciins first of ,,n ,. pnsih_
1 htv '.'f nrotest which i onPn to n 11 orrrnniahons.-
m foct, onen to nuhlic oninion in P-enn"l
11t it nnlv leails to the Govnninp- Poilv. 'l'hPn
in thP Treatv of Peace we find a svstPm by which
formc,l <>0mn]aits can bP m<1ile with· rPP-<1rd
tn thP_ nnn-<1nnl1cati!'n or thP faulty apnli<>:cition
nf r"t.' fip,1 C'onvPnhons. This is a m:citter at
thP. rl,nns,:il ,:,f the GovPrnments of countries
wh,,-. h,:ivp r"t,fipiJ <'nnvPntions : h11t it constit1,tes
:1 SPr,011 stPn, for it l"llds to an official enouirv,
,t m<iv lP<in to a inrln-m<>nt on the n;1rt of the
!'e"m"nPnt C'onrt of TntPrn:cit•on;11 .Juti <>e, and
1t m:civ Jp,,,-l _to :ci fin<inci" l nnrl P<'nnomic Mn<>k:> de
of A. nPfonlhncr St<ite. Jt is thPrPfnrp H s<1n<>tion
annli<'<ihl P nnlv in cases which I can only describe
as cHnil:ci lous.
I was tho1wht. th:cit, to ""<'lire tJiP f1,1Jn ;1nnli
abon of Conventions which h"ve hPPn ratifiPd
it w:ci<: _necess:uv to finil an intPrmPili :citP svst<>m'
anil this ';as found in thP annua 1 rPporfa whirh'
under Artwle 408 of the 'l'rp:citv, hAvP to hP pre
sented to the Conference through the Office in the
form of a summnrv.
The work of the Office in connection with
thPse. renorts is nurPlv m<'chanical. .All it has
to do 'S to summarisP the renorts for snhmission to
the . ConfPren ce. Nevertheless, the first part of
Arbcle 08 showt" that the authors of the TrPaty
do _not intend to leave the application and ratificat10n
of Convention-: free from control. Article 408
ask_s for the submission of annual reports, hv
wh'.ch the Conference can lea.rn the ex+ent to
which the . ConvPntions are being applied bv
thP counries which have ratified them, and it
further gives the Governing Rodv the right to
draw un a Questionnaire on which these reports
are to bP based. Thus, the Treatv organises a
svstein of control separate from the svstem of
sanctions. The question arises, should this system
250
of control be strengthened or should a whole new
svs!em be organised to sunervise further the
action of St.ate,- which have ratified Conventionf'.
I understand fnllv the nosition of such States. I
understand fullv thP wi-hes of such States that
the mPasures by which they anplied Convention1-
shoulil be more fullv known. but we must
avoid certain clangers which may arise in adopting
a new procedure.
The first danqer is th:ci,t any kind of control is
legallv beyond the fun<'tions of the Office. If we
:inooint expert.s thevwill inevitably tend to become
mnectors. If vou allow them to corresnond
with the GovernmPnts, vo11 have in fact sPt up
a svstem of Sl!llPrvision of the act.ion of the States.
T rerilise that the whole hash, of the Learrue of
Nations and of thp InternationAJ Labour Oriranisatio
s eans a limitation of national soverPiP-ntv:
but; m view of tl1e sm,ill numhn of ratifications
which we have obtaineil, I ask whPther it is nPcess<i.
rv to set un a whole new svstem of control
which mav PX<'eed our pronPr functions anil
which mav hinrler furthn mtifications. I ask
the autho.-,- of the nronos,il before us for the ri1-s1irance
th,it the svstPm will not lead to anv abmes
In rn:1,rtif"11lar, I ask for an assurance on one point
which alarms me.
Certriin of mv colleriques have nointeil ont that
if ther<> is: an incrP>t<:Pd control of the annlic:Vion
of r,itifiPil ConvPntion. ratifi <><i.tions will hPcome
rnore anil rnore difficult., and thPv noint out that
States which have rtlrP,idv ratified the Conventions
anrl rtrP nervous of the res11lt of 1-uch :ci. svs;tem
will not be encouraged to make further ratifications.
Tere . is in the nronoal a part a.Qkin!:!' for the
nomm<i.hon each yP>tr hv the Conference of a
Cornmittee of the Confnence to rPnort. to the
ConferPnCP on the m1estion. I would noint. out
that the Conferen,..e meet,- for a nerioil of one
mnnth at mot. Jt seem imnossihlP for a Committee
annointed for 1-1wh a short time to imin
mnre from an """·min<i.tion of thP rpnort. s:nh
itted uniler A.-t,,.J., 408 th<i.n thP DirP<'tor <ilrP<i.ily
rr1ves us. I fePl th,it it is imnos;1-ihlP for thP Conference
to study these reoorts in greater detail.
Ao-ain, with reqard to the Comrnittee of the
ConferPnce, if it i1- a met.hod to hrinQ" hPfnrP thP
Conference renort.s on more or less rPc:ciJ,-.itr<i.nt
States, it is extremelv il<inqnous anil will lead
to t.hP in"titution of :ci. kind of court which is not
provided for in the Treaty. '
Another noint is in connection with the Committee
of Rxnert. which is to stn,lv the renorts
uniler the Q'enPr"l nirPction of thP DirPPtor. Lerrnllv
T see no ilillif'11ltv in :hi", sincP the Govnning
R?rlv can f'Prtninlv annnmt. exnerts to assis:t. the
DirPctor. 'fhnefore, all I am a,sldnll" is for an
assurance th<it mv fear1- ,ire nnt wPll-foundPil. Jf
T am aureil on the noints whi<>h J have rr,i,-Pil
I shall he anit<> rPailv to vote in favonr of th
PronosaL for BPlo-inm has a cle:cir conscience in the
matter of <1T1nlicrition of the Conventions which
she ha ratified. This is not a nersonal auestion
which I have bro111Yht un. It is merelv a ouestion
of mv _fe,ir,-_ that the system may lessen the speed
of ratificat10n.
M. MERTENS (Be1gique) - Monsieur le
President, Mes dames, Messieurs. ie voudrais
dire quelques mots en faveur de la
proposition qui nous est soumise. Et ceci
pour deux raisons : la premiere, c'est qu'en
examinant le Traite de Versailles lui-meme
de ]'article 411 a 11' article 416, je cons tat
que les Etats qui ont ratifie des conventions
et qui ont des doutes sur l'aippiliication integ:rale
et loyale de ,ces conventions par
d'autres pays qui les ont egalement ratifiees,
ont le droit de deposer une pfainte aupres
du Bureau international du Tmvail. lls
peuvent meme aHer jusque devant la Cour
permanente de Justice internationale, pour
faire a,pp'liquer les sanctions prevues aux
Etats qui n'appliquent pas les conventions
ratifiees, sanctions qui peuvent ailler jusqu'au
boycottage economique.
Pour ma part, je prefere qu'on ne soil
pas oblige d'en arriver a de pareilles
mesures ; je prefere qu'O'Il n'ait pas besoin
de deposer 1plainte aupres du Bureau international
du Travai1l et qu'on trnuve le
moyen d'eviter d'une autre maniere les
difficultes qui peuvent surgir d'une telle
attitude d'Etats ayant rntifie l'une ou l'autre
des conventions adoptees par les Conferences
internationales du Travail.
On invoque alors !'argument que certains
pays, des maintenant, s'abstiennent de ratifier
pour eviter precisement que l'on puisse
venir voir chez eux s'ils appliquent oui ou
non Jes conventions ratifiees. A mon avis,
cet argument n'est si souvent invoque que
par ceux qui ont la volonte de ne pas
ratifier.
Un autre argument avance est celui que
j'ai trouve ii n'y a pas tres Iongtemps dans
le compte rendu stenogrnphique des debats
d'un Parlement d'Europe. Un parlementaire
qui ne connaissait rien de la Partie XIII du
Traite de Versailles declarait qu'un pays qui
n'a pas ratifie a le droit de venir faire des
enquetes clans des pays qui ont ratifie. Ce
parlementaire ignorait tout des reglements
qui regissent !'Organisation internationale
du Travail. Tous ces arguments sont invoques
pour justifier la non-ratification. Et
c'est pourquoi je suis partisan de la proposition
qui nous est faite.
Vons devez constater, en effet, que le
rapport deja assez volumineux soumis par
M. le Directeur a la Conference sur Jes
resultats d'application des conventions ratifiees
clans Jes differents pays ne donne
quand meme pas les elements necessaires
pour juger definitivement.
Si on nomme une Commission qui doive
faire rapport sur ce qui se passe dans Jes
differents pays, qui puisse obtenir tons Jes
renseignements voulus pour juger des conditions
d'application, qui •puisse, au besoin,
faire les investigations necessaires pour
s'entourer de toutes ,les garanties, je vois
clans le fonctionnement d'une telle commission
de techniciens la possibilite de decou-
251
vrir certaines faiblesses que ,peuvent pr,esenter
nos conventions, qui ,peuvent en rendre
!'application difficile dans certains pays et
qui ont pu nous echapper au moment ou
nous avons vote les conventions.
Et !ors du vote de nouvelles conventions,
ou encore au moment oi1 il nous faudra
modifier ou tout au moins discuter a nouveau
les conventions que nous avons votees
derpuis 1919, ainsi qu'il est stipule dans le
dernier article de chaque convention (pour
la convention des huit heures, par exemple,
apres un delai de dix ans la Conference
aura a examiner si elle vent maintenir le
texte, le modifier ou le completer), nous
pourrions eviter que Jes textes adoptes
presenlent les memes faiblesses, celles-ci
ayant ete decouvertes par la Commission.
.Te prefere qu'a ce moment, lorsque Ja
Conference aura a s'occuper d'une convention
dont le terme vient d'ex•pirer, cette
Commission puisse nous indiquer Jes faihlesses
qui existent dans certaines 1parties
oe cette convention, faiblesses qui ont rend11
difficile son application dans tel ou tel p1avs
et qHe nous pourrions eviter dans l'avenir
en votant de nouvelles conventions ou en
completant les conventions deja ratifiees Oll
apipliquees. Nous arriverions ainsi a voter
rles conventions qui ne preteraient plus le
flanc a certaines critiques ni a des argu -
ments qui permettent encore actuellement a
certains Eta ts de ne pas ratifier les conventions
votees.
Non seulement ie voterni, pour toutes ces
rriisons. 'la rironosition qni est faite, mais
i'ai la conviction que le Gouvernement
helge, s'il est averti des raisons invoquees
en faveur de cette resolution, la votera
egalement des deux mains.
Interpretation: Mr. MERTF.NS (Bp]gium): Iwish
to s11nnort thP nroposal hpfore us. In Pxaminl
ing the Treat.v nf PeacP. T .... note in""Articles-4Tn
to· 416 that the St,ites which mtifv a Conventio f
and have anv doubt as to the !oval rinnlirAtion os
such ConvPntion bv -anv other countrv -which ha
ratified it. have a rirrht to comnlain to the Office,
and have even a riqht to fake the matter as far
as the Permanent Court of International .Tutie<>,
with thP nosible result of an economic blockade
of the defaultinQ' countrv.
I do not like such mP:isures. and I hoop thev
will not be taken. hnt that anv ilefect with rerrarrl
to annlication will he met hv other means. I do
not think that the arq-ume'lt th>it anv such svstem
will lead to diffirulties of ratification in certain
countries is a sound one : T think t.hrit for thP- mnst
part this argument i" bro111Yht forwaril bv countrips
which do not wish to ratify.
In these last vears we have had a bulkv rpnort
hy the Director on the anplication in • variom;
countries of the Conventions ratified. I think,
however, that this report dops not afford the
nece$sary elements for us to ,judge to what extent
the Conventions are duly applied. Jn nominating
a committee we shall supplement this information,
and we shall then be able to obtain any necessary
additional information from it. We shall further
be able to obtain from this committee information
on the weaknesses of any of the Conventions
adopted. This will be of great value to us, both
when we adopt new, and when we discuss the
maintenance or revision of old Conventions.
You will remember that in all the Conventions
we have adopted, we have included an Article
providing for the possibility of revision. For
example, in the Hours Convention it is provided
that the Convention may be brought before the
Conference after the expiration of a period of ten
years, and the Conference will then be in a position
to decide whether it should be maintained, modified
or completed.
I hope that, when the Conference is dealing with
this question, the information given it by the
committee will enable it to see the difficulties in
the way of ratification of the Conventions. This
will strengthen us, both in revising old Conventions
and adopting new ones. For this reason I ask the
Conference to adopt the Resolution before it.
I am sure, also, that the Belgian Government
will be re-assured as to its fears, and will feel
itself able to vote in favour of this Resolution.
Sir JOSEPH COOK (Australia)
I propose to vote for the Resolution
because I believe it goes quite as far as it
is possible to go at the p,resent time.
With regard to the application of
sanctions, I should like to make this
remark. I was one of those who assisted
at the Peace Conference to put this Labour
Covenant into the Treaty. I worked
earnestly in its favour. I did so because
I 1believed that the objects sought were
desirable from every point of view. I sometimes
wonder whether a mistake is not
made in applying the word "labour" in its
narrow sense to this Conference. What
was really intended was that this Conference-
this Organisation-was to be
an international industrial Organisation,
resembling more than anything else an
international conciliation court in which
both sides could compose their differences
and reach conclusions fair to all. It
was uever intended that it should be a
court to wield a big stick and go about
with a blackthorn to flagellate nations
which were recalcitrant. It was intended
to be an Organisation where reason and
persuasion and public opinion should 'be
enthroned. It was proposed to gather the
facts and 'let in the li,ght of public opinion
upon them. That, I venture to say, will,
in the long nm, perhaps prove the best
sanction of all-the most effective and
the most likely to give the best results.
Anything different means the setting up of
a super-State, and that is quite impossible
in the present condition of the world. It is
not possible to make a State do what it does
not want to do-even with the League of
252
Nations thrown in. That has been seen
time and again aheady, and I am afraid
that those people who desire further and
more severe sanctions had better betake
themselves to something which promises
better success, that is, the cultivation and
education of 1public opinion, ,bringing that
to bear in a reasonable and proper way on
the great industrial proiblems which are
perplexing mankind to-day.
Trnduction: Sir .TOSEPH COOK (Australie):
.J'ai !'intention de voter en faveur de la resolution
qui vous est soumise parce que i'estime oue eelle-ci
v,i aussi loin qu'il est possible en l'etat actuel.
.J'ai tou.iours redoute le moment 01'1 les sanctions
prevues par le Traite seraient appliouees. car cela
mettrait en dnnrrer !'existence meme de notre
Orgnnisation .. Pai nris part aux travaux de Ja
Conference de la Pnix et i'ai eollabore a la redaction
ile la Partie XIII. J'ai nris part a ses travaux
rwee la plus /iTande svmnathie et le plus irrand
interet, P<irce que i'estimais extremement desirable
de creer !'Organisation actuelle, mais je me demande
s'il n'y a pas eu une crreur en anoelant cet.te
r,onference nne Conference du Travail. Rn rPalitP.
ii s'agit d'un organisme intervenant dans la vie
industrielle, ii s'agit d'un tribunal d'11.rbit.rage
international. C'est un oriranisme ot'i !'opinion
Pnblique est saisie des faits. La nronosition oui
nous est. soumise actuellement consist.e simolement
a. rP1mir des faits et a les soumettre a !'opinion
n11blique. C'est peut-Hre lit une sanction que !'on
pent envisager comme la plus efficace, comme
PPlle qui pourra donner les meille11rs res11ltats.
Toutes Jes autres prooositions et sanctions aboutiraient
it la proposition rle creer un suner-Rtat.
Dans l'etat actuel des faits. c'est impossible. On a
reeonnn par exnerienee qu'il n'est pas possible
rl'obliirer nn Etat a faire ce qu'il ne veut pas faire.
M,iis si fa Societ<' des Nat.ion veut essmver <le l'v
0blirrer. l'edueRtion de l'oninion nublioue est la
meilleure solution. Par !'intervention <le l'ooinion
nublio11e, on pourrn. obtenir les meilleurs resultats
et arriver a une veritable sanction.
M. ZAALBERG (Pays-Bas) - Je me sens
un peu le 1co1'Iegue de notre Directeur, car
chaque annee j'ai a faire un ,rapport que
.i'extrais des onze rapports ·de mes inspecteurs
divisionnafres. V ous 'Comprenez que
ces rapports sont rediges avec soin et
i'eprouve tou,iours une grande diffi'C'lllte a
trouver un empJoye qui puisse ,combiner ces
onze rapports, ,pour en ,faire un seul, court
et clair. Je ne vois pas. dans la proposition
formulee par M. Wolfe, !'intention d'inspecter
ou de controler, mais seulement
de nous mettre en etat d'etudier le
plus facilement possible tous Jes renseignements
que Jes Membres de l'Organisation
ont communiques au Bureau
international du Travail. Mon pays n'a
pas encore ratifie un ,grand nombre de
conventions et c'est sans doute pourquoi .ie
crois pouvoir parler un peu nbrement. Je
n'ai pas controle, mais .ie puis vous as·surer
qu'en ce qui me concerne, j'aurais moins
rl'objections ,contre beaucoup de ratifications
par mon pays si, par ce rapport qui
sera redige par Jes experts, on avait plus de
renseignements, iplus de certitude sur la
maniere dont sont a,ppliquees les conventions
dans Jes pays qui les ont ratifiees.
Interpretation: Mr. ZAALBERG (Netherlands):
In a way I am a colleague of the Director because
every year I have to draw up a report on he
basis of eleven reports submitted by my divisional
inspectors. l always feel it extremely dicult
to co-ordinate these reports and make a smgle
brief, clear report. This seems to ": tle essential
factor in the problem. In Mr. Wolfe s proposal
I do not see any system of control ; I find ?nly a
means of studying the information commumcated
by the States.
My country has not ratified many Convention s
and therefore I can speak openly. Personally
I would not at any time have raised l:ny objcton
to further ratification if I knew that m subnnttmg
my reports I had more instruction as to the form
of them, and knew they would be examined by
such a Committee.
Mr. COUSINS (South Africa) - It seems
to me that there is such a mass of confusion
on this subject that a 1plain statement of a
very simple kind may he1p. We have had
what in English we call "red herrings
drawn across the track"-sovereignty,
infringements of sovereignty, sanctions, and
what not. All sorts of difficulties and all
sorts of ulterior motives seem to be behind
it, so that what shou1d be a simple and
reasonable proposition is so obscured that
it is regarded on all sides with apparent
suspicion. It seems to me a simple
proposition that the International Labour
Office, in its wisdom and in its ex:perience,
finds it necessary to suggest that it should
have expert assistance in shedding light on
obscure corners of the work.
Now, no man with an honest conscience
fears the light. Never. If I were to try to
place my.self in the ,position of some of the
objectors, I shornld try to find, and have
to find, reasons for my objections, and,
quite honestly and frankly, let me say here
that the only reason that would suggest
itself to me is that I had something to hide.
I do not suggest for my own country th:at
there is any measure of perfection-far
from it-but the people in my country
would never permit the hiding up of things
that ought to he shown up ; and I am
perfectly sure that ,the South .Mrican
Government would accord to the International
Labour Office in this matter its
full and hearty support in the way of
shedding any ,light that it may require on
South African conditions. That is all the
Resolution asks for. It is asking us to
give information which we can refuse to
give ; there is no compulsion upon anybody
to give that information ; the Office is
253
given, m the name of this Conference,
simply the right to ask for it, and I do
not think that any country here has any
right to refuse the International Labour
Office the whole measure of co-operation in
its power. It is for us to say : .. If you want
this information it is for us to give it to
you in full measure without any resistance,
without any idea of hiding it ; to give you
all the information that we have, in order
to allow you to shed all the light upon our
affairs that you find necessary for your
purposes."
One word more. We have heard the
argument that this Conference must appeal
to reason, persuasion, and public opinion.
Nothing truer has been said in this Conference.
But it seems to me that if ,public
opinion is to play its part it must have he
real facts before it, not a camouflage, not a
preten.ce, not an unreality, but the actual
facts of the case. That is what I aippeal
for. l do not claim that my voice has any
influence here, but as one speaking in the
English language to a good many who
understand English, I do say this, that it is
part of our tradition to face the facts, to
know the facts, and let other people know
the facts, and we should do that in a fuller
measure simply because it is required by
this Office for its high and great purpose.
Traduction: 1\:1.. COUSINS (Afrique du Sud) :
II me semble qu'une telle confusion a ctc jetce
sur la question qu'une declaration simple et franche
sera tres utile pour remettre les choses au point.
On nous a parle d'atteinte possible a la souverainete
des Etats, d'infractions possibles au Traite
de Paix au sujet d'une proposition qui parait
trcs simple et on est arrive ainsi a creer des apprehensions
de la part de beaucoup de personnes qui
sont maintenant pleines de suspicion a l'egard de
cette proposition.
Cette proposition me parait tres claire. Le Bureau
international du Travail estime que l'assistance
d'experts lui est necessaire pour s'acquitter de
certaines de ses taches. Or, si nous avons une bonne
conscience, - et c'est le cas pour nous tous -
nous n'avons rien a craindre. Je ne vois pas quelles
peuvent etre les raisons des objections formulees.
Personnellement, si je m'opposais a la resolution,
je ne pourrais avoir qu'une seule raison : c'est
quelque chose a cacher. Or, dans mon pays, on
n'admettrait jamais la possibilite de cacher ce
qui doit etre mis en pleine lumiere. Je suis certain
que mon Gouvernement sera toujours pret a faire
la lumiere quand elle doit l'etre. Lorsqu'on nous
demande des renseignements, nous ne pouvons
et nous ne devons pas les refuser. Je crois qu'aucun
pays n'a le droit de refuser au Bureau international
du Travail la collaboration que celui-ci lui demande,
-et il doit la Jui accorder sans restriction. Personne
n'a le droit de cacher ce qu'il est utile de faire
connaitre. Nous avons entendu dire ici que la
Conference doit faire appel a l'opinion publique.
C'est une declaration absolument juste ; mais,
pour cela, il faut que l'opinion publique soit saisie
des faits reels. II faut done la mettre en face des
faits. Ce sera le meilleur moyen pour nous de permettre
a notre Organisation de s'acquitter de ses
taches.
Le PRESIDENT Si personne ne
demande la 1parole, il me semble que nous
pourrons voter sur -les d1fiferents paragraphes.
11 y aura d'aihleurs occasion de
discuter encore chacun d'eux; puis, nous
voterons sur les amendements ; ensuite,
nous voterons sur !'ensemble de la resolution.
La resolution commence 1par une introduction:
,, La huitieme session de la Conference
internationale du Travail,
« considerant que les rapports presentes
par les Etats Membres de l'Organisation en
vertu de l'article 408 du Traite de Versailles
sont de la plus haute importance,
« et qu'un examen attentif des renseignements
qu'ils contiennent permet de connaitre
la valeur pratique des conventions et
d'aider en general aux ratifications ... »
Je suppose que personne n'a d'objection a
faire a ce paragraphe. Nous arrivons
ensuite au cwur meme de la resolution
« recommande d'instituer chaque annee
une commission de la Conference chargee
d'examiner les resumes des rapports presentes
a la Conference en vertu de !'article
408 ... »
11 y a, a ce sujet, un amendement de
M. de Altea, qui tend a la suppression meme
de ce paragraphe. Si M. de Altea desire le
developper, nous voterons ensuite au sujet
de cet amendement.
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: If nobody
else desires to speak I suggest that the Conference
should vote on the vanous paragraphs. It will
be possible to move amendments to each paragraph,
and to speak to those amendments, and at
the end of the discussion there will be a vote on
the whole of the Resolution.
The Preamble to the Resolution is as follows :
" The Eighth Session of the International Labour
Conference,
Considering that the reports rendered by
the States Members of the Organisation under
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles are of the
utmost importance,
And that careful examination of the information
contained therein is calculated to throw light
upon the practical value of the Conventions
themselves and to further their general ratification
.... "
I presume that there are no observations to
be made on that.
The next paragraph is as follows :
" Recommends that a Committee of the Conference
should be set up each year to examine
the summaries of the reports submitted to the
Conference in accordance with Article 408 .... "
Count de Altea, the Government Delegate of
Spain, has an amendment to move to that.
M. DE ALTEA (Espagne) parle en
espagnol.
Count DE ALTEA (Spain) speaks in
Spanish.
254
Traduction: M. DE ALTEA ..(Espagne): Le
projet de resolution qu'a presente la Commission
nommee pour etudier les moyens d'utiliser les
rapports presentes en execution de !'article 408
du ·fraite de Versailles, a sans doute un but digne
d'eloge, mais, a mon avis, la methode suivie n'a
pas l'etlicacite necessaire pour abo1 t:r a un resultat
satisfaisant.
Selon le regime etabli par la Partie XIII du
Traite, la ratincation de tout projet de convention
implique l'obhgation, pour l'tai; qui ratitie, de
prendre toutes 1es mesures necessaires pour assurer
!'application de la dite convention. 11 est certain
que dans cllaque pays, l'apphcat10n effective de
la loi nationa1e adoptee, rerormee ou contirmee
en vue de la ratification doit faire l'obJet aes preoccupations
justitiees de tous les elements qm torment
l'Urganisation internationale du Travali.
Dans !'application des conventions ratifiees,
il est possiole que les btats ne les appllquent pas
effectivement ou qu'ils n'assurent pas a-une maniere
satisfaisante 1'apphcat10n ae toutes les dispositions.
Ces deux cas sont prevus dans les ari;icles
409 et 410 du Traite ; et les anicles suivants
jusqu'a !'article 4:.lll cont1ennent toutes les dispositions
relatives aux organes competents pour
conna1tre des plaintes, sou des synd1cats ouvriers
ou patronaux, ,;mt ctes b:tats 1\1.embres de !'Organisation
contre quelqu'aui;re Membre qui n'a pas
assure l'executiou ae la convention.
11 est evident que la suggestion du Gouvernement
britannique, base du pruJet de resolution mis en
discussion, ne comporte aucune intent10n de modifier,
ni dans le texte, ni dans la pratique, la procedure
etablie par le 'l'raite, parce que ceci aurait
implique une moditication essentietle du Traite
qm ne peut etre faite que conformement aux
aispositions du Traite (article 4:.l:.l). U'autre part,
dans les deliberations au sem de la Commiss10n,
M. le Secretaire general adjoint a dit clairernent
que les commissions de la Conference et les experts
techniques dont l'etablissement est propose, ne
sauraient avoir d'attribution judiciall'e, m cte
pouvoir d'interpretation.
Par consequent, la question qui nous occupe
rentre dans le domaine des preoccupat10ns qui,
en vue de l'etticacite des convent10ns iuternauonales
du 'i'ravail, doivent tenare a l'ent1ere urutormite
d'appltcat10n aes convent10ns dans les divers
pays et a l'eclalfcissement de tout malentendu
empecllant rappllcauon exacte, dans la loi nationale,
des terrnes d'une convent10n.
11 s'agit done de recllercller la ·conformite entre
les projets de convention ratities et les lois nat10-
nales qui les mettent en vigueur. Le projet ae resolution
presente par la Commission s'mspire certainement
de ces idees, comme d'ailleurs l'ont
exprime divers orateurs au sein de la Commission.
A mon a vis, la premiere des propositions, relative
a l'etablissement, chaque annee, par la Conference,
d'une Commission chargee d'examiner le resume
des rapports envoyes par les Gouvernements en
vertu de !'article 408, sera inetlicace, etant donne
que la courte duree de la Conference ne permet
pas a une Commission d'etudier consciencieusement
et en detail chacun des differents cas.
D'autre part, par suite du changement chaque
annee des membres des Commissions, il ·n'y
aurait pas de continuite au sein de la Commission.
Au contraire, le Conseil d'administration du
Bureau international du Travail qui est un organe
permanent, qui a des relations constantes avec le
Directeur, et avec les services techoiques du
Bureau, qui est compose des trois elements de
!'Organisation internationale du Travail et qui,
en vertu de l'article 396 du Traite, en a le droit,
est l' organisme adequat pour remplir une tache
qui ne pourrait surement pas etre remplie dans les
memes conditions par une commission de la Conference,
dont la constitution est proposee dans le
quatrieme paragraphe du projet de resolution.
Pour cette raison, je me permets de proposer a
la Conference d'adopter mon amendement.
Interpretation: Count DE ALTEA (Spain) :
Undoubtedly the objects which the Committee
set up to examine reports sent in under A1ticle
40ti had Detore 1t m ctrawmg up its ltesolution are
wortlly of all praise ; but l tear tllat the solut10n
reached will not give sat1stactory results. l-'art
Xlll of tlle 'l'reaty imposes an obligation on all
::States. which ratir:y Conventions to apply their
provis10ns by adaptmg or amending or conI!rming
national laws. lt is possible tllat m certam cases
this application will not ue entirely satistactory.
::Such cases are covered by Articles 409 and 410
ot the Treaty ot Peace, and tllose Articles, with
tllose that tollow up to 4:::0, lay down the whole
procedure tor action on complaints or non-apphcatwn.
.Evidently, the suggestion of the Hnush
Government does not involve changmg either in
law or practice the provisions or the 'l'reaty,
winch can only be done m accordance with Article
4::::.l. l<'mther, in the Committee nself, the Deputy
::Secretary-General said quite clearly that the Committee
of the Conterenee and the Committee of
technical experts would have neither judicial nor
interpretative powers. Thus, all we are trying
to cio is to obtain the unitorm application 01 the
Conventions in tile various countries, and enlightenment
on such application and on the ditliculues of
application. The draft .H.esolution before us seems
to oe based on this obJect. Nevertheless, I consider
that to set up each year a Committee of the Conlerence
. to consider these reports will be of no
value. In the iirst place, the Conference only meets
tor a short time anu it will therefore be impossible
for a Committee of the Conference to devote
adequate time to such reports. ln the second
place, the Committees or the Conference lack
continuity. On the other hand, we have in the
Governing Body or the lnternational Labour
OUice a permanent body, a body which is in permanent
relat10n with the Director and a body
which is composed of the three Groups. 1 think it
1s the Governing Body which is more fitted to
carry on this worK, ana for these reasons 1 venture
to ask the Conference to support my amendment,
namely, to delete this paragraph of the draft
.H.esolut10n.
Le PRESIDENT - Messieurs, je crois
que nous pouvons proceder au vote.
Je vous fais remarquer que la portee de
l'amendement de M. de Altea est de supprimer
le piaragraphe essentiel de la resolution
qui est ainsi corn;u : « ... recommande
d'instituer chaque annee une commission
de ,la Conference chargee d'examiner
les resumes des rapports presentes a la
Conference en vertu de fartiole 408 ».
Ceux qui sont en faveur de l'adoption de
l'amendement et rpar consequent de fa suppression
de ce paragraphe sont pri-es de
lever la main.
Interpretation : The PRESIDENT : The amendment
of Count de Altea is to strike out the paragraph
reading "Recommends that a Committee
of the Conference should be set up each year to
examine the summaries of reports submitted to
the Conference in accordance with Article 408 . "
We will now vote on that amendment.
(ll est procede au vote a mains levees.
L'amendement est repousse par 58 voix
contre 45.)
( A vote is taken by show of hands. The
amendment is rejected by 58 votes to f5.)
255
Le PRESIDENT - L'amenden1ent etant
repousse, le paragrajphe en question esl
adopte.
Interpretation: The PH,i;;SIUENT : Tlw amend-
1nenL 1,"') li..)SL, a.till L1lt 1-'d1·agrav11 JS LliCi.'CH)fe
anupteLl.
:M. DE MICHELlS (ltalie) - Je ne ,doule
pas que si l'on ,procede a un vote sur le
paragraphe en question, le resultat en soil
le meme. Mais iJ me semble que, pour la
bonne regle, ce ;paragraphe doit etre auss;
mi:s aux voix. l'tous avons vote seuJ.ement
sur l'amendement de M. de Altea, sans
entrer dans ,le fond de la question, de la
proposition qui nous etait faite. Je vous
demande done, Monsieur le President, s'il
ne serait pas 1plus correct de mettre aux
voix le parag,ra,phe lui-meme.
Interpretation: Mr. V.E 1VIICH1,;LIS (Italy) :
l do nut aouoc tnac a vote taKeu on tue first
paragraph ur t11e tleciolution woulcl nave uie same
resu1c .• -./evertneless, tne vote w1ucll uas ueen taKen
was on tne a111en,Hnent on1y ana i;nereture, ror
perfect reguia,·ity or procedure, l tllmK n woultl
oe desirao1e for tne Yreslltent L<) put to tile vote
tne pMagraph itself.
Le PRESIDENT -- Je ne veux pas entrer
dans des explications, mais il me semble
que nous pouvons adopter la ,procedure proposee
par M. de Michelis consistant a voter
maintenant sur Je paragraphe ,li-meme.
Je voudrais demander aux delegues de vouloir
bien occU1Per leurs places re5'pectives
afin de facil,iter le decompte des voix.
Interpretation: The PRESIDEJ'I.T: I agree
that the Conference might now vote on the paragraph
itself.
(JI est procede au vote a mains levees.
Le paragraphe est adopte par 63 voix
contre 38.)
( A vote is taken by show of hands. The
paragraph is adopted by 63 votes to 38.)
Le PRESIDENT - Nous aililons maintenant
passer au dernier paragra:phe, lequel
comporte deux amendements de M. Arthur
Fontaine. Je lirai encore le paragraiphe et
y ajouterai les amendements.
« Et charge le Conseil d'administration
du Bureau international du Travail de
nommer, ,a titre d'essai, pour une periode de
un, deux ou trois ans, une commission
technique de six a huit membres ayant pour
mission d'utiliser ces renseignements de la
fai;on la meilleure et la tp'lus complete et
d'obtenir tehles donnees » - id le premier
amendement de M. Arthur Fontaine veut
ajouter : « prevues dans les formulaires
appirouves par le ,Conseil d'administration »;
puis nous continuons « et qui pourraient
paraitre necessaires po ur completer les
informations deja fournies ; cette Commission
devra » - id se place le second amendement
de M. Arthur Fontaine - « presenter
au Conseil d'administration un ra,pport
que le Directeur, apres a vis de ce Conseil »;
puis nous continuous « annexera a son
resume des rapports annuels soumis u la
Conference en vertu de !'article 408 ».
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT : The last
paragraph which is to be voted on begins :
" And requests the Governing Body of the
International Labour Office to appoint, as an
experiment and for a period of one, two or there
years,a technical Committee of experts, consisting of
six or eight members, for the purpose of making
the best and fullest use of this information and
of securing such additional data as may be provided
for in the forms approved by the Governing
Body and found desirabltl to supplement that
already available, and of reporting thereon to the
Governing Body, which Report the Director, after
con,ultatfon with the Governing Body, will annex
to his summary of the annual reports presented
to the Conference under Article 408."
The text of the amendments will be found
on the last page of the Provisional Record, No. 8.
Mr. WOLFE (British Empire), Chairman
and Reporter of the Committee on the
e:x:wnination of annual reports under
Article 408 - On behalf of my Commit tee,
I desire to accept the two amendments
proposed by Mr. Arthur Fontaine, and
I would ask the President to incorporate
them in the text in putting it to t he vote.
I accept them because they seem to
represent completely the intentions of the
Committee.
In regard to the addition of the word
"one" before "two or three years," that
word was inserted at the suggestion of the
Finance Committee, so as to provide for the
possibiliity of the Governing Body pledging
its finances in advance. I therefore ask
the Conference also to insert that word.
Tradnction: M. WOLFE (Empire britannique),
President et Rapporteur de la Commission de l' article
408 : Au nom de la Commission, je declare
accepter Jes deux amendements de M. Arthur Fontaine,
et je demanderai au President, Iorsque
ee texte sera mis aux voix, d'y incorporer Jes
amendements en question. En ce qui concerne
les mots nouveaux " une periode de un, deux ou
trois ans », ils ont ete ajoutes dans le texte a la
demande du Comite du budget qui n'a pas voulu
engager les finances de !'Organisation pour une
periode de longue duree.
256
Sir JOSEPH COOK (Aust:ra:J.ia) - What
is meant by experts? I should have thought
there were enough experts already in the
department to do that work.
I am very ,glad that the duration of
this proposal may be fixed at one year.
I think it should be fixed for one year,
su that we may see ho w this proposed
new organisation is going to sha,pe. If you
let this thing gHde on, you will surely have
another elaborate organisation set up in the
League, and it does seem to me that that
should be avoided, if possible, on the score
of expense alone. Besides, I should
imagine that by now there are many
experts on these questions in the Organisation
who could do this work quite well.
I sincerely hope it may not be necessary to
bring in more experts from outside this
Organisation, but rather to utilise those we
have under the wise and sane control of the
Governing Body. I therefore hope that it
will be possible to vote this proposal for
one year, just to see how it shapes during
that period.
Tradnction: Sir .JOSEPH COOK (Australie) :
Qu'entend-on par expert '?
. sis hureux de const_ater que l'on donne la poss1b1hte
de hrruter le fonctwnnemcnt du mec-anisme
que nons venons d'instituer a une periode d'une annee
.. Je crois qu'une telle proposition est sage, car ii
serait _peut-etre dangereux de laisser se developper,
au sem de notre organisme, un nouveau mecanisme
qui ne serait en fait qu'un organe nouveau
susceptible d'occasionner des frais importants.
Je crois qu'au stade actuel, nous posscdons au
sein de !'Organisation un grand nombre d'experts
qualifies pour cette tache. II me parait superflu de
faire venir ces experts de l'exterieur, alors que nous
pouvons utiliser ceux que nous avons au sein
de !'Organisation, sous le controle du Conseil.
Je propose de limiter !'experience a une periode
d'une annee, afin de nous rendre compte comment
fonctionne pratiquement ce nouvel organisme.
Le PRESIDENT - .Te crois que nous
devons proc:eder au vote.
Je mets d'abord aux voix l'amendement
de la Commission du budget qui consiste a
ajouter « un » a la quatrieme Iigne du projet,
ce qui ferait lire « a titre d'essai pour
une periode de un, deux ou trois ans ».
Interpretation : The PRESIDENT : I shall put
to the vote the proposal of the Committee to add,
in the third line, the word " one, " so as to read :
" for a period of one, two or three years. "
(L'amendement est adopte.)
(The amendment is adopted.)
Le PRESIDENT - Je mets aux voix le
premier amendement de M. Arthur Fontaine
qui consiste a lire, a la vingt-troisieme ligne
du projet de resolution, « prevues dans les
formulaires approuves par le Conseil d'administration.
»
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: The first
amendment of Mr. Arthur Fontaine is to read at
line 24 of the Draft Resolution : " ... such additional
data as may be provided for in the forms
approved by the Governing Body anrl found
desirable ... "
(L'amendement est adopte.)
(The amendment is adopted.)
Le PRESIDENT - Je mets aux voix le
deuxieme amendement qui c onsiste a ajouter,
apres Jes mots « cette Commission
devra ,, , Jes mots « presenter au Conseil
d'administration un rapport que le Directeur.
apres avis de ce Conseil... ».
257
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: The second
amendment of Mr. Arthur Fontaine is to read at
line 26 : " .. . and of reporting thereon to the
Governing Body, which Report the Director, after
consultation with the Governing Body, will annex
to his summary ... "
( L'amPndPmPnt Psi adopte.)
(The amendment is wloplPd.)
Le PRESIDENT - Nous pouvons maintenant
proceder au vote sur !'ensemble du
projet de resolution.
Vingt delegues ayant demande le vote par
appel nominal, nous allons y proceder.
Interpretation: The PRESIDENT: We will now
take a vote on the whole of the draft Resolution.
I have received a formal request for a record
vote. The vote, therefore, will be a reeord one.
Afrique du Sud:
M. Cousins.
M. Freestone.
M. Pocock.
M. Currau.
Allemagne:
M. Feig.
M. Hering.
M. Vogel.
M. Miiller.
Republique Argentine :
M. Viola.
Australie:
Sir ,Joseph Cook.
M. Mceil.
M. Beasley.
Autriche:
M. Hawelka.
M. Weigl.
Beigique:
M. Mahaim.
M. Julin.
M. Mertens.
Bresil:
M. Dias.
Republique Argentine:
M. Pinto.
M. Dell'Oro Maini.
Autriche:
M. Schmidt.
Belgique:
M. Carlier.
Bresil:
M. de Montarroyos.
M. de Mello.
Chili:
M. Valdes-1\fon<leville.
Cuba:
M. de Aguero y Bethancourt.
M. Vidal Caro.
258
Vote par appel nominal sur l'enscmblc de la dsolutiun
propo.wfe par la C'ommis.ion de I' articlf' 408.
Pour (66).
Hrnpire britannique :
1\1. Wolfe.
:\-1. Baker.
Sir James Lithgow.
M .. Pugh.
JJulf.!aril':
)'vf. Nieoloff.
Canada:
M. Riddell.
M. Pacaud.
M. Robb.
M. Moore.
Cuba:
M. Domenech.
Danernark:
M. Bramsnaes.
M. Lassen.
M. Madsen.
E.spagne:
1\1. Caballero.
Rstlwni'.e:
M. Gustavson.
Fittlande:
M. Halme.
France:
M. Arthur Fontaine.
M. ,Jules Gautier.
M. ,Jo11ha11x.
Orece:
1\1. Zakkas.
M. Agalopoulos.
M. Kalomiris.
Hongrie:
M .•T aszai.
lnde:
Sir Atul Chatterjee.
Sir Louis Kershaw.
Sir Arthur Froorn.
M. Lajpat Rai.
Etat libre d' Irlande:
M. McGilligan.
M. Deegan.
M. Raycroft.
M. Duffy.
Italle:
M. Rossoni.
,lapon:
M. Narasaki.
Contre ( 36).
Danemark:
l\i. Oersted.
Espagne:
1. le Comte de Altca.
M. Gascon y Ma.rin.
M. de Biedma.
Esthonie:
M. l\fasik.
Finlande:
M. Palmgren.
France:
M. Lambert-Ribot.
Hongrie:
M. de MarffyMantuano.
M. agy de Szentgericze.
M. de Tolnay.
ltalie:
M. de l\iichelis.
M. Ingianni.
M. Olivetti.
.Japon
1\1. Matsukata.
Lettonie:
M. Kurau.
Naroege:
M. Odfjell.
Palogne:
M. Sokal.
M. Gawronski.
M. Trepka.
Roumanie:
M. Comnene.
Lettonie:
M. Rubuls.
M. Duzmans.
M. Visna.
Poy.-Bas:
M. Zaalbetg.
M. Folmer.
M. de Beaufort.
M. Brautigam.
Perou:
M. Paulet. 1
Pologne:
M. Teller.
Royaume des Ser bes, Croates
ft Slovenes :
M. 'l'opalovitch.
Siam:
M. Sanpakitcb Preecha.
S'uisse:
M. Pfister.
M. Giorgio.
M. Schiirch.
Tchecoslovaquie :
M. Stefka.
Royaume des Serbes, Croates
et Slovenes :
M. Petrovitch.
M. Yeremitch.
M. Tchonrt.chiue.
Suisse:
M. Tzaut.
Tchecoslovaquie:
M. Hodac.
Uruguay:
M. I◄'ernandc:,; y
Medina.
Venezuela:
M. Zumeta.
, .. 1 Apris 1'11n 11ce du resultat du vote, M. P aulet, delegue gouverncmental du Perou a informe le
(,reffler de la Confrrence que son vote aurait du tre compte parrni Jes suffrages negatifs. '
259
Record vof,f' on the wholf' oj the Resolution
proposer/ 1,:l/ the Commiitl't' 011 . lrtide 408.
8011th Africa :
Mr. Cousins.
.J\. Ir. Freestorw.
:\-lr. Pocock.
.'.\ fr. Curran.
Oerm11ny :
)\fr. Feig.
Mr. Hering.
Mr. \'ogel.
Mr. MiHIPr.
Argentina :
Mr. Viola.
A u.ytralia :
Sir ,Joseph Cook.
Mr. l\IcNPil.
."\,lr . .Beasley.
Austria :
l\Ir. Hawelka.
Mr. Weigl.
Belgium
Mr. Mahaim.
M.r. Julin.
Mr. Mertens.
Brazil :
Mr. Dias.
Argentina :
Mr. Pinto.
Mr. Dell'Oro Maini.
Austria :
Mr. Schmidt.
Belgium
Mr. earlier.
Brazil:
Mr. de Montarrnyo<;.
Mr. de Mello.
Chile :
For (6fi).
HriNsh Rmpfrc
Mr. Wolfe.
Mr. Baker .
Sir ,James Lithgow.
Mr, Png;h .
H111{!.aria :
Mr. Ni<"oloff.
('rmada :
Mr. Riddell.
Mr. Pacand.
Mr. Hobb.
Mr. MonrP
( 'uho :
]\fr. DomenPdl.
/Jenrnark :
Mr. Brarns11aes.
Mr. Lassen.
Mr. :\-ladsen.
,",'pain :
Mr. Caballrro.
Rsthonia :
Mr. Gustavson.
Finland :
Mr. Hahne.
Prance :
Mr. Arthur Fm1tainP.
1'\ilr. Jules (;:rntiPr.
Mr . .Jouhaux.
( irc,·rc :
Mr. Zakkas.
Mr. Agalopoulo.
\lr Kalomiris.
Hun.11,ary :
Mr .. Jaszai.
India :
Sir Atul Chatterjee.
Sir Louis Kershaw.
Sir :-\rt.lrnr Froorn.
Mr. Lajpat Rai.
Irish Free State :
Mr. McGilligan.
Mr. Deegan.
l\fr. Hoycroft.
Mr. Duffy.
Tlaly :
Mr. Ho:,soni.
Japan :
Mr. :-.Jarasaki.
Against (3G).
Denmark
Mr. Oetsted.
Spain :
Count de Altea.
l\fr. Gascon y Marin.
Mr. d.: Biedrua.
Esthon-ia :
Mr. Masik.
Finland
Mr. Palmgren.
France :
Mr. Lambert-Ribot.
Italy :
Mr. de Michelis,
Mr. Ingianni.
Mr. Olivetti.
.Japan :
Mr. !Vfatsukata.
Latvia:
Mr. Kurau.
Xorway :
Mr. Odfjell.
Poland :
l\Ir. Val<les-Men<lnille. Hungary: Mr Sokal.
Mr Gawronski.
Mr. Trepka.
Cuba:
Mr. de Aguero y Ilc•
thancourt.
l\fr. Vidal Caro.
Mr. de l\farffyMantuano.
Mr. Nagy de Szentgeric:1.
e.
Mr. de Tolnay.
Roumani" :
Mr. Comni>nf'.
Latvia :
Mr. Rubuls.
1\Ir. Duzmans
:\fr. Yisna.
.V rtlu::rlrwds :
Mr. ZaaIL,crg.
1\Ir. Folmer.
'\fr. de Beau furl.
M1·. Hrat1ti!!1u11.
Peru:
Mr. Paulct.'
Poland :
l\lr. Teller.
Kingdom of tlw Snbs.
Cro11ts and ,','for,enes :
Mr. Tupaloviteh.
Siam :
:\-fr. Sanpakitch
Preecha.
Switzerland :
l\fr. Pfister.
:\fr. Giorgio.
Mr. Hchiirch.
Czechoslovakia
'\fr. Stefka.
Kingdom of the ,..'-,crbs,
Cruots and Slovenes :
l\fr. Petrovitch.
:\.Ir. Yeremitch.
Mr. Tdionrtchine.
Switzerland :
.!Ur. 1'zaut.
Czecho8lo1111ki,1:
Mr. Hodaf'.
Ur11f,11ay :
Mr. Fernandez y
'\Tedirrn.
Vt'nezuela:
:\fr. Zunwta.
1 After the declaration of thf' result of the vote, Mr. Prmlet, PPruvian GovemnH·nt Ut>lec>;at ,•,
informed the Cle1·k of the <'onk1·cncc I.hat his vot{' should have bePn 1•01111ted with thos1· 1·ast au-arnst
the Reolution.
Le PRES IDENT - La resol ution est
acceptee par 66 v oix cont re 36.
Interpretation : The PRESIDENT : 'l' hP Resolution
is adopted by 66 votes to 36.
Le PRESiIDENT - Nou s ah ordon s main
ten ant 1l e point suivant de l'ord J'(' du jon r,
c'est-r.'1.-diire l'examen des resolu tions de J:i
Commission de proposition .
• Je prie ·M. ,le P.re sident de cette commission
de hi en vouloir ,p rcnd re place au
Bureau.
La p1,emiere resOllution que nous avons a
discuter se trouve au numero 5 du Compte
rendu provisoire. C' est le ,projet de resolution
concernant J es conditions de vie et de
travail de la main-d'muvre indigenc de
co uleur en Afriq ue et en Ameriqu e. Le
projet est presente par M. Lafa Lajpat Rai,
deleg ue ouvrier de I'Indc. M est ainsi COnGU
« La C onfere nce internationa1e d u Travai;
J in vite le Bureau international du Travail
a ,faire une enquete sur Jes conditions
de vie et de travail de la main-d'reuvre
co nnue en Afrrque et en Amfrique sous Je
nom de « main-d'reuvre indigenc ,, et
« main-d'amvre de co uleur », ft puhlier les
res uHats de cette enquete et a inscrire la
qu estion a l'ordre du jour d'une iprochaine
session de la Conference. >
Q u elqu' un demande-t-il l a parofo sur ce
projet de resol ution ?
Interpretation : The PRE SIDENT : The n ext
business before the Conference will bf' tlw consideration
of the Resolutions submitted by the Selection
Committee . The first of those Resolutim1s is
contained in No . 5 of the Provisi'.onal Record on
page I ; it stands in the name of J\lr. Lajpat Hai
Indian Workers' Delegate, and it reads as follows ;
" This Conference requests the International
L:t?our Otfie to make an enquiry into the conditions
of hfe and work of what it known as
' Native La bour ' and ' Coloured Labour ' in the
continents of Africa and America, to publish th(•
results of that enquiry and place that question on
the Agenda of an early future Conference. "
Does anyone desire to speak on that Resolution,
because, if not, I shall consider the Hesolution
adopted.
Mr. COUSINS (S outh Africa ) - I should
he very sorry i:f a Resolution of this kind
went through wit!hout comment. I should
very much have 1liked to have heard what
was in the mind of the 1proposer when he
draifted th is Resolution . lf the Conferen ce
pa s ses it, I hope th at the Confer ence will
be ad vised as to wh at this Resolution
actually means and wh at it in tends lo
cover. Th e Resolution men tions two
260
continents, the continents of Africa and
America . l want to know fro m the mover
of the Hesulution exactly what he means hy
it and w11y these two c ontinents are
specified agai nst aH others. I would very
much sooner that the mover of the Resol ution
had spoken befon• I had, beca use :tf
present I am in the dark. As the mover of
lhe Resolution has not spoken , I th ink,
Mr. President, you will have to allow me
to speak, because to South Africa this is a
very important a nd a very vita,] question.
When I ret urn to my Goveru ment with a
Hesol ution of this kind fr om the Conference,
they will demand otf me th at I have
discih arged my duty in maki ng clear to
th is Conference w hat th e position of South
Africa is in a matter o,f this kind. It is
n ec essary, therefor e, that th e Conference
should k now what it is vo t ing upon ; for m y
own parl I do not kno w. I think I can
guess, J.m t I do not know, and I think it
is incumb ent upon the mo ver of this
Resolutio n eventually to Jet us know exactly
what is in his mind. WiH h e kindly take
note of the enquiries th at I am going to
make of him, and when llis chance comes,
will he enl igh ten this Conference as to the
exact scope of the Resol u tion which stands
in his n ame ?
If the enquiry is to touch native and
coloured labour, as it says, why is Afric a
and why is A1nerica---presumaib]y North
and South America-singled out fo r investigation
? Why is Asia exoluded wh en
na tive and coloured Jabo ur is of c ourse used
in Asia as largely, if not mo-re large ly, Hrnn
in any other con tinent in the world ? The
re,ply of the mover willl ,p erhaps he th a t he
refers to native and coloured labou r under
white eontroJ . But why does he limit his
Hesolution to that ? Is it a question of
colo ur that he wishes to touch......,white
management of coloured labo ur-or is it
that greatly more important question of
l abour oif one cJass under the control of
another class ? And if this i s the case,
s u rely there are large areas of employment
in Asia-even in India-wJhich caU fo r as
c J ose an examination as any labour in
Africa, or, to th e best of my knowledge,
any labour in Amedca . A very in telligen t
Indian of my acquaintance in Africa once
expl ained to me th at the grievances al1eged
hy his countrymen in So uth Africa were
r eaUy of a political ch arad er, and that th ey
ha d no act ual substance in them, bec ause,
said he, "if those grieva nces were re al, my
Document No. 72
ILC, 8th Session, 1926, Record of Proceedings,
Appendix V: Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles,
pp. 393–408
SOCIETE DES NATIONS
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE
DU TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
CONFERENCE
HUITIEME SESSION
GENEVE -- GENEVA
1926
EIGHTH SESSION
VOLUME I. ·· PREMIERE, DEUXIEME ET TR0ISIEME PARTIES.
VOLUME I. - FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD PARTS.
BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DU TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
0ENEVE - GENEVA
1926
393
ANNEXE V. APPENDIX V.
Article 408 du Traite de Versailles.
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles.
1) Suggestions presentees par le Conseil
d'administration au sujet de !'institution
par la Conference d'une Commission
speciale pour l'examen des rapports presentes
en execution de !'article 408 du
Traite de Versailles.
A la suite d'une proposition formulec pnr
It' (iouvt•rnement britanniquc, IP Conseil
d'administration a adopte £1 sa trentit·nH'
session (janvicr 1926) la resolution ciaprcs:
,, L(\ ConsPil d'adminislratiou,
" considerant que Jes rapports prcscnt{>s
par les Etats Membrcs de l'Orgm1isation, t•n
,·ertu de !'article 408 du Trait< de VPrs;
1illPs, sont de la plus hank importance,
" et c1u'un examen attentif cks renseignellH'llts
qu'ils contiennent pernwt de connaitrc
Ja valeur pratiqne des conventions l'I
d'aider en general aux ratifications,
« sug,gere <Jue la Couf,erence charge unc
Commission d'etudier ks voies et moyens
t'n vue d'utiliser ces rcnseignements de la
fai;on la meilleure et la plus complete cl
d'ohtenir telles donnces qui pourrai<'nl
paraitn• nect•ssaires pour com!plctcr lcs
informations dej,:'I foumies. »
2) Note sur la resolution du Conseil d'administration
concernant l'examen des
rapports presentes par les Gouvernements
en execution de !'article 408 du Traite
de Versailles, preparee par le Bureau
international du Travail.
Au cours de sa trentieme session. le
Conseil d'administration a adopte la resolution
suivante
(1) Suggestions submitted by the Governing
Body regarding the appointment by
the Conference of a special Committee
to examine the reports rendered under
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles.
011 !lH' motion of the British (iovernment,
the (;ovl'rning Rody adoptrd !he following
resolution at its Thirtieth Session m
.I anuary 1 \J26 :
"The c;oYerning Body,
Considering that the reports rendered hy
Stall's Members of the Organisation unrler
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles ar<!
of the utmost importancP,
And that careful examination of th<
information contained therein is calculaterl
! o throw light upon the practical value of
I hl' Conventions themselves and to further
their gPneral ratification,
S uggesls that the Conference should
appoint a Committee to consider the ways
and means of making the best anrl fullest
use of this information and of securing sucl1
additional data as may he found desirable
tu supiplemenl that already available."
(2) Note on the Resolution of the Governing
Body concerning the examination
of the reports submitted by Governments
in accordance with Article 408
of the Treaty of Versailles, prepared by
the International Labour Office.
Dnring its Thirtieth Session the (;overning
Body adopted the following Resolution:
i .
Le Conseil d'administration ,
eonsiderant que les rapports prcsentcs par ks
litats Membres de l 'Organisation , en vertu de
!'article 408 du Traitc de Versailles , soot de la
plus haute importance,
et qu'un e xamen attentif des renseignements
qu'ils contiennent permet de connaitre la valcur
pratiquc des conventions et d'aider en general
anx ratification s ,
suggere que la Conference charge u n e Commission
d'etudier Jes voies · et moyens e n vue d 'utili ser
ces renseignements de la faon la meilleure et la
plus complete et d'obtenir telles donnces qui pourraient
paraitre necessai res pour completer lcs
informations dej a fournies .
Le Conseil d'administration a estime que
cette resolution devrait etre portee a la
connaissance des Gouvernements et, en
consequence, il l'a incoriporee dans une
l ettre circulaire adressee, a la d ate du
4 mars dernier, aux ·Gouvernements de tons
les Etats Membres de l'Organisation 1.
La Conference n'ignore pas que les rap ports
fournis en vertu de l'article 408 du
Traite de V ersaiUes par Jes Etats sur Jes
mesures prises par eux a.fin d e mettre a
execution les dispositions des conventions
qu'ils ont ratifiees lui ont ete ;presentes chaque
annee dans le Rapport du Directeur.
Les premieres annees, lorsque ces rapports
n'etaient ,pas nombreux, on Jes avait reprod
uits integralernent ; ensuite ils ont ete
resumes, conformement aux stipulations de
l'articile 408 ; dans le Rapport du Directeur
i\ la presente session, on s'est efforce, pour
repondre a une demande presentee par cert
ains membres du Conseil d'administration,
de recapituler les informations contenues
dans tous Jes rapports qui ont ete rec;us
j u squ'a present.
Ce resume, ainsi qu'on aura pu s'en
rendre comipte, se IJ)resente, en depit de
tous les efforts qui ont ete ifaits ,pour le
maintenir dans de strictes ,Iimites, comme
un tres long document comportant des donnees
complexes d'ordre technique et juridique.
Meme ainsi, le Bureau sait tres bien
que le resume, sous la forme oii il se
p resente, ne saurait sutifire a une etude
<'OIDiplete des mesures prises eri vue de l'ap pHcation
des dispositions des conventions
i·a tifiees ; il serait impossible, par exemple,
sans exagerer :l'etendue du document, de
reiproduire les textes legisfatifs dont il est
fail mention constante dans les rap-ports, et
cependant on ne saurait, sans un examen
de ces textes, se faire une idee complete de
la realite que represente une convention
dans un ,pays particulier, ou bien de la
mesure exa-cte dans laquelle les conventions
sont mises en vigueur.
1 Voir Introduction.
894
The Governing Body ,
Considering that th e repo rts rendered hy St.at.cs
Members of the Organisation under Article 408
of the Treaty of Versailles are of' the utmost
im portance ,
And that careful <xamination of the information
contained therein is calculatccl to throw l ight
upon the practical value of the { 'onventi o n s
themselves and to further their general rati fication ,
Suggests that the Conference should appoint a
Committee to consider the ways and means of
making the best and fullest use of this information
and of securing such additional data as may be
found desirable to supplement that already
availabl e .
The Governing Body considered that
this Resolution should be brought to the
notice of Governments, and it was accordingly
comprised in n circular letter of
J. March last, addressed to the Governments
of all States Members of the Organisation 1.
The Conference is aware that the reports
furnished in virtue of Article 408 of the
Treaty of Versailles by the States on the
measures which they have taken to give
effect to the provisions of Conventions
which they have rati fied, have been brought
annually before it in the Director's Report .
In the early years, when these reports were
not numerous, they were reproduced in
full ; later, they were summarised in
accordance with the terms of Article 408,
and in the Director's Report to the
present Session, in response to a demand
put forward by members of the Governing
Body, an attempt has been made to
recapitulate the information contained
in all the reports received up to the
present .
This summary, as will have been noted,
in spite of all efforts which have been
made to keep it within bounds, forms a
vcry long docum ent comprising complicated
technical and j uridical information .
Even so, the Office is well aware that the
summary, as it stands, is not adeciuate for
a complete study of the measures taken
to apply the provisions of ratified Convci1tions
; it is impossible, fqr example,
without multiplying the size of the document,'
to reproduce the legislative texts to
which constant reference is made ; yet
without examination of these texts it is
not practicable to obtain a complete
idea either of what a Convention really
involves in a p articular country or of
the degree to which the Conventions
are enforced.
1 S e e lntroduct-io u .
En fait, la Conference, prise dans son
e11s('Jmihle, n'a pas, jusqu'{'1 present, ipris
connaissance d u resume des rapiports confornws
a ) 'article 408 q u i Jui a cte presen-
1 (1 clrnq ue a1111{>e, hien <1ue de temps :'1
a u tre des dele,gues aient in dividuellement
attire son attention sur certains points
suggeres par ce resume ; la raison prineip
a le de cette Ja.cune app arente d ans l'execu
tion des intentions du Traite reside prohnhilement
dans l'impossibilite d'un examen
ap p rnfondi de ce resume, et a plus forte
rai son des raiptports eux-memes (on sait que
le total d e ces rapports pourra s'elerver i\
href delai a deux cents OU plus par annee )
sans la creation d'un organisme speciaiJement
destine a ces fins.
.Jusqu'a present, le Bureau s'est limite
strictement, dans cet ordre d'idees, aux
termes du Traite ; c'est- a - dire qu 'il a pr1esente
un resume des rapports. Le Directeur
n'a pas estime qu'il fut autorise d'une fac;on
q uelconque a essayer d' appreeier ces ra,p ports
ni a attircr directement !'attention sur
ccrtains cas ou il semhlait qu'il y avait eu
malentendu ou insuffisance, ou non-application
des dispositions d'une convention .
Mais il est evident que, pour une apprecia tion
convenable d e ces r apports, une procedure
plus complete est indispensable, et la
qm'stion se pose eHe est meme posec
d irectcment par la resolution du Conseil
d'a dminist ration - de savoir de quellc
man i<}re les informati9ns contenues dans
Jes rapports pourraient etre utilisees au
mieux OU, au hesoin, compiet-ees.
Depuis quelque temps, "le Bureau a etudie
cette question tres attentivement ; ii partage
pleinement l e sentiment exprime dans
la resolution sur !'importance des rapp orts
et ii a estime ,qu 'au moment ou cette reso lu
l ion doit etre examinee par la Conference.
ii serait desirable et opportun de formuler
un certain nom'bre de suggestions.
En ,premier lieu, !'utilisation de ccs rnp ports
constitue clairement, d'a,pres les
krnnes de l' article 408, unc question qui
rt>l(>Vc de :Ja Conference meme. Le role du
Directeur, tel qu'il a ete fixe, se borne a la
preparation du resume de ces rapports. II
semble pourtant que la Conference peut
instituer tout organisme qu'e,Uc jugera utile
pour faciliter l'examen de ces r a:p,ports et
ii peut se faire qne la Commission qui a ete
dcsignee a la session actuelle .formule des
propositions tcndant ,a l'institution d'un lei
organisme.
3 9 5
In point of fact, the Conference as a
whole has so far not taken cognisance
ot the summary of the reports under
Article J.08 presented to it each year,
though from time to time individual
Delegates have drawn attention to points
arising from it, and probably the chief
reason for this apparent failure to carry
out the intention of the Treaty is the
impossibility of a thorough examination
of this summary, much less of the reports
themselves (which, it may be recalled,
may he expected shortly to total two
hundred or more annually), without the
creation of some special machinery for
the purpose.
So far, the Ofijc has limited itself
strictly in this connection to the terms
of the Treaty ; that is to say, it has
presented a summary of the reports.
The D irector has not considered himself
entitled in any way to attempt to evaluate
them, or to call attention directly to
cases of apparent misunderstanding, or
insufficient or non-observance of the provisions
of a Convention. But for a proper
appreciation of these reports, it is obvious
that more than this is required, and the
question arises - it is posed directly by
the Governing Body's Resolution - as
to the manner in which the information
contained in them can best be utilised
and at need supplemented.
The Office has for some time past considered
this matter very carefully ; it
fully shares the opinion expressed in the
Resolution regarding the importance of
the reports, and it has considered that,
at the moment when this Resolution is
under consideration by the Conference,
it is desirable and convenient to put
forward a number of suggestions.
In the first place, the utilisation of these
reports is clearly, under Article 408, a
matter for the Conference itself. The
function of the Director, as has been
stated, is limited to the preparation of
a summary of them. It would appear,
however, that the Conference may set
up l any machinery it considers suitable
in order that its examination may be
facilitated, and it may well be that the
Committee which has been set up at the
present Session may put forward proposals
for the establishment of such , machinery.
La p1remiere suggestion que I'on pourrait
presenter serait que, cette annee, cett e
Commission meme et les C ommissions analogues
qui pourront etre instituees aux
sessions ulterieures de la Conference examinent
le resume des rapports ou les
rapports eux-memes et pr1esentent a la
Conference toutes observ ation s qu'elles
pourraient desirer formuler. II reste cependant
extremement dou teux q u'une tele
procedure presente pratiquement de gr ands
avantages . Etant donne I'enorme d(){:umentation
a examiner dans le co urt espace de
temp s disponible, il serait impossi!ble a une
telle Commission de rempilir sa tache d'une
maniere satis1faisante ; en outrre, l'accom plissement
de cette tache exigerait tres sou vent
I'intervention d'experts tech niques et
juristes, et si de tels experts peuvent
incontes tahlement etre recrutes parmi les
diverses delegation s a la Con ference, i,l
serait d ' une pol itique criticable de leur
demander de con sacrer i't ce travail un
temps qu i serait, en realite, la totalite du
temp s dont ils dis,posen t , alors que leu r
ro'Ie veritable - ro le pour l'accomplissement
duque,I il s ont ete designes - est
d'etu dier et de perfection ner iles textes en
couirs d'adoption.
D'autre part, on peut observer que la
Conference et ses {:om missions sont essentieHement
des corps deli.berants et pol itiques,
composes d'elemen ts representant
divers interets, nationaux ou professionnels,
et que, en genernl , de tel s corps ne sont ;pa s
Jes mieux adaptes a la tache techn iq ue dont
ii s'agi t.
Daus cet ordre d'idees, on aboutit finalement
a sugg,erer q u' u n e Commission sp eciale
d' experts qui ne seraient pas designes
en qualite, de repnsentants d'Etats ou d'in terets
particuliers, mais en raison de Ieurs
connaissances et experi ence en matiere de
legislation du travaiJ et de conditions du
tra vail, serait peut-etre l'organisme le
mieu x approp rie it -cet effet. On pourrait
demander :'i cet organisme. en ,premier lieu
et comme prem iere mes ure en vue de la
p reparatio n des trava ux de la Conference,
d 'executer une tach e purement techniqu e ,
i, savoir l'examen impartial et objectif des
rapports ; pour cette raison, la Comm ission
devrait etre, de to ute evidence, compo see
de personnes independantes et on peut suggert>r
que la lisft' dt> tellt>s personnes, qu i
avait ete eta blit> en vertu dP !'article 412 en
vue de !'institution even tuelle de Commis-
396
A first sugge stion might be that the
Committee itself this year, and similar
Committees at each succeeding Session
of the Conference, should exami ne the
summary report or the reports the mselves,
and should bri ng forward to the
Conference any observations whi ch they
may wish to make . It is very doubtful,
however, whether such a procedure w ould
be of great advantage in practice. The
vast amount of mat erial to be covered
in the short time available renders the
task impossible of satisfactory completion
; moreover, the wor demands the
attention very frequentl y of technical
and juridical experts, and whil st such
can no doubt be found among the various
delegations to the Confe rence, it seems
a doubtful policy to ask them to devote
what must be in effect practically their
whole time to this work, when their
real fu nction - the fu nction which they
have been chosen to ful fil - is that of
considering and perfecting the texts in
cours e of adoption.
Further, it may be observed that
the Conference and its Committees are
essentially deliberative and political
bodies, composed of the representatives
of various interests, national or occupational,
and that in general such bodies
are not the best suited for the technical
work now under consideration.
This line of thought leads to the suggestion
that what may perhaps meet the case
is a special Committee of experts, chosen
not as representatives of States or particular
interests, but because of their expert
knowledge of l abour legislation an d labour
conditions. Such a body would be called
upon to perform , as a first step in preparation
for the work of the Conference, a
purely technical task, namely , the impartial
and obj ective examination of the
reports. It should clearly therefore be
composed of persons of independent standing,
and it might be suggested that the
list of such persons which has been compiled
under the terms of Article 412 in
view of the possible creation of Commissions
of Enquiry, might be drawn upon
for the formation of an expert Committee .
In a ny c a se, it is certain that persons who
sions d'enquete, pourrait etre utilisee pour
l a constitution d'une Commission d'experts.
En tout etat de cause, ii est certain qu'il ne
manque pas de personnes qui sont en meme
temps experts en la matiere et independantes
, et qu'elles peuvent etre choisies de
maniere a ce que ce corp s d'experts ait it
sa disposition les connaissances necessaires
en ce qui concerne les differents degres du
dev eloppement industriel e t les conditions
diverses de travai'l dont il faut tenir oompte.
Daus ,J e cas ou }'institution d'une telle
Co1nmission d'experts serait decide e, il reste
) examiner quelles seront Jes relations a
etahlir entre el le d'une part, Ja Conference,
le Conseil d'administration et le Directeur
du Bureau international du Tr avail d'autre
part.
L'article 408 est redig e dans Jes termes
suiv ants
Chacun des Membres s'engage a presenter au
Bureau international du Travail un rapport
annuel sur les mesures prises par lui pur metr_e
a execution les conventions auxquelles Il a adhere .
Ces rapports seront rediges sous la forme indique
par le Conseil d' administration et de".ront conemr
les precisions demandees par ce dermer . Le D1_recteur
presentera un resume de ces rapports a la
plus prochaine session de la Conference .
Les termes de cet article etablissent tres
nettement l es fonctions des , trois organes t't
ii parait di fficile de Jui trouver q uelque
ambiguite . La fonetion du Conseil d'adminis
ration eonsiste a donn er des indication s
en c e qui co ncerne la form e et le contenu
du rapport annuel. .Jusqu'ici, la forme et le
contenu du rapport ont ete suggeres aux
Gouvernements au moyen de que stionnai res
qui avaient re<;u !'approbation du Conseil
d'adminiskation avant leur envoi aux Gouvernements
. Ainsi qu'il a et e indique ci-dessus,
la fonction du Directeur oo nsiste a resume
r les rapp orts et i't soumettre ce re sume
:'t la Conference.
Si, po ur Ies ra isons indiquees ci-des sus,
on estime desirnble qu'une Com mission d'experts
etablisse un rapport, ii semble en con sequence
qu'un tel ra p port dev rait etre so umis
pa r le Direct e ur a la Conference en
meme temps qu'il Iui fait parveni-r le res ume
qu'il est tenu d e preparer en vertu du Traite.
II serait difficile en effet de rattacher la
Commission d'experts directement a la Conference
ou au Conseil d'adminiskation ,
eeux-ci etant charges d'autres fonctions nettement
definies en vertu du Traite, et ii ne
semble pas opportun de leur de mander un
travail qui est tres etroitement lie a ct>lui
qui est confie au Directeur.
897
are at the same time expert and independent
are not lacking, and they could be
chosen in such a way that the expert body
would have at its disposal the necessary
knowledge concerning the various degrees
of industrial development and the varying
conditions of labour which must be taken
into account.
Should the creation of such a Committee
of experts be decided upon, it remains to
consider its relations to the Conference,
the Governing Body and the Director of
the Office.
The terms of Article 408 are as
follows :
Each of the Members agrees to make an annual
report to the International Labour Office o!1 . the
measures it has taken to.give effect to the prov1s10ns
of conventions to which it is a party . The se
reports shall be made in such form nd shall
contain such particulars as the Governmg Body
may request . The Director shall lay a summary
of these reports before the next meeting .of the
Conference.
These terms distinguish very clearly
the functions of each of the three bodies,
and it would seem di fficult to see in t hem
any ambiguity. The fu nction of the
Gov erning Body is that of indicating the
form and content of the annual reports ;
hitherto both the form and content desired
have been suggested to the Go vernments
through questionnaires whi ch have re ceived
the approval of the Governing Body
before being despatched. The Director's
fu nction is, as has been stated above, to
summarise the reports and lay his summary
before the Conference.
If for the reasons given above a report
by a Committee of experts is considered
desirable, it would therefore seem that
such a rep ort should be forw arded to the
Conference by the Director when tran smitting
the summary which it is his duty
under the Treaty to prepare.
It w ould be difficult to attach the
Committee o f experts directly to the
Conference or to the Governing Body, as
they have other and de finite functions
laid o n them by the Treaty, and it would
seem improper to ask either of them to
undertake a task closely rel ated to that
which is lai d on the Director.
Par conseq1wnt, la Commission d'experts
pourrait etre, 11011 pas une Commission instituee
directement par la Conference, mais
une Commission instituee par le Directeur,
avec !'approbation du Conseil d'administration,
conformement aux instructions de la
Conference et chargee d'executer un travail
particulier en vue de la preparation technique
d'une partie du travail de la Co11rt-
rP11ce.
La Conference t•lle-memc conservt•rail sPs
propres functions politiques ; elle strnit 1011-
tefois conseillee, en ce qui concerne l'etat de
fail, par cette Commission technique d'experts,
et elle pourrait decider, soit directement,
soit par l'intermediaire d'une de ses
Commissions, de !'attitude qu'elle pourrnit
adopter ou des mesures uppropriees lllli
pourraient etre prises ou indiquees.
On peut ajouter nussi qu'un tel rapport,
Mabli de source independante, serait un element
tres utile pour !'evaluation du travail
accompli par !'Organisation intenmtionale
du Travail, evaluation qu'il conviendrait
clil'ficilement au Bureau, en sa qualite de
secretariat de !'Organisation, d'entreprendre
lui-meme.
La resolution du Conseil d'administration
suggere en outre que la Commission it inslituer
it la presente session devrait « etudier
Jes voies et moyens ... en vue d'obtenir telles
donnees qlli pol!rraient paraitre necessaires
pollr completer les informations defa fournies
».
II semble qu'il serait possible d'utiliser
egalement, en vue de cette etude, la Commission
d'experts proposee. Au cours de son
examen des rapports annuels, elle serait inevitablement
conduite a noter les cas 011 les
informations fournies paraissent etre insuffisantes
pour une appreciation adequate de
la valeur des conventions. Elle pourrait en
consequence estimer, au cours de cet examen,
que les questionnaires devraient etie
elargis ou que d'autres informations devraient
etre cherchees au moyen d'autres
melhodes. Dans ce cas, Jes suggestions
emises par la Commission seraient sans
doute notees par le Directeur et portees :\
la connaissance du Conseil d'administralion.
Les termes de la resolution susindiquee
peuvent egalement avoir trait a la possibilite
d'obtenir des informations supplemcntaires
de la part d'un Gouvernement en
particulier, a cote des informations requises
dans le questionnaire de la part de tous les
Gouvernements ayant ratifie une certaine
398
The Committee of experts might therefore
be, not a corn mittcc set up directly
by the Conference, but a committee
created by the Director, on the instructions
of the Conference and with the
approval of the Governing Body, to carry
out a particular task in view of the technical
preparation of one part of the work
of the Conference.
The Conference itself wm1ld eonsern·
its proper political fn11ctions, but it would
be advised as to the facts by this tcchnit'al
expert Committee, and it would, either
directly, or through one of its own Committees,
decide upon its attitude and 11po11
what appropriate action it might tak1:
or indicate.
It might be addccl also that snch a.
report from an independent source ,n>til<l
he a useful element in the evaluation of
the work accomplished by the I nternational
Labour Organisation, an evaluation
which it would hardly be proper for the
Office itself, as the secretariat of the
Organisation, to undertake.
The Governing Body's Resolution further
suggests that the Committee to be
set up at the present Session should
'· ('onsider the ways and means . . . . . of
securing such additional data as may he
found desirable to su,pplernent that already
a11ailable ".
It would appear possible to utilise the
suggested Committee of experts in this
connection also. In its examination of
the annual reports it would inevitably
be led to note the cases where the information
supplied appeared to be insufficient
for an adequate appreciation of the value
of the Conventions. It might find in the
course of its examination, therefore, that
the questionnaires should be extended, or
that further information should be sought
by some other method ; if so, its suggestions
in this connection would no doubt
be noted by the Director and brought to
the attention of the Governing Body.
The terms of the Resolution above might
also refer to the possibility of obtaining
supplementary information from a particular
Government, as distinct from the
information asked for in the questionnaire
from all Governments which have ratified
a given Convention. If the report of the
convention. Dans IP cas 011 il n:s11llcr:1it du
rapport dL's experts ou du resume du Dirccteur
une difficulte ou une obscurite sur un
point particulier, la Commission de la Conference
pourrait desirer obtenir des renseignements
supplementaires. La Commission
instituec aetuellement estimera peut-etre
qu'il est desirnbll' d'examiner la procedure
:i suivre dans un <'as de ce genre, pt par
eonsPqtwnt d'eludit> r la possibilite de donnL'r
:i dt•s Gouverut>rnt•nls l'occasio11 de four11ir
:'t la Co11ffre11ce des informations supplemPntaires
lorsqu'une question 0oncernanl
leur pays est soulevee.
Si le principe de la creation d'une Commission
d'experls est admis, il reste un cerla
in nomhre de <1uestions secondaires qu'il
y a lieu de mentionner malgre qu'elit'S ne
semblent pas devoir soulever de problt•mes
d'importanc:e fondamentale.
11 <'SI :'t supposer que la Commission sera
d'un caractere plus ou moins permanent:
ii sc peut que sa composition soit modifiee
de lemps en temps si l'oceasion se fait sen-
1 i r <fr demander des connaissances speciales
de certnines conditions de travail, mais,
dans !'ensemble, ii parait preferable que le
mandat des personnes qui peuvent etre
nommees soit d'une duree assez prolongee.
La meilleure methode a suivre pour cette
dt'>signation semble etre que le Directeur,
dont le choix serait guide par la liste deja
constituee en vertu de !'article 412 et par
d'autres considerations de meme nature,
nomme lui-meme Jes membres avec !'approbation
du Conseil d'administration.
3) Note sur la composition et les fonctions
de la Commission d'experts proposee
pour I' exam en des rapports annuels sur
!'application des conventions ratifiees1
preparee par le Bureau international du
Travail.
1 ° La Note du Bureau su, r la resolution
du Conseil d',aidministration concernant
J'examen des raprpor,ts piresentes p1ar les
Gouvernements en execution de !'article 408
du Traite de Versaitles, mentionnait la
Commission d'experts p1r01pos,ee da111s des
ternnes q,ui laissaient sup1poser que cette
Commission aurait un oaractere pilus ou
moins peir,manent.
L'intention de ces te:rmes q,uelquc pen
vagues etait doulbile. En premier lieu, i,l est
399
experts or the summary of the Director
indicated a difficulty or an obscurity in a
given case, the Committee of the Conference
might wish to have supplementary
information. The Committee now set up
may perhaps think it desirable to examine
the procedure to be followed in such a
case, and the possibility, for example, of
giving Uovernments the opportunity of
supplying supplementary information t o
the Confrrencp wlwre a question concerning
their country c•omcs 11μ.
If the principle of the creation of a
Committee of experts he admitted, there
remain a number of scc011dary matters
to which reference may be made, though
they do not appear to raise questions of
major importance.
The Committee would presumably be
of a more or less permanent nature : it
might be possible to vary its composition
from time to time, if occasion appeared
to demand a special knowledge of particular
conditions of labour ; but on the whole
the advantages appear to be on the side
of a fairly long tenure of rnem bershi p by
the individuals ,vho may be nominated.
The best method of nominating them
would _t• appear to be that the Director,
guided in his choice·; by the list already
formed under Article 412, or by other
considerations of a similar nature, should
himself appoint the members, with the
approval of the Governing Body.
(3) Note on the composition and functions
of the proposed Committee of experts to
examine the annual reports on the application
of ratified Conventions, prepared
by the International Labour Office.
( 1 ) The note of the Office on the Resolution
of the Governing Body concerning
the reports submitted by ,Governments in
al'cordanl'e with Article 408 of the Trt'aly
of Versailles referred to the proposed Committee
of experts as being one presumably
of a more or less permanent character.
The intt>ntion of this somewlwt vague
phrase was twofold. It is possible, in the
possible que la Confert'nce d{s ire autorisN
la cr eation d'une teUe commission :'1 titre
d'experience, et, dans ce cas, on potlrrait
suggerer ,pr ovis oirement une periode d'un
cer tain nombre d'annees pend ant la quelle ii
serait pos sible a la Conference d'ap1Precier
la val eur de l' organisme or ee et, si el le le
juge opportun, de le modifier.
En second Heu , on a pense qu'il ne serait
pas so u haitabile de ch anger chaq,ue annPe
le p1ersonnel de la Com mission ; ii semhl t'
μreferable de permett<re aux nwmb res de la
Commission, une foi s desig nes, d'acquerir
une C'ertaine ex:peT ience d'mH' tache qui st•
presentera im•vitahl em en l rnmmP d·i ffil'i le
t•t comrpilexe.
0 Les l'o ncti ons de cerll e Commi ssion
seraienl entit':rem e 11L d'ordire l!'chniq ut• t' I
d'aucun e fa<;on d'ordn judieiaire. Les artides
409 et suivants du Trait{, de P:,ix
n'entrent en jeu, on se le ra:prwne, qne dans
les cas de pl ainle cmwernan,f la 11011 -PxPcu
tfon de convent ions ra tifiees ; l a μro<·t:dure
d'exa1nwn a cl twHemen l pr oposfr
n'aura de nipip orts d'atH'.U ne sorlf' :ivt<·. Jt,
mecan isme d'enquete d de sanctions
contemn dans ces artir,Jes, ert son fon ction nnnent
n e saur ait re:post'r sur des p1lain lt's .
H sen1bil e done qu'il n 'y a aucun risque de
confu sion de fonc tions entre la Commission
d'Px pt'rts don! la <Tl'ation es t proposfr, PI
Jes Commiss,i ons d'enque t;e mentiomH' PS
dans IP Traite dP Pa ix.
Ces cons1dera tions • pa ra'itront c1laircs s1
!'on envisage quelle sera la tache reeHe r!0
la Commission d'experls. CeH e-rr, i devrait,
selon le Bureau, rempHr, dans son exanwn
des rapports annuels, les fo nctions sui vantes
rt) Elle notera Jes cas 011 les renseignements
fourn is seimhlernt ne pas suffii re po ur
l'inteHig enr,e comp1lete de la situation , soil
en generaJ, soit dans un .pays en par,t iculier.
Pour remeidier a des lacunes de ce genre,
la Commiss ion pourra it suggerer a la Con ference
qu e le Conseil d'administration
envisage la revision des ques,tionnaires d e
manie1re a nbten ir une pilus g,ran de precision
dans Jes raipports des Gouvernements
en general. Si Jes lacunes se rapport aient
:rn x rapp or'ts d'un pays en pa,r ticu!lier, la
C ommisson pourr a it suggerer que le Bureau
demande par corresipo ndance des
details COIJ11ip!lem enta ires qui pou rr aien t etrP
redames s an s soir1t ir d es limi:tes des questionnaires
aip1prouv,es par le Consei,J d'ad ministration.
400
firs! plac0, Iha! tlw Con ft•r0nr,e may wish
to authorise Llw creation of such a Committee
as an experi ment, in which case a
period of yea rs may be suggested provisionally,
during which tim e it will be possible
for the Conference to appre ciate the
value of the machinery created, and if it
thinks fit, to modify it.
In the second place, it was t hough t uncksirnhl
e lo <'hang1 the personnel of lht'
Comm ittee annually ; it Sl'l'Il1S IH'ttl•r lo
:1 1low !IH· memlwrs, OIH'.l aμpoi ntPd, lo gain
snntt• ,•xpl'riprn·e of whal must int> vitably
lw :1 diffil'ull and <·omplex !ask .
(2 ) Till' functions of llw Commitll'P
would IH' <·11tir<· l >' lt'l'lmic:t l and in no sense
judicial , ,\ rlick "10\l a n d !Ill' fol lowing, it
will hi' r1•l'a ll<·d , art• brought into act ion
ouJ, in l' ases of l'Omplainl rega rding the
11on-ol,s1° rva 1H'e of ratil'iPd Con vPntions : tlw
S'sll'lll of examination now proposed is not
in :I ll>' w:1:v <·on1·Prnl'd with tlw ma<'h i1H• r_,,
of enqu i r ' and of sanct ions c·ontained in
lhnst• Articles, and its action is not based
upon <'ompluints. Then' dcH' s not appear to
lw an:\' dangl'r thereforl' of :1 <'Oll fusion of
fu nct ion l>P!we<'ll lhe propos1•d Commilte1•
of nperls and lhc Conrn1iltee of Enquiry
1rn•n I inm,d in till' Trea 1.v of Peace.
This will lie clea r from a considera tion
of lhl' rl'a l !ask of lh1• fo rnwr. 111 ifs l' xaminalion
of llll' :1 n1111al n•porls it shou ld,
in lhe view of tlw Offic e, p e rform the fo llowing
function s :
(a ) J t wi ll note the r,ases where the information
suppl it>d a pJH'ars lo be inade qua te
for a complet e understanding of the position
eillwr gc1wra lly, or in a pa rticular country.
To rcmPdy any such deficiencies, it may
suggest to thP Conferencl' that thP GovPrning
Hody should t ake into consideration tlw
revision of the questionnaire with a view to
S<'l'Hring greater prer,ision in the n•p orls in
ge1wra l. H tlw deficiencies concern llw
report of a particular cou ntry , it may s uggest
that the Offir,e ask hy cmTespon den<·l'
for any fu rther details wh i<'h , within llw
limits of t he quest ionnaires approved hy
the Ci overning Body, may h<' dema nded.
b) L'examcn de la Co mmission recelera
certainement des cas dans lesquels des pays
di fffaents semhl ent avoir adopte des interpr
etations divergentes des dispositions des
conventions. La Commission devra attirer
!'at tention sur de teJs cas.
c) Enfi n, la Com mission incor:porernit
Jes oihservations qu 'e,Jle au-r ait fai tes sur ces
divers points dans ,J e raip1po1rt tedm iq ue
qu'e: JIP ipresenterait au D irecteur ("t cefoi-ci
comm un iquerait ee ra1prport a la Conf( re1H'P
en menw temps que le resume des rappo rt s
annuels qu'il a ,!'obl igation de pre)Pa rnr.
On voit qu'il n'cst pas et ne p,eut etr0
question de co nvoqu er les Gouve,rnements
011 lt•urs r ep resentants devant la Commission
; <·eHe-ei devrait baser son rn1pp ort
entit:•re,men t su r Jps informations (fli t' It's
Etals sP son! engag-es a ,fournir en ralifiant
la <·onven lion.
a 0 Quant au x qua,Iites :'1 demander :lll
perso mw,J ,dt' la Comm ission, eH es son !
indiquet' s c1l ain•men t ,clans la note du
Bureau. On devrait dtoisir des memhn•s
qu i possedent une connaissance a:p1profondie
des conditions du travail et de !'appl ication
de la legislation du travai l. Ces
memhres devraient etre des personualites
independa ntes et on devrait les ch oisir de
maniere a ce qu'elles re,presentent, dans la
mesure du possib,le, Jes divers degres du
d{'.veil oppement industriel et les formes differen
tes des me thodes industrieUes qui se
rencontrent parmi les Etats Memb res de
!'Organis ation.
On ne pe nse pas que ces condition s
necessiteraient un nombre importan t de
memhres ; plu sieurs raisons fo nt croirc
que, po ur une tache tech nique de cette
sorte, une Commission relativement restrdn
t e serait pl us e:fficace . Le no,mb re des
membres pourrait peut-etre descendre jusqu'i1
six, mais ce rtainement ii n'aurait ,p as
i\ depasser dix.
4 ° Le Secretariat de la Commission pourrait
et re recrute parm i l e :personn el du
Burea u . On espere que 1la Commission
pourrait se reunir hahituel,lem enl au mois
de mars, eipoq,ue i\ Jaquelle .J es rapp orts
annu e1ls ont ete rei;us.
ll est :'1 presum er que le resume des rapports
annu el s prep are par le Directeur
aurai-t :'t etre examine, en meme t emp s que
le rapport de la Commission d'exrperts, par
une Commission que la Con ference instituerait
a cette fin chaq ue annee.
401
(b) Its <'xamination will f'.Prta inly rpn•al
<'a scs in which different intcrprl'talions of
the provisions o f Conventions appear to be
adopted in different countries. The Committee
should call attention to such cases.
(c) Finally, it would embody i ts observations
on these snbjl'c ls in its i<'l'hn i<·a l
rqwrl lo llw Director, who would t·orn
1111rnicat<' this report, along with lhP su mmary
of llw :rn nu:11 n·po rts which he 1s
c:t lll'd upon lo mak1•, lo tht• Conft•rt·n<·P.
It will he sl'en tha t there is and c:rn ht>
no question of t·onYoking Cion·rnnH•n ts or
llwir n• pn·senlalin·s hdort• tlw proposed
Commilll'P, w hich would li:t.,t' its rq>orb
PntirPly upon llw infor mation wh il'h th,•
States ha\'1' 111HlPrta kt•n , in ra lif>' ing llw
Convenlion, lo suppl:v.
(:1) As l o llw qu:,rn i<'s to lw expeded
from !he p<'rsomwl of thl' Commilll't', 111P'
an• olt•a r,] >' i nd il'ale:d in thl' noll' of ilH'
Of'fi'< '<'. Memihers should l>t> chosl'll who
possess inlimak knowled ge of la bo ur
r,onditions and of the application o:f labm1 r
legislation. They shouM he persons of
inde1pt>1Hle11t standing, and they shou:ld hi'
so ch osen as Lo reipresent as fa r as possihll'
the varying degn•es of industria l develop men
t and the variations of induslria,J
nwthod to be fou nd among the Sln tes
Mt•m hPrs of the Organisation .
H 1s not th ought that this w o uld
necess itate a forge Committee ; f o r man·
reasons it would app ear that fo r leclmieal
work of this kind a relative,ly sma11
Committee would be more efficit>nt. The
number oif Mem her s_ might be 1perha,ps as
Jow as six, but certainly not more th an ten.
( 4) The Offi ce would fu'rnish the
Secretariat of the Com mittee, which, ii is
hoped , w o uld he able to meet usu ally in tlw
month of March at which tin w th{' nnnu:tl
reports will have been r eceived.
It is assumed that t he Direct or's surnmary
and th e a n nual reports, 1together wi th
the report of the Committee o f t:qwr ts
wou1ld be examined hy a Com milt P<'
,tp1 pointed by th e Conference fo r the )11 rpose
each year .
26
Les gouvernemenits auraient en tout cas
Jes memes facilites qu'actuellement pour
ajonter, par l'intermediaire de leurs representants
a la Conference, tontes observations
qu'ils pourraient juger desirable de
faire, ou pour dissiper toutes obscuri,tes sur
lt:>squelles Ia Commission d'exiperts aurait
pu atti,rPr leur attention.
4) Rapport de la Commission de l'article
408 1.
La Commission nommee le 27 mai 1926
par la huitieme session de la Conference
internationale du Travail, afin d'etudier les
moyens pour la Conference d'u1iliser les
raipports presentes en execution de l'article
408 du Traite de Versai,lles, a l'honneur de
soumettre le rapport suivant.
A sa seance d'ouver,ture, la Commission
a elu comme president M. Humbert W o1fe,
delegue gouvernemental de la Grande•Bretagne,
et, comme vice-pres1dents, M. Vogel,
delegue patronal de l' Allemagne, et M. Pugh,
delegue ouvrier de la Grande-Bretagne.
L'objet des travaux de la Commission se
twuvait formule dans une resolu1ion que le
Conseil d'administration du Bureau international
du Travail avait adoptee, sur la
proposition du representant gouvernemental
de la Grande-Bretagne, au cours de
sa trentieme session tenue en janvier 1926,
eI dont le texte avait ete communique par
le Bureau aux gouvernements des Etats
Memhres par une lettre-circulaire en date
du 4 mars 1926.
Le texte de cette resolution etait com;u
comme suit:
Le Conseil d'administration,
considerant que les rapports presentes par les
Etats Mcmbres de !'Organisation, en vertu de
l"article 408 du Traite de Versailles, sont de la
plus haute importance,
et qu'un • examen attentif des renscignements
qu'ils conticnnent pcrmet de connaitrc la valeur
pratique des conventions et d'aider en general
aux ratifications,
suggere que la Conference charge une Commission
d'etudier les voies et movens en vue d'utiliscr
ces renscignemcnts de la fai;on la meilleure et la
plus complete et d'obtenir telles donnfrs qui
pourraient paraitre necessaires pour completer
Jes informations dejh fournies.
La Commission etait egalement saisie
1 ° d'une Note sur la resolution precedente,
preparee par le Bureau international du
1 Voir f'rm111/p rmi/11, pp. 2H8-24i Pt :!47-200.
402
Governments would of course have the
same opportunities as at present of adding,
through their representatives al tlw
Coufon·1H·c itsPlf, any information they
may think desirablle to make, or of
C'learing uip any ohscurities to which the
Committee of experts might have drawn
attention.
( 4) Report of the Committee on Article
408 1
•
The Committee appointed by the Eighth
Session of the International Labour Conference
on 27 May 1926 to examine the methods
hy which the Conference can make use
of the reports submitted under Article 408
of the Treaty of Versailles has the honour
lo present the following report.
At its opening sitting the Committee
elected Mr. Humbert Wolfe , British Government
Delegate, to he its Chairman, and Mr.
Vogel, German Employers' Delegate, and
Mr. Pugh, British Workers' Delegate, to be
its Vice-Chairmen.
The terms of reference of the Committee
were contained in a Resolution which the
Governing Body of the International Labour
Offiec had adopted, 011 the motion of the
British Government Representative, at its
Thirtieth Session in January 1926, and the
!ext of which had been communicated by
the Office to the Governments of the Members
by circular letter of 4 March 1926.
The Resolution is as follows :
The Governing Body,
Considering that the reports rendered by States
Members of the Organisation under Article 408
of the Treaty of Versailles are of the utmost
importance,
And that careful examination of the information
contained therein is calculated to throw light upon
the practical value of the Conventions themselves
and to further their general ratification,
Suggests that the Conference should appoint a
Committee to consider the ways and means of
making the best and fullest use of this information
and of securing such additional data as may be
found desirablP to supplement that already
available.
The Committee had also before it (1) a
Note on this Resolution prepared by the
International Labour Office the text of
1 SPP l'rrwl'f'rli11f!,s, pp. 2H8-24-t and 247-260.
Travail et dont le texte a ete reproduit dans
le Comple rendu provisoire N° 3, pages
II-Vil; 2° d'une seconde Note, que J'on
trouvera annexee au present rapport, sur la
composition et les fonctions de la Commission
d'experts dont la creation avait ete
suggeree par le Bureau ; cette seconde note
avail ete preparee pour repondre ll des
demandes presentees par les membres de la
Commission au cours de sa premiere
seance 1
. Enfin, la Commission eut l'opporlunite
d'entendre les exp-lications verhales
donnees par le Secretairc general et le
Secretaire general adjoint de la Conference
sur la fai;on dont ils concevaient les meilleurs
moyens de realiser !es desiderata
exprimes dans la resolution du Conseil
cl' ad ministration.
Au cours des discussions preliminaires de
la Commission, la situation actuelle concernant
!'utilisation des rapports annuels
soumis en vertu de !'article 408 fut exposee
comme etant la suivante :
L'article 408 du Traite de Versailles stipule
: a) que les Etats Membres devront
presenter au Bureau international du Travail
un rapport annuel sur Jes mesures
prises par eux pour mettre a execution Jes
conventions auxquelles ils ont adhere ;
h) que ces rapports seront rediges sous la
forme indiquee par le Conseil d'adminisLration
_et devront contenir les precisions
demandees par ce dernier ; c) que le
Directeur du Bureau international du Travail
presentera un resume de ces rapports
:'1 la Conference.
En execution de ces dispositions, Jes
Etats Memhres transmettent annuellement
au Bureau, suivant les formulaires approuves
par le Conseil d'administration, des
rapports dont le nomihre s'accroit sans
eesse, au fur et a mesure que celui des
ratifications augmente, et, depuis plusieurs
annees, le Directeur a presoote ll la Conference,
dans la seconde partie de son Rapport,
des resumes de ces rapports annuels.
Cependant Jes rapports n'ont pas ete examines
par la Conference, ou tout au plus ontils
ete mentionnes au passage dans les
discours individuels de certains delegues.
Les discussions dont le Raipiport du Directeur
a ete l'occasion ont porte presque
exdusivement sur la question de la ratification
des conventions, sans toucher :'i. la
question de ]'application de'i eonv(•ntions
par Jes pays qui IPs ont ralifiees.
1 Po11r le textc> de ccs <le11x notes, voir so11s le
nu111ero 2) et a) rlP la pr{·scnte anncxe.
4,03
which ,vas printed in the Provision"l Record
No. :3, pp. II-VII; and (2) a further Nok,
attached lo this report, on the composition
and .functions of the Committee of experts
suggested by the Office which was prepared
in response to requests made by the nwmbers
of the Committee during the fir,I
sitting 1
. Finally, the Committee had ll1l
advantage of hearing verbal explanations by
the Secretary-General and the Deputy-Secrtary-
General of the Conference of tl1eir
views on the best manner
desiderata expressed m
Body's Resolution.
of realising flw
the C.overni11g
In the course of the Committee's preliminary
discussions the existing situation
with regard to the utilisation of the annual
reports under Article 408 was shown to J,p
as follows :
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles
provides (a) that the Member States shall
make an annual report to the International
Labour Office on the measures they l1aw
taken to give effect to the provisions ,)f
Conventions to which they are parties; (f,)
that these reports shall he made in s11d1
form and shall contain such particulars :is
the Governing Body may request; aHd ( c)
that the Director of the International
Labour Office shall lay a summary of these
reports before the Conference.
In pursuance of these provisions, tlw
Member States are forwarding annually to
the Office, in the form approved by the
Governing Body, reports the numhers of
which constantly increase as the number of
ratifications increases, and for several y1!ars
the Director has submitted summaries of
these reports to the Conference in the Seco1,1l
Part of his Report. Nevertheless, the rt\ports
have not been considered by the Confrrence,
or at the best have only heen gi,·e11
passing reference in the speeches of individual
Delegates. The discussions of the
Director's Report have turned almost exclusively
on the question of ratifications of
Conventions, leaving untouched the question
of the application of Conve11tions by th,,
countri(•s which have ratified thc•m.
1 For the text of thesc two Notps, see un<ler (:')
and (8) of this Appc·ndix.
Or la question de l'aipp,lication des
conventions est au moins aussi importante
que celle des ratifications, et si l'on veut
l{ue les -discussions dont le Rapport du
Directeur fournit !'occasion aux sessions
successives de la CoilJf,erence remplissent
reeHement un role efficace dans cet ordre
d'idees, on doit trouver des moyens de
concentrer plus intensemen:t !'attention sur
ce cute de l'aotivite de !'Organisation.
11 n'est pas diff.i;cile d'apercevoir pourquoi
la queshon de l'a:pipli,cation des couventions,
dont !'importance est reconnue
unanimement, n'a pas jusqu'a present
reussi i1 retenir !'attention de la Conference.
La raison doi,t en etre cherchee plus
particnlieremen:t dans l'etendue et dans la
('Omplexite technique du resume dPs ra:pports
annuels, qui consti,tue la secondP
partiP du Rapport du Directeur. Si l'ou
veut que les informations sur l'ap,plicatio11
des convPntions qui sont donneps clans ce
resume puissent fournir la basP d'une
discussion par la Conference, elles devraienl
elrP preparees sous une forme plus assimilable
et de fa<;on 11 concentrer !'attention
sur Jes points qui peuvent etre discutes de
la manit•re la μlus utile et la plus profitabk•.
Sur ces constatations, votre Commission
:1 ete en somme unanime. A sa seconde
seance, In Commission fut· done en mesure
d'adopter une resolution 1presentee par
M. Cousins, delegue gouvernemental de
I' Afrique du Sud, qui acceptait 1provisoirement
le princi;pe de !'institution d'une commission
speciale, sous la reserve que les
fonctions du nouvel organisme propose
seraient definies subsequemment ,\ la satisfaotion
de la Commission. Les seules divergences
d'o1pinion qui se manifesterent sur
ce point au sein de la Commission porlaient
sur la question de savoir s'il n'eut pas ete
prefernble d'examiner en premier lieu les
fonctions de l'organisme propose. Mais une
proposition presentee en ce sens par
M. Cort van der Linden (delegue patronal
des Pays-Bas) fut rejetee, et la resolution
de M. Cousins fut alors adoptee dans les
termes suivants:
La {'.ommission acccptc provisoircmcnt le principe
de la nomination d'unc commission chargfr
d'examiner !'application des conventions ratific,es
par les Etats Membres ; mais clle ne confirmera
cette resolution et ne recomrnandera d{·finitin·ment
la nomination <l'une telle commission que lorsquc
les fonctions de celle-ci auront ctc, definics :\ la
satisfaction de la Commission et de maniere i1
eviter toute infraction aux droits rceonnus dans
le Traite de Paix.
Les deux Notes presentees par le Bureau
international du Travail et commentees par
404
But the question of the application of
Conventions is at least as important as that
of ratifications, and if the discussions of the
Director's Report at the Sessions of the Conference
are really to fulfil a useful purpose
in this connection some means must be
found of focussing more attention upon this
aspect of tlw work of tlw Organisation.
It is not diffii:ult to pt>ITPivP why the
question of the appli<"afio11 of ( :om'entiu11s,
the importance of which is after al] universally
recognised, has hitherto foikd to
arrest lht atl<ntion of till' Co11ft>re11c1•. TIii'
reason is lo be found more particularly in
lht' 1•xl1° llt and !Pdlllical <·omplexity of lht•
summar_v of the a1111ual rqiorls which <"onstitult's
tht• Secom! Part of lht> Din•cior' s
Heporl. If tlw information concerning tlw
application of C011vt>ntio11s given in lhe
summar_v is tu form tlH· basis of discussion
l,y the Co11frn° IH't", il must he prepan•d in
a mon digested form, ;1 form which will
co11<·1•ntratP attention upon those points
whid1 can most usPfull' and profitab], be
• diwussPd.
Upon these findings your Committee was
pradil"ally 11Hrn1imous. At its second silting,
llwrefore, 11w Commitl1•e was ahlt' lo adopt
:1 n•solulion, submitted by Mr. Cousins,
South African Government Delegate, agn•eiHg
provisionally to the appointnwnl of a
sp<'cial Committee, subject to the functions
of the proposed new h¥>dy being suhsc(
ftiently defined to the satisfaction of the
Cornmitlet>. The only differences of opinion
\\'ilhin tlw Committee on this point related
lo the question whether it would not have
h<•en better to consider the functions of the
proposed body first. A motion hy Mr. Cort
Vall der Linden (Netherlands Employers'
DPil'gate) lo this effect was, however, <kft>:
tted, and Mr. Cousins' resolution was then
adopted in the following terms :
'fhat this Committee agrees provisionally to
the principle of the appointment of a Commission
to examine the application of the ratification of
Conventions by Member nations, but will only
confirn1 this resolution and recommend the
appointment of such a Commission when its
functions have been definc1l to the satisfaction 1.if'
the Committee and are found not to infringe any
Treaty rights.
The two Notes submitted by the Internal
ional Labour Office and elaborated by the
Jes discours du Secretaire general et du
S ('t:retaire general adjoint conciluaient
a) en faveur de la designation par le Directeur,
a titre d'eXlperience pour une periode
de plusieurs annees et avec I'apprdbation
du Conseil d'administration, d'une Commission
technique composee de six e:xcperts
au moins on de dix au p,lus; b) que le role
de cette Commission serait d'examiner les
rappor1ts amnwls en vue de noter les
Ja,cuncs et les obscurite·s des rapports ainsi
que lcs divergences constatees dans l'apiplication
par les differents p,ays des clisposit.
ions des conventions ; et c) de fournir au
Directeur un rnp1port sur ces sujets. II etait
suggere en outre que le Directeur devrait
presenter a la Conference le rapport de
cette Commission d'experts en meme temps
quc le resume qu'il doit faire lui-meme des
rapports annuels, et qu'une Commission de
la Conference serait instituee chaque annee
pour examiner ce r:l'pport technique et le
resume des rapports des Etats.
Certaines appn'hensions furent manifcstces
par plusieurs membres de la Commission
sur le point de savoir si Jes fonctions
ainsi determinees ne pourraient p:is etre de
nature a porter atteinte :t la souverainet6
des Etats Mcmbres ou aux droits des autrcs
organes prcvus dans le Trail<'. '.'.1ais ii fut
rpconnu que la Commission d't>xpp•rts ne
dpvrait pas assu1ner de fonctions d'ordn'
judiciaire p,t qu'cHc nc sPrnit pas compcl!'
nte pour donner <les intPrprN:1tions cks
dispositions dt>s conventions ni pour S(
pronOIH'( 'r en favcur d'une inlt'-rprch1tion
pluttH que d'une :mire. Elle nc pourrait
done empieter sur les fondions des Commissions
d'enquf'le et de la Cour J}Pl'lll:1-
nente de Justice intNnationale en cc q,ui
("Ofl'('erne les reclmnations presentees sur la
non-execution des conventions ratifirces ou
Pll ce qui conccrnc l'interipret:1tion de
<·t>llcs-ci. L1• sPnlinwnl d(• la Commission
fut que le fmwtions positivPs de la Commission
d' <'X!perts pou1Ta ient el re ciefinies
1·onformenwnt aux termes du par:1gr:1phe '.2
de la seconde Note presentec par le Bureau:
<'e p;1 ragraphc, :q>n's 1111 al\l('JHIPtnPnt
appork par la Commission :"1 l':.tliHea c), S('
lisait conrnH' su i l :
(:!} Les fonctions de eette commission scrnient
c-ntierement d'ordrc technique et d'aucune faron
d'ordrc judiciaire. Les articl 40H et suiYants du
Traite de Paix n'entrent en .1 eu, on se le rappelle,
qu'en cas de plainte concernant la non-execution
des conventions ratifiees ; la procedure d'examen
aetuellement proposce n 'aura de rapports d'aucune
sorte ayce le meeanisme d'enqnete et de sanctions
1·ontcn11 dans ces articles, et son fondionnenwn
ne saurait. reposer sur des plaintes. 11 semhl t
pone 11u'il n'y a aueun risque ck confusion d.
4,05
speeches of the Secrdary-General and the
Assistant Secretary-General concluded m
favour of (a) tlH' appointment hy the
Director, as an experiment for a period of
several years and with the approval of the
Governing Body, of a technical Committee
of not less than six or more than ten experts;
( b) that its function would be to examine
the annual reports with a view to. noting
deficiencies and obscurities in the reports
and differences in the application of the
provisions of Conventions by different countries;
and (c) to report upon these matters
to the Director. It was further suggested
that the Director should submit the report
of this Committee of experts to the Con•
ference together with his summary of th•'
annual reports, and that a Committee of the
Conference should he appointed each year
to consider this technical report and the
summary.
Some fear was expressed by certain mem!
Jl'rs of the Committee as to whether the
functions thus outlined might not be such
as to trespass upon the sovereign rights of
the States Members, or upon the powers of
the other organs provided for in the Treaty.
It was agreed however that the Committel'
uf experts would have no judicial capacity
nor would it he competent to give interpretations
of the provisions of the Conventions
nor to decide in favour of one intNpretation
rather than of another. It could
not therefore encroach upon the fllndions
of the Commissions of Enquiry and of the
Permanent (ourt of International .Justice in
regard to complaints regarding the 110'.1-
observanl'e of ratified Conventions or 111
regard to their interpretation. In thr Committre's
view, the functions of the Committee
of expc>rts could he defined positively
in the terms of paragraph 2 of the second
Nole submitted hy the OfficP, whieh, with
an anwndment made by IIH' Commitfre to
sub-paragraph (c ), reads as follows :
(2) The functions of the Comitt_e would. be
entirely technical and in no sense Judicial. Article
to9 and the following, it will be reclled, (tre
brought into action only in cases _of co1?'1plamt
regarding the non-observan'?e o! ratified Convntions
: the system of exammaton now prol!osed
is not in any way concered with t_he m1chmery
of enquiry and of sanctions contamed m these
Articles, and its action is not based upon complaints.
There does not appear to be any danger
therefore of a confusion of function between the
functions entre la Commission d'experts dont la
creation f'st proposee et Jes Commissions d'enquetc
mentionnces dans le Traite de Paix.
Ces considerations paraitront claires si !"on
envisage quelle sera la tache reelle de la Connuission
d'experts. Celle-ci devrait, selon le Bureau,
rmnplir, _<lans son examen des rapports annueb,
1£s fonctwns suivantes :
11) Elle notera les cas 011 Jes renseignements
fournis scmblent ne pas sutlire pour l"intelligencc
complete de la situation, soit en general, soit
dans un pays en particulier.
Pour remedier a des lacunes de ce f,enre, la Commission
pourrait suggerer it la Conference que le
Conseil d'administration envisage la revision des
questionnaires de maniere a obtenir une plus
grande precision dans les rapports des gouveniements
en general. Si Jes lacunes se rapportaient
aux rapports d'un pays en particulier, la Commission
pourrait suggerer que le Bureau demande par
cu1Tesondance des details complementaires qui
pourraient etre reclames sans sortir des Jimites
des questionnaires approuves par le Conseil d'administration.
h) L'c·xamen de la Commission revelera certainement
des cas dans lesquels des pays differcnts
semblent avoir adopte des interpretations divergentes
des dispositions des conventions. La Commi
sion devra attirer !'attention sur de tels cas.
d Enfin, la Commission presenterait un rapport
tochnique au Directeur et celui-ci communiquerait
ce rapp,)ft a la Conference en meme temps que
le resu?1e des rapports annuels qu'il a !'obligation
de preparer.
On voit qu'il n'est pas et ne pent etre question
de conYoquer Jes gouvernements ou leurs represcntants
devant la Commission ; celle-ci devrait
ba5er son rapport entierement sur Jes informations
que les Etats se sont engages a fournir en ratifiant
la convention.
Ayant ainsi .defini les fonctions du nouvcl
organisme, la Commission proceda
ensuite a l'examen de h nature de cet organi
me et de fa question de savoir s'i,I fau&
rait nommer une ou 1leux commissions.
C<\rtains membres estimerent qu'une resolution
demandant qu'une commission spieciale
de la Conference soit nommee chaque
anne1! pour examiner le re.mme des rnpport-
s annuels presentes par le Directeur,
pourrait suffire ; ils faisaient ressortir que
le travail d'analyse prelimin:lire que l'on
fl:')posait de confier a un corps d'experts
Jl(1urrait etre execute par le Directeur et
son personnel. En reponse a cet argument,
0n fit ·remarquer que les fonctions du
I>irecteur etaient strictement limitees par le
Traite de paix et que l'on s'exposaH au
ri:ique de voir accuser le J>irecteur et le
Bnreau de depasser Ieurs pouvoirs ; en
0vtre, ii semihlait desrnble que le Directeur
mi aide dans une tache f1 Ui doit evidemmm1t
se reveler parfois difficile et delicate,
par un organisme completement impartial
qui echaipiperait a tout wu,pon de se Iaisser
conduire par des con3iderations autres que
c11Ies ·d'une nature purement technique.
A ce stade de la discussion, les points de
n1e des memlJ,res de la commission trou,
·,rent leur formule precise dans plusieurs
I 1:•:oh1tiol1s : l O μnf rfsolution de M, Pfister,
406
proposed Committee of experts and the Committees
of Enquiry mentioned in the Treaty of Peace.
This will be clear from a consideration of the
real task of the former. In its examination of the
annual reports it should, in the view of the
Ollice, perform the following functions :
(a) It will note the cases where the information
supplied apPears to be inadequate for a complete
mderstadmg of the position either gcneraliy, or
m a particular country.
To remedy any such deficiencies, it may suo·ucst
to the Conference that the Governing Borly sh;ulrl
tae into_ consideration the revision of the questionnaires
with _a view to securing greater precision in
the reports m general. If the deficiencies concern
the report of a particular country, it may suggest
t:hat the Of:ice ask by correspondence for any
further details, which, within the limits of the
questionnaires approved by the Governing Body,
may be demanded.
( /J) Its examination will certainly reveal cases
in which different interpretations of the provisions
of Conventions appear tu be adopted in different
countries. The Committee should call attention
to such cases.
( c) Fin:illy, it would present a technical report
to the Dll'ector, who would communicate this
report, along with the summary of the annual
reports which he is called upon to make to the
Conference.
'
It will be seen that there is and can be no quest!
on of convoking Governments or their representatives
before the proposed Committee, which
would base its reports entirely upon the informa
ion which the States have undertaken, in ratifymg
the Convention, to supply.
Having thus defined the functions of the
new body, the Committee proceeded to consider
what its nature should be, and whether
one or two Committee should be appointed.
It was held by some members that
a resolution calling for the appointment
each year of a special Committee of the
Conference to consider the Director's summary
of the Article 408 Reports should
suffice ; the preliminary work of analysis
which it was proposed to confide to a Committee
nf experts could, it was urged, he
carried out by the Director and his staff.
In reply to this argument it was pointed
out that the function of the Director was
strictly limited by the Treaty of Peace and
that there might be a danger of the Director
and the Office being accused of exceeding
that function; moreover it seemed desirable
that the Director should be aided in a task
which must inevitably be at times difficult
and -delicate, by a completely impartial body
which could not be subject to the suggestion
that it might be affected by considerations
other than those of a technical nature.
At this stage the views of the members
of the Committee were put into definite
form by resolutions submitted by (1) Mr.
Pfister, Swiss Government Delegate, sug"
delegue gouvernemental de la Suisse, qui
suggerait la nomination par le Direoteur,
avec !'approbation du Consei,l d'aidminislration,
d'une commission technique de six
membires designes provisoirement pour une
p,eriode de trois annees ; 2° une resolution
de M. Cort van der Liniden, deleguc
paitrnnal des Pays-Bas, qui recommandait
la nomination annueUe d'une commission
dP la Conference chargee d'examiner Jes
resumes des rapiports soumis en vertu de
l'artide 408, demandait au Conseil d'administration
d'ex.aminer I'orpportunite d'insti-
1 uer, sous sa resiponsrnbi1lite, une commission
rl'ex,perts deans le but de faciliter les
travanx de la commission de la Conference,
et priait enfin le Conseil, s'il etait d'avis
que la creation d'une teUe commission
n'etait pas opportune, d'exiposer ses raisons
dans un rapport a la dixieme Conference ;
a0 une resolution de M. Geral'd, conseiller
tel'hnique du delegue patronal de Belgique,
qui recomμiandait la nomination annuelle
d'une commission de la Conference chargee
d'examiner la partie du Rapport du Directeur
relative aux ra:p,ports des Etats et d'attirer
l'attention de la Conference sur I'importance
de cette partie ainsi que sur les
ameliorations qui pourraient etre apportees
a la forme des rapports annuels ; enfin,
4° une resoluition de M. Waline, conseiller
technique du delegue patronal franGais, qui
recommandait aussi la nomination, a chaque
session de la Conference. d'une commission
speciale de la Conference, invitait
le Directeur a fournir a cette commission
toutes explications utiles et priait le Conseil
d'administration d'examiner par quels
morens le travail de cette commission pourmit
etre utilement prepare, dans Jes limites
prevues par le Traite, soit par le Bureau
lui-meme, soil, suivant les cir,constances,
par Jes experts qui paraitraient qualifies.
Les resdutions presentees par M. Gerard
et p,ar M. Waline furent retirees en faveur
de ceiMe de M. Cort van der Linden et, en
cons•equence, le President invita la commission
a se prononcer sur Jes resolutions de
M. Pf,iste,r et de M. Cort van der Linden,
clans l'o,rdre suivant :
1 ° La premiere partie de la resolution de
M. Cort van der Linden, qui etait le seul
texte dont la Commission fut actuellement
saisie et ou fut posee la question de la
nomination annueBe d'une commission de
la Confernnoe chargee d'exa:miner les rapports
presentes en vertu de I'UJrticle 408.
Cette prnposition fut ado,ptee pair 28 voi
contre 3,
407
gesting lht' appointnwnl h' tlw Din'ctor
with the approval of the Governing Body of
a technical Committee of six experts for a
provisional period of three years; (2) by
Mr. C>rl van der Linden, Netherlands Employers'
Delegate, recommending the appointment
Pach year of a Committee of the
Conference to examine the summaries of
tlw reports rendered under Article 408 and
asking the (ioverning Body to consider the
expediency of setting up under its responsibility
a Committee of experts to facilitatf'
lhe work of the Committee of the Conference
the Governing Body to report to tht'
Tenth Session of the Conference if it did not
l'onsider the appointment of such a Committee
expedient and to give its reasons for
this opinion: (:l) hy Mr. Gerard, Belgian
Employers' Adviser, recommending the appointment
each year of a Committee of tlw
Confen•nce to examine the part of the
Director's Report relating to the annual reports
and to call the attention of the Conference
to the importance of this part anrl
to the improvements which might be made
in I he form of the annual reports; and ( 4)
by Mr. Waline, French Employers' Adviser,
also recommending the appointment each
year of a special Committee of the Conference,
inviting the Director to furnish the
Committee with all necessary assistance, and
requesting the Governing Body to consider
the manner in which the work of the Committee
could be adequately prepared within
the limits of the provisions of the Treaty,
either by the Office itself, or, if necessary,
by properly qualified experts.
The resolutions proposed by Mr. Gerard
and Mr. Waline were, however, wi11idrawn
in favour of that presented by Mr. Cort van
der Linden, and the Chairman therefore
invited the Committee to vote on Mr.
Pister's and Mr. Cort van der Linden's
resolutions in the following order :
( 1) The first part of Mr. Cort van der
Linden's resolution, as this was the only
proposal before the meeting relating to the
appointment each year of a Committee of
the Conference to examine the reports under
Article 408-this was adopted by 28 votes
to 3;
2° La dl'!lxit'•nie partie de In proposition
de M. Corl vm1 der Linden, qui constituaH
un anwndement :) la proposition de
1\1. Pfister. Cette partie fut rejetee par
18 voix contre 13.
3° EnJin, apres le rejel de la seconde
partie de la resolution de ;\f. Cort van der
Linde'll, la reso1Iution de M. Pfister, amendee
d< rnaniere ,t ,p1re1ciser que Ia Commissicm
d'exrper,t,s prorposee devrait etre nommee
pa,r le Conseil d'administration et a
rendre la n:daction plus elastique en ce qui
concerne le nomhre des membres et la
duree de I'essai. Ce!le resolution fut adoptee
par 23 voix contre 6.
En ,consequence, la Commission a I'honneur
de soumettre it I'examen de la Conference
le projet de resolution qui suit :
PROJET DE RESOLUTION.
La huitieme session de la Conference
in!ernationaie du Travail,
considerant que Ies rap[)orts p,r,esentes
par Jes Etats Membres de !'Organisation en
vertu de I' artiole 408 du Traite de Versailles
sont de ila rp1Ius haute importance,
et qu'un ex,amen aMentif des renseigne-
111ents qu'Hs contiennent permet de connaitre
la va'leur ,piratique des conventions et
d'aider en general aux ratifications,
recommarndc d'instHuer chaquc annee
111w commission de la Conference chargee
d'<•xaminer Jes resumes des rapports presentes
:) la Conference en vertu de l'ar!
iole 408,
et charge le Gonseil d'administration du
Btrreau international du Travail de nomnwr,
:) titre d'essai pour une p,eriode de
rfrux ou trois ans, une commission technique
de six :) huit membres ayant pour
mission d'utiliser ces renseignements de la
f:u;on la rneiUeure et fa p1lus comp1Iete et
d'oihteni,r teHes donnees qui pourraienl
pa rall re nocessaires pour completer Ies
informations deja fournies ; cette Commission
. devra eg·aiiement presenter au Dire'Ctcur
un rapport qu'H annexera 11 son
resume des rapports annuels soumis i't la
Conference -en vertu de I'artiole 408.
Geneve, le 1 er juin 1926.
(Sign e) Humbert WOLFE, Presiden t.
408
(2) The second part of Mr. Cort van dcr
Linden's resolution as an amendment to Mr.
Pfister's resolution-this was rejected by
18 votes to 13;
(3) Finally, as the second part of Mr.
Cort van der Linden's resolution was not
adopted, Mr. Pfister's resolution, amend Pd
lo make it clear that the proposed Committee
of Experts should be appointed by
the Governing Body, and to make the wording
more elastic as regards the number of
members of the Committee and the duration
of the experiment, was adopted by 23 votes
to 6.
The Committee has, therefore, the honour
lo suhmiL the following draft Resolutio11 for
the consideration of the Conference:
DRAFT RESOLUTION.
The Eighth Session of the Intci·nalio11aJ
Labour Conference,
Considering that the reports rendered hy
the States Members of the Organisation
under Article 408 of the Treaty of Yersailles
are of the utmost importance,
And that careful examination of the information
contained therein is calculated lo
throw light upon the practical value of the
Conventions themselves and to further their
general ratification,
Recommends that a Committee of !lw
Conference should be set up each year to
examine the summaries of the reports suhmitted
to the Conference in accordance
with Article 408,
And requests the Governing Body of the
fn!ernational Labour Office to appoinl, as
an experiment and for a period of two or
three years, a technical Committee of experts,
consisting of six or eight members,
for the purpose of making the hPsl and
fullest use of this information and of S<'<' tiring
such additional data as may he found
desirahl<' to supplement that alreadv available,
and of reporting then'on "to the
Diredor who will a1111ex this report to his
summary of the annual reports J>r<>s1•11!!'rl
to the Conference under Article 408.
Genern, 1 June 1926.
(Siync<l) Humber! WOLFE. Ch11irmu11.
Document No. 73
ILC, 8th Session, 1926, Record of Proceedings,
Appendix VII: Resolution concerning the methods by
which the Conference can make use of the reports
submitted under Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles,
p. 429
SOCIETE DES NATIONS
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE
DU TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
CONFERENCE
HUITIEME SESSION
GENEVE -- GENEVA
1926
EIGHTH SESSION
VOLUME I. ·· PREMIERE, DEUXIEME ET TR0ISIEME PARTIES.
VOLUME I. - FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD PARTS.
BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DU TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
0ENEVE - GENEVA
1926
429
ANNEXE VII. APPENDIX VII.
Resolutions adoptees par la Conference.
Resolutions adopted by the Conference.
1) Resolution concernant les moyens pour
la Conference d'utiliser les rapports presentes
en execution de l'article 408 du
Traite de Versailles, soumise par la
Commission de }'article 408 1
• .
La huitieme session de la Confl>rcnce
i11ternationale du Travail,
considerant que les rapports presentes
par les Etats Memhres de !'Organisation en
vertu de l'article 408 du Traite de Versailles
sont de la plus haute importance,
et qu'un eimmen attentif des renseignements
qu'ils contiennent permet de connaitre
la valeur pratique des conventions et
d'aider en general aux ratifications,
recommande d'instituer chaque annee
une commission de la Conference chargee
cl'examiner les resumes des rapports presentcs
a la Conference en vertu de !'article
408,
et charge le Conseil d'administration du
Bureau international du Travail de nommer,
:'1 titre d'essai pour une periode de
un, deux ou trois ans, une commission technique
de six a huit memhres ayant pour
mission d'utiliser ces renseignements de la
fac,;on la meilleure et la plus complete et
d'obtenir telles donnees prevues dans Jes
formulaires approuves par le Conseil d'administration
et qui pourraienl paraitre
necessaires pour completer les informations
deja fournies ; cette Commission devra presenter
au Conseil d'administration un rapport
que le Directeur, apres avis de ce Conseil,
annexera a son resume des rapports
annuels soumis a la Conference en vertu de
!'article 408.
1 Voir Cornpte rendu, pp. 238-244, 247-260 et
Annexe V.
(1) Resolution concerning the methods by
which the Conference can make use
of the reports submitted under Article
408 of the Treaty of Versailles, submitted
by the Committee on Article 408 1.
The Eighth Session of the International
Labour Conference,
Considering that the reports rendered by
the State Members of the Organisation under
Article 408 of the Treaty of Versailles arc
of the utmost importance,
And that careful examination of the information
contained therein is calculated to
throw light upon the practical value of the
Conventions themselves and to further their
general ratification,
Recommends that a Committee of the
Conference should be set up each year to
examine the summaries of the reports submitted
to the Conference in accordance
with Article 408,
And requests the Governing Body of the
International Labour Office to appoint, as
an experiment and for a period of one, two
or three years, a teclmica,J Committee of experts,
consisting of six or eight members,
for the purpose of making the best and
fullest use of this information and of securing
such additional data as may be provided
for in the forms approved by the Governing
Body and found desirable to supplement
that already available, and of
reporting thereon to the Governing Body,
which report the Director, after consultation
with the Governing Body, will annex to
his summary of the annual reports presented
to the Conference under Article ,108.
1 See Proceedings, pp. 238-244, 247-260 and
Appendix V.
Document No. 74
Minutes of the 103rd Session of the Governing
Body, December 1947, Questions Arising out of the
Examination of the Annual Reports on the Application
of Conventions and Extension of Terms of Reference
of the Committee of Experts, pp. 56–59
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
MINUTES
OF THE
103RD SESSION
OF
THE GOVERNING BODY
GENEVA — 12-15 DECEMBER 1947
003475
56
in force and until the proposed regulations had been approved by the Governing Body,
the Director-General would have the constitutional power to appoint staff at all
because so f at as he knew the present staff regulations had never received the
approval of the Governing Body. It was important that the decisions called for
under the revised Constitution should be taken without delay and that the matter
should not be postponed from one session to another.
The Governing Body approved the report of the Staff Questions Committee.
Declaration of Loyalty by Assistant Directors- General Mr. Johnston
and Mr. Vipie
The Director- General said that certain parts of the Staff Regulations had been
approved not only by the Governing Body but by the Conference. One of those
regulations provided that Assistant Directors-General must make before the Governing
Body in prescribed terms a declaration of loyalty. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Viple
had not yet had the opportunity of making that declaration.
Mr. G. A. Johnston and Mr. M. Viple each made the following
I solemnly undertake to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience
the functions that have been entrusted to me as Assistant Director-General of
the International Labour Office, to discharge my functions and regulate my
conduct with the interests of the International Labour Organisation alone in
view, and not to seek or receive instructions from any Government or other authority
external to the International Labour Office.
THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Industrial Committees (continued)
Appointment of Members of the Committee on Industrial Committees.
The Governing Body approved the following nominations submitted by the three
groups
Government gro.up: Belgium.
United Kingdom.
United States.
Employers grout: Sir John FORBES WATSON.
Mr. WALINE.
Mr. ZELLERBACII.
Substitutes: Mr. ERULKAR.
Mr. FENNEMA.
Workers' group: Mr. FENTON.
Sir Joseph HALLS WORTH.
Mr. JOuHAUx.
Substitutes: Mr. FINET.
Mr. Josin.
Mr. NORDAHL.
TWELFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Questions Arising out of the Examination of the Annual Reports on the Application
of Conventions and Extension of Terms of Reference of the Committee of Experts
Mr. G. A. Johnston (Assistant Director- General) reminded the Governing Body
that this question had come before it as a result of decisions taken by the Conference
at its 30th Session. The Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions
had devoted special attention to the situation in regard to the application of
57
Conventions, and had made certain suggestions with a view to improving the
conditions under which the work of the Committee of Experts might be carried out.
Secondly, the Conference had adopted an amendment to Article 7 of its Standing
Orders in order to make it possible for the Conference Committee on the Application
of Conventions to take cognisance of additional information and reports submitted
under Articles 19 and 35 of the amended Constitution.
The question now arose of broadening correspondingly the terms of reference of
the Committee of Experts. He would confine himself to drawing attention to the
points on which the Governing Body was asked to take a decision.
It had been suggested in the Conference Committee in 1947 that, in view of
the special conditions under which the work of the Committee of Experts took place,
it might be desirable to consider providing for the suitable remuneration of its
members. It was suggested in the Office note that consideration of this question
might be postponed until the Office was in a position to submit a more detailed note
to the Governing Body.
It had also been suggested that the Committee of Experts should be allowed
more time to carry out its duties. At its 102nd Session, the Governing Body had
already agreed that the Committee of Experts should be allowed more than a week
for its work and it was now proposed that the duration of the session of the
Committee of Experts should be nine working days.
The Office note also directed attention to the suggestion which had been raised,
even before the war, that Governments which wished to do so should be given the
opportunity of supplying directly to the Committee of Experts additional information
on the application of Conventions. The Office note suggested that the possibility
of availing themselves of this facility should be drawn to the attention of
Governments.
A further suggestion made in the Office note was that the Governing Body
should make an annual review of the conclusions reached by the Committee of
Experts and the Conference Committee. For this purpose, the report normally
prepared by the Office after every general session of the Conference on the application
of the decisions of the Conference might be formally communicated to the Governing
Body at its autumn session.
With regard to the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts, it was
suggested in the Office note that, in order to take account of the amendments to
Article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference and of the consequent broadening
of the functions both of the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions
and of the Committee of Experts, the latter should, in future, be known as the
"Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations ".
The functions of the Committee would include an examination of the annual reports
made under Article 22 of the Constitution, the information concerning Conventions
and Recommendations communicated in accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution,
and the information and reports on the measures taken by States Members
in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution. The Committee of Experts
would make a report which, as at present, would be communicated to the Governing
Body and the Conference.
Certain other suggestions had been made with a view to strengthening the
Committee of Experts. The Office suggested that proposals to this effect should
be submitted to the Governing Body when decisions had been taken concerning the
periodicity of the reports to be furnished by Governments on unratified Conventions
and on Recommendations, and when the Committee of Experts itself had had the
opportunity of discussing its methods of work.
Mr. Burton asked for more information in regard to the reports which
Governments were required to submit in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.
At present, the Office asked Governments to furnish these reports not later
than 30 November. He would be glad to know what the position was for 1947.
Furthermore, he suggested that the Governing Body point out to Governments the
importance of supplying these reports in time for their proper consideration by the
58
Committee of Experts and thus facilitating the work of the Conference Committee.
The position in this respect had been very unsatisfactory in the past.
Paragraph 11 of the Office note referred to the difficulties which had been
experienced by some Governments in furnishing their reports. These difficulties,
however, affected only a limited number of countries. It was a fact that certain
States which had not suffered from the war did not supply their reports in time.
He thought that the employers and workers of the countries concerned might
exercise some pressure in this respect, because it was important that all the reports
should be examined by the Committee of Experts and by the Conference Committee.
With regard to the proposal for the remuneration of the experts, he pointed out
that the experts were appointed in the capacity of private individuals, and that the
service they provided was comparable to the service provided by auditors. This
consideration should be borne in mind when taking a decision on the question of
remuneration. The position was quite different in the case of other committees of
experts, the members of which were very often Government representatives who continued
to receive their salary while attending meetings of the committees in question.
He stressed the necessity of allowing the experts sufficient time to examine the
many documents laid before them and to hold a full discussion. The note submitted
by the Office conveyed the impression that the Office did the main part of the work
and that the Committee of Experts met for a brief session merely to clear up a few
general points. In his view the Committee of Experts ought to be analogous to a
board of auditors. The Office should, of course, provide the Committee of Experts
with every necessary facility, but it was the Committee itself which bore the
responsibility for the work entrusted to it.
He did not think that it would be enough to provide that the sessions of the
Committee of Experts in future should last for nine working days. This period was
inadequate, having regard to the fact that the Committee would in future have to
consider the position not only in regard to ratified Conventions but also in regard
to non-ratified Conventions and Recommendations.
He proposed that the note prepared by the Office and the observations made
in the course of the debate in the Governing Body should be brought to the attention
of the Committee of Experts at its next session. The experts should be asked. to
express their views as to how they could best perform their work. The Governing
Body would then be in a position, at a later date, to take such decisions as would
enable the Committee to carry out its work in a fully satisfactory manner.
Mr. G. A. Johnston (Assistant Director-General) said that the Office had already
received 200 reports, this being the highest proportion of reports received at the
same time of the year since the beginning of the war. A reminder would be sent out
to Governments which had not yet sent in their reports.
With regard to the procedure for the examination of reports, the experts agreed
among themselves on the division of responsibility for particular groups of questions,
each expert being specially responsible for examining the reports on a particular
group of Conventions. The expert concerned acted as reporter for that group of
questions. Reports received from Governments were communicated three or four
months beforehand to each of the experts so that they had time to examine them
thoroughly before the Committee meeting. When they came to the meeting, the
members of the Committee had all the reports at their disposal and each member
could examine those for which he was not reporter. During the session, the experts
held an exchange of views on the reports on the basis of the observations and
suggestions made by the reporters who had examined each group of reports. The
Committee of Experts itself had expressed the view that nine working days would
be sufficient for its next meeting, but it had contemplated the possibility of providing
for a longer session when the Committee took up its new functions under the amended
Constitution.
The Office would not fail to communicate to the Committee of Experts the note
which was before the Governing Body, together with the minutes of the present
discussion, in accordance with Mr. Burton's. suggestion.
59
In reply to a question put by Mr. Burton, Mr. G. A. Johnston said that the total
number of reports due from Governments for 1947 was 765.
The Governing Body approved the suggestions contained in the Office note and
adopted the proposal made by Mr. Burton.
NINETEENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Composition 0/ Committees
Committee 0/ Experts on the Application of Conventions.
The Director- General said that the Governing Body was asked to renew the
appointment of five members of this Committee. As Dr. Tan had not been able to
attend any of the sessions of the Committee, it was not proposed to renew his appointment.
After consultation with the Chinese Government, the Office suggested the
appointment of a Chinese member in the person of Dr. Chen Ta.
Mr. Joshi wished to urge the Office to pursue its efforts to secure the appointment
of an expert from a non-metropolitan territory on the Committee of Experts
for the Application of Conventions.
The Director- General said that the Office had found a most suitable candidate
who had, however, unfortunately taken on other functions which made it difficult
for him to serve on the Committee of Experts. He hoped to be able to submit a
name to the Governing Body at its next session.
The Governing Body approved the following appointments to this Committee:
(a) Renewal of Appointments:
Sir Atul CHATTERJEE (Indian).
Mr. William RAPPARD (Swiss).
Mr. Georges ScEI1I1E (French).
Mr. Paul TSCHOFPEN (Belgian).
Hon. Charles E. WYZANSKI, JR. (United States).
Mr. TAN (Chinese) was not reappointed.
(b) New Appointments:
Dr. CHEN TA (Chinese), Professor and Head of the Department of
logy, National Tsing Hua University; Member of the Committee on
Labour Policy, Ministry of Social Affairs; former. Director of the
Department of the Census, Ministry of the Interior.
Mr. Tommaso PERAssI (Italian), Professor of Law at the University of
Rome, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Questions Department in the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Member of the Constituent National
Assembly, President of the Italian Section of the International Association
of Democratic Jurists. (Professor Perassi was a member of the
Committee of Experts from 1936 to 1937.)
Correspondence Committee on Accident Prevention.
Mr. Waline asked whether, although the Correspondence Committee on Accident
Prevention was composed mainly of representatives of Government departments or
special accident prevention organisations, nominations would also be acceptable in
respect of experts belonging to employers' or workers' organisations.
The Director- General said that it would be most useful for employers' and
workers' experts to co-operate in the work of this Committee; he was therefore
prepared to consider any nomination which Mr. Waline might wish to make.
Document No. 75
Minutes of the 103rd Session of the Governing Body,
December 1947, Questions Arising out of the
Examination of the Annual Reports on the Application
of Conventions and Extension of Terms of Reference
of the Committee of Experts, pp. 167–173
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
MINUTES
OF THE
103RD SESSION
OF
THE GOVERNING BODY
GENEVA — 12-15 DECEMBER 1947
003475
167
APPENDIX XII
TWELFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
QuEsTIoNs ARISING OUT OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS
ON THE APPLICATION OF CONVENTIONS AND EXTENSION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE
OF THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS
1. In accordance with the procedure followed before the war, the Governing Body at its
present session is called upon to deal with a number of questions arising out of the examination
of the annual reports on the application of Conventions (Article 22 of the Constitution) by the
Committee of Experts, which held its 17th Session in March 1947, and by the Committee set up
for the purpose by the Conference at its 30th Session (Geneva, June-July 1947). The Committee
of the Conference devoted special attention to the general situation as regards the supervision
of application of Conventions, and made various suggestions designed in particular to secure
an improvement in the conditions under which the work of the Committee of Experts is carried out.
2. In view of the adoption by the Conference at the same session of a revision of Article 7
of its Standing Orders, to enable the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions
to take cognisance of the additional information and reports submitted under Articles 19
and 35 of the amended Constitution (submission of Conference decisions to the " competent
authorities ", reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations), the question of a
corresponding widening of the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts has also to be
considered by the Governing Body at this session.
3. The present note deals with these two questions as follows:
Part I: Situation as regards the supervision of application of Conventions (with particular
reference to the work of the Committee of Experts).
Part II: Extension of the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts.
PART I
Situation as regards the Supervision of Application of Conventions
(with particular reference to the Work of the Committee of Experts)
Introduction
4. The Committee on the Application of Conventions set up by the 30th Session of the
Conference devoted considerable attention to the problem of ensuring strict application by States
Members of the provisions of Conventions which they have ratified, and to the practical measures
which could be taken to remedy any defects in the existing machinery of supervision of application
which experience has revealed. The Committee recognised the key role played by the Committee
of Experts in the examination of annual reports, but considered that the conditions under which
the Experts perform their task called for amelioration if their indispensable preliminary work
was to yield the most effective results. The opinion was expressed that the existing procedure
for the examination of measures taken to implement Conventions was little more than a succession
of acts of confidence based upon documentary information supplied by Governments, and did
not throw sufficient light upon the day-to-day practical application of the national measures of
implementation. It was readily admitted that a system of international labour inspection in
present circumstances was out of the question but the Conference Committee devoted a number
of sittings to discussion of a proposal put forward by the French Government member of the
Committee that the International Labour Office should have at its disposal in the various States
or groups of States "observers" who could keep in permanent touch with the national labour
inspectorates and could keep the Office informed of their findings regarding the application of
Conventions. Although this proposal was not accepted by the Committee, the prolonged
consideration given to it provided an unmistakable indication of the Committee's preoccupation
with the problem of enforcement. During the discussion a number of suggestions were put
forward with a view to securing a reinforcement of the personnel of the Committee of Experts,
the prolongation of the duration of its sessions, an increase in the Office's facilities for the
168
translation of reports, laws, regulations, etc., as well as an immediate strengthening of the central
Section of the Office dealing with Conventions and Recommendations and of the technical
Sections concerned. The Experts themselves at their sessions in Montreal (1946) and Geneva
(1947) had also indicated various lines along which improvement in the organisation of their
work could be secured, as, for example, by the appointment of a member qualified to specialise on
application in non-metropolitan territories and by the addition of at least one woman member
to the Committee.
5. It was made clear in both Committees that these improvements were primarily designed
to meet the immediate situation regarding the application of ratified Conventions, but that such
reinforcement had become all the more necessary in view of the considerable additional work on
unratified Conventions, Recommendations, etc., which the coming into force of the amended
Constitution (Montreal, 1946) would involve. The Conference Committee asked that the
Governing Body should review the position at its autumn session with a view to prompt measures
being taken to remedy any defects in the existing situation.
Present Procedure
6. Under Article 19 (7) of the Constitution, each Member which has ratified a Convention
is under obligation to take "such action as may be necessary to make effective the provisions of
such Convention ". Under Article 22 it also "agrees to make an annual report to the International
Labour Office on the measures which it has taken to give effect to the provisions of
Conventions to which it is a party ". The form and content of these reports are prescribed by
the Governing Body.
7. Reports from the Governments under Article 22 of the Constitution are now due for the
period 1 October of one year to 30 September of the following year, or for a part of that period,
in respect of Conventions in force for the countries concerned on 30 June of the latter year.
The forms for annual reports are sent to the Governments concerned by the end of July or the
beginning of August each year, and the Governments are requested to supply these reports not
later than 30 November.
8. Until 1924, the reports submitted by Governments were communicated to the Conference,
first of all in full and later in a summarised form, in the Report which the Director
submitted to the Conference. The Conference examined them in the course of the general
discussion on the Director's Report. It was soon found that it was not possible by this method
to make the maximum use of the means of mutual supervision of the application of Conventions
afforded by Article 22. In pursuance of a decision of the Conference at its Eighth (1926) Session,
special machinery was set up in 1927 to ensure the fullest possible use being made of the Governments'
annual reports. The machinery in question consists of a Committee of Experts
appointed by the Governing Body for the purpose of carrying out a preliminary examination
of the annual reports, and of a special committee of delegates which the Conference sets up at
each ordinary session to review the application of Conventions from a wider angle, with the
assistance of the three groups.
9. The members of the Committee of Experts who are chosen for their experience of social
administration or their knowledge of the working of international institutions, as well as for
their independent standing, are appointed by the Governing Body for a period of three years,
but are eligible for reappointment. They act in a personal capacity and do not represent their
Governments. They receive no remuneration but their expenses are met out of the funds of
the Organisation. The task of the Committee may be summarised as follows:
(a) It notes the cases where the information supplied appears to be inadequate for a complete
understanding of the position, either generally or in a particular country. To remedy any such
deficiencies, it would suggest that the Governing Body should take into consideration the revision
of the questionnaire with a view to securing greater precision in the reports in general. If the
deficiencies concern the report of a particular country, it would suggest that the Office ask by
correspondence for any further details which, within the limits of the questionnaire approved
by the Governing Body, may be demanded.
(b) The Committee calls attention to cases in which different interpretations of the
provisions of Conventions appear to be adopted in different countries, without, however,
pronouncing in favour of one interpretation as against another.
(c) It presents a technical report which the Director-General, subject to the approval of
the Governing Body, communicates to the Governments and to the Conference.
10. The procedure adopted to enable the Committee of Experts to carry out this task has
been- to assign specific Conventions to the individual members of the Committee and to forward
the reports on these Conventions to each Expert as soon as possible after they have been received
in the Office. The draft observations prepared by members of the Committee in their individual
capacity are then considered by the Committee as a whole when it meets in the spring each year
169
and, with the approval of the Governing Body, its report and observations are submitted to
Governments and subsequently to the Conference. The duration of these meetings has generally
been one week.
11. This machinery, coupled with the sessions of the Conference Committee, functioned
regularly until 1940, when it was interrupted by the war. It was partially restored in 1945 and
has now been re-established almost in its entirety. Full resumption has, however, not yet been
possible, mainly because of difficulties still experienced by certain Governments in the preparation
and submission of annual reports on account of the destruction of archives, shortage of
staff, etc., and also because of the unusually short interval between the 29th and 30th Sessions
of the Conference necessitated by the decision to resume the practice of convoking the Conference
in June, which considerably reduced the time available to Governments for the preparation of
their reports.
12. It would appear that a part at least of the uneasiness felt by the Conference Committee
this year in regard to the working of the supervision machinery was due to the exceptional
circumstances just mentioned, which should not recur. Nevertheless, the Committee considered
that the mere coming to an end of these abnormal difficulties would not automatically bring
about the improvements desired, and that the system of supervision as a whole appeared to
require re-examination in the light of experience. Such re-examination would seem particularly
appropriate at the present time when the Organisation is entering fully upon the post-war phase
of its activities, with its Constitution amended for the purpose.
13. It would seem desirable that the object of the various improvements to be made in the
procedure should be to ensure that the reports received are properly sieved so as to permit of the
intensive examination of those which reveal disregard of the obligations assumed by Governments,
and to encourage Governments to assume the rights and responsibilities in connection with the
international supervision of Conventions which are entrusted to them by the Constitution of the
Organisation.
Suggested Improvements in the Procedure
14. The proposed "reform" of the machinery of supervision may be considered at five
different stages: (a) supply of annual reports by Governments; (b) Committee of Experts;
(c) Office; (d) Conference Committee; and (e) Governing Body.
(a) Supply of Reports.
15. The punctual supply by Governments of complete reports, i.e., reports drawn up in the
form prescribed by the Governing Body, constitutes the foundation of the system of mutual
supervision provided by Article 22 and is therefore the indispensable basis of the work of the
Committee of Experts. For example, out of a total of 735 annual reports requested for the
period 1945-1946, although nearly 600 reports were received by the time the 30th Session of the
Conference met in June last, only some 50 per cent. of the total requested had been received in
time for examination by the Committee of Experts which met in the preceding March. The
result was that 217 reports had to be submitted to the Conference Committee without having
been previously scrutinised by the Experts. A total of 153 reports from 11 countries were not
rendered at all. While recognising that this situation was due in part at least to the exceptional
circumstances referred to above (the short interval between the Montreal and Geneva
Sessions, etc.), the Conference Committee recommended" an urgent appeal to the Governments,
calling their attention to the fundamental importance which the Conference attaches to the
punctual submission of annual reports ".
16. Supply on time is, however, only one aspect of this question. No less vital is the
necessity for complete reports submitted in accordance with the detailed forms approved by the
Governing Body, which at an early stage inserted in them special questions regarding practical
application, decisions by courts of law, organisation of the inspection services, number of workers
covered, breaches reported, etc. Since 1934 an additional question has been inserted, requiring
Governments to include in their reports a summary of any observations they might have received
from employers' and workers' organisations on the application of the Conventions concerned.
Replies to these various questions regarding the practical aspects of application have contributed
much towards providing a fuller and more realistic picture of enforcement methods and
difficulties.
17. It seems relevant to point out in this connection that, with the coming into force of
the amended Constitution, the supply of full and accurate information will be further facilitated
through the provisions of the new Article 23. Under paragraph 2 of this Article, Governments
are required to communicate to the representative organisations of employers and workers copies
of the information and reports submitted to the Office in pursuance of Articles 19 and 22.
Reports which are automatically and continuously subjected to control by the groups most
directly concerned should gain greatly both in scope and realism.
170
(b) Committee of Experts.
18. Composition, attendance, remuneration. It has been recognised from the beginning
that the Committee of Experts by the very nature of its functions should not be a numerous
committee but a compact body. In fact, the Resolution which the Conference adopted in 1926
recommending the setting up of the Committee of Experts proposed a body of 6 or 8 members
for a start. By 1940 the Governing Body in the light of experience had raised this number to 13,
in particular because of the necessity to secure in the membership of the Committee as wide a
representation of experience in the different countries as possible, and in order to ensure a working
minimum of attendance at each session. The question of attendance has proved a matter of
some difficulty in practice, due in part, at any rate, to the fact that the members of the Committee
serve in their personal capacity and are therefore unable to appoint substitutes. In this connection,
it was suggested in the Conference Committee of 1947 that the Governing Body should
consider the possibility of providing an adequate remuneration for the services rendered by the
members of the Committee.
19. While, therefore, adhering to the principle of maintaining the Committee as an organ
of limited size, it has become necessary to reinforce its present membership of 10 in order to
enable the Committee to cope with the steadily increasing volume and variety of the problems
submitted to it. In response to a suggestion made by the Committee of Experts in 1946, the
Governing Body has already appointed in the person of Professor van Asbeck (Netherlands) an
authority of high standing to specialise in questions of application in non-metropolitan territories.
The Committee of Experts in 1947 requested the Governing Body "to consider as a matter of
urgency the enlargement of the Committee at least to its pre-war size, and in doing so to appoint
to the Committee, which has hitherto consisted entirely of men, one or more women ". In
making this request, the Committee called attention to the advantage of keeping its size within
reasonable limits so as to retain its character of an informal working party, as well as to the
particular assistance to be expected from a woman member with specialised knowledge in the
field of protective legislation for women and children. At the 101st Session of the Governing
Body, the Chinese and Indian Government representatives suggested that an expert belonging
to a non-metropolitan territory should be appointed to the Committee. Recommendations
covering these suggestions are contained in the Office's note on item 19 of the Governing Body's
agenda, "Composition of Committees
20. As regards the question of remuneration, it should be noted that the principle involved
would apply not only to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions but possibly
to other committees of experts set up by the Governing Body. It has also to be borne in mind
that the terms of reference of the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions have
been widened, that proposals for a corresponding extension of the terms of reference of the
Committee of Experts have been submitted to the Governing Body (see Part II below), and that
the method of work of the Committee of Experts in particular may be expected to undergo
important changes as a result of these modifications. Unless more detailed consideration could
be given to the implications of these changes in terms of the size of the Committee, the periodicity
and duration of its sessions, etc., it would be impossible for adequate attention to be given to the
question of remuneration with a full knowledge of all the relevant facts. It is there/ore suggested
that examination of this important question should be postponed until the is in a position to
submit to the Governing Body a detailed note on the subject.
21. Duration of sessions. The yearly session of the Committee of Experts has hitherto
been limited to a working week of six days. However, the Governing Body has already agreed
(101st Session) that the Committee might hold sessions of more than one week. It is suggested
therefore that the Committee might meet on a Thursday and conclude its session on the Saturday of
the following week, i.e., nine working days. This experimental arrangement, which might be
adopted to meet the immediate situation, should offer sufficient time to the members of the
Committee for comparing notes, examining files, etc., with the Office's experts, and for holding
subsequently a detailed general discussion.
22. Direct supply o/ information to the Committee of Experts by Governments. In addition
to the above suggestions, attention may be called to a procedural practice which before the war
had àontributed to supplementing and rendering more precise the information at the disposal
of the Committee of Experts. In 1929 the Committee had indicated its willingness to receive
additional information or explanations which might be supplied to it direct by representatives
of Governments. One instance of this kind of first-hand submission of information occurred
during the 11th Session of the Committee (1937), when the French Government delegated a high
official of the Ministry of Colonies to supply the Committee orally with certain facts in amplification
of its annual reports in regard to the application of Conventions to the French colonies.
The attention of the Governments might be called to this possibility of availing themselves of such an
opportunity to submit to the Committee of Experts and through it to the Governing Body and the
See below, Appendix XIX, p. 198.
171
Conference, any additional data which in their view could contribute to a clearer understanding
of the content of their reports. There is, of course, no suggestion of convoking representatives
of Governments to appear before the Committee of Experts.
(c) Role of the Ob'ice.
23. The reports of the Experts, as well as of the Conference Committee, have emphasised
the importance of the part played by the Office in preparing the ground for the work of these
Committees. The Conference Committee in particular recommended the Conference this year
to "ask the Governing Body to consider the reinforcement of the services of the Office which are
responsible for dealing with the ratification and applicati&n of Conventions ". The Committee
also expressed the opinion that the Office's Legislative Series, which reproduces translations of
the more important laws and regulations, "is far from being complete or up to date ".
24. In order to meet this request, every effort is being made to have reports translated and
placed at the disposal of the Experts, starting as early as Christmas. Steps have already been
taken to strengthen the Legislative Series Service in order to ensure prompt translation of the
most recent legislation mentioned in the annual reports.
25. Apart from the question of reinforcing the staff in order to ensure speedier execution
of the necessary preparatory administrative work for the Committee of Experts and the
Conference Committee, a more effective examination of the substance of these reports would call
for a strengthening of the technical personnel of the Office.
26. Specific proposals for reinforcing the staff to meet these needs will be included in the
budget estimates for 1949. These proposals will also take account of the additional staff required
to cope with the considerable ex±ra work concerning competent authorities, unratified Conventions
and Recommendations which the coming into force of the 1946 Instrument of Amendment
of the Constitution would necessitate.
(d) Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions.
27. So far as the Conference Committee is concerned, the main problem has been to ensure
adequate attendance of representatives of the three groups at its sittings. This has been due
primarily not to any lack of appreciation on the part of the Conference of the essential importance
of the work of the Committee, but rather to the fact that the national delegations had seldom a
sufficient number of technical advisers available to take a regular part in the work of the
Committee. During the last three years, however, the Governing Body had decided that
the anuual reports on the application of Conventions should be treated as a separate item on
the agenda of the Conference in order to enable Governments under Article 3, paragraph 2, of
the Constitution to include qualified advisers in the national delegations for the purpose. This
has insured full attendance, particularly at this year's session of the Committee.
28. At its 102nd Session the Governing Body decided, on the recommendation of its
Standing Orders Committee, to continue this practice of treating the question of the application
of Conventions as a separate item on the agenda of the Conference. -
(e) Role of the Governing Body.
29. Although the Committee of Experts was set up by and is responsible to the Governing
Body, the latter has so far never proceeded to an actual discussion of the content of the Experts'
report. The Governing Body's right to hold such a discussion is undisputed and has been
affirmed on numerous occasions. For example, at the 66th Session of the Governing Body (April
1934), the Director pointed out that the reason why the Governing Body had refrained from
examining the substance of the Experts' findings was due primarily to "reasons of convenience ",
since the Committee of Experts' report represented only an intermediate stage in the supervision
procedure, prior to examination of the application of Conventions by the Conference Committee.
In the past, therefore, the Governing Body at its spring session merely took note of the Experts'
report, while at its autumn session it considered only the administrative questions arising out
of the examination of annual reports which called for its decision.
30. It is suggested that from now on the Governing Body should devote closer attention
to the question of application of Conventions by holding an annual review of the conclusions
reached by the Committee of Experts and by the Conference Committee. After each general
session of the Conference, the Office prepares a document containing the texts of the reports
both of the Committee of Experts and of the Conference Committee, together with relevant
appendices containing statistics about reports received, etc., and detailed observations on individual
Conventions as well as replies by Members to these observations. This document is placed
at the disposal of Governments in order to afford them a complete over-all picture of the situation
as regards application of Conventions. The Oj5nice ventures to suggest that this document might
also be laid formally before the Governing Body at its autumn session each year, so as to enable the
Governing Body to gain a comprehensive idea of the position in respect of the application of
Conventions.
172
General
31. In view of the cardinal importance of the strict application of. Conventions as a means
of achieving the aims and purposes of the International Labour Organisation, the necessity for
a periodical review and possible overhauling of the machinery for ensuring such application
hardly needs emphasising. In the foregoing pages an attempt has been made to provide the
Governing Body with a brief account of the working of the existing machinery of supervision,
together with a number of suggestions designed to secure practical improvements in that
machinery.
32. A few years will, of course, have to elapse before the improvements sketched out in
the present note can produce their full effect. A reinforced Office would be in a position to
prepare material for the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee more expeditiously
and with even greater thoroughness than in the past. The report of the Experts should afford
a firmer basis for the comprehensive survey by the three groups carried out by a Conference
Committee which would include advisers specially appointed for the purpose. The suggested
annual review by the Governing Body at its autumn session should be of the utmost practical
value as it would afford an opportunity for the consideration of any further possible measures
necessary to achieve the maximum degree of enforcement. These successive stages in the
procedure would, however, be of little value if they were not preceded by their indispensable
preliminary—the punctual supply by Governments of complete reports. If this basic condition
is not fulfilled,, neither the Committee of Experts nor the Conference Committee on the Application
of Conventions, nor even the Governing Body itself, would be able to discharge its functions
adequately. the Conference Committee this year was unanimous in recognising the
essential role that organisations of employers and workers have to play in securing proper
application of ratified Conventions and the increased responsibilities that Article 23 of the
amended Constitution would place upon such organisations.
33. As was pointed out by Sir Joseph Hallsworth during the discussion of the Committee's
report in plenary sitting, the wholehearted and continuous support of Governments, employers
and workers is essential for securing an effective check on application. In view of the greatly
increased recognition of the importance of Conventions as the vital instruments of the International
Labour Organisation, now evident on all sides, it may confidently be hoped that this
support will be forthcoming in ample measure. The Office accordingly ventures to suggest that
such co-operation from the constituent parts of the Organisation, coupled with the various
procedural improvements outlined above, should provide all the elements necessary to ensure
in present circumstances that the work of supervision is carried out in practice with the
thoroughness which its importance demands.
PART II
Terms of Reference of the Committee of Experts
34. On the basis of a text proposed by the Governing Body at its 102nd Session, the
Conference at its 30th Session revised Article 7 of its Standing Orders with a view to enabling
the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions to take cognisance of the additional
information and reports on unratified Conventions, Recommendations, etc., to be submitted by
States Members under Articles 19 and 35 of the amended Constitution, including information
supplied by Governments on the results of inspections.1 In adopting the report of its Standing
Orders Committee submitting the text of the proposed Article 7 of the Standing Orders of the
Conference, the Governing Body agreed that "the approval by the Conference of the proposed
extension of the terms of reference of the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions
will render necessary a corresponding extension of the terms of reference of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions which prepares the ground for the work of the
Conference Committee ". The Governing Body requested the Office to submit proposals on
this question as soon as possible after the Conference had taken a decision on the revision of
its own Standing Orders.
35. It may be recalled that the amended Article 19 of the Constitution provides for an
enlargement of the scope of reporting to include, as the Governing Body may request, information
on the submission of Conventions and Recommendations to the "competent authorities"
(with particulars of the nature of these authorities and the action taken by them), on the
1 rhe revised Article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference is as follows
Committee on the Application o/ Conventions and Recommendations
1. The Conference shall as soon as possible appoint a Committee to consider:
(a) the measures taken by Members to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which they are
parties and the information furnished by Members concerning the results of inspections;
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations communicated by Members
in accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution;
(c) the measures taken by Members in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution.
2. The Committee shall submit a report to the Conference.
173
difficulties encountered in obtaining ratifications, on the state of the national legislation in relation
to the subject matter of unratified Conventions, and on the extent to which effect has been given
or is proposed to be given to Recommendations. The revised Article 35 creates certain additional
obligations for States Members as regards the application of Conventions in non-metropolitan
territories, including the supply of information and reports on various matters connected therewith.
36. It was in pursuance of a Resolution adopted by the Conference in 1926 that the
Committee of Experts was set up by the Governing Body in the following year, as part of the
mechanism of supervision of the application of Conventions, to carry out an examination of the
annual reports submitted by Governments under Article 22 of the Constitution in preparation
for the examination of these reports from a wider angle by the Conference, with the assistance
of the three groups represented at the Conference. It has been recognised from the outset that
the technical examination of the annual reports carried out by the Experts is an indispensable
preliminary to the over-all survey of application conducted by the Conference through its
Committee on the Application of Conventions. With the approval of the Governing Body, the
report of the Committee of Experts is communicated to Governments and to the Conference.
37. It is accordingly suggested that, as from the coming into force of the amendments to
the Constitution adopted by the Conference at its Montreal Session, 1946, the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions should be known as the "Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations ", and that the Committee should be called upon to examine:
(a) the annual reports under Article 22 of the Constitution on the measures taken by
Members to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which they are parties, and
the information furnished by Members concerning the results of inspections;
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations communicated
by Members in accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution;
(c) information and reports on the measures taken by Members in accordance with
Article 35 of the Constitution.
The Committee of Experts would make a report which the Director- General would submit in
due course to the Governing Body and to the Conference.
38. As was pointed out by the Standing Orders Committee when submitting to the
Governing Body the proposed text for a revised Article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference,
the extension of the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts would throw a considerable
amount of additional work upon that Committee, and practical steps would have to be taken
to equip the Committee adequately to deal with the extra work involved.
39. A number of proposals for strengthening the Committee are contained in the first
VVILU (.0 IUILdICI
which may be required, the Office would have to make as accurate an estimate as possible of
the volume and character of the new material likely to be received from Governments. This
would to a large extent depend upon decisions as to the periodicity (annual, biennial, triennial)
of the information to be supplied and the form in which it should be supplied, as well as whether
information and reports should be furnished on all or only on a selected number of Conventions
and Recommendations in the first instance. A note on these latter questions has been prepared
for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee of the Governing Body at its present session.
It might further be of advantage if the members of the Committee of Experts at their next
session were to hold a preliminary exchange of views as to how they would wish their work in
this connection to be organised in order to obtain the best results. It is accordingly suggested
that the Office should submit proposals concerning such further measures as may be required to the
Governing Body as soon as possible after decisions have been taken on the periodicity of. the reports
to be furnished by Governments on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations and the Committee
of Experts has had an opportunity of discussing its methods of work.
Document No. 76
ILC, 73rd Session, 1987, Report III (Part 4A), Report
of the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations, paras 37-49
International Labour Conference
73rd Session 1987
Report III
(Part 4A)
Third Item on the Agenda:
Information and Reports on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Report of the Committee of Experts
on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
(Articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution)
General Report
and Observations concerning Particular Countries
International Labour Office Gent.:va
GENERAL REPORT
35. Examples ot such promotional Conventions are those concerning
employmellt policy (No. 122), human resources development (No. 142),
vocational rehabilitation and employment of disabl,ed persons (No. 159),
and occupational health services (No. 161). In such Conventions the
ratifying State binds itself to achieve set objectives, which can be
elusive, by a continuing programme of act ion. Various other Conventions
lay down certain requirements of a clearly defined nature while
also calling for promotional measures of a more general character.
Examples of this type of instrument are the Conventions relating to
equal remuneration (No. 100), discrimination in respect of employment
and occupation (No. 111) and rural workers' organisations (No. 141).
36. The nature of the questions which the Committee has to
consider in supervising the implementation of standards of a
promotional nature may be illustrated by reference to a particularly
obvious example, Convention No. 122. Its aim is to achieve "full,
productive and freely chosen employment", requiring a co-ordinated
policy in a wide range of economic spheres (investment policy, fiscal
and monetary policies, trade policy, policies concerning prices,
incomes and wages, etc.) and social spheres. These will require
continual adjustment to meet changing national and international
conditions. The reports received by the Committee in respect of
Convention No. 122 will disclose changes, some of them unfortunately
adverse. How has the Committee dealt with them? It recognises that
there will be areas in which a variety of options may be open to the
governments concerned. It feels, however, that it can properly
monitor progress in these respects. The evolving pattern in the State
itself can be considered and questions raised to clarify the causes of
the changes (whether for better or worse) and the actions taken by the
State to continue the trends (where there is improvement) or to
reverse them (where the case is otherwise). It is equally important
to look at the changes in lhe wider context of States of similar
nature. No two States are alike but divergent trends can be a useful
indicator and differing action can be a helpful guide to future
policy. Although the Committee may indicate whether the objectives of
the Convention have been partly achieved and may find it necessary to
draw the State's attention to a failure, the aim of its comments will
more often be to clarify problems and to assist with comments of a
constructive nature.
Qrgaisation of the work of the Conm1ittee
37. Dates of the annnual sess-ion. The Committee holds its annual
session at a date and for a period determined by the Governing Body.
38. Chairman and, ReJH:>rter _of the Committe. At every session
the Committee elects a chairman and a reporter for the duration of the
session.
39. Participation of other Qrgjmisations. The United Nations is
invited to appoint a representative to attend the sessions of the
Committee. When the Committee examines instruments or questions that
also come within the competence of other intergovernmental
organisations, whether belonging to the United Nations system or of a
regional character, representatives of those organisations are invited
to take part in the sittings of the Committee.
17
REPORT OF THE C0MMITTEF. OF EXPERTS
40. Confidentiality. The Connnittee meets in private. Its
discussions and preparatory documents are confidential.
41. Examination of questions before the Committee. The
Committee assigns to each of its members the initial responsibility
for a group of Conventions or a given subject. The number of reports
and of subjects requiring study makes it essential for a preliminary
analysis to be carried out before the Commit tee as a whole examines
the questions to be dealt with. Information and reports received by
the Office sufficiently early are transmitted to the experts concerned
before the meeting of the Committee. Each expert submits to the
Committee in plenary sitting conclusions in the form of draft
observations or direct requests for examination and approval by it.
42. The Committee establishes working parties to consider two
types of questions. Certain working parties are set up regularly to
deal with matters of a general and recurring nature. One example
relates to the preparation of the general surveys based on the reports
submitted under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution that are
devoted each year to a particular subject chosen by the Governing
Body. Another has concerned the preparation of reports on the
progress made in achieving the observance of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other working
parties are set up occasionally on an ad hoe basis to deal with
specific questions. For example, in 1978 the Committee set up a
working party on the submission of Conventions and Recomenda tions to
the competent authorities. Other working parties have been set up
occasionally to examine questions of interpretation and principle
relating to particular Conventions or the relations between several
Conventions. The conclusions of all working parties are submitted to
the whole Committee for consideration and adoption.
43. Furthermore, the Committee decided in 1977 that members
should be able to consult one another at the preliminary stage in the
examination of reports. Accordingly, any member may ask to be
consulted by the expert responsible for a given Convention before the
completion of the draft findings, and the responsible expert himself
may consult other members of the Committee where he considers this
desirable. The final wording of the drafts to be submitted to the
Committee, however, remains the responsibility of the expert entrusted
with the examination of the reports or information concerned. All
drafts are examined and approved by the Committee in plenary sitting,
and each member is naturally free to make comments and proposals at
that stage.
44. Available information. The Committee has requested the
Office, in the case of first reports received from governments after
ratification of a Convention and also after major changes in
legislation, to prepare a comparative analysis of the situation of law
and practice in the country concerned in relation to the Convention;
the analysis is submitted to the expert responsible for the
Convention. The Committee has also asked the Office to prepare for
the responsible expert notes on legal questions which may prove to be
necessary on a given file. It has further asked the Office to
ascertain, on receipt of a report, whether the report takes account of
any earlier comments by the Committee. If it does not, the Office is
requested, without going into the substance of the matter, to call the
18
GENERAL REPORT
attention of the Government to the need for a reply. The Office is
also requested, where reports are not accompanied by copies of the
relevant legislation, statistical data or other documentation
necessary for a full examination of the situation and this material is
not otherwise available, to write to the governments concerned
requesting them to supply such documents.
45. In general, the documentation available to the Committee
includes the information supplied by governments in their reports or
to the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, legislative texts, collective agreements and relevant
court decisions, information on the results of inspections furnished
by member States, information and comments from employers' and
workers' organisations, conclusions of other ILO bodies (such as
commissions of inquiry and the Connni t tee on Freedom of Association) 1
and the results of technical co-operation.
46. The problem of securing sufficient information on the
practical application of Conventions remains one of the most difficult
facing the Committee, leaving much uncertainty as to the way in which
States give effect in practice to ILO instruments of the IL0.2
Measures permitting increased dialogue with governments and
occupational organisations, including wider use of direct contacts and
other advisory missions, should lead to a better understanding of the
difficulties met with in giving effect to ILO standards.
47. Forms of the Committee's conclusions. The Committee
presents its conclusions in the form of observations, comments and
surveys set out in its report or of requests that, for practical
reasons, are communicated directly to the governments concerned by the
Director-General on behalf of the Committee. Direct requests may be
made available to any person or organisation having a justifiable
interest to consult them.
48. Although the conclusions of the Committee have traditionally
represented unanimous agreement among its members, decisions can be
taken by a majority. Where that happens, it is the established
practice of the Committee to include in its report the opinion of the
dissenting members, if they so request, together with any response
which the Committee may deem appropriate.
49. Submission of the report. The Committee's report is
submitted to the Governing Body and published as a report to the next
general session of the International Labour Conference.
* *
50. A member of the Committee, Mr. A. Gubinski, while noting
that the point of departure for the Commit tee's work was the text of
the international instruments, stated that, in evaluating their
implementation, one could not avoid taking into account differences in
1 See paras. 32 and 33 above.
2 These questions were last reviewed by the Committee in 1978;
see Report III (Part 4A), International Labour Conference, 64th
Session, 1978, General Report, paras. 40 ff.
19
Document No. 77
ILC, 77th Session, 1990, Report of the Committee on
the Application of Standards, paras 20–35
International Labour Conference 27
Provisional Record
Seventy-seventh Session, Geneva, 1990
Third Item on the Agenda: Information and Reports on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards
CONTENTS
PART ONE : General Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART Two: Observations and Information concerning Particular Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
I. Observations and Information concerning Reports on Ratified Conventions (article 22 of the
Constitution) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A. General Observations and Information concerning Certain Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B. Observations and Information on the Application of Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C. Table of Detailed Reports on Ratified Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D. Statistical Table of Reports on Ratified Conventions (article 22 of the Constitution) . . . . . 66
II. Observations and Information concerning the Application of Conventions in Non-Metropolitan
Territories (articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution) ........................... ; . . . 67
A. General Observations and Information concerning Certain Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
B. Table of Detailed Reports on the Application of Conventions (Non-Metropolitan Territories) 68
III. Submission to the Competent Authorities of the Conventions and Recommendations Adopted by the
International Labour Conference (article 19 of the Constitution) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
IV. Reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations (article 19 of the Constitution) . . . . . 71
Reports received by 22 June 1990 relating to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards)
Convention, 1976 (No. 147). and Recommendation, 1976 (No. 155) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Index by Countries to Observations and Information Contained in the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
27/1
the field of human rights were really being neglected
in this case.
Standard-setting and supervisory activities
16. The principal ideas and general concerns expressed
during the discussion in the Committee on
the ILO's standard-setting and supervisory activities
recalled previous important discussions: that of the
70th Session of the Conference (1984) on the Director-
General's report on standards; and that of the
Governing Body from 1984 to 1987 concerning the
report of the Working Party on International Labour
Standards. As was said in the Ventejol report, which
remains entirely appropriate to the present situation,
the discussion confirmed that the members of the
Committee agreed on the values and the principles of
standards, and on the importance of standards in promoting
balanced development with justice and freedom,
and as a source of inspiration for social policies.
The exchange of views noted in previous paragraphs
of this report on the changes which have occurred in
some countries confirms this notion. Several Government
members (Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal,
USSR) felt that the universally recognised priority
given to standards should result in the allocation
within the current budget of the ILO of adequate or
increased financial and human resources for this activity
in the Standards Department in the Office.
17. Two of the major questions which fuelled the
earlier discussions mentioned above concerned the
universality and the flexibility of standards. Previous
discussions have shown that there is general agreement
on several principles. The adoption of standards
should continue to take place on a basis of universality,
in a spirit of realism and effectiveness, so as
to respond to the needs of all member States. As is
provided in the Constitution, standards should be so
drafted as to have due regard to differences in levels
and conditions of development, in order to allow the
greatest number of countries to implement progressively
the protection envisaged in them.
18. The discussion in the Committee again showed
that these principles are still of the highest importance.
W hile the aim of adopting flexible standards is
not contested, differing views are expressed, in this
Committee and elsewhere, on the desirable degree of
flexibility. The Committee of Experts' report refers
to the report on this question examined by the Governing
Body at its 244th Session (November 1989). It
recalls (paragraph 48 of its report) the essential purpose
of flexibility and its usefulness in taking account
of different levels and conditions of development,
without altering the universal perspective in which
standards must be adopted. It noted (paragraph 49)
that flexibility clauses are rarely used by governments,
and felt that it should draw governments' attention
to the meaning of these clauses. The difficulty
lies, as stated in the Governing Body study, in the
choice between the need for realism and the need for
dynamic standards. Several members of the Committee
expressed similar ideas and supported the comments
made by the Committee of Experts in paragraphs
48 and 49 of its report, in particular the
suggestions for making the study examined by the
Governing Body more widely available, and the promotional
activities which the Office should carry out.
These feelings were expressed principally by the
Government members of Australia, Egypt, Finland,
Indonesia, Netherlands, Spain, Syria and the United
Kingdom, and by the Workers' members of Japan
and Tunisia.
19. A question closely linked to the universality
and flexibility of standards is that of the interpretation
of their provisions. As noted by the Worker
member of Finland, Conventions often contain general
and flexible clauses and were naturally capable
of being interpreted in different ways. The Employers'
members felt that it was useful that the Committee
of Experts had pointed out the possibilities of
flexibility in different ILO standards, but that this
was overcompensated by what they felt was sometimes
a real overinterpretation of standards by the
experts. This question of interpretation, on which it
was already evident in the discussions at the last session
of the Conference that there were serious differences
of opinion, gave rise to a wide, frank and calm
discussion this year, on the basis of the Committee of
Experts' comments.
Relationship between supervisory bodies and interpretation
of Conventions
20. It is necessary to be aware of the position taken
by the Committee of Experts to understand the discussion
fully. Paragraph 7 of its report reads as
follows:
"The Committee has examined the views expressed in the
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, at its
76th Session (1989), by the Employer members and certain Government
members as regards the interpretation of Conventions
and the role of the International Court of Justice in this connection.
The Committee has already had occasion to point out that its
terms of reference do not require it to give definitive interpretations
of Conventions, competence to do so being vested in the
International Court of Justice by article 37 of the Constitution of
the ILO. Nevertheless, in order to carry out its function of determining
whether the requirements of Conventions are being respected,
the Committee has to consider and express its views on
the content and meaning of the provisions of Conventions and to
determine their legal scope, where appropriate. It therefore appears
to the Committee that, in so far as its views are not contradicted
by the International Court of Justice, they are to be considered
as valid and generally recognised. The situation is identical as
regards the conclusions or recommendations of commissions of
inquiry which, by virtue of article 32 of the Constitution, may be
affirmed, varied or reversed by the International Court of Justice,
and the parties can only duly contest the validity of such conclusions
and recommendations J:,y availing themselves of the provisions
of article 29, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The Committee
considers that the acceptance of the above considerations is
indispensable to maintenance of the principle of legality and, consequently,
for the certainty of law required for the proper functioning
of the International Labour Organisation."
21. The Employers' members welcomed the
prompt reaction of the Experts to comments they had
made repeatedly over several years, and had examined
with great care the comments made by the Committee
of Experts in paragraph 7 of its report. This
paragraph addressed the fundamental question of
who interprets the contents and meaning of provisions
binding member States. As a matter of law, the
response is given in article 37, paragraph 1, of the
ILO Constitution, under which any question or dispute
relating to the interpretation of Conventions is
to be referred for decision to the International Court
of Justice. In practice, the real question was who has
competence to interpret Conventions when the question
is not submitted to the Court, because this is
normally the situation except in historically rare
cases.
27/5
22. The Employers' members considered that the
Committee of Experts' response was to say, in substance,
that such competence rested solely with either
the International Court of Justice or itself, and
no one else. While they did not take a position here
with respect to the outcome of the representation or
commission of inquiry procedures, they did feel that
the opinion of the Committee of Experts that its evaluations
are binding unless corrected by the International
Court of Justice, could not be correct. One
obvious reason was that, if this were the case, the
present Committee would lose its fundamental purpose,
and so would the Conference. A legal reason
wa:, that this was contradicted by the ILO Constitution
and by the Standing Orders of the Conference
concerning the submission of governments' reports
and the terms of reference of the Conference Committee,
which had an independent competence to examine
reports. The Employers' members had generally
followed the Experts' views in the past and would
continue to do so in the future, because there was
good reason for doing so. However, they felt entitled
to depart from this practice in particular cases.
23. In this connection, the Employers' members
rPr::tllPrt th::tt thp\T h::trt ::, rtiffprpnt intPrnrPt<>tinn frnn,
- - ------ ----., ------ -· ----------- ___ ., __ r ______ ...., __ -- ..... ---
the Experts, for instance on the question of the right
to strike. Although this question was not expressly
settled by any Convention or Recommendation ( except
the very special case dealt with in the Voluntary
Conciliation and Arbitration Recommendation, 1951
(No. 92)), the Experts had progressively deduced
from Convention No. 87 a right to strike which was
hardly limited. The Employers' members could not
accept this, not only because they considered the Experts'
opinion questionable in law but also because
the issue touched directly on employers' interests.
24. Paragraph 7 of the Committee of Experts' report
posed a second question, which was the methods
and criteria used by the Experts to determine the
content and meaning of standards. Only the principles
of interpretation laid down in Articles 31 et seq.
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
could be taken into consideration here. The general
rules of interpretation which must be applied in the
first place included, besides the ordinary meaning of
the terms used, the object and intent of a provision,
and any subsequent practice in the application of the
Convention by the parties . (Article 31, paragraph
3 (b), of the Convention). As concerned the right to
strike, the Employers' members found that the Committee
of Experts had taken a position under which
this right was almost unlimited, though this was not
the practice followed by any State. The annual reports
of the Committee of Experts showed clearly
that the bases and substantive regulations of the right
to strike, and in particular its limitations, differed in
virtually all countries. Nevertheless, 'the Committee
of Experts had given a very narrow interpretation of
the acceptable legal limits on this right, which had
resulted in an enormous gap between the practical
application of Convention No. 87 by member States
and its interpretation by the Committee of Experts.
This interpretation could not be correct according to
the above-mentioned rule of Article 31 of the V ienna
Convention, which refers to the practice followed in
the application of a treaty which establishes the
agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation.
27/6
Such a common conviction had not become known,
however; in reality it did not exist. The Employers'
members would await with interest the reply of the
Committee of Experts to their arguments.
25. Two other Employer members (Sweden and
Turkey) intervened along the same lines. The Employer
member of Sweden took the occasion to dispel
some misunderstandings over his intervention at the
previous session of the Conference. His reference to
a few cases in which the Committee of Experts had,
in his opinion, overinterpreted Conventions had been
meant to be constructive, and not to call into question
the independence, objectivity and impartiality of
the Experts. He could not, however, bestow on the
Experts a certificate of infallibility, as they had requested.
The Committee of Experts had likened its
self to a Commission of Inquiry established by the
Governing Body under article 26 of the Constitution,
whose interpretation of an individual case would
stand unless appealed to the International Court of
Justice. The Employer member of Sweden considered
this analogy to be false. The Constitution provided
for an annual review by the Conference itself of
reports due from governments concerning the applir-!:!i
tln.n n.f rt;f1'3r1 rnn'1'3n♦nnc l♦ f11""th'3"" .,...o.""rn;tto.A ------· -- --··---- --··. -.. ··-··-· •• ·-· ... . I:'_ . ...... -
complaints and representations concerning the nonobservance
by a particular government of a Convention
which it had ratified to be submitted to the Governing
Body. The Governing Body could appoint a
Commission of Inquiry, but was not required to do
so. Article 37 of the Constitution, conferring on the
International Court of Justice the exclusive competence
for giving definitive interpretations of Conventions,
should be read in conjunction with article IX of
the agreement between the United Nations and the
ILO, under which only the Conference or the Governing
Body was allowed to request such interpretations.
The only exception to this rule related to the
Commission of Inquiry procedure and to the right of
governments to lodge an appeal with the Court.. The
Constitution did not mention the Committee of Experts.
That Committee, which had been established
by the Governing Body in 1926 to assist the Conference
in the annual review of application reports, did
not take precedence over the Conference nor over
the Governing Body. However, the reports of the
Committee of Experts had acquired a great moral
authority over the years, and the Conference relied
mainly on them to carry out its own work. It had
happened and would continue to happen - but not
often - that a member of the present Committee
would consider that the Committee of Experts had
overinterpreted a Convention. Such observations
should be accepted in good faith by the Experts. Like
the International Court of Justice and all the ILO
bodies which interpret Conventions, the Experts
should abide by the general principles of the Vienna
Convention, since the objective of these principles
was to ensure uniform interpretation of international
treaties whatever the economic and social conditions
existing in a given country. The Employers' member
of Turkey stated that granting definitive authority to
the views of the Committee of Experts would be contrary
to the Standing Orders of the Conference which
provided for the Committee on the Application of
Standards under article 7. The Committee of Experts
was a consultative body which assisted the present
Committee without binding it.
26. For the Workers' members, on the other hand,
the role of the Committee of Experts could not be
questioned. Everyone was in agreement in stressing
that the function and work of the Committee of Experts
was of paramount importance. It consists of determining
whether the requirements of a given Convention
are met, whatever might be the practices and
social or economic conditions of a given country: this
was the fundamental principle of the universality of
standards. An Article of a Convention cannot be interpreted
in several different ways. The Committee
of Experts must therefore examine the meaning of
provisions of Conventions and express their views on
the subject. The Workers' members, for their part,
entirely supported the position adopted by the Committee
of Experts according to which the Experts'
views should be deemed to be "valid and generally
recognised" unless contradicted by the International
Court of Justice. This was the only possible avenue,
just as in cases where the conclusions or recommendations
of other bodies of the ILO involved in the
supervision of the application of standards were challenged.
For many years this had been said and repeatedly
emphasised by the Workers' members; in
the past the Employers' members had also demanded
this, with a view to ensuring observance of the universality
of standards. At present, in view of the
unanimous opinion of the Committee of Experts, the
situation was clear, and other views would be strongly
fought, as in the past, by the Workers' members.
As concerned the right to strike, they noted that the
Committee of Experts had consistently agreed with
the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association,
a tripartite body which always made unanimous
decisions, in particular on general principles
relative to acceptable limits on strike activity.
27. This general statement was supplemented by
several other Workers' members. The Worker member
of the United States, in particular, stated that the
issue of whether certain views of the Committee of
Experts on strikes were within its jurisdiction or
terms of reference should be resolved by the International
Court of Justice and not by this Committee,
and other challenges to the Experts' jurisdiction or
competence in other types of cases would have to be
similarly resolved. The present Committee lacked the
authority to resolve such issues, and there was also a
grave danger that any debate in the Committee on
such contentions by the Employers' members would
precipitate other contentions by any government
seeking a way out of its difficulties. The result would
be a serious impairment of the Committee's efficient
conduct of its business. His primary aim was thus to
recall the fundamental practice and commonly accepted
understandings which had traditionally characterised
the relationship between the Conference
Committee and the Committee of Experts. The
Committee of Experts; after evaluation of reports
and other information received, stated its views on
the extent to which a State appeared to be in conformity
with the terms of Conventions which it had voluntarily
ratified. In carrying out that responsibility,
the Committee of Experts on a number of occasions
had expressly disclaimed authority to give definitive
interpretations of Conventions, recognising that the
competence to do so was vested in the International
Court of Justice. Within that limitation, however, in
order to fulfil its obligations, the Experts had to consider
and express their views on the content and
meaning of provisions of Conventions and, where appropriate,
determine their legal scope. It was well
recognised that the views of the Experts were not
legally enforceable or legally binding. The views or
observations of the Experts had been considered as
valid and generally recognised, except where contradicted
by the International Court of Justice. The
Conference Committee had worked within the
framework of that system for many years. Efforts
made from time to time by a minority of the Committee
to dismantle or severely weaken the supervisory
authority had been successfully resisted by a preponderance
of the Committee. As stated in paragraph 6
of the Experts' report, that had primarily been
achieved because of the spirit of mutual respect, cooperation
and responsibility which had consistently
prevailed in the relations between the Committee of
Experts and the Conference Committee, whose proceedings
the Experts took fully into consideration, in
formulating their views and reaching their decisions
observing the fundamental principles of independence,
objectivity and impartiality. The independence
of the Experts was a particularly potent reason
for common acceptance by the Conference Committee
of the validity of the Experts' views, especially
when they spoke with one voice as in paragraph 7 of
their report. The principles of objectivity were equally
compelling reasons for common acceptance of the
validity of the views of the Experts. In 1989 the Committee
had unanimously pledged allegiance to these
fundamental principles. Regrettably, however, their
adoption had not been matched by their application
in certain individual cases, resulting in strained relations
with the Employers' group. W ithout a harmonious
and co-operative relationship between Employers
and Workers, the effective operation of the
Committee would be irreparably impaired. This did
not imply that in all dtses the views of the Experts
should be rubber-stamped and that no disagreement
should be expressed. The wrong way of dealing with
differences of views was to attack the supervisory system
of the Experts. The right way, if differences were
of such a magnitude as to require it, was to appeal to
the International Court of Justice. An easier and
more practical route to the possible resolution of differences
was offered by the Experts' practice of consulting
regularly and taking fully into consideration
the proceedings of the Conference Committee. That
channel of communication deserved further consideration.
This Committee should be as circumspect in
applying the fundamental principles of objectivity
and impartiality as were the members of the Committee
of Experts.
28. Among the other members of the Workers'
group who spoke (Botswana, Chile, Federal Republic
of Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Nonvay,
Spain, Tunisia, United Kingdom and Venezuela),
those of the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland
and the United Kingdom drew attention to the cases
of governments which did not recognise the views of
the regular supervisory bodies or of a specially-established
Commission of Inquiry, but which did not appeal
to the International Court of Justice, or which
did not appear to understand the relationship between
the Committee of Experts and the conclusions
of the Conference Committee and did not take the
required measures. Such attitudes obstructed the
27/7
I
work of the supervisory machinery. Coming from
democratic industrialised countries of Western Europe
this set a bad example for the countries of Central
nd Eastern Europe which were striving to promote
procedures which conformed to the rule of law.
It also gave a bad xample to lss economically deve!oped
countries which were bemg asked to apply ratified
standards. This was also pointed out by the
Worker member of Botswana.
29. In conclusion, taking up the call issued by the
Worker member of the United States, the Workers'
members invited the Committee on the Application
of Standards to return to its traditional practices and
principles and to keep alive the spi.rit of 7-operation
which is so vital to tts work. Whtie wa1tmg for the
Committee of Experts to take note of the discussions
of the Conference Committee and to make any comments
they might deem appropriate, they remained
convinced that the report of the Committee of Experts
will continue to be a valuable guide for the debates
of the Conference Committee with respect both
to its general discussion and to its examination of
individual cases.
30. The Employers' members agreed with the
'vVurkers' members on the last point. In addition, after
recalling that they continued to support the principle
of universality without reservations, they stated
that they dissociated themselves from the attacks
made in the past by some member States upon the
supervisory machinery . They conclude_d from th_e
general discussion that no speaker had disputed thetr
view that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
was the appropriate - in fact the only - yardstick
to be used in interpreting ILO Conventions. It was
this yardstick that they invited th_e Coml?Jittee o Experts
to use in their interpretat10n of mternat10n;:il
labour standards. It was thefr desire to arrive at a
proper and accurate interpretation of Conventions
that pro.mpted them to make this request. They cied
two examples in this connection, concerning the lmits
of the right to strike in cases in which the hfe,
personal safety or health of the ":hole or part o! _the
population was endangered, and m cases of pohtical
strikes. The Employers' members awaited the reply
of the Committee of Experts to their comments and
pledged in the meantime to continue to co-operate
pragmatically with the Committee of Experts.
31. Several Government members (Australia and
Belgium) intervened during the discussion on the interpretation
of Conventions to support the position
taken by the Experts in paragraph 7 of their report,
and the arguments put forward by the Workers'
members. The Government member of Finland
(speaking in the name of the Nordic governments)
emphasised the importance of the Committee of Experts
as a forum for dialogue with the Conference
Committee and member States. According to the
ILO Constitution the competence for giving defini-
- tive interpretations of Conventions, however, was
vested in the International Court of Justice. This fact
did not mean though that the Committee of Experts
should not have competence to express its views on
the content and meaning of the provisions of Conventions.
The Government member of the Netherlands,
stated that what the Committee of Experts
said in paragraph 7 of its report on the possibility of
27/8
referring matters to the International Court of Justice
was legally and procedurally correct.
32. The Government member of France stated that
he was inclined to read paragraph 7 together with
paragraph 6, which stated that the Committee of Experts
takes fully into consideration the discussions in
the Conference Committee. It was up to the latter to
pursue this dialogue. The Government members of
the USSR and of the Ukrainian SSR also welcomed
what paragraph 6 said about co-operation between
the two committees. This co-operation, which already
existed - and proof could be found in paragraphs
43 and 61 of the Committee of Experts' report
concerning the application of Conventions Nos. 122
and 100 - could in their opinion be strengthened even
further. They also noted that the Experts had again
stated that they were dedicated to the principles <?f
independence, objectivity and impartiality. In t1s
connection the Government member of Argentma
stressed tht members of the Conference Committee,
a political body, were not independent in the way
that the members of the Committee of Experts are,
and that thus they could not be expected to make an
impartial interpretation of the provisions of Conventions.
33. The Government member of the United States
returned to the notions of complementarity, co-operation
and dialogue between the Committee of Experts
and the Conference Committee, which were the
two key components of the regular supervisory machinery.
While the views of the former are not legally
binding, they had withstood the test of time and were
very widely respected. As recourse to the International
Court of Justice is unrealistic in practice, it was
desirable to keep the supervision of standards within
the structure of the ILO. Dialogue between the two
supervisory bodies was as important as dialogue
among members of the Conference Committee. The
Government member of France was seeking an alternative
to the apparently badly adapted procedure of
recourse to the International Court of Justice, and
asked for the Office's opinion in this connection. He
drew attention to article 37, paragraph 2, of the Constitution
which provides for the possibility of establishing
a tribunal for the expeditious determination of
any dispute or question relating to the interpretation
of a Convention. The Government member of the
Netherlands also asked the Office for information on
the procedures for bringing a case before the International
Court of Justice. The Workers' members of
Finland, Norway and the United Kingdom suggested
that the Office should prepare a manual of procedures
relating to article 37 of the ILO Constitution.
34. The Government member of Cuba also referred
to the positive results obtained by dialogue
between the Committee of Experts, governments and
the Conference Committee, and to the faithfulness of
the Committee of Experts to its principles and methods
of work. She noted that the Committee of Experts
obviously had to study the provisions of Conventions
and express its views on their applica!ion,
but that did not mean adding new elements or situations
not covered by the Convention in .question,
which would entail too broad an interpretation and
might exceed the objectives of the Convention. The
Government member of the Federal Republic of
Germany stated that the supervisory procedure was
based on a dynamic tripartite dialogue, which should
not give way to legal proceedings. He referred to the
1987 report of the Committee of Experts, where the
Committee itself had said that its terms of reference
did not include making definitive interpretations of
Conventions. Thus, he felt that it was difficult to accept
that the conclusions of the Committee of Experts
were valid or binding as long as they were not
challenged by a higher body, in this case the International
Court of Justice. Finally, the Government
member of the Geiman Democratic -Republic recalled
that the Constitution accorded the first priority
to the Conference, which drew up standards, adopted
them and supervised their application. Thus it was
only the Conference which could interpret Conventions.
It was thus the responsibility of its Committee
on the Application of Standards to discuss all aspects
of the correct understanding of the letter and spirit of
the texts, and to draw the attention of the Conference
to the respective points.
35. At the close of the general discussion, the representative
of the Secretary-General made the following
statement as concerned the part of the discussion
relating to the question of the interpretation of
Conventions. As concerns paragraph 7 of the report
of the Committee of Experts concerning the interpretation
of Conventions, he stated that the Committee
of Experts no doubt would carefully take into consideration
the contrasting views which were expressed in
the debate of the Conference Committee, where the
thorough discussion had permitted clarification of
certain positions. This was a sensitive issue affecting
the future of the supervisory mechanism, and false
debates should be avoided. In the first place, it was
useful to recall that neither the Committee of Experts
nor the Conference Committee is a court. The mandate
of the Committee of Experts is to carry out a
preliminary technical and legal examination of reports
periodically submitted by member States on
measures taken by them to implement Conventions
they have ratified. The opinions of the Committee of
Experts merit careful attention and great respect; as
emphasised by a number of speakers, these opinions
are accepted by member States in the vast majority of
cases. But these opinions are not authoritative as
concerns interpretations to which they may give rise.
This authority attaches exclusively to the International
Court of Justice, as recalled by the Committee
of Experts in paragraph 7 of its general report. A
second point on which misunderstanding must be
avoided is the relationship between the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
and the Conference Committee on
the Application of Standards. The deliberations of
the latter offer to the ILO constituents the possibility
of participating democratically in the examination of
how ratified Conventions are followed up. The Conference
Committee is not an appellate tribunal called
upon to examine the opinion of the Committee of
Experts, and its evaluations are not judgements.
They arise instead from a spirit of dialogue with the
ILO's constituents, based on the prior technical and
legal advice given by the Committee of Experts, to
achieve a better application of international labour
standards. In addition, as stressed by several members
of the Committee, it would be unsatisfactory to
leave pending important problems affecting the application
of Conventions, where a government rejects
or refuses to consider the conclusions formulated by
the Committee of Experts or the Conference Committee,
if that government considers that these bodies
have not respected the meaning of a Convention.
The Constitution of the ILO offers the means to resolve
this situation, by recourse to interpretation. All
parties concerned should therefore consider whether
to have recourse to these mechanisms when important
problems relating to the application of Conventions
remain unresolved. Finally, replying to a question
put by the Government member of France, the
representative of the Secretary-General recalled that
article 37 (2) of the Constitution was adopted immediately
after the Second World War, in order to remedy
uncertainties about the conditions under which
the specialised agencies could obtain an opinion from
the International Court of Justice, and to supplement
this mechanism by a more easily accessible and technically
specialised system of review. The procedure
established under this provision had never been used,
but this could change if the Governing Body and the
Conference so decided. The suggestion made by the
Workers' member of Norway that the Office prepare
a procedural manual on recourse to the International
Court of Justice had been duly noted, and would be
examined closely in consultation with the Legal Adviser
of the Office.
Obligations binding member States
36. As it did each year, the report of the Committee
of Experts made an evaluation of the obligations
binding member States under the instruments adopted
by the Conference.
37. On the positive side was the number of ratifications.
During 1989, 63 ratifications by 19 member
States had been registered, making a total of 5,463
ratifications as at 31 December 1989. By 21 March
1990, this total had increased by 15 new ratifications
deposited by five member States.
38. The Committee as a whole welcomed the progress
achieved in adhering to ILO instruments, thus
verifying the conclusions, mentioned above, of the
discussions on standards during the years 1984 to 1987
on the importance of standard-setting activity as a
means of promoting balanced development in conditions
of justice and freedom, and as a source of inspiration
for social policies. The Workers' members,
among others, noted that the total of ratifications in
1989 reaffirmed the will of States to support the
ILO's activities. Of course, ratification and application
did not always go hand in hand, either in time or
in space. As they had last year, the Employers' members
recalled that the essential thing was the step following
ratification, that is application in law and
practice. As was noted in particular by the Worker
member of Greece, reading the comments on the application
of Convention No. 87 sufficed to show that
a great deal of progress stiil had to be made to give
full effect to its provisions.
39. The overall statistics on ratifications masked
less positive, and even disturbing aspects, which were
stressed by the Workers' members in particular.
They noted that the number of ratifications of important
Conventions, such as those concerning social security
and safety and health, remained low. In addition,
some States had not yet ratified fundamental
Conventions such as those on freedom of association,
27/9
Document No. 78
ILC, 78th Session, 1991, Report III (Part 4A), Report
of the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations, paras 8–13
International Labour Conference
78th Session 1991
Report III
(Part 4 A)
Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Report of the Committee of Experts
on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
(Articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution)
General report
and observations concerning particular countries
International Labour Office Geneva
GENERAL REPORT
Faculty of Law and Economics; Director of the Institute for
Research on Undertakings and Industrial Relations of the
University of Paris X (associate of the National Centre for
Scientific Research); Vice-President of Libre Justice, the
French section of the International Commission of Jurists;
former Professor of the Faculties of Law and Economics at Tunis
(1956-61) and Algiers (1965-68); former President and Honorary
President of the International Society of Labour Law and Social
Security; former President and Honorary President of the French
Association of Labour and Social Security Law;
Mr. Budislav VUKAS (Yugoslavia),
Professor of Public International Law and Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Law of the University
of Zagreb, Faculty of Law; member of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration;
Sir John WOOD (United Kingdom),
CBE, LLM; Barrister; Edward Bramley Professor of Law at the
University of Sheffield; Chairman of the Central Arbitration
Committee.
Mr. Toshio YAMAGUCHI (Japan),
Doctor of Law, Honorary Professor of Law at the University of
Tokyo, Professor of Law at the University of Chiba, Member of the
Japanese Central Committee of Labour Relations, Former Member of
the Executive Committee of the International Society of Labour
Law and Social Security, Full Member of the International Academy
of Comparative Law;
5. The Committee notes with regret that Mrs. Badria AL-AWADHI
has been unable to attend the present session owing to the
circumstances prevailing in Kuwait.
6. The Committee elected Mr. J.M. RUDA as Chairman and
Mr. E. RAZAFINDRALAMBO as Reporter of the Committee.
7. In pursuance of its terms of reference, as revised by the
Governing Body at its 103rd Session (Geneva, 19A7), the Committee was
called upon to examine:
(i) the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on
the measures taken by Members to give effect to the
provisions of the Conventions to which they are parties, and
the information furnished by Members concerning the results
of inspection;
(ii) the information and reports concerning Conventions and
Recommendations, communicated by Members in accordance with
article 19 of the Constitution;
(ill) the information and reports on measures taken by Members in
accordance with article 35 of the Constitution.
8. The Committee, after an examination and evaluation of the
above-mentioned reports and information, drew up its present report,
consisting essentially of the following three parts: Part One is the
General Report in which the Committee reviews general questions
concerning international labour standards and other instruments and
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS
their implementation. Part Two contains observations concerning
particular countries on the application of ratified Conventions (see
section I and paragraphs 77 to 107 below), on the application of
Conventions in non-metropolitan territories (see section II and
paragraphs 77 to 107 below), and on the obligation to submit
instruments to the competent authorities (see section III and
paragraphs 108 to 118 below). Part Three, which is published in a
separate volume (Report III (Part AB)) reviews the reports supplied by
governments under article 19 of the Constitution on the Paid
Educational Leave Convention (No. 140) and Reconunendation (No. 148),
1974, and the Human Resources Development Convention (No. 142) and
Recommendation (No. 150), 1975 (see paragraphs 119 to 123 below).
9. In carrying out its task, which consists in indicating the
extent to which the situation in each State appears to be in
conformity with the terms of the Conventions and the obligations
undertaken by that State by virtue of the ILO Constitution, the
Committee has followed the principles of independence, objectivity and
impartiality set forth in its previous reports. It has continued to
apply the working methods recalled in its 1987 report. One such
method is the spirit of mutual respect, co-operation and
responsibility which has consistently prevailed in the Committee's
relations with the International Labour Conference and its Committee
on the Application of Standards, whose proceedings the Committee takes
fully into consideration, not only in respect of general matters
concerning standard-setting activities and supervisory procedures, but
also in respect of specific matters concerning the way in which States
fulfil their standard-setting obligations.
10. The Committee has examined thoroughly the views expressed by
the Employer members and certain Government members at the examination
of its report, particularly paragraph 7, by the Committee on the
Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference, at
its 77th Session (1990). The Committee has a number of observations
to make in this connection.
11. In stating that in so far as its views are not contradicted
by the International Court of Justice, they are to be considered as
valid and generally recognised, the Committee of Experts does not
regard those views as decisions having the authority of res judicata.
as the Committee is not a court of law. Furthermore, as it has
already pointed out on more than one occasion, it has never regarded
its views as binding decisions based on a definitive interpretation of
the Conventions of which it examines the application by member
States. However, it considers that the proper functioning of the
standard-setting system of the International Labour Organisation
requires that a State should not contest the views expressed by the
Committee of Experts on the application of a provision of a Convention
that it has ratified and at the same time refrain from making use of
the established procedure for obtaining a definitive interpretation of
the Convention in question. In such a situation, a doubt would remain
as to the obligation to apply the provisions in question and every
State would have a power conferred on it which is not conferred by
international law. The result would be legal uncertainty as to the
meaning and scope of the provisions concerned as long as the question
is not settled by a decision of the International Court of Justice;
GENERAL REPORT
such a situation would be prejudicial to the certainty of law required
for the proper functioning of the standard-setting system of the ILO.
12. The views of the Committee of Experts are generally
accepted, amongst other reasons, because the Committee is composed of
independent persons with direct experience of the different legal
systems and because of its tradition of objectivity and impartiality
and the careful attention it pays to the work of the other supervisory
bodies of the ILO. The Committee of Experts is not the only body to
deal with the problem of the application of Conventions and its
evaluations do not prevail erga omnes. Its functions require it to
determine whether the provisions of a given Convention are observed
and hence to examine their content and meaning, and determine their
legal scope. It is essential for the ILO system that the views that
the Committee is called upon to express in carrying out its functions,
in the conditions recalled above, should be considered as valid and
generally recognised, subject to any decisions of the International
Court of Justice which is the only body empowered to give definitive
interpretations of Conventions. The Employer members of the
Conference Committee themselves stated that as a general rule they
observe the views of the Committee of Experts, though they reserve the
right to depart from them. The Committee observes that this statement
is not incompatible with the assertions in paragraph 7 of its 1990
report.
13. Furthermore, the Committee of Experts feels that it should
stress the fact that its task, which is to ascertain whether national
law and practice are consistent with the provisions of a Convention,
is essentially specific and pragmatic, and is carried out in the
context of an ongoing dialogue with governments. The Committee none
the less bears in mind constantly ail the different methods of
interpreting treaties. In this connection, it must point out that, on
examining the right to strike in connection with the Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
(No. 87), it took account of the indications and unanimous
recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the
subject, approved by the Governing Body of the International Labour
Office.
II. GENERAL
Membership of the Organisation
14. Since the Committee's last session the number of member
States of the ILO has dropped from 150 to 148, since the Yemen Arab
Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen united on 22
May 1990 to become the Republic of Yemen, and the German Democratic
Republic joined the Federal Republic of Germany on 3 October 1990.
New standards adopted bv the Conference in 1990
15. The Committee notes that at its 77th Session (June 1990),
the International Labour Conference adopted the Chemicals Convention
Document No. 79
ILC, 78th Session, 1991, Report of the Committee on the
Application of Standards, paras 13–37
-™j Provisional Record
Seventy-eighth Session, Geneva, 1991
Third Item on the Agenda : Information and Reports on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards
CONTENTS
PART ONE : General Report 2
PART TWO : Observations and Information concerning Particular Countries 24
I. Observations and Information concerning Reports on Ratified Conventions (article 22 of the
Constitution) 24
A. General Observations and Information concerning Certain Countries 24
B. Observations and Information on the Application of Conventions 29
C. Table of Detailed Reports on Ratified Conventions 91
D. Statistical Table of Reports on Ratified Conventions (article 22 of the Constitution) 92
II. Observations and Information concerning the Application of Conventions in Non-Metropolitan
Territories (articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution) 93
A. General Observations and Information concerning Certain Territories 93
B. Table of Detailed Reports on the Application of Conventions (Non-Metropolitan Territories) 94
III. Submission to the Competent Authorities of the Conventions and Recommendations Adopted by the
International Labour Conference (article 19 of the Constitution) 95
IV. Reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations (article 19 of the Constitution) 97
Reports received by 22 June 1991 relating to the Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974
(No. 140), and Recommendation, 1974 (No. 148), and the Human Resources Development Convention,
1975 (No. 142), and Recommendation, 1975 (No. 150). 97
Index by Countries to Observations and Information Contained in the Report 98
24/1
perts' observations on cases concerning the application
of Conventions on freedom of association which
had previously been the object of special paragraphs
or which were very serious had not been accompanied
by footnotes. He stressed that the absence of a
footnote did not prevent the Committee from examining
the case, and recalled the need to ensure continuity
and greater consistency in following up the examination
of cases. The representative of the
Secretary-General recalled that the Conference
Committee had been obliged, because of the increase
in the number of member States, Conventions and
ratifications, and in the comments made by the Committee
of Experts, to examine only a limited number
of the cases included in the Committee of Experts'
report. The Committee of Experts felt that it was its
duty to draw the attention of the Conference Committee
through footnotes to certain cases which it
considered important. By these footnotes, the Committee
of Experts could point out cases in which there
had been remarkable progress or, more frequently,
those which raised serious problems of application. It
could also point out cases in which it felt that the
Conference was an occasion for governments to communicate
the necessary information, or cases in
which interesting developments might occur between
the session of the Committee of Experts and the Conference.
This choice of cases had never constituted an
obligation for the Conference Committee which
could add other cases or decide not to examine cases
to which the Committee of Experts had drawn attention.
B. General questions relating to international
labour standards
Supervisory system
8. The Committee recognised generally the remarkable
quality of the Committee of Experts' report,
and paid tribute to the principles of independence,
objectivity and impartiality which continued
to guide that Committee's work. The Employers' and
Workers' members agreed that the supervisory system'had
to be strengthened, and that it was important
that standards be correctly applied. Several Government
members (Australia, Benin, Bulgaria,
Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark (speaking on behalf
of the Nordic governments), France, Kenya, Spain,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United
States and Uruguay) also made statements to this
effect.
9. Referring to the reservations which they had
expressed on some elements of the report, the Employers'
members stated that a critical dialogue in a
spirit of cooperation was the essence of the work of
the Conference Committee and the basis on which
they would cooperate with all the Committee's members.
The Employers' member of the United States
stressed that the Employers' group firmly supported
the supervisory machinery, and that their comments
should be seen as a positive attempt to reinforce the
system and to increase the standing of its conclusions.
The Government members of the United Kingdom
and of the USSR considered that criticisms and occasional
disagreements were the sign of a fruitful dialogue.
10. The Employers' member of Sweden stated that
he agreed with other members of the Committee concerning
the need to provide, the supervisory machinery
with all the resources necessary to allow it to
function perfectly. He was convinced that this supervisory
mechanism was the best which existed in any
universal international organisation, and wanted it to
be respected while being as efficient as possible.
11. The Government member of China stated that
his Government attached considerable importance to
the role of international labour standards. Their application
in law and in practice strengthened the protection
of workers, improved their working conditions
and eliminated inequality. He was pleased that
the Government members of the present Committee
shared this view of the importance of the role of the
Conference Committee as an instrument for positive
dialogue.
12. The Government member of Germany referred
to the supervisory system of the European Social
Charter and compared it with that of thé ILO. Considering
the volume of work facing the ILO Committee
of Experts, it needed considerable support and
therefore the staff should not be reduced. The Workers'
member of Germany recalled the differences between
the supervisory systems of the European Social
Charter and of the ILO, and pointed out in
particular that the Governmental Committee of the
Charter did not have a tripartite structure as did the
Conference Committee. He did not feel that the systems
could be compared.
Respective roles and terms of reference of the supervisory
bodies
13. The Employers' members recalled that for several
years, they had been insisting that the Committee
of Experts and the Conference Committee were
part of the several branches of the ILO's supervisory
system. The specific terms of reference of the Committee
of Experts had been laid down in 1927 and had
not changed in substance, while the Conference
Committee's own competence was defined in article
7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference. The negative
statement that neither the Committee of Experts
nor the Conference Committee was a court of
law was not sufficient for understanding the positive
functions of these supervisory bodies. The report of
the Committee of Experts was an important startingpoint
for the work of the Conference Committee, but
the Employers' members did not consider that the
Conference Committee was bound by the Experts'
opinions. They referred to the statement made by the
Committee of Experts in paragraph 7 of the report it
had submitted to the Conference in 1990, in which it
had said that its views were to be considered as valid
and generally recognised so far as they are not contradicted
by the International Court of Justice. The
Employers' members felt that this amounted to a
statement that their interpretation was binding so
long as the International Court of Justice had not
decided otherwise, and that this was and continued to
be unacceptable because it had no juridical support.
They considered that the comments made by the Experts
in paragraphs 10 to 13 of their report this year
showed a significant movement in their position.
They noted in particular that the Committee of Experts
had themselves stated, in paragraphs 11 and 12
24/3
cf its report, that it was not the only body to deal
with the problem of application of Conventions, and
that its evaluations did not prevail erga omnes, and
that the Employers' members of the Conference
Committee could reserve the right to depart from
these evaluations. The Employers' members considered
that logically, and even more emphatically, the
Conference Committee had the same right. They
considered that the fact that the Conference Committee
could have an opinion different from that expressed
by the Committee of Experts did not decide
the question of the degree to which member States
were bound by the evaluations of the Committee of
Experts or of the Conference Committee.
14. The Employers' member of the United States,
associating himself with the remarks, made by the
spokesman for the Employers' members concerning
paragraphs 9 to 13 of the general report of the Committee
of Experts, recalled the terms of reference and
evolution of the role of the Committee of Experts
since 1927 ; the Committee's authority had increased,
and this had been generally accepted because of its
independence, impartiality and objectivity; and as a
result its conclusions and interpretations as to the
meaning and scope of Conventions had acquired substantial
credibility which, from the viewpoint of the
Employers' members, were generally accepted. They
did not, however, consider that the Committee of
Experts was infallible even if it was composed of eminent
jurists. He suggested that, in order to improve
the working relationship between the Conference
Committee and the Committee of Experts, the Experts
should consider fully the questions of method
and substance raised by the members of the Conference
Committee and respond to them. Part of the
dialogue between the two committees implied that
differences of view be re-examined in order to decide
whether the views expressed originally were correct
or should be modified. He recalled that dialogue was
not a one-way process and the Experts should not
expect that their views would be adopted automatically
in all cases by the Conference Committee. He
suggested that the Committee of Experts highlight
cases in which it adopted a new opinion or developed
an earlier one ; and that it refer to the basis of the
conclusion drawn, as was sometimes done in general
surveys, so that its interpretations would be readily
evident to all. This was particularly important because
the Conference Committee was able to examine
only a part of the comments made by the Committee
of Experts. The Employers' member of the
United States concluded by saying that, in a democratic
institution, dialogue includes criticism as well
as praise.
15. The Employers' member of Turkey recalled
that although the report of the Committee of Experts
was the basis of the work of the Conference "Committee
, the latter could nevertheless express and support
opinions divergent from those of the Experts. He
considered that if a member of the Conference Committee
convinced a majority of members to accept a
position different from that of the Experts, there
would be no use in bringing a case before the International
Court of Justice. He recalled that the Committee
of Experts had stated that the position of the
Employers' members was not incompatible with the
principles set out in paragraph 7 of its 1990 report.
He also referred to paragraph 13 of the 1991 report of
the Committee of Experts in which it seid that, in
examining the application of the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
1948 (No. 87), ii had taken into consideration
the indications and recommendations of the
Committee on Freedom of Association. He stressed
that the members of that Committee were not lawyers
and that by accepting interpretations given by
non-lawyers the Committee of Experts had agreed
that political protest and sympathy strikes were legitimate,
although this hac produced unfair results. In
this connection, the representative of the Secretary-
General provided information on the composition of
the Committee on Freedom of Association, the
members of which were appointed in their own
names, and the chairman of which was presently an
independent person who was also a member of the
International Court of Justice.
16. The Workers' members fully supported the
comments made by the Committee of Experts in
paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report this year. They recalled
that the role of the Committee of Experts was
essentially to verify whether the national law and
practice were compatible with ratified Conventions,
which implied that it had to examine the scope of the
provisions of Conventions and express its views in
relation to them. The role of the Conference Committee,
which was composed of representatives of
each of the parties directly concerned by the application
of Conventions and not of independent experts,
was to conduct in the most democratic manner possible
a full examination of the Committee of Experts'
report in order to analyse the implementation of'
standards at the national level in selected cases and to
consider how their observance could be improved.
The Workers' members considered that neither the
assessments of the present Committee nor the views
expressed by the Committee of Experts had the force
of law, although the opinion of the Committee of
Experts was generally accepted in view of the Committee's
composition and working methods, subject
to a definitive interpretation by the International
Court of Justice. They agreed with the Experts that
the proper functioning of the standards system required
that a State, which was responsible under the
ILO Constitution for the application of Conventions
it had ratified, should not contest the views expressed
by the Committee of Experts regarding the application
of Convention which the State had ratified, and
at the same time refrain from appealing to the International
Court of Justice. As concerned the right to
hold an opinion different from that of the Experts,
the Workers' members considered that the scope of
this right was not very clear. It was not correct to
question the unanimous jurisprudence of the Committee
on Freedom of Association or the point of
view of the Experts on the established interpretation
of a Convention, during the discussion of individual
cases. In any case, the Workers' members felt that
the right to hold a different opinion did not extend to
States bound by Conventions.
17. The Workers' member of Pakistan recalled that
in many countries, the opinions of the supervisory
bodies had finally prevailed when there had been differences
of opinion between them and governments.
The Workers' members of Finland (speaking also in
the name of the Workers' member of Norway), Ja-
24/4
pan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka and
the United Kingdom emphasised the risk to the supervisory
system imposed by the attitude of governments
which, when they disagreed with the Committee
of Experts, then refused to modify their law and
practice and refrained from appealing to the International
Court of Justice to obtain a definitive interpretation
of the Convention concerned. The Workers'
member of Sri Lanka considered that, if the members
of the Conference Committee could comment on the
views expressed by the Committee of Experts, it did
not mean that they could superimpose their judgement
on that of the Committee of Experts, because
the objective should be to strengthen the supervisory
mechanism of the ILO and to ensure that the views
of the Experts were followed by governments. The
Workers' member of the United States recalled the
statement he had made before the Committee in 1990
on the need for cooperation and harmony with the
Employers' members on the views of the Committee
of Experts, and for general respect for its views.
18. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom
stated that the Employers' members' right to a different
opinion from that expressed by the Committee of
Experts, admitted by that Committee in paragraph 12
of its report, did not mean that the Conference as a
whole had the right to disagree. He felt that the Employers'
and Workers' members' right to disagree
could not be applied to governments. Workers and
employers had no international legal responsibility to
uphold a Convention ratifiée by their government.
Governments, however, were answerable to the
Committee of Experts and to "he present Committee.
He stated that governments therefore had to accept
the view of the Committee cf Experts or appeal to
the International Court of Justice for a definitive
opinion. He felt that no in-between position was
possible and that there should be no equivocation on
this point.
19. Referring to paragraphs 10 to 13 of the report
of the Committee of Experts, the Government member
of Saudi Arabia (speaking also in the name of
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates)
evoked the right of all countries to contest the
opinions of the Committee of Experts concerning the
implementation of the provisions of a ratified Convention,
as the views of the Committee of Experts
were neither definitive nor binding. The Government
member of the United Kingdom expressed the hope
that acceptance by the Committee of Experts of the
employers' right to depart from its views concerning
the interpretation of Conventions would also extend
to governments. It was for the Conference Committee
to debate in detail the different opinions expressed
concerning the interpretation of Conventions,
and this dialogue provided the raison d'être for
the present Committee's existence.
20. The Government member of Uruguay stated
that he fully supported paragraphs 10 to 13 of the .
Committee of Experts' report. The Government
member of Australia expressed his appreciation for
the additional considerations expressed by the Committee
of Experts in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report,
especially as concerned the relationship between the
two committees, and stated that his Government
agreed with the statements in those paragraphs. The
Government member of Belgium stated that it was
essential for the ILO supervisory system that the
opinions expressed by the Committee of Experts, as
described in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report, be considered
valid and generally admitted.
21. The Government member of France stated that
the report of the Committee of Experts and the discussion
in the Conference Committee clarified the
place in the supervisory system of the different bodies,
which had different and complementary roles.
The Committee of Experts had explained at length in
its report the significance of its role as a body for
technical and legal instruction ; the Conference Committee
symbolised tripartite dialogue; the Conference
plenary provided political approval for its report
and eventually, as the key link in the system, the
International Court of Justice provided the final recourse
for the interpretation of the Constitution and
of Conventions.
22. The Government member of the USSR recalled
that no other ILO body had been the subject
of as much criticism as the Committee of Experts in
relation to its working methods and procedures, at
different periods of its history, which indicated the
difficulty of its task. Its mandate is to give a formal
and juridical evaluation of the application of Conventions
ratified by States, without giving too much significance
to the economic and social characteristics of
each State, as this would be prevent it from doing its
job properly. He felt that a future development of the
ILO supervisory machinery might place the Committee
of Experts on an equal footing with the Conference
Committee, in order to enhance and develop
the cooperation between these two bodies.
23. The Government member of the United States
noted with satisfaction the remarks in paragraphs 10
to 13 of the report of the Committee of Experts. She
felt that the efficiency of the ILO supervisory system
could be significantly enhanced by the responsible
participation of all the members of the present Committee,
including governments, in the broad spectrum
of issues before it. Recalling that the Committee
had been established in 1927 in order to carry out
a tripartite dialogue on the application of Conventions
and Recommendations, she stressed that more
active participation of all members would provide
better feedback to the Committee of Experts of the
views of the Conference Committee.
24. The Government member of Denmark, speaking
in the name of the Nordic governments, recalled
that these countries considered that the function of
the Committee of Experts was to give independent
legal opinions, which was responsible for the wide
respect accorded it in the international community
for its independence, objectivity and impartiality.
Along with the Government members of Portugal,
the United Kingdom and the United States, she
stressed that the general acceptance of the views of
the Committee of Experts also relied on a formal
dialogue between that Committee and governments,
and considered that dialogue with governments
would continue to be the most important instrument
for the application of standards.
25. The Government member of Cuba stated that
in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report, the Committee of
Experts had described in a well-balanced and acceptable
manner the ways in which it had to carry out its
24/5
tasks. She recalled the principles of objectivity, independence
and impartiality which guided the work of
the Committee of Experts, and stressed, the need to
bring together the experience and knowledge of legal
systems in member States with the knowledge of
their social and economic realities. Without questioning
the universality of standards, she recalled that: the
particular conditions and levels of economic and social
development in each country should not be ignored
by the Committee of Experts.
26. As concerns the question of interpretation of
ILO Conventions more specifically, the Employers'
members stated that the possibility of holding an
opinion divergent from the Experts' legal evaluations
was not excluded, in particular on points where it is
clear that it is very important that appropriate legal
criteria be applied in the interpretation of obligations
under a Convention. While the principles of independence,
objectivity and impartiality are indispensable
in the work of the Experts, they felt that the Experts
were required to follow the criteria of interpretation
laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties. The criteria of interpretation contained
in this instrument cannot be set aside by simply recognising
that there is a similarity of opinion between
different ILO bodies, as is done for instance with the
Committee on Freedom of Association, which examines
whether member States respect freedom of association
principles, and not on the basis of reports submitted
under article 22 of the Constitution. The
application of the Vienna Convention was uncontested
in international law. The Experts themselves had
specifically referred to that Convention in paragraphs
54 and 244 of the 1990 General Survey on Convention
No. 147. Another uncontested principle of international
lav/ was in dubio mitius (i.e. if the wording
of a treaty provision is not clear, in choosing between
several admissible interpretations, the one which involves
the minimum of obligations for the Parties
should be adopted). The Employers' members did
not insist on this principle for its own sake, but because
of its concrete bearing on the manner in which
important issues are interpreted and applied in practice,
such as the right to strike, which was not even
written into the relevant Convention but had become
the subject of minutely elaborated principles derived
by way of interpretation.
27. The Employers' members further denied assertions
that had been made suggesting that they had, by
their interventions, behaved like the previously socialist
countries by attacking the foundations of the
supervisory machinery, or by challenging the behaviour
of communist countries but not similar behaviour
by Western countries. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The Employers' members were glad
that they had then succeeded, together with many
other members of the Committee, in defending the
supervisory system against these attacks." The former
communist countries had challenged comments on legal
systems which, at the level of the national Constitution,
excluded the existence of free trade unions
and employers' organisations outside the State Party.
The present dissent concerned questions of detail regarding
the right to strike, which was not even written
into the relevant Convention but had become the
subject of minutely-elaborated principles derived by
way of interpretation. This being said, the Employers'
members massively supported the ILO supervisory
system, of which.the present Committee
was an integral part.
28. In support of the statement of the Employers'
members, the Employers' member of the United
States recalled that over the last few years the Employers'
members had raised a few problems which
they attributed to the misinterpretation of a few Conventions,
such as those concerning labour inspection,
fee-charging employment agencies, maritime questions
and freedom of association. ILO Conventions
were frequently drafted in general terms, or with
flexibility clauses which allowed a certain latitude in
their implementation. No matter how desirable the
expansion of social policy which the Experts might
deem to be in conformity with the spirit of a particular
Convention, it was inappropriate for the Experts
to function as a supranational legislature if their interpretation
was not within the contemplation of the
tripartite Committee which drafted the Convention.
It was in acting without restraint that the Committee
of Experts might introduce the very legal uncertainty
which it considered as undermining the " proper functioning
of the standard-setting system of the ILO".
He indicated that the Committee of Experts should
be guided in interpretations by the principles laid
down in the Vienna Convention, as he considered
that it had recognised in its General Survey on the
Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention,
1976 (No. 147). It was inappropriate for the
Committee of Experts to adopt in full the decisions of
the Committee on Freedom of Association, which
were founded on general principles and were not limited
to the terms of the Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
(No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective
Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), thus extending
the scope of these Conventions beyond what was
intended by their drafters, as reflected in their texts
and legislative history.
29. The representative of the Secretary-General
recalled in this connection that it was essential for the
Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee
of Experts to keep each other informed on
how they had dealt with situations submitted to them
for examination. The Committee on Freedom of Association
thus took account of the conclusions and
comments of the Committee of Experts, and the
Committee of Experts sometimes dealt with cases
dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association
when those cases had a legal aspect and raised
questions of principle affecting the application of
Conventions.
30. The Employers' member of Sweden wished to
provide information to the Committee concerning
the possibility of requesting a definitive interpretation
of Conventions from the International Court of
Justice. In the first place, paragraph 3 of Article IX
of the Agreement between the United Nations and
the ILO provided that a request for an advisory opinion
could be addressed to the Court by the Conference
or by the Governing Body acting in pursuance
of an authorisation by the Conference. Under a resolution
adopted by the Conference in 1949, the Governing
Body had a general authorisation in this respect.
It was in this framework that the application of
article 37, paragraph 1, of the Constitution should be
seen. Under this provision, any question or dispute
24/6
relating to the interpretation of the Constitution or a
Convention shall be referred for decision to the
Court. Secondly, under the complaints procedure
laid down in articles 26 to 34 of the Constitution, a
government which does not accept the recommendations
of a Commission of Inquiry may appeal to the
Court within three months. He noted that these procedures
had barely been used in the past, which
showed that access to the International Court of Justice
was not easy. He also recalled the statement
made by the Government member of France to the
Conference Committee in 1990 drawing attention to
the possibilities offered by article 37, paragraph 2, of
the Constitution providing for the establishment of a
special tribunal for deciding on disputes concerning
the application of a Convention.
31. The Workers' members questioned the arguments
made by the Employers' members concerning
the use by the Committee of Experts of the method
of interpretation provided for at Article 31 of the
Vienna Convention. They believed that ILO Conventions
were not comparable to traditional treaties
between States as the parties concerned were not
only States but also organisations of employers and
workers, who participated in their elaboration. In addition,
Article 31 (3) (¿?) of the Vienna Convention
provides that practice may be used to identify the
intention of the parties in a given interpretation. The
Workers' members considered that the fact that the
parties are not States alone, meant that nonconforming
practice by one or several States should not reflect
upon the intention of the parties. Moreover, the
tripartite preparatory work for the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
1948 (No. 87), proved that this Convention
had to be interpreted very broadly, particularly as
concerns the right to join organisations of one's
choice, which was recognised for all workers without
distinction of any kind. The)' recalled the proposal
made by one of their members in 1990 that the Office
prepare a manual of procedurss concerning article 37
of the Constitution. As concerned the creation of a
tribunal as provided for in article 37, paragraph 2, of
the Constitution, to which they were not opposed,
the Workers' members asked how such a tribunal
would differ from the Committee of Experts, in particular
as concerns its composition.
32. The Workers' member of Norway, speaking
also on behalf of the Workers' members of Denmark
and Finland, proposed the establishment of an independent
tribunal, to be called the International Court
of Social Justice, which would be competent to resolve
difficulties on the interpretation of Conventions
and would improve the functioning of the supervisory
system. This Court would have a tripartite composition.
It would be able to-revise interpretations given
by the Committee of Experts, as well as the conclusions
and recommendations of the committees and
commissions provided for in articles 24 and 26 of the
ILO Constitution. The Court's legal competence
could limited, in the first instance, to the most fundamental
ILO Conventions such as the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise
and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.
98), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention,
1957 (No. 105) and the Discrimination (Employment
and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). He
suggested that these proposals, which would certainly
involve fundamental changes including amendments
to the ILO Constitution, be discussed in more depth.
The Government member of Romania supported this
proposal which he felt might involve lower costs to
the ILO than Commissions of Inquiry.
33. Referring to the Committee of Experts' opinion
that, in order to implement its mandate, it has the
right to express its opinions on the contents of provisions
of international labour Conventions, the Government
member of the USSR felt that this should be
discussed separately in order to find an adequate solution
to the problem. The Government member of
Denmark, speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments,
felt that perhaps the Committee of Experts
went too far when it suggested that a government
which did not agree with its interpretation would
have to obtain a legally binding opinion from the
International Court of Justice. She considered that
this obligation was not within the spirit of article 37
of the ILO Constitution. She recalled that no request
for an advisory opinion on the interpretation of an
international labour Convention had been submitted
to the Court since the Second World War.
34. The Government member of Cuba, while not
doubting the possibility of continuous improvement
in the whole supervisory machinery which had given
proof of its capacity to adapt, advocated caution
against the proposal to create new bodies or procedures
which differed from those in existence, since
this would add new difficulties for some developing
countries in complying with their obligations towards
the ILO.
35. The Workers' member of Spain stated that at
no time should the right of appeal to the International
Court of Justice be placed in doubt, because
the right to turn to a legal entity different from the
one which produced a standard was a democratic requirement
that could not be questioned.
36. The Government member of France recalled
that Conventions are composite texts resulting from a
tripartite compromise, which governments must ratify
without reservations if they wished to adhere to
them. It would therefore be important to have a competent
authority for the interpretation of international
labour Conventions, which are not classical
treaties negotiated by diplomats. Referring to the
statement of the Employers' member of Sweden concerning
the absence of recourse to the procedure provided
for in article 37 of the ILO Constitution, he
suggested the creation of a supplementary level in the
system of supervising the application of standards,
under article 37(2) of the Constitution. He considered
that nothing in this provision would preclude
adding a dose of tripartism, which would respond to
the concerns expressed by the Workers' member of
Norway. The Government member of the United
Kingdom supported this proposal and suggested that
the Office consider what was needed to put article
37(2) of the Constitution into effect.
37. The representative of the Secretary-General
noted the proposals, which would be duly examined.
Composition of the Committee of Experts
38. The Government member of Germany, comparing
the Committee of Independent Experts for
24/7
Document No. 80
ILC, 90th Session, 2002, Report III (Part 1A), Report
of the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations, paras 21-26
International Labour Conference
90th Session 2002
Report III
(Part 1A)
Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Report of the Committee of Experts
on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
(articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution)
General Report
and observations concerning particular countries
International Labour Office Geneva
General Report
Working methods
21. In pursuance of its terms of reference, as revised by the Governing Body at its
103rd Session (Geneva, 1947), the Committee was called upon to examine:
(i) the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on the measures taken by
Members to give effect to the provisions of the Conventions to which they are
parties, and the information furnished by Members concerning the results of
inspections;
(ii) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
(iii) information and reports on the measures taken by Members in accordance with
article 35 of the Constitution.
22. The Committee, after an examination and evaluation of the above reports and
information, drew up its present report, consisting of the following three parts:
(a) Part One is the General Report in which the Committee reviews general questions
concerning international labour standards and related international instruments and
their implementation;
(b) Part Two contains observations concerning particular countries on the application
of ratified Conventions (see section I and paragraphs 84 to 123 below), on the
application of Conventions in non-metropolitan territories (see section II and
paragraphs 84 to 123 below), and on the obligation to submit instruments to the
competent authorities (see section III and paragraphs 124 to 138 below); and
(c) Part Three, which is published in a separate volume (Report III (Part IB)), consists
of a General Survey on the Dock Work Convention, 1973 (No. 137), and
Recommendation, 1973 (No. 145), on which governments were requested to
submit reports under article 19 of the ILO Constitution.
23. The Committee's task consists of indicating the extent to which the law and
practice in each State appears to be in conformity with ratified Conventions and the
obligations undertaken by that State by virtue of the ILO Constitution. To accomplish
this task, the Committee follows the principles cited above in paragraph 9, and in
continuing to apply the working methods recalled in its 1987 report.3
24. Furthermore, since 1999 the Committee has undertaken an examination of its
working methods. Last year, the Committee paid particular attention to drafting its report
in a manner to make it more accessible and to draw the attention of a larger readership to
the importance of the provisions of Conventions and their practical application. This
year, in order to guide its reflections on this matter in both an efficient and thorough
manner, the Committee decided to create a subcommittee. This subcommittee has as a
mandate to examine not only the working methods of the Committee as strictly defined
3 International Labour Conference, 73rd Session, 1987, Report in(4A), pp. 17-19, paras.
37-49.
REPORT ni(lA)-2002-lA-EN.DOC 13
Report ofthe Committee ofExperts
but also any related subjects, and to make appropriate recommendations to the
Committee.4
25. A spirit of mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility has consistently
prevailed in the Committee's relations with the International Labour Conference and its
Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee of Experts takes the
proceedings of the Conference Committee into full consideration, not only in respect of
general matters concerning standard-setting activities and supervisory procedures, but
also in respect of specific matters concerning the way in which States fulfil their
standards-related obligations. In this context, the Committee again welcomed the
participation of the Chairperson of its 71st Session as an observer in the general
discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 89th Session of the
International Labour Conference (June 2001). It noted the request by the
abovementioned Committee for the Director-General to repeat this invitation for the
90th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2002). The Committee
accepted the invitation.
26. The Chairperson of the Committee of Experts invited the Employer and
Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the
89th Session of the International Labour Conference to pay a joint visit to this
Committee at its present session. Both accepted this invitation and discussed various
matters with the Committee in a special session.
II. General information on international labour standards
Recent developments
A. Membership of the Organization
27. Since the Committee's last session, the number of member States of the ILO
has remained unchanged at 175.
B. New standards adopted by the Conference in 2001
and the coming into force of Conventions
28. The Committee notes that at its 89th Session (June 2001) the International
Labour Conference adopted the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention (No. 184),
and Recommendation (No. 192), 2001.
29. No Conventions entered into force in 2001.
C. Policy on standards
30. The Committee notes the continued discussions in the Governing Body on
possible improvements in ILO standards-related activities. The object of these
4 Ms. Laura COX was charged by the Committee to preside over the discussions of this
subcommittee which will be composed of a core group and will be open to any member of the
Committee wishing to participate in it.
14 REPORT 111(1 A)-2002-1A-EN.DOC
Document No. 81
ILC, 91st Session, 2003, Report III (Part 1A), Report of the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations, paras 4-6
International Labour Conference
91st Session 2003
Report III
(Part 1A)
Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Report of the Committee of Experts
on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
(articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution)
General Report
and observations concerning particular countries
International Labour Office Geneva
General Report
REPORTIII(1A)-2003-1A.EN.DOC 7
Vice-President (Asia) of the International Society of Labour Law and Social
Security.
Mr. Budislav VUKAS (Croatia),
Professor of Public International Law at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law;
Vice-President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; member of the
Institute of International Law; member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration;
member of the OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; member of the
International Council of Environmental Law; member of the Commission on
Environmental Law of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources.
Mr. Toshio YAMAGUCHI (Japan),
Honorary Professor of Law at the University of Tokyo; former Chairman of the
Central Labour Relations Commission of Japan; former member of the Executive
Committee of the International Society of Labour Law and Social Security; full
member of the International Academy of Comparative Law.
3. The Committee elected Ms. Robyn Layton, QC, as Chairperson and Mr.
Edilbert Razafindralambo as Reporter.1
Working methods
4. In pursuance of its terms of reference, as revised by the Governing Body at its
103rd Session (Geneva, 1947), the Committee was called upon to examine:
(a) the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on the measures taken by
Members to give effect to the provisions of the Conventions to which they are
parties, and the information furnished by Members concerning the results of
inspections;
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
(c) the information and reports on the measures taken by Members in accordance with
article 35 of the Constitution.
5. The Committee, after an examination and evaluation of the above reports and
information, drew up its present report, consisting of the following three parts:
(a) Part One is the General Report in which the Committee reviews general questions
concerning international labour standards and related international instruments and
their implementation;
(b) Part Two contains observations concerning particular countries on the application
of ratified Conventions (see section I and paragraphs 83 to 118 below), on the
application of Conventions in non-metropolitan territories (see section II and
1 Erratum: In paragraph 9 of last years report, the Committee drew up an alphabetical list of
all of its members on the occasion of the 75th anniversary since its establishment. It was indicated
that Mr. José Maria Ruda (Argentina), former President of the International Court of Justice, had
been a member of the Committee. He was also the Chairperson of the Committee.
Report of the Committee of Experts
8 REPORTIII(1A)-2003-1A.EN.DOC
paragraphs 83 to 118 below), and on the obligation to submit instruments to the
competent authorities (see section III and paragraphs 119 to 133 below);
(c) Part Three, which is published in a separate volume (Report III (Part 1B)), consists
of a General Survey on the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) and
Recommendation (No. 85), on which governments were requested to submit
reports under article 19 of the ILO Constitution.
6. The Committees task consists of indicating the extent to which the law and
practice in each State appears to be in conformity with ratified Conventions and the
obligations undertaken by that State by virtue of the ILO Constitution. To accomplish
this task, the Committee follows the principles of independence, objectivity and
impartiality as described in its previous reports. It also continues to apply the working
methods recalled in its 1987 report.2
Subcommittee on working methods
7. Furthermore, since 1999, the Committee has undertaken a thorough
examination of its working methods. In 2001, the Committee paid particular attention to
drafting its report in a manner to make it more accessible and to draw the attention of a
larger readership to the importance of the provisions of Conventions and their practical
application. Last year, in order to guide its reflections on this matter in both an efficient
and thorough manner, the Committee decided to create a subcommittee. This
subcommittee has as a mandate to examine not only the working methods of the
Committee as strictly defined but also any related subjects, and to make appropriate
recommendations to the Committee.3
8. At this session, the Committee of Experts considered the recommendations of
its subcommittee, prepared after a wide-ranging review of the Committees work, to
which all members of the Committee had had an opportunity to contribute during the
year. There was, firstly, unanimous endorsement of the need for the Committee to
maintain its independence, impartiality and objectivity in carrying out its work, and of
the overall importance of these features of the ILO supervisory mechanisms. Secondly,
with a view to promoting the visibility and influence of the Committee and its work,
members expressed an interest, where appropriate, in participating in field missions and
in contributing to international conferences or to seminars providing training in areas
relevant to their work. Thirdly, the Committee agreed on a number of significant
changes relating to its working methods, all of which have the following aims:
(a) furthering the Committees diversity;
(b) increasing the synergy between experts and in particular between those experts
working on linked groups of Convention;
(c) ensuring the most effective working methods during particular high-pressure
periods of work;
2 International Labour Conference, 73rd Session, 1987, Report III(4A), pp. 17-19,
paras. 37-49.
3 This subcommittee is composed of a core group and is open to any member of the
Committee wishing to participate in it.
General Report
REPORTIII(1A)-2003-1A.EN.DOC 9
(d) implementing further changes to its annual report, making it more accessible to
those who read it; and
(e) continuing to foster cooperation and good relations between the Committee of
Experts and the Committee on the Application of Standards.
It was further agreed that, from now on, the subcommittee should continue to meet
annually, as and when necessary, to monitor these reforms, to report to the Committee
on their implementation and to recommend any further changes which may be necessary
in the future.
9. A spirit of mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility has consistently
prevailed in the Committees relations with the International Labour Conference and its
Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee of Experts takes the
proceedings of the Conference Committee into full consideration, not only in respect of
general matters concerning standard-setting activities and supervisory procedures, but
also in respect of specific matters concerning the way in which States fulfil their
standards-related obligations. In this context, the Committee again welcomed the
participation of the Chairperson of its 72nd Session as an observer in the general
discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 90th Session of the
International Labour Conference (June 2002). It noted the request by the
abovementioned Committee for the Director-General to renew this invitation for the 91st
Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2003). The Committee accepted
the invitation.
10. The Chairperson of the Committee of Experts invited the Employer and
Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 90th
Session of the International Labour Conference to pay a joint visit to this Committee at
its present session. Both accepted this invitation and discussed various matters with the
Committee in a special session.
II. General information on international labour standards
Recent developments
A. Membership of the Organization
11. Since the Committees last session, the number of member States of the ILO
has remained unchanged at 175.
B. New standards adopted by the Conference at its 90th Session
and the coming into force of Conventions
12. The Committee notes that, at its 90th Session (June 2002), the International
Labour Conference adopted the Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation (No. 193),
the List of Occupational Diseases Recommendation (No. 194), and the Protocol of 2002
to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981.
13. No Conventions entered into force in 2002.
Document No. 82
ILC, 102nd Session, 2013, Report of the Committee on
the Application of Standards, pp. 59–72
16 Part I/1
International Labour Conference
16
PART ONE
Record of Proceedings
102nd Session, Geneva, June 2013
Third item on the agenda: Information
and reports on the application of
Conventions and Recommendations
Report of the Committee on the
Application of Standards
PART ONE
GENERAL REPORT
Contents
Page
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
B. General questions relating to international labour standards ............................. 9
C. Reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution: General Survey
concerning labour relations and collective bargaining in the public service ...... 23
D. Report of the Joint ILO–UNESCO Committee of Experts on the Application
of the Recommendations concerning Teaching Personnel (CEART) ................ 45
E. Compliance with specific obligations................................................................. 46
F. Adoption of the report and closing remarks ....................................................... 54
Annex 1. Work of the Committee ..................................................................................... 59
Annex 2. Cases regarding which Governments are invited to supply
information to the Committee ............................................................................ 73
16 Part I/59
Annex 1
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE C. App./D.1
102nd Session, Geneva, June 2013
Committee on the Application of Standards
Work of the Committee
I. Introduction
This document sets out the manner in which the work of the Committee on the
Application of Standards is carried out. It is submitted to the Committee for adoption when
it begins its work at each session of the Conference, in particular to enable the Committee
to approve the latest adjustments made in its work. The work undertaken by the Committee
is reflected in a report. Since 2007, in response to the wishes expressed by ILO
constituents, the report has been published both in the Record of Proceedings of the
Conference and as a separate publication, to improve the visibility of the Committee’s
work. 1
Since 2002, ongoing discussions and informal consultations have taken place
concerning the working methods of the Committee. In particular, following the Governing
Body’s adoption of a new strategic orientation for the ILO standards system in November
2005, 2 consultations began in March 2006 regarding numerous aspects of this system, 3
including the question of the publication of the list of individual cases discussed by the
Committee. A tripartite Working Group on the Working Methods of the Committee was
set up in June 2006 and has met 11 times since then. The last meeting took place on
12 November 2011. On the basis of these consultations, and the recommendations of the
Working Group, the Committee has made certain adjustments to its working methods. An
overview of these adjustments is detailed below.
Since 2006, an early communication to governments (at least two weeks before the
opening of the Conference) of a preliminary list of individual cases for possible discussion
by the Committee concerning the application of ratified Conventions has been instituted.
Since 2007, it has been the practice to follow the adoption of the list of individual cases
with an informal information session for Governments, hosted by the Employer and
Worker Vice-Chairpersons, to explain the criteria used for the selection of individual
1 The reports thus published can be found at:
http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/WCMS_183447/lang--en/index.htm.
2 See documents GB.294/LILS/4 and GB.294/9.
3 See para. 22 of document GB.294/LILS/4.
16 Part I/60
cases. 4 Changes have been made to the organization of work so that the discussion of
individual cases could begin on the Monday morning of the second week, and
improvements have been introduced in the preparation and adoption of the conclusions
relating to cases. In June 2008, measures were adopted to address those cases in which
Governments were registered and present at the Conference, but chose not to appear before
the Committee; the Committee now has the ability to discuss the substance of such cases. 5
Specific provisions have also been adopted concerning the respect of parliamentary rules
of decorum. 6
In November 2010, the Working Group discussed the possibility for the Committee to
discuss a case of a government which is not accredited or registered to the Conference.
Since June 2010, important arrangements have been implemented to improve time
management. 7 In addition, modalities have been established for discussion of the General
Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, in light of the parallel discussion of the recurrent report on the same
subject under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair
Globalization.
At its last meeting in November 2011, the tripartite Working Group reached the
following main conclusions:
(i) Adoption of the list of individual cases: at the time, it was agreed that the Employer
and Worker spokespersons would meet informally before the 101st Session (2012) of
the Conference to elaborate a process to improve the adoption of the list and would
report on the outcome of their consultations. 8
(ii) Balance in the types of Conventions among the individual cases selected by the
Conference Committee: the importance of this issue was reaffirmed, notwithstanding
the difficulties in achieving diversity in the types of Conventions selected for
discussion. The issue would be kept under review, including by exploring the option
of establishing a quota system which could mandate the selection of cases per each
type of Conventions.
(iii) Possibility for the Conference Committee to discuss cases of progress: it was recalled
that there had been long-standing consensus on the inclusion of a case of progress in
the Conference Committee’s report, but that the practice had been temporarily
suspended in 2008 due to concerns about time management. The issue would be kept
under review.
4 See below Part V, B.
5 See below, Part V, D, footnote 20.
6 See below, Part V, F.
7 See Part V, B – Supply of information and automatic registration – and E.
8 For the 102nd Session (June 2013), discussions have taken place between the Employers’ group
and the Workers’ group in the context of the follow-up to the decision adopted by the International
Labour Conference, at its 101st Session (2012), on certain matters arising out of the report of the
Committee on the Application of Standards; see Provisional Record No. 19, Part 1 (Rev.),
International Labour Conference, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012, para. 208.
16 Part I/61
(iv) Possible improvements in the interaction between the discussion on the General
Survey by the Committee on the Application of Standards and the discussion on the
recurrent item report by the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion: it was
recognized that until the new discussion modalities which had been agreed upon took
effect in 2014, 9 the process followed during the 100th Session (June 2011) should be
continued during the 101st Session (May–June 2012). This process had proved to be
satisfactory.
(v) Automatic registration of individual cases: Modalities for selecting the starting letter
for the registration of cases: There was consensus to continue the experiment begun in
June 2011 when the Committee had used the A + 5 model to undertake the automatic
registration of individual cases based on a rotating alphabetical system, to ensure a
genuine rotation of countries on the list.
(vi) Other questions: The question of the impact of the deliberations of the Working Party
on the Functioning of the Governing Body and the International Labour Conference
on the work of the tripartite Working Group: It was recalled that the tripartite
Working Group reported to the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards. However, the work of the Conference Committee could also be influenced
by the Working Party on the Functioning of the Governing Body and the International
Labour Conference. In such circumstances, it was decided that, although there was no
need for the tripartite Working Group to meet in March 2012, it might be useful to
retain the option for it to meet in the future, to follow-up as necessary upon questions
raised by the Working Party. 10
II. Terms of reference of the Committee
Under its terms of reference as defined in article 7 of the Standing Orders of the
Conference, the Committee is called upon to consider:
(a) the measures taken by Members to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to
which they are parties and the information furnished by Members concerning the
results of inspections;
9 At the 309th Session of the Governing Body (November 2010), the Steering Group on the
Follow-up to the Social Justice Declaration took the view that the review of the General Survey by
the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards should take place one year in advance of
the recurrent discussion by the Conference. This required a shift from the existing arrangement
under which the General Survey and the recurrent discussion report on the same theme were
submitted to the Conference in the same year. As a transition measure, the Governing Body decided
in March 2011 that no General Survey on instruments related to employment should be undertaken
for the purposes of the next recurrent discussion on employment that will take place in 2014.
10 At the meeting of the Working Party on the Functioning of the Governing Body and the
International Labour Conference during the 316th Session (November 2012) of the Governing
Body, Governments reiterated that the findings of the informal Working Group on the Working
Methods of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations should be fed
into the discussions of the Working Party. At the meeting of the Working Party during the
317th Session (March 2013) of the Governing Body, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean
Countries recalled its proposal for the question of improving the working methods of the Committee
to be discussed by the Working Party, but the Employers’ group, the Workers’ group and a number
of other Government groups did not agree with that proposal, stating that, at that stage, the question
should be discussed in a different context; see GB.316/INS/12, para. 12, and GB.317/INS/10,
para. 8.
16 Part I/62
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
(c) the measures taken by Members in accordance with article 35 of the Constitution.
III. Working documents
A. Report of the Committee of Experts
The basic working document of the Committee is the report of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Report III (Parts 1A
and B)), printed in two volumes.
Volume A of this report contains, in Part One, the General Report of the Committee
of Experts (pages 5–44) and, in Part Two, the observations of the Committee concerning
the sending of reports, the application of ratified Conventions and the obligation to submit
the Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities in member States
(pages 45–857). At the beginning of the report there is a list of Conventions by subject
(pages v–x), an index of comments by Convention (pages xi-xviii), and by country
(pages xix–xxvii).
It will be recalled that, as regards ratified Conventions, the work of the Committee of
Experts is based on reports sent by the governments. 11
Certain observations carry footnotes asking the government concerned to report in
detail, or earlier than the year in which a report on the Convention in question would
normally be due, and/or to supply full particulars to the Conference. 12 The Conference
may also, in accordance with its usual practice, wish to receive information from
governments on other observations that the Committee of Experts has made.
In addition to the observations contained in its report, the Committee of Experts has,
as in previous years, made direct requests which are communicated to governments by the
Office on the Committee’s behalf. 13 A list of these direct requests can be found at the end
of Volume A (see Appendix VII, pages 905–917).
The Committee of Experts refers in its comments to cases in which it expresses its
satisfaction or interest at the progress achieved in the application of the respective
Conventions. In 2009, 2010 and again in 2011, the Committee clarified the general
approach in this respect that has been developed over the years. 14
In accordance with the decision taken in 2007, the Committee of Experts may also
decide to highlight cases of good practices to serve as a model for other countries to assist
11 See paras 42–46 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts.
12 See paras 72–74 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts.
13 See para. 64 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts.
14 See paras 79 and 83 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts. See also Annex II of the
present document.
16 Part I/63
them in the implementation of ratified Conventions and furtherance of social progress. 15
At its session of November–December 2009, the Committee of Experts has provided
further explanations on the criteria to be followed in identifying cases of good practices by
clarifying the distinction between these cases and cases of progress. No specific cases of
good practices have been identified by the Committee of Experts this year.
Furthermore, the Committee of Experts has continued to highlight the cases for
which, in its view, technical assistance would be particularly useful in helping member
States to address gaps in law and in practice in the implementation of ratified Conventions,
following-up on the practice established by the Conference Committee in this regard since
2005. 16
Volume B of the report contains the General Survey by the Committee of Experts,
which this year concerns the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978
(No. 151), the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), the Labour Relations
(Public Service) Recommendation, 1978 (No. 159), and the Collective Bargaining
Recommendation, 1981 (No. 163).
B. Summaries of reports
At its 267th Session (November 1996), the Governing Body approved new measures
for rationalization and simplification of reporting. In this connection, it adopted changes
along the following lines:
(i) information concerning reports supplied by governments on ratified Conventions
(articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution), which now appears in simplified form in two
tables annexed to the report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A) (Appendices I and II,
pages 861–875);
(ii) information concerning reports supplied by governments as concerns General Surveys
under article 19 of the Constitution (this year concerning labour relations and
collective bargaining in the public service) appears in simplified form in a table
annexed to the report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1B) (Appendix IV, pages 239–244);
(iii) summary of information supplied by governments on the submission to the competent
authorities of Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the Conference
(article 19 of the Constitution), which now appears as Appendices IV, V and VI to the
report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A) (pages 886–904).
Requests for consultation or copies of reports may be addressed to the secretariat of
the Committee on the Application of Standards.
15 See paras 85–87 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts.
16 See paras 88–89 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts.
16 Part I/64
C. Other information
In addition, as and when relevant information is received by the secretariat,
documents are prepared and distributed containing the substance of:
(i) supplementary reports and information which reached the International Labour Office
between the meetings of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee;
(ii) written information supplied by governments to the Conference Committee in reply to
the observations made by the Committee of Experts, when these governments are on
the list of individual cases adopted by the Conference Committee.
IV. Composition of the Committee, right
to participate in its work and voting
procedure
These questions are regulated by the Standing Orders concerning committees of the
Conference, which may be found in section H of Part II of the Standing Orders of the
International Labour Conference.
Each year, the Committee elects its Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons as well as its
Reporter.
V. Schedule of work
A. General discussion
1. General Survey. In accordance with its usual practice, the Committee will
discuss the General Survey of the Committee of Experts, Report III (Part 1B). This year,
for the fourth time, the subject of the General Survey has been aligned with the strategic
objective that will be discussed in the context of the recurrent report under the follow-up to
the 2008 Social Justice Declaration. As a result, the General Survey concerns labour
relations and collective bargaining in the public service, while the recurrent report on
social dialogue will be discussed by the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion on the
strategic objective of social dialogue. In order to ensure the best interaction between the
two discussions, it is proposed to maintain the adjustments in place since 2011 to the
working schedule for the discussion of the General Survey – they are reflected in the
document C.App/D.0. As was the case during the last two sessions of the Conference, the
Selection Committee is expected to take a decision to allow the official transmission of the
possible output of the discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards to the
Committee for the Recurrent Discussion. In addition, the Officers of the Committee on the
Application of Standards could present information regarding their discussion of the
General Survey to the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion.
2. General questions. The Committee will also hold a brief general discussion
which is primarily based on the General Report of the Committee of Experts, Report III
(Part 1A) (pages 5–44).
16 Part I/65
B. Discussion of observations
In Part Two of its report, the Committee of Experts makes observations on the
manner in which various governments are fulfilling their obligations. The Conference
Committee then discusses some of these observations with the governments concerned.
Cases of serious failure by member States
to respect their reporting and other
standards-related obligations 17
Governments are invited to supply information on cases of serious failure to respect
reporting or other standards-related obligations for stated periods. These cases are
considered in a single sitting. Governments may remove themselves from this list by
submitting the required information before the sitting concerned. Information received
both before and after this sitting will be reflected in the report of the Conference
Committee.
Individual cases
A draft list of observations (individual cases) regarding which countries will be
invited to supply information to the Committee is established by the Committee’s Officers.
The draft list of individual cases is then submitted to the Committee for approval. In the
establishment of this list, a need for balance among different categories of Conventions as
well as geographical balance is considered. In addition to the abovementioned
considerations on balance, criteria for selection have traditionally included the following
elements:
– the nature of the comments of the Committee of Experts, in particular the existence of
a footnote (see Appendix I);
– the quality and scope of responses provided by the government or the absence of a
response on its part;
– the seriousness and persistence of shortcomings in the application of the Convention;
– the urgency of a specific situation;
– comments received by employers’ and workers’ organizations;
– the nature of a specific situation (if it raises a hitherto undiscussed question, or if the
case presents an interesting approach to solving questions of application);
– the discussions and conclusions of the Conference Committee of previous sessions
and, in particular, the existence of a special paragraph;
– the likelihood that discussing the case would have a tangible impact.
Moreover, there is also the possibility of examining one case of progress as was done
in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
17 Formerly “automatic” cases (see Provisional Record No. 22, International Labour Conference,
93rd Session, June 2005).
16 Part I/66
Supply of information 18 and automatic registration
1. Oral replies. The governments are requested to take note of the preliminary list
and prepare for the eventuality that they may be called upon to appear before the
Conference Committee. Cases included in the final list will be automatically registered and
evenly distributed by the Office, on the basis of a rotating alphabetical system, following
the French alphabetical order. This year, the registration will begin with countries with the
letter “P”, thus continuing the experiment started in 2011.
Cases will be divided in two groups: The first group of countries to be registered
following the above alphabetical order will consist of those cases in which a double
footnote was inserted by the Committee of Experts and are found in paragraph 73 of that
Committee’s report. The second group of countries will constitute of all the other cases on
the final list and they will be registered by the Office also following the abovementioned
alphabetical order. Representatives of governments which are not members of the
Committee are kept informed of the agenda of the Committee and of the date on which
they may be heard:
(a) through the Daily Bulletin;
(b) by means of letters sent to them individually by the Chairperson of the Committee.
2. Written replies. The written replies of governments – which are submitted to
the Office prior to oral replies – are summarized and reproduced in the documents which
are distributed to the Committee (see Part III, C and Part V, E). These written replies are to
be provided at least two days before the discussion of the case. They serve to complement
the oral reply and any other information already provided by the government, without
duplicating them. The total number of pages is not to exceed five pages.
Adoption of conclusions
The conclusions regarding individual cases are proposed by the Chairperson of the
Committee, who should have sufficient time for reflection to draft the conclusions and to
hold consultations with the Reporter and the Vice-Chairpersons before proposing them to
the Committee. The conclusions should take due account of the elements raised in the
discussion and information provided by the Government in writing. The conclusions
should be adopted within a reasonable time limit after the discussion of the case and should
be succinct.
C. Minutes of the sittings
No minutes are published for the general discussion and the discussion of the General
Survey. Minutes of sittings at which governments are invited to respond to the comments
of the Committee of Experts will be produced by the secretariat in English, French and
Spanish. It is the Committee’s practice to accept corrections to the minutes of previous
sittings prior to their approval by the Committee, which should take place 36 hours at the
most after the minutes become available. In order to avoid delays in the preparation of the
report of the Committee, no corrections may be accepted once the minutes have been
approved.
18 See also section E below on time management.
16 Part I/67
The minutes are a summary of the discussions and are not intended to be a verbatim
record. Speakers are therefore requested to restrict corrections to the elimination of errors
in the report of their own statements, and not to ask to insert long additional passages. It
would be helpful to the secretariat in ensuring the accuracy of the minutes if, wherever
possible, delegates would hand in a written copy of their statements to the secretariat.
D. Special problems and cases
For cases in which governments appear to encounter serious difficulties in
discharging their obligations, the Committee decided at the 66th Session of the Conference
(1980) to proceed in the following manner:
1. Failure to supply reports and information. The various forms of failure to
supply information will be expressed in narrative form in separate paragraphs at the end of
the appropriate sections of the report, and indications will be included concerning any
explanations of difficulties provided by the governments concerned. The following criteria
were retained by the Committee for deciding which cases were to be included:
– None of the reports on ratified Conventions has been supplied during the past
two years or more.
– First reports on ratified Conventions have not been supplied for at least two years.
– None of the reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations requested under
article 19, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, of the Constitution has been supplied during the past
five years.
– No indication is available on whether steps have been taken to submit the
Conventions and Recommendations adopted during the last seven sessions of the
Conference 19 to the competent authorities, in accordance with article 19 of the
Constitution.
– No information has been received as regards all or most of the observations and direct
requests of the Committee of Experts to which a reply was requested for the period
under consideration.
– The government has failed during the past three years to indicate the representative
organizations of employers and workers to which, in accordance with article 23(2) of
the Constitution, copies of reports and information supplied to the Office under
articles 19 and 22 have been communicated.
– The government has failed, despite repeated invitations by the Conference
Committee, to take part in the discussion concerning its country. 20
19 This year the sessions involved would be the 91st (2003) to 100th (2011).
20 In conformity with the decision taken by the Committee at the 73rd Session of the Conference
(1987), as amended at the 97th Session of the Conference (2008), for the implementation of this
criterion, the following measures will be applied:
– In accordance with the usual practice, after having established the list of cases regarding
which Government delegates might be invited to supply information to the Committee, the
16 Part I/68
2. Application of ratified Conventions. The report will contain a section entitled
“Application of ratified Conventions”, in which the Committee draws the attention of the
Conference to:
– cases of progress (see Appendix II), where governments have introduced changes in
their law and practice in order to eliminate divergences previously discussed by the
Committee;
– discussions it had regarding certain cases, which are mentioned in special paragraphs
of the report;
– continued failure over several years to eliminate serious deficiencies in the
application of ratified Conventions which it had previously discussed.
E. Time management
– Every effort will be made so that sessions start on time and the schedule is respected.
– Maximum speaking time for speakers are as follows:
■ Fifteen minutes for the spokespersons of the Workers’ and the Employers’
groups, as well as the Government whose case is being discussed.
■ Ten minutes for the Employer and Worker members, respectively, from the
country concerned to be divided between the different speakers of each group.
■ Ten minutes for Government groups.
■ Five minutes for the other members.
Committee shall invite the governments of the countries concerned in writing, and the Daily
Bulletin shall regularly mention these countries.
– Three days before the end of the discussion of individual cases, the Chairperson of the
Committee shall request the Clerk of the Conference to announce every day the names of the
countries whose representatives have not yet responded to the Committee’s invitation, urging
them to do so as soon as possible.
– On the last day of the discussion of individual cases, the Committee shall deal with the cases
in which Governments have not responded to the invitation. Given the importance of the
Committee’s mandate, assigned to it in 1926, to provide a tripartite forum for dialogue on
outstanding issues relating to the application of ratified international labour Conventions, a
refusal by a Government to participate in the work of the Committee is a significant obstacle
to the attainment of the core objectives of the International Labour Organization. For this
reason, the Committee may discuss the substance of the cases concerning Governments which
are registered and present at the Conference, but which have chosen not to be present before
the Committee. The debate which ensues in such cases will be reflected in the appropriate part
of the report, concerning both individual cases and participation in the work of the Committee.
In the case of governments that are not present at the Conference, the Committee will not
discuss the substance of the case, but will bring out in the report the importance of the
questions raised. In both situations, a particular emphasis will be put on steps to be taken to
resume the dialogue.
16 Part I/69
■ Concluding remarks are limited to ten minutes for spokespersons of the
Workers’ and the Employers’ groups, as well as the Government whose case is
being discussed.
– However, the Chairperson, in consultation with the other Officers of the Committee,
could decide on reduced time limits where the situation of a case would warrant it, for
instance, where there was a very long list of speakers.
– These time limits will be announced by the Chairperson at the beginning of each
sitting and will be strictly enforced.
– During interventions, a screen located behind the Chairperson and visible by all
speakers will indicate the remaining time available to speakers. Once the maximum
speaking time has been reached, the speaker will be interrupted.
– In view of the above limits on speaking time, Governments whose case is to be
discussed are invited to complete the information provided, where appropriate, by a
written document, not longer than five pages, to be submitted to the Office at least
two days before the discussion of the case (see also section B above).
– In the eventuality that discussion on individual cases is not completed by the final
Friday, there is a possibility of a Saturday sitting at the discretion of the Officers.
F. Respect of rules of decorum and
role of the Chairperson
All delegates have an obligation to the Conference to abide by parliamentary
language and by the generally accepted procedure. Interventions should be relevant to the
subject under discussion and should avoid references to extraneous matters.
It is the role and task of the Chairperson to maintain order and to ensure that the
Committee does not deviate from its fundamental purpose to provide an international
tripartite forum for full and frank debate within the boundaries of respect and decorum
essential to making effective progress towards the aims and objectives of the International
Labour Organization.
16 Part I/70 ILC102-RP16-PI-[RELCO-130702-1]-En.docx
Appendix I
Criteria for footnotes 1
At its November–December 2005 session, in the context of examining its working methods,
and in response to the requests coming from members of the Committee for clarification concerning
the use of footnotes, the Committee of Experts adopted the following criteria (paragraphs 36
and 37):
The Committee wishes to describe its approach to the identification of cases for which it
inserts special notes by highlighting the basic criteria below. In so doing, the Committee makes
three general comments. First, these criteria are indicative. In exercising its discretion in the
application of these criteria, the Committee may also have regard to the specific circumstances of
the country and the length of the reporting cycle. Second, these criteria are applicable to cases in
which an earlier report is requested, often referred to as a “single footnote”, as well as to cases in
which the government is requested to provide detailed information to the Conference, often
referred to as “double footnote”. The difference between these two categories is one of degree. The
third comment is that a serious case otherwise justifying a special note to provide full particulars to
the Conference (double footnote) might only be given a special note to provide an early report
(single footnote) in cases where there has been a recent discussion of that case in the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards.
The criteria to which the Committee will have regard are the existence of one or more of the
following matters:
– the seriousness of the problem; in this respect, the Committee emphasizes that an important
consideration is the necessity to view the problem in the context of a particular Convention
and to take into account matters involving fundamental rights, workers’ health, safety and
well-being as well as any adverse impact, including at the international level, on workers and
other categories of protected persons;
– the persistence of the problem;
– the urgency of the situation; the evaluation of such urgency is necessarily case-specific,
according to standard human rights criteria, such as life-threatening situations or problems
where irreversible harm is foreseeable; and
– the quality and scope of the government’s response in its reports or the absence of response
to the issues raised by the Committee, including cases of clear and repeated refusal on the
part of a State to comply with its obligations.
At its 76th Session, the Committee decided that the identification of cases in respect of which a
special note (double footnote) is to be attributed will be a two-stage process: the expert initially
responsible for a particular group of Conventions may recommend to the Committee the insertion of
special notes; in light of all the recommendations made, the Committee will take a final, collegial
decision on all the special notes to be inserted, once it has reviewed the application of all the
Conventions.
1 See paras 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts
(102nd Session, Report III (Part 1A)).
16 Part I/71
Appendix II
Criteria for identifying cases of progress 1
At its 80th Session (November–December 2009), at its 81st Session (November–December
2010), and at its 82nd Session (November–December 2011), the Committee made the following
clarifications on the general approach developed over the years for the identification of cases of
progress:
(1) The expression by the Committee of interest or satisfaction does not mean that it considers
that the country in question is in general conformity with the Convention, and in the same
comment the Committee may express its satisfaction or interest at a specific issue while
also expressing regret concerning other important matters which, in its view, have not
been addressed in a satisfactory manner.
(2) The Committee wishes to emphasize that an indication of progress is limited to a specific
issue related to the application of the Convention and the nature of the measure adopted
by the government concerned.
(3) The Committee exercises its discretion in noting progress, taking into account the particular
nature of the Convention and the specific circumstances of the country.
(4) The expression of progress can refer to different kinds of measures relating to national
legislation, policy or practice.
(5) If the satisfaction or interest relates to the adoption of legislation or to a draft legislation, the
Committee may also consider appropriate follow-up measures for its practical application.
(6) In identifying cases of progress, the Committee takes into account both the information
provided by governments in their reports and the comments of employers’ and workers’
organizations.
Since first identifying cases of satisfaction in its report in 1964, 2 the Committee has
continued to follow the same general criteria. The Committee expresses satisfaction in cases in
which, following comments it has made on a specific issue, governments have taken measures
through either the adoption of new legislation, an amendment to the existing legislation or a
significant change in the national policy or practice, thus achieving fuller compliance with
their obligations under the respective Conventions. In expressing its satisfaction, the Committee
indicates to governments and the social partners that it considers the specific matter resolved. The
reason for identifying cases of satisfaction is twofold:
– to place on record the Committee’s appreciation of the positive action taken by governments
in response to its comments; and
– to provide an example to other governments and social partners which have to address similar
issues.
1 See paras 79 and 83 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts (102nd Session, Report III
(Part 1A)).
2 See para. 16 of the report of the Committee of Experts submitted to the 48th Session (1964) of the
International Labour Conference.
16 Part I/72
Within cases of progress, the distinction between cases of satisfaction and cases of interest
was formalized in 1979. 3 In general, cases of interest cover measures that are sufficiently
advanced to justify the expectation that further progress would be achieved in the future and
regarding which the Committee would want to continue its dialogue with the government and
the social partners. In comparison to cases of satisfaction, cases of interest relate to progress,
which is less significant. The Committee’s practice has developed to such an extent that cases in
which it expresses interest may encompass a variety of measures. The paramount consideration is
that the measures contribute to the overall achievement of the objectives of a particular Convention.
This may include:
– draft legislation that is before parliament, or other proposed legislative changes forwarded or
available to the Committee;
– consultations within the government and with the social partners;
– new policies;
– the development and implementation of activities within the framework of a technical
cooperation project or following technical assistance or advice from the Office;
– judicial decisions, according to the level of the court, the subject matter and the force of such
decisions in a particular legal system, would normally be considered as cases of interest unless
there is a compelling reason to note a particular judicial decision as a case of satisfaction; or
– the Committee may also note as cases of interest the progress made by a State, province or
territory in the framework of a federal system.
3 See para. 122 of the report of the Committee of Experts submitted to the 65th Session (1979) of
the International Labour Conference.
Document No. 83
GB.320/LILS/4, The standards initiative: Follow-up to
the 2012 ILC Committee on the Application of
Standards, March 2014
This GB document is printed in limited numbers to minimize the environmental impact of the ILO's activities and processes, contribute to climate
neutrality and improve efficiency. GB members and observers are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and to avoid asking for
additional ones. All GB documents are available on the Internet at www.ilo.org.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
320th Session, Geneva, 13–27 March 2014
GB.320/LILS/4
Legal Issues and International Labour Standards Section
International Labour Standards and Human Rights Segment LILS
Date: 6 March 2014
Original: English
FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
The standards initiative: Follow-up to the
2012 ILC Committee on the Application of
Standards
Purpose of the document
The Governing Body is invited to give its direction on the action proposed to address the main
outstanding issues in the supervisory system as outlined in paragraphs 40–43.
Relevant strategic objective: Promote and realize standards and fundamental principles and rights at work.
Policy implications: None.
Legal implications: The eventual follow-up may have such implications.
Financial implications: To be determined depending on the decisions taken.
Follow-up action required: According to the decision that will be taken.
Author unit: Office of the Director-General (CABINET).
Related documents: GB.319/PV/Draft; Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014.
GB.320/LILS/4
GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx 1
Introduction
1. As requested by the Governing Body at its 319th Session in October 2013, 1 the
Director-General launched a consultative process with all groups with a view to submitting
to the Governing Body at its current session, concrete proposals that address the main
outstanding issues in relation to the standards supervisory system.
2. The Office acted in accordance with the pressing need, underlined by the Governing Body,
for substantive progress to be made on matters which were of fundamental importance to
the functioning of the ILO supervisory system in advance of the 2014 session of the
International Labour Conference. It was also guided by the Governing Body’s emphasis on
the importance of full tripartite participation in the process as key to the building of
consensus and to maintaining the strength and authority of the system.
Consultations
3. The consultations mandated by the Governing Body were carried out from November 2013
to early March 2014 and involved all groups within the Governing Body. After a first
round, a non-paper by the Director-General provided the basis for a further round of
consultations. The members of the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations as well as ILO staff and relevant specialists previously
associated with the Office were also consulted.
4. The consultations revealed not only areas where views diverge, but also those where strong
consensus does exist, notably:
■ on the need for the ILO to continue to have a strong and authoritative supervisory
system enjoying the support of all parties; and
■ the need for action to be taken quickly to preserve the system’s strength and authority
on the basis of clear proposals to overcome unresolved issues.
5. The consultations showed substantial overall satisfaction with the system among ILO
constituents even if some expressed concern on specific issues. It is often regarded as
being among the most effective in the multilateral system.
6. Nevertheless, there is also a body of opinion which takes the view that the system is not
operating satisfactorily. While that view is not shared by the majority, it is recognized as a
reality which requires a response if full tripartite support for the system is to be
maintained.
7. The absence of satisfactory responses to these concerns would damage and already has
damaged the functioning and strength of the system. Even those who had no fundamental
problems with the current operation of the system were ready to contribute to the
restoration of necessary consensus.
8. The consultations suggest that even if the current areas of controversy have arisen around
the specific issue of the right to strike, action to respond to them needs to address the
systemic questions they raise.
1 GB.319/PV/Draft, paras 565–567.
GB.320/LILS/4
2 GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx
Key issues outstanding
9. The discussions that have taken place in the International Labour Conference, the
Governing Body and elsewhere, particularly since the failure of the Committee on the
Application of Standards to complete its work in 2012, have generated extensive
statements of opinion which are not repeated in this document. From these, it is possible to
identify a limited number of key issues which need to be addressed, and a similarly limited
number of possible responses. The consultations point to the need at this juncture for
decision-making of a political nature more than further legal or theoretical reflection.
10. For these reasons, the framework for possible responses given below is shaped with a view
to facilitating the Governing Body’s consideration of major lines of action to ensure the
future strength and authority of the supervisory system. Such action, taken in conformity
with the ILO’s Constitution, could include:
■ an explicit consensus statement on the mandate of the Committee of Experts;
■ possible avenues for action where there is a question or dispute relating to the
interpretation of a Convention;
■ a number of adjustments to current working arrangements of the supervisory system;
and
■ confirmation of the commitment to establish a standards review mechanism.
The mandate of the Committee of Experts
11. In this area, two related issues have arisen. The first concerns whether or not the
Committee of Experts has exceeded its mandate in respect of the meaning that it has
attributed to Conventions in its reports.
12. The second regards the standing and legal value of the comments the Committee presents
in its reports.
13. An initial objection has been that the experts have engaged in interpreting the meaning of
Conventions when the Constitution reserves that function to the International Court of
Justice. Subsequently, consensus seems to have formed that a degree of interpretation is
inherent and necessary to the experts’ task of assessing the application of ratified
Conventions. However, there remain some differences of opinion about the extent of such
interpretation.
14. Linked to the foregoing are some concerns about the question of the substantive effect of
the comments of the experts, particularly when they are not the object of specific tripartite
discussion and conclusions as one of the 25 cases selected for examination in the
Conference Committee. This issue has gained in significance as the contents of the
experts’ reports have increasingly been used as points of reference outside the ILO.
15. Much attention to date has been given to the inclusion in the report of the Committee of
Experts of text which would state explicitly the nature and limits of their mandate and of
the standing of its opinions and recommendations. The experts already dedicated
GB.320/LILS/4
GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx 3
paragraphs in the general part of their 2013 report to these matters and have done so again
this year in their 2014 report as reproduced below: 2
Mandate
The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations is an independent body established by the International Labour
Conference and its members are appointed by the ILO Governing Body. It is composed
of legal experts charged with examining the application of ILO Conventions and
Recommendations by ILO member States. The Committee of Experts undertakes an
impartial and technical analysis of how the Conventions are applied in law and practice
by member States, while cognizant of different national realities and legal systems. In
doing so, it must determine the legal scope, content and meaning of the provisions of the
Conventions. Its opinions and recommendations are non-binding, being intended to
guide the actions of national authorities. They derive their persuasive value from the
legitimacy and rationality of the Committee’s work based on its impartiality, experience
and expertise. The Committee’s technical role and moral authority is well recognized,
particularly as it has been engaged in its supervisory task for over 85 years, by virtue of
its composition, independence and its working methods built on continuing dialogue with
governments taking into account information provided by employers’ and workers’
organizations. This has been reflected in the incorporation of the Committee’s opinions
and recommendations in national legislation, international instruments and court
decisions.
16. The Experts have provided a clear statement of the mandate conferred on them by the
Governing Body. Substantial change in that mandate could only result from a political
decision by the relevant ILO bodies. Discussions and consultations to date would indicate
that the formulation provided by the experts in their 2014 report could adequately address
the concerns that have been raised and command consensus.
Action in case of disagreement on the interpretation of
a Convention
17. It is generally recognized (including by the experts themselves) that it is legitimate for ILO
constituents to have and to raise disagreement with the views of the Committee of Experts
on the application or interpretation of a Convention. Indeed, from the outset, the ILO
Constitution foresaw and makes specific provision for such eventualities in its article
37 reproduced below:
Article 37
1. Any question or dispute relating to the interpretation of this Constitution or of any
subsequent Convention concluded by the Members in pursuance of the provisions of this
Constitution shall be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article the Governing Body
may make and submit to the Conference for approval rules providing for the appointment of a
tribunal for the expeditious determination of any dispute or question relating to the
interpretation of a Convention which may be referred thereto by the Governing Body or in
accordance with the terms of the Convention. Any applicable judgement or advisory opinion
of the International Court of Justice shall be binding upon any tribunal established in virtue of
this paragraph. Any award made by such a tribunal shall be circulated to the Members of the
Organisation and any observations which they may make thereon shall be brought before the
Conference.
2 ILO: Application of International Labour Standards 2014 (I), Report of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 1A), International
Labour Conference, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014, para. 31.
GB.320/LILS/4
4 GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx
18. Considerable, and inconclusive, debate has already been devoted by the Governing Body
to the options for action under article 37(1) or 37(2), during which objections have been
raised in the past against both:
■ in the case of article 37(1), that recourse to the International Court of Justice could be
slow and cumbersome; that it might in any case not provide practical answers; and
that there would be disadvantage in demonstrating the ILO’s incapacity to resolve its
difficulties internally; and
■ in the case of article 37(2), that the establishment of a tribunal (or similar mechanism)
could undermine the authority of the Committee of Experts and be used with
excessive frequency and for purposes of political convenience rather than legal
clarity. Cost considerations are also a concern.
19. While there has been much reluctance to date, to make use of either option under article 37
of the Constitution, ILO constituents have not been able to move towards consensus on any
other methods of resolving the specific and disruptive issue with which they are currently
confronted.
20. In these circumstances, and given the improbability of continued tripartite dialogue
restoring consensus within the institutional status quo as well as the urgency of
overcoming the current impasse, the Governing Body will need to give serious
consideration to action under article 37.
21. Consultations revealed interest in exploring further the possibilities for action under both
article 37(1) and article 37(2) with divergent views expressed on the relative advantages of
each.
22. The views expressed point to the need to further explore in greater detail the possible
modalities, costs and safeguards that might be associated with each of these options.
23. In addition, the option exists of an International Labour Conference discussion of issues
arising from the application of given international labour standards, where this has led to
differences of understanding. At the current stage however, it appears that this course of
action would be unlikely to resolve the matters at hand. Nevertheless, it is apparent that
alongside the Committee of Experts, the Committee on the Application of Standards itself
does provide an important forum for tripartite discussion of issues arising in relation to the
application of specific Conventions informed by concrete country situations.
Functioning and working methods of the
Committee on the Application of Standards
and the Committee of Experts
24. The consultations confirm strong constituent support for the roles and authority of the
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and the Committee of Experts as
the crucial and complementary components of the supervisory system.
25. Nevertheless, there are long-standing concerns over aspects of the functioning of these
bodies which some constituents believe need to be addressed in the overall response to
outstanding issues.
26. Underlying these concerns is the background trend of the continuing increase in the
workload of all parts of the supervisory system. This is explained primarily by the increase
in the number of member States and of ratifications, and the increased knowledge and use
GB.320/LILS/4
GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx 5
by constituents of reporting, representation and complaints mechanisms. The following
table gives some indicators of the changes in the volume of work of the Committee of
Experts.
Selected quantitative information on ILO standards supervisory system
% change
1990 2013 2014 2013–1990 2014–2013
Number of Conventions 171 189 189 10.5 0.0
Number of Ratifications 5 508 7 919 7 929 43.8 0.1
Article 22 reports requested 1 719 2 207 2 319 28.4 5.1
Article 22 reports received 1 260 1 497 1 719 18.8 14.8
Pages of CEACR report 580 917 674 58.1 -26.5
Number of experts on
CEACR
20 18 18 -10.0 0.0
Source: ILO.
27. The most frequently voiced concern is over the list of national cases selected for
examination by the Committee on the Application of Standards at each session of the
Conference.
28. It is generally accepted that Governments themselves should not take a role in the
determination of the list, and that this be primarily the responsibility of Workers and
Employers. But there are calls for more clearly understood use of agreed and objective
criteria in the selection of cases, which could respond to: requirements of balance in the
range of Conventions covered and in regional coverage; the guidance of the experts
themselves on the seriousness of cases; overall transparency; and adequate visibility for
cases of progress.
29. Consultations particularly stress the need to ensure timely publication of a list, and also to
counter misperceptions about what a member State’s inclusion in the list really signifies. It
is widely held that such inclusion constitutes, in itself, a political rebuke, and is therefore
something to be avoided, resulting in active lobbying and a damaging politicization of the
process. The practice that has been instituted for Employer and Worker representatives to
explain to Government members of the Committee on the Application of Standards the
rationale for the selection of cases has proven helpful and could be built upon.
30. The consultations reveal some concerns over the appropriate use of the different
components of the supervisory system (reports considered by the experts under articles 22
and 23 of the Constitution, representations under article 24, and complaints under
article 26, as well as cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association) and the need
for balance between them. Questions were raised concerning the appropriate routing of
communications, raising points of law, points of practice or specific situations and, in
addition, the possibility of using different mechanisms successively and on a graduated
basis.
31. The Committee of Experts itself faces challenges arising from an increasing workload, and
consequently has given active consideration to necessary modification to its own working
methods. It has sought to increase the use of (unpublished) direct requests to governments
and to include more precise observations in its reports.
GB.320/LILS/4
6 GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx
32. Coping mechanisms to deal with this growing workload have included adjustments to the
frequency with which reports are required of ratifying governments, increased resource
allocations and the introduction of on-line reporting systems. But concerns about overload
still exist, and the question has arisen as to whether there are acceptable ways of
moderating or rationalizing the flow of communications into the supervisory system and of
ensuring that matters that might more properly be dealt with elsewhere are so treated.
Some constituents have also raised the option of further extending the reporting cycles for
ratified Conventions and of increasing the number of members of the Committee of
Experts.
33. In view of the shared opinion that it is important to assure the strength and authority of the
supervisory system, the Governing Body could give consideration to concrete action to
improve the working methods of the supervisory bodies in ways which will strengthen and
not compromise their strength and authority.
34. Specifically, the Governing Body can examine: the methodology for deciding the list of
cases to be examined at the Conference including any “default” steps; the relationship
between the different supervisory mechanisms; possibilities for action to ensure that access
to the supervisory system is assured in line with the established purposes of each of its
components; and whether there is a margin for further adjustments to reporting cycles on
ratified Conventions.
35. In parallel, the Office could further examine the ways in which it supports the work of the
Committee of Experts as well as efforts to ensure that the Committee of Experts works
with a full complement of experts, with a view to achieving optimal efficiency in work
processes and enabling the experts to make the best use of their necessarily limited time.
36. All parties are aware of the need to guarantee access to the supervisory system to all those
who need it. But in circumstances where receivability criteria are generally purely
formalistic, the experience of a number of member States in establishing national
mechanisms to deal with matters that would otherwise come directly to the ILO can prove
instructive. Such mechanisms would require careful design and tripartite acceptance. The
procedures provided for in the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards)
Convention, 1976 (No. 144), could be of use in this regard. Initial experience with
technical cooperation in respect of such mechanisms has proven productive.
37. In all these matters, dialogue between constituents and the Committee of Experts, which
has proven valuable in recent months, should be further promoted.
The standards review mechanism
38. The need for full tripartite consensus on an authoritative supervisory system to enhance the
relevance of international labour standards through a standards review mechanism were the
substance of the “Standards Initiative”, one of seven centenary initiatives proposed by the
Director-General at the 2013 session of the International Labour Conference, and
subsequently approved by the Governing Body. The task of ensuring the continued
relevance of international labour standards in the contemporary world of work is an
integral part of the outstanding standards-related issues to be addressed. In November
2011, the Governing Body already agreed in principle to the establishment of a standards
review mechanism for this purpose. Successful resolution of difficulties in respect of the
supervisory system will provide the necessary platform of confidence and understanding
for that mechanism to be made operational.
GB.320/LILS/4
GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx 7
The 103rd Session of the International
Labour Conference
39. The consultations offer reason to hope that at its current session, the Governing Body will
be in a position to advance the construction of consensus around the outstanding issues in
respect of the standards supervisory system. But it will not be in a position to conclude that
task in advance of the 2014 session of the International Labour Conference. It is therefore
of critical importance to the achievement of the overall goals of the standards initiative that
the Committee on the Application of Standards is able to undertake its work successfully
and that all parties commit to cooperate to that end.
Draft decision
40. The Governing Body:
(a) reaffirms that in order to exercise fully its constitutional responsibilities, it is
essential for the ILO to have an effective, efficient and authoritative
standards supervisory system commanding the support of all constituents;
(b) welcomes the clear statement by the Committee of Experts of its mandate as
expressed in the Committee’s 2014 report;
(c) deems it necessary to give further consideration to options to address a
dispute or question that might arise with respect to the interpretation of a
Convention;
(d) underscores the critical importance of the effective functioning of the
Committee on the Application of Standards in conformity with its mandate
at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference; and
(e) recognizes that a number of steps could be examined with a view to
improving the working methods of the standards supervisory system.
41. The Governing Body therefore requests the Director-General to:
(a) prepare a document for its 322nd Session in November 2014 setting out the
possible modalities, scope and costs of action under articles 37(1) and 37(2)
of the ILO Constitution to address a dispute or question that may arise in
relation to the interpretation of an ILO Convention;
(b) present to the 322nd Session of the Governing Body, a timeframe for the
consideration of remaining outstanding issues in respect of the supervisory
system and for launching the standards review mechanism;
(c) continue to enhance the effectiveness of the support provided by the Office
to the Committee of Experts in the discharge of its mandate;
(d) take all necessary action to expedite the filling of vacancies on the
Committee of Experts and to propose any adjustments to the relevant
procedures to facilitate this objective; and
GB.320/LILS/4
8 GB320-LILS_4_[CABIN-140220-1]-En.docx
(e) continue informal consultations with all groups of the Governing Body in
respect of all matters referred to in this decision.
42. The Governing Body also:
(a) encourages the continuation of informal dialogue between the Committee of
Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards;
and
(b) invites the Committee of Experts to continue to examine its methods of work
with a view to further enhancing its effectiveness and efficiency. As in the
past, the experts may wish to communicate any progress made in their
annual report and through its dialogue with the Committee on the
Application of Standards.
43. The Governing Body further:
(a) recommends to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
that it consider convening its Working Party on Working Methods to take
stock of current arrangements and develop further recommendations on the
Committee’s working methods; and
(b) calls on all parties concerned to contribute to the successful conclusion of
the work of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at
the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference.
Document No. 84
Minutes of the 320th Session of the Governing Body,
March 2014, paras 572-599
GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Governing Body
320th Session, Geneva, 13–27 March 2014
GB.320/PV
Minutes of the 320th Session
of the Governing Body of the
International Labour Office
GB.320/PV
122 GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx
was necessary to make use of the abrogation procedure, an important tool to follow up on
future decisions of the standards review mechanism and to take action on ILO Conventions
identified as potential candidates for abrogation.
International Labour Standards
and Human Rights Segment
Fourth item on the agenda
The standards initiative: Follow-up to the
2012 ILC Committee on the Application of
Standards
(GB.320/LILS/4)
572. The Director-General recalled that, at its October 2013 session, the Governing Body had
mandated him to hold informal consultations with all three groups, with a view to
submitting to the Governing Body proposals to address the main outstanding issues in
relation to the standards supervisory system. Constituents had engaged positively and
constructively in the consultation process, which had permitted the submission of a
carefully constructed draft decision. While adopting the decision would not bring a
definitive resolution to the issues in question, it would allow the Governing Body to move
forward in that direction, including by enabling the successful completion of the work of
the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 103rd Session (2014) of the
International Labour Conference. Concrete courses of action to address each set of issues
had been proposed, and he was of the view that the Governing Body could decide on some
of them at its current session, while agreeing on the steps to be taken to address others at a
later stage. He strongly encouraged the Governing Body to adopt the draft decision.
573. The Worker Vice-Chairperson recalled, with reference to paragraph 14 of the document,
that the Committee on the Application of Standards was never intended to be above the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(CEACR); it added a degree of discussion and political direction to the cases examined
each year without passing judgment on the interpretation of the experts. Importantly, there
was consensus that a degree of interpretation is necessary to the task of assessing
application. There were no particular objections to the statement on the mandate of the
CEACR included in its 2014 report, which had the advantage of having been prepared
independently by the experts. The group supported the draft decision in paragraph 40(b).
574. Concerning action in the case of disagreement on the interpretation of a Convention, the
group would be willing to consider recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on
the interpretation of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), regarding the right to strike. The reservations expressed in the
document in that regard might have been overstated. The group was also open to exploring
the modalities for establishing a tribunal based on article 37(2) of the ILO Constitution
under conditions that would need to be discussed and agreed upon prior to the Workers’
group approving its establishment. Such a mechanism should only be used in serious
situations. The group did not support a tripartite tribunal, but rather one composed of
independent judges with extensive international legal expertise, who would hear the
interested parties through an adversarial procedure. The tribunal’s views should not
substitute those of the CEACR. Furthermore, the CEACR’s views that were not under
review by the tribunal should be treated as valid and generally recognized. Recourse to the
GB.320/PV
GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx 123
ICJ or an ILO tribunal would be in line with the ILO Constitution that recognized a
judiciary solution to a dispute over interpretation. The group did not support the option of
holding a Conference discussion on issues arising from the application of given
Conventions, leading to differences of understanding. In such cases, the Conference could
revise a Convention provided there was a majority of constituents in favour of it, but a
general discussion was not a way to obtain a final interpretation of a Convention. This
competence had been assigned to the ICJ or an eventual tribunal under article 37(2). The
group supported the draft decision in paragraph 41(a).
575. With regard to the functioning and working methods of the CEACR and the Committee on
the Application of Standards, he reiterated his group’s request for additional resources to
support the work of the secretariat of the CEACR. It was also important to ensure that the
CEACR had a full complement of experts, and consideration should be given to expanding
its membership in the light of the increase in the ratifications of Conventions. The group
supported the draft decision in paragraph 41(c) and (d), although adjustments to procedures
to fill vacancies on the CEACR, referred to in paragraph 41(d), needed to be clarified.
Regarding calls for a more clearly understood use of agreed and objective criteria in the
selection of cases to be examined by the Committee on the Application of Standards
(paragraph 28 of the document), he recalled that such criteria had already been adopted and
included the possible examination of cases of progress. It was important to clarify that the
list of cases needed to be endorsed by the Committee on the Application of Standards
every year and therefore could not be finalized any earlier. The Tripartite Working Group
on the Working Methods of the Committee on the Application of Standards should pursue
its efforts and report ongoing progress to the Governing Body as appropriate. The group
supported the draft decision in paragraph 43(a) and (b). Concerning the use of the different
components of the supervisory system (paragraph 30 of the document), the group would
not support any attempts to rebalance the system towards an increased use of
representations under article 24 of the Constitution. The CEACR needed to continue to
examine the application of ratified Conventions both in law and in practice under article 22
of the Constitution. Representations were more cumbersome to prepare and would be
impracticable for many unions. Deadlines for the issuance of conclusions would be long
and with such a system some regions would be more active than others. The group also
opposed a review of the receivability criteria for representations, notably with regard to the
exhaustion of remedies available at the national level, given that the judicial systems of
many countries did not function properly. Regarding the working methods of the CEACR,
greater recourse to unpublished direct requests (paragraph 31 of the document) would
diminish the ability of the Committee on the Application of Standards to supervise those
cases as the observations are not reflected in the report. There was no margin for further
adjustments to reporting cycles on ratified Conventions (paragraph 32, reiterated in
paragraph 34 of the document). The group would find it difficult to agree to the draft
decision in paragraph 40(e) if the steps to be examined with a view to improving the
working methods of the standards supervisory system related to the issues mentioned in
paragraphs 30–32 of the document. The establishment of national mechanisms to deal with
matters that would otherwise go directly to the ILO (paragraph 36 of the document),
required careful consideration and should not preclude access to the ILO supervisory
system.
576. Finally, regarding the standards review mechanism, which was adequately addressed in
paragraph 38 of the document, he reiterated that the disputes concerning the Committee on
the Application of Standards, and other issues related to the supervisory system, needed to
be satisfactorily resolved before making the mechanism operational. The Office should
give careful consideration to that issue when preparing proposals in relation to the draft
decision in paragraph 41(b) of the document.
GB.320/PV
124 GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx
577. The Employer Vice-Chairperson emphasized the group’s willingness to engage in a
constructive process to find solutions to improve the functioning of the ILO supervisory
system as a whole. The status quo was no longer an option and the constituents should
engage in a process to address those matters in a structured and systematic manner, on the
basis of concrete time frames and objectives. The mandate of the CEACR was a core issue
and the group recognized the effort made by the Committee to address its concerns with
the new wording included in its 2014 report. To demonstrate its resolve to move forward,
the group was prepared to accept that wording as a permanent addition to CEACR reports.
578. The delay in the adoption of the list of cases of the Committee on the Application of
Standards, and the presence of excessively political components, negatively affected the
credibility of the system. An earlier determination of the list would enable proper
preparation and ensure that the Committee’s work was more effective. Objective criteria
for the list already existed (contained in Document D.1 on the Work of the Committee on
the Application of Standards), 6 and there should be agreement to effectively apply those
criteria in June 2014. A realistic short-term deadline should be set to achieve a solution at
the March 2015 session of the Governing Body for the Committee on the Application of
Standards discussion in 2015, based on certainty and adequate preparation, in line with the
new Conference format. The group was ready to engage in a process to establish a new
methodology that guaranteed a fair and equitable list of cases.
579. Regarding the interpretation of Conventions, the group considered that all potential
solutions should be examined in good faith. It recognized the possibility provided in
article 37(1) and (2) of the Constitution, as well as other possibilities provided by the
Conference to deal with important disagreements on the specific non-binding guidance
provided by the CEACR. The group wanted to identify areas where consensus existed and
what items required planning in the following 12 months. Regarding the architecture of the
supervisory system, all possibilities should be explored in an integrated manner. The most
important challenge, in order to improve the system’s credibility, was to engage in a
process to find solutions to other equally relevant issues, such as the complementarity of
the different existing mechanisms and the graduation in their use; clarification of the
difference between the roles of the CEACR and other ILO bodies (including the
Committee on Freedom of Association); and a better use of articles 23 and 24 of the
Constitution or a proper application of the receivability criteria. That was linked to the
increased workload of the CEACR and the reasons for such an increase needed to be
identified before a decision on assigning further resources could be taken. A proper
rationalization of the different existing tools to avoid overlap could also be an adequate
solution.
580. The standards review mechanism was an extremely important issue, and it should be made
operational without further delay. Over the previous 12 months, the discussions within the
“Swiss Chalet Process” 7 and the Governing Body had established the level of trust
required by the Workers’ group to further establish the modalities and to operationalize the
standards review mechanism.
581. The group did not consider the draft decision to be very clear, but it was willing to accept it
on two conditions. First, efficient and concrete action should be taken, within a specific
time frame, to find solutions in cases of disagreement on the interpretation of a Convention
and to improve coherence in the use of the different supervisory system mechanisms. A
first proposal should be discussed by the Governing Body at its November 2014 session.
6 ILO: Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards, Part One, Annex I, Provisional
Record No. 16-1(Rev.), International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, Geneva, 2013.
7 See GB.319/PV, paras 548–567.
GB.320/PV
GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx 125
Second, it was necessary to find an efficient and predictable methodology to establish a list
of cases well in advance of the Conference session, using the existing objective criteria. It
was necessary to engage on that prior to the November 2014 session of the Governing
Body, with a view to achieving a result prior to the Conference session in 2015. On that
basis, the group welcomed the statement of the CEACR in its 2014 report, understanding
that it would be a permanent addition to the report, and endorsed the draft decision.
582. Speaking on behalf of the Government group, a Government representative of the Islamic
Republic of Iran reiterated that, to exercise fully its constitutional responsibilities, it was
essential for the ILO to have an effective, efficient and authoritative standards supervisory
system and he reaffirmed the group’s full commitment to the ILO supervisory system. The
group welcomed the statement on the mandate of the CEACR included in its 2014 report
and emphasized the importance of the independence, objectivity and impartiality of the
experts. The increased number of member States and ratifications, as well as the
constituents’ increased awareness and use of reporting, representation and complaint
mechanisms, reflected well on the importance of the ILO supervisory system. The system
should have the capacity to respond effectively and efficiently to the increased workload.
Further consideration should be given to the options for addressing any questions or
disputes that might arise with respect to the interpretation of a Convention within an
agreed time frame. The group looked forward to the establishment of a standards review
mechanism.
583. Speaking on behalf of ASPAG, a Government representative of Australia recalled that his
group was of the view that the supervisory system was operating satisfactorily and
remained a model for tripartite cooperation and international governance. As that view was
not shared across the ILO, the group was committed to contributing to the steps proposed
in the document. The group highly appreciated the paragraph prepared by the CEACR for
its 2014 report, which lent clarity and certainty to the status of the Committee’s
recommendations and observations and provided an important reference point for
jurisdictions when considering the implications of ILO standards. With respect to the
interpretation of a Convention, the ICJ provided an avenue for the resolution of
disagreements, although there might be some issues regarding recourse thereto. Dealing
with disputes internally, as envisaged in the Constitution, was a positive approach that
should be taken into account. Thus, the option of a tribunal should be considered on its
merits but issues arising in that regard would require clarification and certainty before
ASPAG could agree to embark on that course of action. Options for reviewing the
establishment of the list of cases to be discussed by the Committee on the Application of
Standards could be considered, with a view to ensuring a balance across regions and
Conventions, while also taking national developments into account. ASPAG had submitted
a paper to the Office containing options for consideration on how to better manage the
increasing workload of the supervisory system. It had been a long time since the
Governing Body had agreed to the establishment of the standards review mechanism and
the group looked forward to its implementation. ASPAG supported the draft decision.
584. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, a Government representative of Botswana
underlined the need for an impartial and effective supervisory system that enjoyed the
support of all parties. Failure to provide satisfactory responses to all concerns raised would
damage the functioning and the strength of the system. The group welcomed the statement
concerning the mandate of the CEACR and the efforts to explore options for addressing
questions or disputes that could arise with respect to the interpretation of a Convention.
Consensus building and commitment by ILO constituents to the resolution of disputes
through dialogue should form an integral part of the options proposed. The group
welcomed the continuation of dialogue on the working methods of the Committee on the
Application of Standards. Consensus was needed on fair and objective criteria for the
selection of cases to be discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards.
GB.320/PV
126 GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx
Launching a standards review mechanism was critical for improving the quality of, and
compliance with, ILO standards. The Africa group supported the draft decision.
585. Speaking on behalf of GRULAC, a Government representative of Costa Rica reiterated her
group’s strong commitment to the ILO supervisory system and to seeking solutions for the
outstanding issues. Her group would have preferred the draft decision in paragraph 40(a) to
highlight the criteria of objectivity, transparency and predictability of the supervisory
system, but would not object to joining a possible consensus in that respect. Regarding the
mandate of the CEACR, she emphasized that no ILO supervisory body was competent to
establish legally binding interpretations of international labour Conventions, as that fell
within the exclusive competence of the ICJ, in accordance with article 37(1) of the ILO
Constitution. GRULAC took note of, and welcomed, the paragraph included in the 2014
report of the CEACR on the Committee’s mandate. Regarding the draft decision in
paragraph 40(b), in the light of discrepancies between the English, French and Spanish
versions, it should be specified that the CEACR received its mandate from the constituents
through the Governing Body. With regard to measures in the event of disagreement on the
interpretation of a Convention, the group appreciated the proposal to prepare a document
for the November 2014 session of the Governing Body (paragraph 41(a) of the document),
but pointed out that the document should allow for a real comparison of the two options,
by including a table setting out the costs involved and the estimated time frames for the
consultation process before the ICJ and the establishment of the tribunal contemplated
under article 37(2) of the ILO Constitution. GRULAC was still not convinced that
establishing a tribunal was the most advisable option, but it was prepared to consider the
matter from all angles. It supported the draft decision in paragraph 40(c). It considered that
the content of the draft decision in paragraph 41(a) was important and would like
clarification regarding the substantive competence of the tribunal, the actors involved in its
proceedings, and its relationship with the Office. The tribunal should be impartial,
transparent, objective and independent, should not overburden any ILO department, and
should therefore have its own secretariat, with the same characteristics.
586. With regard to the functioning of the supervisory system, consideration should be given to
what a country’s inclusion in the list of individual cases actually entailed, the selection
methodology and the use of objective and clear criteria. The elements contained in
Document D.1 on the work of the Committee on the Application of Standards, 8 adopted
by that body, should be reviewed. The group had doubts regarding the criterion relating to
comments received from employers’ and workers’ organizations, which lacked objectivity.
The group once again highlighted the need for geographic and thematic balance, and for
improvements to ensure that the final list of cases was published early enough to allow
Governments to prepare properly. Paragraph 43(a) was understood to mean that the
recommendations in question would be presented to the Governing Body for consideration.
A better graduation of the components of the supervisory system was needed to avoid the
simultaneous examination of the same allegations against a country by different
mechanisms. The group supported the draft decision in paragraphs 40(e) and 42(a) and (b).
Regarding the standards review mechanism, it supported the establishment of a mechanism
that would develop a clear, sound and updated body of standards. GRULAC maintained its
commitment to contribute to ensuring that the Committee on the Application of Standards
would be able to carry out its functions in a satisfactory manner at the 2014 session of the
Conference. GRULAC supported the draft decision in paragraphs 40(d) and 43(b).
Considering paragraph 41(b) as one of the most important parts of the draft decision, the
group wondered whether November 2014 would not be too late to receive a time frame for
the consideration of the remaining outstanding issues. GRULAC hoped that the matter
would not be left at a standstill until November 2014, which would not be appropriate
given the seriousness of the issues. While it supported the draft decision in paragraph
8 ILO: Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards, op. cit.
GB.320/PV
GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx 127
41(c), the group wished to highlight its understanding that the Office’s work did not have
to be supervisory. If it took that approach, the Office would not run the risk of becoming
part of the problem, but could have a key role in seeking and providing the solutions.
Regarding the draft decision contained in paragraph 41(d), GRULAC noted that vacancies
in the CEACR should be filled in an objective, impartial and transparent manner. With
regard to the draft decision in paragraph 41(e), the group supported the continuation of
broad informal consultations, focused on building tripartite consensus.
587. Speaking on behalf of IMEC, a Government representative of the United States said that
maintaining the strength and authority of the ILO supervisory system was of fundamental
importance to the ILO as a whole. Tripartite participation and consensus would be key to
implementing the multifaceted draft decision and IMEC would engage substantively in that
regard. IMEC welcomed the statements contained in paragraph 40 of the document (draft
decision), in particular in relation to the explicit recognition of the mandate of the CEACR
as expressed in its 2014 report. While steps could be examined to improve the working
methods of the supervisory system, that examination should not compromise the
independence of the CEACR. IMEC supported the draft decision in paragraph 41(a)
requesting the preparation of a document for the Governing Body at its November 2014
session, setting out the possible modalities, scope and costs of action under article 37(1)
and (2) of the Constitution in relation to the interpretation of a Convention. However, until
recourse to one of those constitutional mechanisms was initiated, the opinions and
recommendations of the CEACR would remain in place. IMEC supported the development
of a time frame for considering the remaining outstanding issues in respect of the
supervisory system and for launching the standards review mechanism, as set out in the
draft decision in paragraph 41(b). The Governing Body should adopt a comprehensive
package on the most critical issues. In the meantime, the achievement of the overall goals
of the standards initiative was dependent on the Committee on the Application of
Standards’ ability to undertake its work successfully at the June 2014 session of the
Conference, and on the commitment of all parties to cooperate to that end. IMEC fully
supported the draft decision.
588. A Government representative of France said that the supervisory system should remain at
the heart of the ILO’s work and that adjustments were needed to maintain and strengthen
it. The Governing Body should approve the clarification of the mandate of the CEACR in
its 2014 report. The mechanism contemplated under article 37(2) of the ILO Constitution
would appear to provide a solution to limit the risk of legal uncertainty arising from the
non-binding nature of the CEACR’s opinions. Recourse to such a body should be limited
to exceptional disagreements on the interpretation of Conventions under Governing Body
decisions and a clear commitment and time frame for its establishment should be provided.
His Government would also support any other measure that would increase the
transparency and effectiveness of the supervisory system.
589. Speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, a Government representative of Italy
said that the following countries aligned themselves with the statement: Turkey, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Republic of Moldova and Georgia. They supported the IMEC statement. The
ILO supervisory system contributed to the promotion of universal human rights, which was
important to the EU. The system played a key role in monitoring and promoting
international labour standards, which were referenced in EU policies and law. The EU
supported the draft decision.
590. A Government representative of Switzerland said that the issue that had arisen during the
2012 session of the Conference had highlighted the challenges facing the supervisory
system, which should be addressed as a coherent whole. The supervisory system should
contribute to the credibility and effectiveness of the ILO and ensure legal certainty. It was
GB.320/PV
128 GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx
essential for the constituents to reach consensus on topics for examination within a strictly
respected time frame. The Constitution should be observed and the level of protection
surrounding international labour standards should in no way be diminished. Prompt
consideration should be given to the standards review mechanism and the creation of a
mechanism under article 37(2) of the ILO Constitution.
591. A Government representative of India said that disagreements on the interpretation of a
Convention by the CEACR should be referred to the Conference, as it was up to that
supreme forum to decide on any matter pertaining to the world of work. In the light of the
ILO Constitution, the ICJ could address serious issues of interpretation. Her Government
did not support resorting to article 37(2) of the Constitution as it might further complicate
the supervisory system. Some selection criteria could be established with respect to the list
of cases for examination by the Committee on the Application of Standards, with a view to
ensuring balance across regions and Conventions. It supported an increased use of online
reporting systems, provided that due precautions on security and accessibility were taken.
Her Government supported the draft decision.
592. A Government representative of Japan said that the issue of the mandate of the CEACR
was adequately addressed by the statement included in its 2014 report. Regarding the
action to be taken in case of disagreement on the interpretation of a Convention, his
Government would not object to the preparation of a document for the November 2014
session of the Governing Body, setting out the possible modalities, scope and costs of
action under article 37(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Conflicts arising from the
interpretation of a Convention should be settled within the Organization and resorting to
the ICJ should be avoided. Moreover, if a tribunal was to be established pursuant to
article 37(2) of the Constitution, it should not duplicate or undermine the functions of the
CEACR. The standards review mechanism was a crucial tool to improve and update
international labour standards that would contribute to reducing conflicts related to
interpretation and should therefore be established as soon as possible. His Government
supported the draft decision.
593. A Government representative of Zimbabwe welcomed the ongoing consultations regarding
the outstanding issues for the Committee on the Application of Standards. Convergence
and mutual understanding would hopefully be reached as soon as possible, thus enabling
the Committee on the Application of Standards to fulfil its mandate. The ILO should find
long-lasting internal solutions with regard to disputes relating to the interpretation of a
Convention. His Government supported the draft decision.
594. A Government representative of China agreed with the lines of action set out in
paragraph 10 of the document to ensure the strength and authority of the supervisory
system in the future. The Governing Body should recognize the clear statement concerning
the mandate of the CEACR included in its 2014 report. Vacancies in the CEACR should
be filled as soon as possible. Regarding action to resolve disagreements on the
interpretation of a Convention, his Government would favour the option under article 37(1)
of the Constitution because a ruling of the ICJ would be more timely and authoritative.
Regarding the working methods and functioning of the Committee on the Application of
Standards, while the progress achieved was welcomed, further improvement could be
made on the selection of individual cases. In that respect, the criteria in paragraph 28 of the
document concerning the determination of the list of cases should be applied more
consistently and discussions should focus on how to help member States improve their
capacity to implement the Conventions. The different supervisory procedures should be
coordinated to avoid the discussion of the same cases on different occasions. Concerning
the standards review mechanism, the Director-General should take concrete action as soon
as possible to ensure that standards were up to date to further improve the authority of the
supervisory machinery.
GB.320/PV
GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx 129
595. The Director-General said that the discussion showed that the Governing Body was in a
position to approve the draft decision on the basis of full tripartite consensus. The
Governing Body was dealing with a package of decisions through an integral process,
which was partly why it had been presented as “a standards initiative”. The establishment
of a timetable for the road ahead should not result in a piecemeal approach, which could
obstruct overall progress. The draft decision had been carefully calibrated and the Office
had made proposals for moving forward as far and as quickly as was judged possible and
compatible with the maintenance of consensus. General formulations had been used
intentionally in the draft decision, such as those concerning the working methods and the
methodology for filling vacancies in the CEACR, given the wide range of views on
possible responses on those matters, and further consultations were required. The merits of
different options could be examined as the process advanced and issues that could be the
object for decision-making could be determined during the November 2014 session. The
Employers’ group and the Governments had expressed eagerness for the launch of the
standards review mechanism in the light of the ILO’s obligation under the 2008 ILO
Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization to ensure that international labour
standards met the needs of the contemporary world of work. However, a certain degree of
progress on the outstanding issues needed to be achieved before the standards review
mechanism could be launched. That concern was taken up in the draft decision point on the
establishment of a time frame. Although it was not yet possible to be precise on time
frames, the Governing Body needed to move closer to determining the matters at stake. A
successful session of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the forthcoming
session of the Conference would be essential in that regard and a fundamental element of
the draft decision was its call on all parties to contribute to that outcome. Finally,
concerning informal consultations prior to November 2014, the Office would continue to
invest the same levels of energy and commitment in the process as it had since October
2013. Much remained to be accomplished before November 2014, and some of the issues
were quite formidable. The task would require effort and commitment from both the Office
and constituents. The Office would do everything within its power to ensure progress
towards the planned objectives for November.
Decision
596. The Governing Body:
(a) reaffirmed that in order to exercise fully its constitutional responsibilities, it
is essential for the ILO to have an effective, efficient and authoritative
standards supervisory system commanding the support of all constituents;
(b) welcomed the clear statement by the Committee of Experts of its mandate as
expressed in the Committee’s 2014 report;
(c) deemed it necessary to give further consideration to options to address a
dispute or question that may arise with respect to the interpretation of a
Convention;
(d) underscored the critical importance of the effective functioning of the
Committee on the Application of Standards in conformity with its mandate
at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference; and
(e) recognized that a number of steps could be examined with a view to
improving the working methods of the standards supervisory system.
GB.320/PV
130 GB320_PV-Final_[RELOF-140616-1]-En.docx
597. The Governing Body therefore requested the Director-General to:
(a) prepare a document for its 322nd Session (November 2014) in setting out the
possible modalities, scope and costs of action under article 37(1) and (2) of
the ILO Constitution to address a dispute or question that may arise in
relation to the interpretation of an ILO Convention;
(b) present to the 322nd Session of the Governing Body, a time frame for the
consideration of remaining outstanding issues in respect of the supervisory
system and for launching the standards review mechanism;
(c) continue to enhance the effectiveness of the support provided by the Office
to the Committee of Experts in the discharge of its mandate;
(d) take all necessary action to expedite the filling of vacancies on the
Committee of Experts and to propose any adjustments to the relevant
procedures to facilitate this objective; and
(e) continue informal consultations with all groups of the Governing Body in
respect of all matters referred to in this decision.
598. The Governing Body also:
(a) encouraged the continuation of informal dialogue between the Committee of
Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards;
and
(b) invited the Committee of Experts to continue to examine its methods of work
with a view to further enhancing its effectiveness and efficiency. As in the
past, the experts may wish to communicate any progress made in their
annual report and through its dialogue with the Committee on the
Application of Standards.
599. The Governing Body further:
(a) recommended to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
that it consider convening its Working Party on Working Methods to take
stock of current arrangements and develop further recommendations on the
Committee’s working methods; and
(b) called on all parties concerned to contribute to the successful conclusion of
the work of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at
the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference.
(GB.320/LILS/4, paragraphs 40–43.)
Document No. 85
ILC, 103rd Session, 2014, Report III (Part 1A), Report
of the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations, pp. 1–11
ILC.103/III(1A)
International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, 2014
Report of the Committee of Experts
on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations
(articles 19, 22 and 35 of the Constitution)
Third item on the agenda:
Information and reports on the application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Report III (Part 1A)
General Report
and observations concerning particular countries
International Labour Office Geneva
READER’S NOTE
1
Reader’s note
Overview of the ILO supervisory mechanisms
Since its creation in 1919, the mandate of the International Labour Organization (ILO) has included adopting
international labour standards, promoting their ratification and application in its member States, and the supervision of
their application as a fundamental means of achieving its objectives. In order to monitor the progress of member States in
the application of international labour standards, the ILO has developed supervisory mechanisms which are unique at the
international level. 1
Under article 19 of the ILO Constitution, a number of obligations arise for member States upon the adoption of
international labour standards, including the requirement to submit newly adopted standards to national competent
authorities and the obligation to report periodically on the measures taken to give effect to the provisions of unratified
Conventions and Recommendations.
A number of supervisory mechanisms exist whereby the Organization examines the standards-related obligations of
member States deriving from ratified Conventions. This supervision occurs both in the context of a regular procedure
through annual reports (article 22 of the ILO Constitution), 2 as well as through special procedures based on
representations or complaints to the Governing Body made by ILO constituents (articles 24 and 26 of the Constitution,
respectively). Moreover, since 1950, a special procedure has existed whereby complaints relating to freedom of
association are referred to the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body. The Committee on Freedom
of Association may also examine complaints relating to member States that have not ratified the relevant freedom of
association Conventions.
Role of employers’ and workers’ organizations
As a natural consequence of its tripartite structure, the ILO was the first international organization to associate the
social partners directly in its activities. The participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the supervisory
mechanism is recognized in the Constitution under article 23, paragraph 2, which provides that reports and information
submitted by governments in accordance with articles 19 and 22 must be communicated to the representative
organizations.
In practice, representative employers’ and workers’ organizations may submit to their governments comments on the
reports concerning the implementation of ratified Conventions. They may, for instance, draw attention to a discrepancy in
law or practice regarding a Convention and thus lead the Committee of Experts to request further information from the
government. Furthermore, any employers’ or workers’ organization may submit comments on the application of
Conventions directly to the Office. The Office will then forward these comments to the government concerned, which will
have an opportunity to respond before the comments are examined by the Committee of Experts.
1 For detailed information on all the supervisory procedures, see the Handbook of procedures relating to international labour
Conventions and Recommendations, International Labour Standards Department, International Labour Office, Geneva, Rev., 2012.
2 Reports are requested every three years for the fundamental Conventions and governance Conventions, and every five years for
other Conventions. Reports are due for groups of Conventions according to subject matter.
READER’S NOTE
2
Origins of the Conference Committee on the Application
of Standards and the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations
During the early years of the ILO, both the adoption of international labour standards and the regular supervisory
work were undertaken within the framework of the plenary sitting of the annual International Labour Conference.
However, the considerable increase in the number of ratifications of Conventions rapidly led to a similarly significant
increase in the number of annual reports submitted. It soon became clear that the plenary of the Conference would not be
able to examine all of these reports at the same time as adopting standards and discussing other important matters. In
response to this situation, the Conference in 1926 adopted a resolution 3 establishing on an annual basis a Conference
Committee (subsequently named the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards) and requesting the
Governing Body to appoint a technical committee (subsequently named the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations) which would be responsible for drawing up a report for the Conference. These two
committees have become the two pillars of the ILO supervisory system.
Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations
Composition
The Committee of Experts is composed of 20 members, 4 who are outstanding legal experts at the national and
international levels. The members of the Committee are appointed by the Governing Body upon the proposal of the
Director-General. Appointments are made in a personal capacity from among impartial persons of competence and
independent standing drawn from all regions of the world, in order to enable the Committee to have at its disposal firsthand
experience of different legal, economic and social systems. The appointments are made for renewable periods of
three years. In 2002, the Committee decided that there would be a limit of 15 years’ service for all members, representing
a maximum of four renewals after the first three-year appointment. At its 79th Session (November–December 2008), the
Committee decided that its Chairperson would be elected for a period of three years, which would be renewable once for a
further three years. At the start of each session, the Committee would also elect a Reporter.
Mandate
The Committee of Experts meets annually in November–December. In accordance with the mandate given by the
Governing Body, 5 the Committee is called upon to examine the following:
– the annual reports under article 22 of the Constitution on the measures taken by member States to give effect to the
provisions of the Conventions to which they are parties;
– the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations communicated by member States in
accordance with article 19 of the Constitution;
– information and reports on the measures taken by member States in accordance with article 35 of the Constitution. 6
The task of the Committee of Experts is to indicate the extent to which each member State’s legislation and practice
are in conformity with ratified Conventions and the extent to which member States have fulfilled their obligations under
the ILO Constitution in relation to standards. In carrying out this task, the Committee adheres to its principles of
independence, objectivity and impartiality.
The comments of the Committee of Experts on the fulfilment by member States of their standards-related obligations
take the form of either observations or direct requests. Observations contain comments on fundamental questions raised
by the application of a particular Convention by a member State. These observations are reproduced in the annual report
of the Committee of Experts, which is then submitted to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in
June every year. Direct requests usually relate to questions of a more technical nature. They are not published in the report
of the Committee of Experts, but are communicated directly to the government concerned. 7 In addition, the Committee of
Experts examines, in the context of the General Survey, the state of the legislation and practice concerning a specific area
covered by a given number of Conventions and Recommendations chosen by the Governing Body. The General Survey is
3 Appendix VII, Record of Proceedings of the Eighth Session of the International Labour Conference, 1926, Vol. 1.
4 There are currently 18 experts appointed.
5 Terms of reference of the Committee of Experts, Minutes of the 103rd Session of the Governing Body (1947), Appendix XII,
para. 37.
6 Article 35 covers the application of Conventions to non-metropolitan territories.
7 Observations and direct requests are accessible through the NORMLEX database available at: http://www.ilo.org.
READER’S NOTE
3
based on the reports submitted in accordance with articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution, and it covers all member States
regardless of whether or not they have ratified the concerned Conventions. This year’s General Survey covers minimum
wage fixing. Pursuant to the decision taken by the Governing Body at its 307th Session (March 2010), the subjects of
General Surveys have been aligned with the four strategic objectives of the ILO as set out in the ILO Declaration on
Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008 (the Social Justice Declaration). 8
Report of the Committee of Experts
As a result of its work, the Committee produces an annual report. The report consists of two volumes. The first
volume (Report III (Part 1A)) 9 is divided into two parts:
– Part I: the General Report describes, on the one hand, the progress of the work of the Committee of Experts and
specific matters relating to it that have been addressed by the Committee and, on the other hand, the extent to which
member States have fulfilled their constitutional obligations in relation to international labour standards.
– Part II: Observations concerning particular countries on the fulfilment of obligations in respect of the
submission of reports, the application of ratified Conventions grouped by subject matter and the obligation to submit
instruments to the competent authorities.
The second volume contains the General Survey (Report III (Part 1B)). 10
Furthermore, an Information document on ratifications and standards-related activities (Report III (Part 2))
accompanies the report of the Committee of Experts. 11
Committee on the Application of Standards
of the International Labour Conference
Composition
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards is one of the two standing committees of the
Conference. It is tripartite and therefore comprises representatives of governments, employers and workers. At each
session, the Committee elects its Officers, which include a Chairperson (Government member), two Vice-Chairpersons
(Employer member and Worker member) and a Reporter (Government member).
Mandate
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards meets annually at the June session of the Conference.
Pursuant to article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, the Committee shall consider:
– measures taken to give effect to ratified Conventions (article 22 of the Constitution);
– reports communicated in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution (General Surveys);
– measures taken in accordance with article 35 of the Constitution (non-metropolitan territories).
The Committee is required to present a report to the Conference.
Following the independent technical examination carried out by the Committee of Experts, the proceedings of the
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards provide an opportunity for the representatives of governments,
employers and workers to examine together the manner in which States are fulfilling their standards-related obligations,
particularly with regard to ratified Conventions. Governments are able to elaborate on information previously supplied to
the Committee of Experts, indicate any further measures taken or proposed since the last session of the Committee of
Experts, draw attention to difficulties encountered in the fulfilment of obligations and seek guidance as to how to
overcome such difficulties.
8 By virtue of the follow-up to the Social Justice Declaration, a system of annual recurrent discussions in the framework of the
Conference has been established to enable the Organization to gain a better understanding of the situation and varying needs of its
members in relation to the four strategic objectives of the ILO, namely: employment; social protection; social dialogue and tripartism;
and fundamental principles and rights at work. The Governing Body considered that the recurrent reports prepared by the Office for the
purposes of the Conference discussion should benefit from the information on the law and practice of member States contained in
General Surveys, as well as from the outcome of the discussions of General Surveys by the Conference Committee.
9 This citation reflects the agenda of the International Labour Conference, which contains as a permanent item, item III relating to
information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations.
10 ibid.
11 This document provides an overview of recent developments relating to international labour standards, the implementation of
special procedures and technical cooperation in relation to international labour standards. It also contains, in the form of tables, full
information on the ratification of Conventions, together with “country profiles” containing key information on standards for each
country.
READER’S NOTE
4
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards discusses the report and the General Survey of the
Committee of Experts, and the documents submitted by governments. The work of the Conference Committee starts with
a general discussion based essentially on the General Report of the Committee of Experts, and with a discussion on the
General Survey. With regard to the alignment of the subject of General Surveys with the strategic objective discussed in
the context of the recurrent report under the follow-up to the Social Justice Declaration, the outcome of the discussion of
the Conference Committee concerning the General Survey is transmitted to the Conference Committee responsible for
examining the recurrent report. Following its general discussion, the Conference Committee examines cases of serious
failure to fulfil reporting and other standards-related obligations. Finally, the Conference Committee embarks upon its
main task, which is to examine a number of individual cases concerning the application of ratified Conventions which
have been the subject of observations by the Committee of Experts. The Conference Committee invites the Government
representatives concerned to attend one of its sittings to discuss the observations in question. After listening to the
Government representatives, the members of the Conference Committee may ask questions or make comments. At the end
of the discussion, the Conference Committee adopts conclusions on the case in question.
In its report 12 submitted to the plenary sitting of the Conference for adoption, the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards may invite the member State whose case has been discussed to accept a technical assistance
mission by the International Labour Office to increase its capacity to fulfil its obligations, or may propose other types of
missions. The Conference Committee may also request a government to submit additional information or address specific
concerns in its next report to the Committee of Experts. The Conference Committee also draws the attention of the
Conference to certain cases, such as cases of progress and cases of serious failure to comply with ratified Conventions.
The Committee of Experts and the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards
In numerous reports, the Committee of Experts has emphasized the importance of the spirit of mutual respect,
cooperation and responsibility that has always existed in relations between the Committee of Experts and the Conference
Committee. It has accordingly become the practice for the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts to attend the general
discussion of the Conference Committee including the discussion on the General Survey as an observer, with the
opportunity to address the Conference Committee at the opening of the general discussion and to make remarks at the end
of the discussion on the General Survey. Similarly, the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference
Committee are invited to meet the Committee of Experts during its sessions and discuss issues of common interest within
the framework of a special session held for that purpose.
12 The report is published in the Record of Proceedings of the Conference. Since 2007, it has also been issued in a separate
publication. See, for the last report, Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Extracts from the Record of Proceedings,
International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, Geneva, 2013.
5
Part I. General Report
General Report
GENERAL REPORT
7
I. Introduction
1. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, appointed by the
Governing Body of the International Labour Office to examine the information and reports submitted under articles 19, 22
and 35 of the Constitution by member States of the International Labour Organization on the action taken with regard to
Conventions and Recommendations, held its 84th Session in Geneva from 27 November to 14 December 2013. The
Committee has the honour to present its report to the Governing Body.
Composition of the Committee
2. The composition of the Committee is as follows: Mr Mario ACKERMAN (Argentina), Mr Denys BARROW,
SC (Belize), Mr Lelio BENTES CORRÊA (Brazil), Mr James J. BRUDNEY (United States), Mr Halton CHEADLE
(South Africa), Ms Graciela Josefina DIXON CATON (Panama), Mr Rachid FILALI MEKNASSI (Morocco), Mr Abdul
G. KOROMA (Sierra Leone), Mr Dierk LINDEMANN (Germany), Mr Pierre LYON-CAEN (France), Ms Elena
MACHULSKAYA (Russian Federation), Ms Karon MONAGHAN, QC (United Kingdom), Mr Vitit MUNTARBHORN
(Thailand), Ms Rosemary OWENS (Australia), Mr Paul-Gérard POUGOUÉ (Cameroon), Mr Raymond RANJEVA
(Madagascar), Mr Ajit Prakash SHAH (India), Mr Yozo YOKOTA (Japan). Appendix I of the General Report contains
brief biographies of all the Committee members.
3. The Committee notes that Ms Laura Cox, QC (United Kingdom), who had been a member of the Committee
since 1998, has completed her 15-year mandate. The Committee expresses its deep appreciation for the outstanding
manner in which Ms Cox has carried out her duties during her service on the Committee and, in particular, commends her
warmly for the excellent way in which she has carried out her duty as Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Working
Methods over a number of years. The Committee also notes that Mr Francisco Pérez de los Cobos Orihuel (Spain), who
had been a member of the Committee since 2012, has submitted his resignation, following his nomination as Chairperson
of the Constitutional Tribunal of Spain.
4. During its session, the Committee welcomed Ms Monaghan and Mr Shah, nominated by the Governing Body at
its 317th Session (October 2013). The Committee noted that Mr Bentes Corrêa and Mr Lindemann were unable to
participate in its work this year.
5. Mr Koroma started his mandate as Chairperson of the Committee and the Committee elected Mr Muntarbhorn as
Reporter.
Working methods
6. The Committee has in recent years undertaken a thorough examination of its working methods. In order to guide
this reflection on working methods efficiently, a subcommittee on working methods was set up in 2001. The mandate of
the subcommittee includes examining the working methods of the Committee and any related subjects, in order to make
appropriate recommendations to the Committee. The subcommittee met on three occasions between 2002 and 2004.1
During its sessions in 2005 and 2006, issues relating to its working methods were discussed by the Committee in plenary
sitting. 2 From 2007 to 2011, the subcommittee met at each of the Committee’s sessions. 3
1 See CEACR: General Report, 73rd Session (November–December 2002), paras 4–8; General Report, 74th Session
(November–December 2003), paras 7–9; General Report, 75th Session (November–December 2004), paras 8–10.
2 See CEACR: General Report, 76th Session (November–December 2005), paras 6–8; General Report, 77th Session
(November–December 2006), para. 13.
3 See CEACR: General Report, 78th Session (November–December 2007), paras 7–8; General Report, 79th Session
(November–December 2008), paras 8–9; General Report, 80th Session (November–December 2009), paras 7–8; General Report,
81st Session (November–December 2010), paras 6–13; General Report, 82nd Session (November–December 2011), paras 6–12.
GENERAL REPORT
8
7. Last year, a new subcommittee on the streamlining of treatment of certain reports was established. This
subcommittee met again this year, on two occasions, before the beginning of the work of the Committee and examined all
the comments related to repetitions (which are comments repeating what had been said previously by the Committee of
Experts), as well as the general observations and direct requests. Concerning repetitions, the subcommittee examined
143 observations (compared to 269 in 2012) and 329 direct requests (compared to 462 in 2012). This represents a
significant 35.43 per cent decrease in the total number of repetitions. The subcommittee then presented, for adoption in the
plenary, its report to the Committee of Experts and drew attention to the most important issues which had been raised
during its examination. The approach taken by the subcommittee has enabled, once again, the Committee of Experts to
save time for the examination of individual observations and direct requests regarding ratified Conventions.
Relations with the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards
8. A spirit of mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility has consistently prevailed over the years in the
Committee’s relations with the International Labour Conference and its Committee on the Application of Standards. The
Committee of Experts has always taken the proceedings of the Conference Committee into full consideration, not only in
respect of general matters concerning standard-setting activities and supervisory procedures, but importantly with regard
to specific matters concerning the way in which States fulfil their standards-related obligations. The Committee has also
paid close attention in recent years to the comments on its working methods that have been made by the members of the
Committee on the Application of Standards and the Governing Body.
9. In this context, the Committee once more welcomed the participation of Mr Yokota as an observer, in his
capacity as Chairperson of the 2012 session of the Committee of Experts, in the general discussion of the Committee on
the Application of Standards at the 102nd Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2013). It noted the
decision by the Conference Committee to request the Director-General to renew this invitation to the Chairperson of the
Committee of Experts for the 103rd Session (May–June 2014) of the Conference. The Committee of Experts accepted this
invitation.
10. The Chairperson of the Committee of Experts invited the Employer Vice-Chairperson (Ms Sonia Regenbogen)
and the Worker Vice-Chairperson (Mr Marc Leemans) of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the
102nd Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2013) to participate in a special sitting of the Committee at its
present session. They both accepted this invitation.
11. The Chairperson of the Committee of Experts welcomed the opportunity to exchange views on issues of
common interest with the two Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee. In the current institutional context arising
from the session of the Conference Committee in June 2012, the dialogue between the two committees was even more
important. This dialogue would be constructive and embedded in mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility, which
helps to generate an atmosphere of trust between the two committees. He reassured the Employer and Worker
Vice-Chairpersons that the Committee of Experts, in adhering to the fundamental principles of independence, impartiality
and objectivity, was attentive to the issues that had been raised and had continued to give them due consideration.
12. The Employer Vice-Chairperson welcomed the opportunity to participate in this meeting. In the first place, she
emphasized that the ILO supervisory mechanisms were increasing in relevance and importance for a number of reasons,
including the consideration by national courts of the international obligations of member States, the globalization of
business and the adoption by multinational corporations of codes of conduct. In that context, the Employers were
completely committed to ensuring the relevance, sustainability and credibility of the ILO supervisory system. The
technical work carried out by the Committee of Experts in preparing observations was an invaluable and crucial part of the
supervisory system. The Employers also recognized and appreciated the invaluable contribution that the Office made in
supporting the work of the Committee of Experts.
13. With reference to the ongoing process following up on the 2012 Conference Committee, she indicated that
there had been a few encouraging developments, but that the constituents were far from having achieved a definitive and
forward-looking outcome. The Employers considered that the following principles had been identified to guide the way
forward: the need to restore the balance between the different supervisory bodies, as well their complementarity so as to
eliminate overlap; the need to better articulate a progressive hierarchy and predictability in the use of the different
supervisory bodies; the possibility to require prior recourse to national jurisdiction before a claim is presented to the ILO,
as well as more objective admissibility criteria before a claim is accepted for discussion; and the need to reinforce the
capacity of the constituents to jointly provide alternative guidance on Conventions, or to explore other possibilities for the
review of labour standards, as foreseen by the ILO Constitution. The Employer Vice-Chairperson also indicated that it had
been possible to re-establish some of the trust between Employers and Workers. However, substantial progress was yet to
be achieved. The Employers felt that one of the keys to further progress also lay with the Committee of Experts and they
were fully committed to cooperating closely with the Committee for that purpose, in a spirit of respect, mutual
collaboration and responsibility.
General Report
GENERAL REPORT
9
14. Turning to the issue of the right to strike, the Employers had expressed the view on many occasions that a
“right to strike” was not regulated in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
1948 (No. 87). In a recent submission to the Committee of Experts, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) had
added further arguments on the “right to strike” and Convention No. 87 in response to a submission on the same subject
by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). She added that there had been an important change in the
treatment by the Conference Committee in June 2013 of cases involving the “right to strike”, when most of the
conclusions on those cases included the sentence: “The Committee did not address the right to strike in this case as the
Employers do not agree that there is a right to strike in Convention No. 87.” The sentence made two things clear: firstly,
that there was no consensus in the Conference Committee that Convention No. 87 contained and guaranteed a “right to
strike”; and secondly, that the Conference Committee accepted that, because of the lack of consensus, it was not in a
position to ask governments to change their law and practice with regard to strike issues. The statement in the conclusions
of the Conference Committee was in contrast with the current position of the Committee of Experts. The Employers
considered that a difference of opinion of that nature between the two main supervisory bodies of the ILO on such an
important matter was detrimental to the Organization and was bound to result in a loss of credibility, authority and
therefore relevance for the supervisory system in the long term. It was the hope of the Employers that there would be
coherence between the two pillars of the supervisory system on this issue and that the Committee of Experts would
therefore reconsider its views. The Employers had declared their readiness to hold an in-depth and thorough examination
of the issue of “industrial action” through a general discussion at the Conference. They therefore respectfully called on the
Committee of Experts to desist from making observations related to the “right to strike” pending the outcome of a general
discussion on this subject.
15. With regard to the mandate of the Committee of Experts and the related question of its clarification, while
appreciating the recognition by the Committee of Experts that its views were not legally binding in its 2013 report, the
Employers regretted that, by providing additional explanations, this recognition had been rendered ambiguous. They
called on the Committee of Experts to draft concise and sufficiently clear wording to be included in its reports by way of
clarification of its mandate and the legal status of its views, starting with its 2014 report.
16. With regard to the supervisory role of the Committee of Experts, the Employer Vice-Chairperson recognized
that the determination of whether there were divergences between national law and practice and the requirements of
Conventions involved a certain degree of interpretation. However, the Employers considered that it was not the role or
function of the Committee of Experts to act as a standard-setting body by adding further rules to Conventions by means of
extensive interpretations or by filling in gaps or narrowing the flexibility of Conventions by providing restrictive
interpretations. Standard setting was vested with the ILO constituents. Nor should the Committee of Experts act as a
political body by using the supervision of particular Conventions to criticize general government policies, such as fiscal
consolidation policies, or by making recommendations to ratify Conventions. These matters pertained to the Conference
and the Governing Body. The Employers appreciated that the competent tripartite bodies on standards-related matters had
a more proactive role to play and recalled their commitment to the standards review mechanism, which had been adopted
by the Governing Body in principle, but not yet operationalized. It should also be recalled that, during the general
discussion in the Conference Committee in 2013, the Employer members had made proposals to improve the effectiveness
of the standards supervisory system, for example through addressing reporting failures, improving the focus of supervision
by reducing the number of observations and measuring progress in compliance with ratified Conventions more
meaningfully and reliably. The Employers were very sensitive to the very heavy workload of the Committee of Experts
and would support any initiative to address this issue. They looked forward to a discussion of those proposals.
17. In conclusion, the Employers expressed deep appreciation of the work of the Committee of Experts in preparing
its observations. It was their desire to reach meaningful conclusions on the basis of those observations. The Committee of
Experts could be sure of the Employers’ continued commitment to the functioning and reliability of the supervisory
system. Their criticisms should be seen as a contribution to preserving the supervisory system and making it resilient for
the future.
18. The Worker Vice-Chairperson emphasized the informal nature of the meeting between the Committee of
Experts and the Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee, adding that it was not an occasion for tripartite
discussions, which lay within the competence of the Governing Body. In particular, it was the tripartite constituents’
responsibility to address the issues arising from the report of the Conference Committee in June 2012. He reiterated the
support of the Workers’ group for the role and mandate of the Committee of Experts, whose independence and expertise
they respected. He also recalled the complementarity of the respective roles of the Committee of Experts and the
Conference Committee.
19. He recalled the position of his group that the recognition of the right to strike was based on a joint reading of
Articles 3 and 10 of Convention No. 87. He did not agree with the view of the Employers concerning the sentence adopted
in the conclusions of the Conference Committee in cases of the right to strike. He added that in the majority of ILO
member States the right to collective action was already regulated, including through international and regional
instruments. He also recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association had already set a framework that was
incontestable and as yet unchallenged. He expressed the fear that other matters of controversy might emerge relating to
other Conventions, the application of which could be seen as an obstacle to enterprise competitiveness.
GENERAL REPORT
10
20. The Worker Vice-Chairperson referred to the six proposals made by the Employers’ group during the general
discussion at the Conference Committee in June and considered that the purpose of the six proposals, behind the apparent
neutrality of the language, was to weaken the Committee of Experts.
21. With reference to the request by the Employers for a “disclaimer” or “caveat”, intended to explain clearly the
non-binding nature of the opinions of the Committee of Experts, he considered that this idea was without pertinence and
that it would contribute to undermining the work of the Committee of Experts, which would automatically be suspected of
partiality or a lack of objectivity. In his view, the articulation of the supervisory mechanisms on the application of
standards, and even the role of the ILO, would be compromised. A “disclaimer” or “caveat” would amount to a denial of
responsibility and would be inadequate in light of the mandate of the Committee of Experts and the evolving nature of the
mandate which the Governing Body had entrusted to the Committee over the years. It would be contrary to the ILO
Constitution which, in light of articles 19, 22 and 35, gave a specific value to the work of the Committee of Experts. He
emphasized that the Committee of Experts itself considered that its analyses and conclusions could only become binding if
a competent body, for example a judicial body, considered them as such. He called on the Committee of Experts not to
modify its position and referred to the recent decision by the Governing Body, which had requested the Director-General
to organize consultations as a matter of priority with all the groups with a view to submitting concrete proposals to its
session in March 2014 for the resolution of the principal issues that were outstanding concerning the supervisory system.
22. With reference to the possibility of having recourse to article 37(1) of the ILO Constitution, even if his group
did not wish to take that path, he acknowledged that it remained possible, and was perhaps inevitable. In fact, article 37(1)
would be the only option. In addition, the Workers’ group hoped that the Governing Body would be able to discuss the
options and possible procedures for the implementation of article 37(2) of the ILO Constitution.
23. The Worker Vice-Chairperson reiterated the support of the Workers’ group for the Committee of Experts and
trusted that it would continue its work, in accordance with its mandate, with full confidence, based on the reports received.
24. In response, the Committee reaffirmed its technical role and stressed that it had no interest in extending its
mandate nor the wish to do so. It would continue to fulfil the mandate it had been given by the Conference and the
Governing Body. Recalling that the issues raised in relation to its mandate were fully addressed the previous year, the
Committee therefore referred to its 2013 General Report, in particular paragraph 33, in which four principal factors were
identified, that are summarized here:
– The examination of a range of reports and information in order to monitor the application of Conventions and
Recommendations logically and inevitably requires an assessment, which in turn involves a degree of interpretation
of both the national legislation and the text of the Convention.
– The Committee’s approach to examining the meaning of Conventions emphasizes due regard to achieving equality
of treatment for States and uniformity in practical application. This emphasis is essential to maintaining principles of
legality and promoting a level of certainty.
– The Committee of Experts’ views on the meaning of Conventions are broadly accepted because the Committee is
composed of independent persons who have distinguished backgrounds in law and direct experience of the different
national legal systems. This independence is also attributable to the means by which members are selected.
– If governments were to view the Committee’s positions as somehow discounted or of less certain value, some would
feel freer to ignore its requests or invitations to comply. This would inevitably undermine orderly monitoring or the
predictable application of the standards. In addition, the Conference Committee, the Committee on Freedom of
Association, and the Governing Body also rely on the Committee of Experts’ framework of opinions about the
meaning of the provisions of the Conventions in the course of the application process.
25. Concerning the right to strike in relation to Convention No. 87, the Committee appreciated the additional
thoughts shared and arguments put forward by the two Vice-Chairpersons, as well as the extensive presentations by the
IOE and the ITUC concerning the issue. The Committee had presented its views at considerable length in the past on why
the right to strike was a part of this Convention. The Committee appreciated submissions from both sides on the need to
examine situations in individual countries that involved the relationship between the right to strike and national law. These
were helpful to the Committee when fulfilling its responsibilities.
26. The Committee noted that it had spent considerable time discussing the issues raised and preparing to
communicate its positions. While this was obviously important work for the Committee, it also came at the expense of
time the Committee would be spending reviewing reports from governments and related comments from the social
partners. The Committee further noted that five of its members had returned to Geneva last February (an unprecedented
activity for the Committee) in part to respond to questions from the tripartite constituencies. It had also made a series of
adjustments to its working methods over the years, and would continue to do so, including by reviewing the proposals
made during the June 2013 general discussion of the Conference Committee. Some adjustments had already been made
this year, reflecting constructive suggestions from the social partners regarding the length of the Committee’s observations
and the possibility of shifting some informational queries into direct requests.
27. The Committee considered that it was for the International Labour Conference and the Conference Committee
to decide whether its understanding of the matters at stake should be sustained or adjusted going forward. These were
ultimately political decisions for the tripartite constituents to address and resolve. The Committee was not a political body.
General Report
GENERAL REPORT
11
28. The Employer Vice-Chairperson, in response to the discussion, expressed great appreciation of the commitment
of the Committee of Experts to its role and of the amount of work that was carried out over a short period. She emphasized
that there was no desire on the part of the Employers to weaken the role of the Committee of Experts, and that they wished
to express their appreciation of its work very clearly. She was heartened by the clear statements by the members of the
Committee of Experts acknowledging its role as a technical, and not a judicial body, and called on it to work within that
mandate. In response to the statement made by the Worker Vice-Chairperson, she added that the Employers were not
seeking a “disclaimer”, but a “clarification” to be included in the report of the Committee of Experts which was intended
to clarify the scope of its mandate. It should also be noted that the Employers had never taken the extreme view that the
Committee of Experts could not engage in any interpretation, as its supervisory work logically involved a degree of
interpretation.
29. The Worker Vice-Chairperson, in response to the discussion, recalled that the tripartite process was in the
hands of the Governing Body. He was satisfied to note that nobody wanted to weaken the Committee of Experts, the
mandate of which had been clearly defined by the tripartite constituents. In conclusion, he emphasized that there was no
need for the Committee of Experts to clarify its own mandate.
30. This year, the Committee of Experts also held for the first time an informal information meeting with
representatives of governments. The members of the Committee of Experts emphasized that the Committee’s mandate was
defined by the International Labour Conference and the Governing Body. They recalled that the Committee of Experts
was a technical body and adhered to the principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality. The members of the
Committee of Experts provided information on a number of aspects related to their work. These included: a succinct
history of the Committee and the evolution of its composition and mandate; its role in the context of the ILO supervisory
system, with particular emphasis on its relationship with the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards; the
sources of information used in carrying out its work; the preparatory work and examination of comments during its
plenary sittings; the types of comments made in its reports concerning the application of ratified Conventions in
accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution; and the general surveys on the law and practice of member States in
accordance with article 19 of the ILO Constitution. The Committee of Experts replied to the questions raised by
Government representatives concerning its mandate, methods of work and approach. All the Government representatives
who took the floor expressed appreciation for the holding of the informal meeting with the Committee of Experts and for
the explanations provided. They believed that dialogue between the Committee of Experts and the constituents of the ILO
was of great importance and, in this regard, hoped that such an informal meeting with Government representatives could
continue.
Mandate
31. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is an independent
body established by the International Labour Conference and its members are appointed by the ILO Governing
Body. It is composed of legal experts charged with examining the application of ILO Conventions and
Recommendations by ILO member States. The Committee of Experts undertakes an impartial and technical
analysis of how the Conventions are applied in law and practice by member States, while cognizant of different
national realities and legal systems. In doing so, it must determine the legal scope, content and meaning of the
provisions of the Conventions. Its opinions and recommendations are non-binding, being intended to guide the
actions of national authorities. They derive their persuasive value from the legitimacy and rationality of the
Committee’s work based on its impartiality, experience and expertise. The Committee’s technical role and moral
authority is well recognized, particularly as it has been engaged in its supervisory task for over 85 years, by virtue
of its composition, independence and its working methods built on continuing dialogue with governments taking
into account information provided by employers’ and workers’ organizations. This has been reflected in the
incorporation of the Committee’s opinions and recommendations in national legislation, international instruments
and court decisions.
Document No. 86
Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference,
article 10
r Standing Orders
of the International
Labour Conference
International Labour Office, Geneva, 2021
14
Article10
Committee on the Application of Standards
1. The Conference shall establish a Committee on the Application of
Standards to consider:
(a) compliance by Members with their obligations to communicate information and
reports under articles 19, 22, 23 and 35 of the Constitution;
(b) individual cases relating to the measures taken by Members to give effect to the
Conventions to which they are parties;
(c) the law and practice of Members with regard to selected Conventions to which they
are not parties and Recommendations, as chosen by the Governing Body (general
survey).
2. The Committee on the Application of Standards shall also consider
reports transmitted by the Governing Body to the Conference for the
Committee's consideration.
3. No resolutions may be submitted under article 41 to the Committee on
the Application of Standards.
4. The Committee on the Application of Standards shall submit a report
to the Conference.
Document No. 87
ILO, The Committee on the Application of Standards
of the International Labour Conference: A dynamic
and impact built on decades of dialogue and
persuasion, 2011, pp. 5–21
A dynamic and impact
built on decades of
dialogue and persuasion
The Committee on
the Application of Standards
of the International Labour
Conference
5
INTRODUCTION
Since its creation in 1919, the International Labour Organization has constantly
had recourse to international law and, more precisely, to international
labour standards as a means of promoting social justice. From the outset, it was
clear that without effective standards this objective would not be achieved. The
Organization included in its original Constitution a whole series of supervisory
procedures and mechanisms which, with the exception of a reform when
the Constitution was revised in 1946, still remain in force today. 2 However,
while the constitutional mechanisms remain largely unchanged, the supervisory
system has gone through important developments in practice, which has resulted
in the progressive development of various supervisory mechanisms intended to
follow up, after their adoption by the International Labour Conference, and their
ratification by States, the effect given to Conventions and Recommendations in
practice.
The ILO Constitution, adopted when the Organization was created, accordingly
established the obligation for member States to submit regular reports
on the application of each of the Conventions that they had ratified. However,
it did not establish a supervisory body specifically responsible for analysing
these reports. During the first years, the International Labour Conference itself
supervised standards. It rapidly became clear that the Conference could not take
on this role in an effective manner in view of the constantly increasing number
of ratifications and reports, as well as the adoption each year of new standards.
This led to the simultaneous creation in 1926 of the Conference Committee on
the Application of Standards and of the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations.
2 See in particular article 19 of the ILO Constitution.
The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
6
Based on its tripartite and universal composition, the Conference Committee
adds its tripartite and political authority to the independent appraisal undertaken
by the Committee of Experts. It needs to be borne in mind that in 1927 there
were 26 member States of the ILO and 180 reports were due for examination by
the Committee of Experts. This year, at the 100th Session of the International
Labour Conference, the Conference Committee will have to select 25 individual
cases for discussion from among over 1900 comments by the Committee of
Experts concerning 183 member States. The Conference Committee will also,
as it does every year, have to discuss the General Survey prepared by the Committee
of Experts, in addition to examining cases of serious failure by governments
to comply with their constitutional obligations to provide reports and to
submit the instruments adopted by the Conference to the competent authorities
in their respective countries. The discussions in the Conference Committee
offer the opportunity for constructive dialogue with member States concerning
the difficulties that they are encountering in fulfilling their international obligations.
This forum offers them the occasion to demonstrate their political will to
make the necessary changes and to benefit from the technical assistance of the
Office, where appropriate. It also enables the Office to establish its priorities in
terms of the technical assistance needs of the different countries.
The present study analyses both the institutional dynamic and the impact
in practice of the work of the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards. It is divided into three sections. The first part describes the origins,
composition, mandate and functioning of the Conference Committee, and the
developments and improvements in its working methods over recent decades.
The second part is devoted to the impact of the work of the Conference Committee
in relation to the individual cases of non-compliance with ratified Conventions
that are discussed in this tripartite forum during the annual session
of the Conference Committee. Twelve countries from all continents have been
selected for a more in-depth analysis of their application of the Conventions that
they have ratified. The cases identified concern fundamental Conventions, Conventions
considered to be the most significant from the viewpoint of governance
(the “governance” Conventions), or “priority” Conventions, as well as so-called
“technical” Conventions. Finally, the third section of the study analyses the
impact of the work of the Conference Committee in relation to cases of serious
failure to comply with reporting and other standards-related obligations. Following
a description of the recent measures taken to engage in a personalized
follow-up of these cases of serious failure of compliance, once again twelve
countries from the different regions of Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas
and the Caribbean have been identified as significant cases of progress and are
therefore analysed in detail.
7
Introduction
It is important to recall that the countries identified in no way make up an
exhaustive list of the cases in which the work of the Conference Committee, in
combination with that of other supervisory bodies, has had a positive impact
on compliance with international labour standards at the national level. This
selection should not, in any event, obscure either the importance of, or the fact
that many other cases of progress have occurred over the years in the application
of ILO Conventions. But, as it is not possible to list, analyse and quantify
everything, it has been necessary to make choices with a view to achieving an
equitable geographical representation and diversity in the subjects covered by
the Conventions.
Pa rt I
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards:
Composition and functioning
***
This section of the study is intended to describe the composition of the Conference
Committee on the Application of Standards. It reviews briefly the origins of the
Conference Committee and its mandate in the framework of the ILO supervisory
system. It then describes the functioning in practice of the Conference Committee
and covers developments and reforms in the working methods of the
Committee.
11
I. Origins, composition and mandate
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards is a standing
body of the International Labour Conference. Its terms of reference are set
out in article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, by virtue of which:
“1. The Conference shall, as soon as possible, appoint a Committee to consider:
(a) the measures taken by Members to give effect to the provisions of
Conventions to which they are parties and the information furnished
by Members concerning the results of inspections;
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations
communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of
the Constitution, except for information requested under paragraph 5
(e) of that article where the Governing Body has decided upon a different
procedure for its consideration;
(c) the measures taken by Members in accordance with article 35 of the
Constitution.
2. The Committee shall submit a report to the Conference.” 3
It was in response to the increase in the volume of reports provided by
member States and the complexity of their technical content that the International
Labour Conference decided in 1926 to establish the Committee on the
Application of Standards. It is important to emphasize that in the same resolution
the Conference also decided to create the Committee of Experts on the
3 Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference, Part I, General Standing Orders, Article 7
“Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations”.
The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
12
Application of Conventions and Recommendations. It was therefore understood
very early on that an effective supervisory system involved the combination, on
the one hand, of a technical examination involving certain guarantees of impartiality
and independence and, on the other, an examination by a body of the
ILO’s supreme political organ, which would therefore be of tripartite composition.
This complementarity of roles means that the ILO’s supervisory system is
the most developed at the international level. More precisely, this combination
is reflected in the fact that the work of the Conference Committee on the Application
of Standards is based, on the one hand, on the report of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and, on the
other, on the oral and written replies provided by governments to the comments
of the Committee of Experts. If the mandate of the Conference Committee were
to be resumed in one word, it would be “dialogue”. The Conference Committee
is in practice the dialogue body within which the Organization discusses with
the governments concerned the difficulties encountered in the application of
international labour standards. In this regard, the tripartite composition of the
Committee is unique the international level.
II. Functioning
The mandate of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards
is therefore to discuss the reports of the Committee of Experts. In the first
place, it normally holds an opening general discussion on the issues addressed
in the general part of the report of the Committee of Experts, followed by a
discussion of the General Survey prepared by the Committee of Experts. It then
examines the individual cases that it has selected concerning the application of
ratified Conventions. In general, it examines around 25 individual cases each
year. The governments concerned by the observations on the selected cases
have a further opportunity to submit written replies, the content of which is
published in a document for the information of the Committee. When the Committee
wishes to be provided with further information, it invites the representatives
of the governments concerned to attend one of its sittings to discuss the
respective observation. Following the statements by the government representatives,
the members of the Committee are able to raise issues and make comments,
and the Committee then adopts conclusions on the case. A summary
of the statements made by the governments and the discussion that follows,
together with the conclusions reached, are contained in Part II of the report of
the Conference Committee.
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Composition and functioning
13
The Committee’s report is then submitted to the Conference and discussed
in plenary, which provides delegates with another opportunity to draw attention
to specific aspects of its work. The report is published in the Provisional Record
of the Conference and sent separately to governments. Since 2007, with a view
to improving the visibility of the work of the Conference Committee and in
response to the wishes of ILO constituents, it has been decided to publish the
report separately in a more attractive format containing the three usual parts of
the report of the Committee’s work. Furthermore, the attention of governments
is drawn to any particular issues raised by the Committee that concern them, as
well as to the examination of individual cases, so that due account can be taken
of them when preparing subsequent reports.
III. Developments in the working methods
The present section briefly recalls the manner in which the work of the
Conference Committee on the Application of Standards is carried out and has
evolved over recent years.
1. Distinguishing between reporting obligations and the application of
Conventions
One of the first developments in the working methods and functioning of
the Conference Committee following the Second World War consisted of establishing
a distinction between reporting obligations and the application of ratified
Conventions. It was in 1957 that the Conference Committee decided to
draw the attention of the Conference to cases in which the discrepancies were
of a fundamental nature or were of long standing. 4 These cases were compiled
in the report of the Conference Committee and designated the countries concerned
without any distinction being made by the Committee between cases
based on formal criteria, that is failure to supply reports, and those based on
substantive criteria relating to discrepancies in the application of Conventions
and Recommendations. In 1959, the Committee clarified its position by emphasizing
that “the tasks of supervision could best be served by drawing attention
to a limited number of instances where it was clearly apparent from the report
of the Committee of Experts and from the particulars supplied by Governments
4 ILC, 40th Session, 1957, Record of Proceedings, Appendix VI, para. 30.
The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
14
to the [Conference Committee] that fundamental obligations existing under the
I.L.O. Constitution and under ratified Conventions had not been discharged for
several years running and that no satisfactory remedy was being applied.” 5
In 1968, the criteria to be followed in establishing what had in the meantime
become the special list were changed slightly and failure to meet constitutional
obligations (including the failure to submit instruments to the competent
authorities) were for the first time separated from the failure to apply ratified
Conventions. 6 Other reforms decided upon by the Conference Committee relating
to its working methods were also adopted in 1979, 1980 and 1987.
In parallel, reforms were introduced at various times in relation to the cycle
for the submission of reports with the objective of increasing the effectiveness
of the supervisory system and the work of the Conference Committee in a context
of the continued increase in workload, which was itself related to the rise in
the number of Conventions, ratifications and member States.
2. Reforming the reporting cycle
(A) Changes in the reporting procedures since 1959
The ILO supervisory system is generally considered to be one of the most
developed and effective in the United Nations system. However, at the same
time, it is confronted with the constant challenge of maintaining and improving
its effectiveness in view of the constant increase in the number of reports
received due to the rising number of ratifications and new member States of the
Organization, and the regular adoption of new Conventions and Recommendations.
With a view to responding to this situation, the Governing Body has
therefore periodically made changes to the reporting procedures.
In 1959, the reporting cycle was increased from one to two years and a
general report was to be submitted for Conventions for which no regular report
was due in a specific year. In 1976, the Governing Body decided to raise from
two to four years the reporting period, except for the “most important” Conventions.
7 It also approved a number of safeguards to ensure that the lengthening of
the reporting cycle did not weaken the effectiveness of the supervisory system.
5 ILC, 43rd Session, 1959, Record of Proceedings, Appendix VI, para. 15.
6 ILC, 52nd Session, 1968, Record of Proceedings, Appendix VI, para. 29.
7 See GB.201/SC/1/2 and GB.201/14/32. The 17 Conventions for which reports had to be provided
every two years were those on freedom of association (C11, C84, C85, C98, C135, C141), forced labour (C29,
C105), equality of treatment (C100, C111), employment policy (C122), migrant workers (C97, C103), labour
inspection (C81, C85, C129) and tripartite consultations (C144). The number of these Conventions was later
raised to 20 through the inclusion of Conventions Nos 151 and 154 (industrial relations) and Convention
No. 147 (merchant navy).
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Composition and functioning
15
In 1985, it decided that, subject to certain conditions and safeguards, reports
should no longer be required for a group of Conventions which no longer corresponded
to current needs. A total of 25 Conventions currently meet this condition
and have been shelved. They are therefore no longer subject to regular
reporting requirements.
In 1993, the Governing Body decided that detailed reports should be provided
every two years on a group of ten “priority Conventions”. 8 For all the other
Conventions, the four-year reporting cycle was replaced by a five-year cycle of
the presentation of “simplified” reports, subject to certain safeguards. A distinction
was therefore made between detailed reports and simplified reports. In its
decision, the Governing Body retained the possibility of periodically reviewing
the list of priority Conventions. 9 The objective of these changes was not only
to reduce the workload of constituents and of the Office, but also “to maintain
and improve the quality of the supervisory machinery […] and to focus the
requests for reports on cases where serious problems of application arise”. 10 The
strengthening of the supervisory system was based on the broader possibility
of requesting non-regular reports. After a transitional period, the modifications
were fully implemented in 1996.
The evaluation carried out in 2001 of the changes introduced in 1993
showed that, following a relative decline in 1996, the absolute number of reports
received at each stage had increased steadily, with certain minor exceptions.
The conclusions of this evaluation suggested the need for other modifications
to the reporting procedures with a view to lightening the resulting workload. In
November 2001 and March 2002, the Governing Body approved the grouping
of Conventions by subject matter for reporting purposes. This grouping was
implemented as of 2003 and the Office was called upon to undertake an evaluation
following a complete five-year cycle. 11
In March 2007, the Governing Body began to discuss the possibility of
increasing the interval for the submission of reports under article 22 from two
to three years for both the fundamental Conventions and for the governance
Conventions (priority Conventions), with a view to lightening to a certain extent
the workload of governments, the Office and the Committee of Experts. It was
indicated that, during the interval between reports, any serious issue relating to
8 The following Conventions: C29, C105, C87, C98, C100, C111, C81, C129, C122 and C144.
9 The two Conventions on child labour (C138 and C182) were added to this list later: Convention
No. 138 was added following the promotional campaign in 1985, and Convention No. 182 after its adoption
in 1999.
10 See GB.258/LILS/6/1, para. 2.
11 See GB.282/8/2 and GB.283/10/2.
The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
16
the application of standards could be raised by employers’ and workers’ organizations
and, where appropriate, the supervisory bodies could request an early
report on these issues. 12
In November 2009, the Governing Body examined an evaluation of the
grouping of Conventions by subject for the purposes of reporting under article
22 of the Constitution. It also examined the options that could be envisaged for
an overall approach to the rationalization of reporting in light of the 2008 Declaration
on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization. Endorsing the recommendations
of the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards, the
Governing Body decided that, for reporting purposes, Conventions should be
grouped by strategic objective and that the article 22 reporting cycle should be
increased from two to three years for fundamental Conventions and governance
Conventions, and maintained at five years for technical Conventions.
(B) Introduction of a personalized follow-up procedure
Furthermore, while the Governing Body was addressing the question of the
duration of the reporting cycle, at the same time, at the initiative of the Committee
on the Application of Standards at the 93rd Session of the Conference in
June 2005, the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, with the
assistance of the Office, strengthened the follow-up in cases of serious failure
by member States to comply with reporting and other standards-related obligations,
with a view identifying appropriate solutions on a case-by-case basis.
Failure to provide reports undermines the functioning of the supervisory
system, which is essentially based on the information provided by governments.
Accordingly, cases of serious failure to comply with the obligation to provide
reports have to be accorded the same attention as cases of non-compliance with
ratified Conventions.
• Each year, the report of the Conference Committee lists specific cases of
failure to comply with reporting obligations, with particular reference to:
• failure to supply reports for the past two years or more on the application
of ratified Conventions
• failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions
• failure to supply information in reply to the comments of the Committee of
Experts
12 At the same session in March 2007, with a view, among other purposes, to facilitating the selection
of individual cases by the Conference Committee, an approach intended to achieve a grouping by country was
discussed, but was not however retained.
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Composition and functioning
17
• failure to submit to the competent authorities the instruments adopted by
the Conference during at least seven sessions
• failure to supply reports for the past five years on unratified Conventions
and Recommendations.
The procedure for the personalized follow-up of cases of serious failure
to
comply with reporting obligations is described in detail in Part III of this study.
3. A new impetus in improving the working methods over the past decade
Moreover, since 2002, informal discussions and consultations have been
held regularly on the working methods of the Conference Committee. In particular,
following the adoption of a new strategy for the ILO standards system by
the Governing Body in November 2005, 13 further consultations were launched
in March 2006 on numerous aspects of the standards system, 14 the starting point
for which, in relation to the work of the Conference Committee, was the issue
of the publication of the list of individual cases discussed by the Conference
Committee. A tripartite working group on the working methods of the Committee
was set up in June 2006 and has met on ten occasions up to now. 15 Based on
these consultations and the recommendations of the working group, the Committee
has made certain changes to its working methods.
Accordingly, the practice was introduced in 2006 of sending governments
(at least two weeks before the beginning of the Conference) a preliminary list of
individual cases. Since June 2007, following the adoption of the list of individual
cases, the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons have held an informal information
session for governments to explain the criteria for the selection of cases.
Changes in the organization of work to make it possible to start the discussion
of cases as of the Monday morning of the second week have been introduced.
Improvements have been made in the preparation and adoption of the conclusions
on cases. Furthermore, as indicated above, the report of the Conference
Committee has been published separately since 2007 with a view to increasing
its visibility. In June 2008, further measures were adopted concerning cases
in which governments are registered and present at the Conference, but which
choose not to appear before the Committee. In particular, the Conference Committee
can henceforth discuss the substance of such cases. Specific provisions
have also been adopted concerning respect for the rules of decorum.
13 See GB.294/LILS/4 and GB.294/9.
14 See paragraph 22 of GB.294/LILS/4.
15 This working group is composed of nine representatives each of the Workers’, Employers’ and Government
groups and all geographical regions are represented.
The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
18
With regard time management, the measures adopted by the Conference
Committee in June 200716 proved to be inadequate, particularly in view of the
difficulties experienced in 2009. As a consequence, in November 2009 and
March 2010, the working group examined significant measures to introduce
additional improvements. Finally, in June 2010, a new procedure for the automatic
registration of the countries on the list of individual cases, based on the
French alphabetical order, was decided upon.
During its recent meetings, the working group has also discussed procedures
for the discussion of future General Surveys in the light of the discussion
of the recurrent reports on the four strategic objectives which are held in parallel
during the International Labour Conference.
4. How the Conference Committee carries out its work
General discussion
General questions. The Conference Committee begins its work with a brief
general discussion, essentially based on the General Report of the Committee
of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Report
III (Part 1A)).
General Survey. The Conference Committee then examines the General
Survey prepared by the Committee of Experts (Report III (Part 1B)). These
General Surveys are principally prepared on the basis of the reports furnished
by member States and the information supplied by employers’ and workers’
organizations. They enable the Committee of Experts, and subsequently the
Conference Committee, to examine the impact of Conventions and Recommendations,
analyse the difficulties reported by governments in terms of their
application and identify means of overcoming these difficulties. The discussion
of these General Surveys by the Conference Committee is an important component
of the supervisory system and has on occasion constituted the first step
towards the adoption of new standards or other standards-related action. Since
2010, the subject of the General Survey has been aligned with the strategic
objective that is being discussed in the context of the recurrent report under
the follow-up to the 2008 Social Justice Declaration. The purpose of this alignment
has to be to improve the integration of standards into ILO objectives and
priorities with a view to reaffirming their central role in the achievement of
16 Governments were invited to register as early as possible and in any case by the Friday of the first
week at 6 p.m. at the latest, after which time the Office was authorized to set the schedule for the discussion
of the cases of governments which had not registered. Basic rules were adopted with a view to improving the
management of time by the Committee.
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Composition and functioning
19
the Organization’s objectives. Accordingly, the 2010 General Survey covered
the employment instruments and was examined by the Conference Committee
on the Application of Standards, while the recurrent report on employment
was examined by the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion on Employment.
With a view to ensuring the best possible interaction between these two discussions,
including the manner in which the outcome of the discussion by the
Committee on the Application of Standards could best be taken into account by
the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion on Employment, adjustments were
proposed in the programme of work for the discussion of the General Survey.
In addition, the Officers of the Committee on the Application of Standards provided
information on the discussion to the Committee for the Recurrent Discussion
on Employment. In 2011, the General Survey prepared by the Committee
of Experts will cover social security.
Discussion of observations
In the second part of its report, the Committee of Experts makes observations
on the manner in which various governments fulfil their obligations. The
Conference Committee then discusses certain of these observations with the
governments concerned.
Cases of serious failure to respect reporting and other standards-related
obligations 17
Governments are invited to supply information on cases of serious failure
to comply with reporting or other standards-related obligations for determined
periods. These cases are considered in a single sitting. Governments may remove
themselves from the list of cases of serious failure if they provide the information
required before the sitting concerned. Information received both before and
after this sitting is reflected in the report of the Conference Committee.
Individual cases
A draft list of observations (individual cases) on Conventions regarding
which the governments concerned are invited to supply information to the Committee
is drawn up by the Workers’ and Employers’ groups of the Committee.
18 The draft list of individual cases is then submitted to the Committee for
17 Otherwise known as “automatic” cases (see ILC, 93rd Session, June 2005, Record of Proceedings,
22, and Part III of the present study).
18 It should be recalled that the practice was introduced in 2006 of sending a preliminary list of individual
cases to governments (at least two weeks before the Conference).
The Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference
20
approval. In the establishment of this list, a need for balance among different
categories of Conventions, as well geographical balance, is considered. In
addition to the above considerations on balance, the criteria for selection have
traditionally included the following elements:
• the nature of the comments of the Committee of Experts, in particular the
existence of a footnote; 19
• the quality and scope of responses provided by the government or the
absence of a response on its part;
• the seriousness and persistence of shortcomings in the application of the
Convention;
• the urgency of a specific situation;
• comments received from employers’ and workers’ organizations;
• the nature of a specific situation (if it raises hitherto undiscussed questions,
or if the case presents an interesting approach to solving questions of
application);
19 At its session in November-December 2005, in the context of the examination of its working methods,
and in response to requests for clarification from members of the Conference Committee concerning the
use of footnotes, the Committee of Experts adopted the following criteria (paras. 36 and 37): “The Committee
wishes to describe its approach to the identification of cases for which it inserts special notes by highlighting
the basic criteria below. In so doing, the Committee makes three general comments. First, these criteria are
indicative. In exercising its discretion in the application of these criteria, the Committee may also have regard
to the specific circumstances of the country and the length of the reporting cycle. Second, these criteria are
applicable to cases in which an earlier report is requested, often referred to as a “single footnote”, as well as to
cases in which the government is requested to provide detailed information to the Conference, often referred
to as “double footnote”. The difference between these two categories is one of degree. The third comment is that
a serious case otherwise justifying a special note to provide full particulars to the Conference (double footnote)
might only be given a special note to provide an early report (single footnote) in cases where there has been a
recent discussion of that case in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. […] The criteria to
which the Committee will have regard are the existence of one or more of the following matters:
– the seriousness of the problem; in this respect, the Committee emphasizes that an important consideration
is the necessity to view the problem in the context of a particular Convention and to take into account
matters involving fundamental rights, workers’ health, safety and well-being as well as any adverse
impact, including at the international level, on workers and other categories of protected persons;
– the persistence of the problem;
– the urgency of the situation; the evaluation of such urgency is necessarily case-specific, according to
standard human rights criteria, such as life-threatening situations or problems where irreversible harm is
foreseeable; and
– the quality and scope of the government’s response in its reports or the absence of response to the issues
raised by the Committee, including cases of clear and repeated refusal on the part of a State to comply
with its obligations.
At its 76th Session, the Committee decided that the identification of cases in respect of which a special
note (double footnote) is to be attributed will be a two-stage process: the expert initially responsible for a particular
group of Conventions may recommend to the Committee the insertion of special notes; in light of all
the recommendations made, the Committee will take a final, collegial decision on all the special notes to be
inserted, once it has reviewed the application of all the Conventions.
The Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Composition and functioning
21
• the discussions and conclusions of the Conference Committee of previous
session and, in particular, the existence of a special paragraph;
• the likelihood that discussing the case would have a tangible impact.20
Adoption of conclusions
The conclusions regarding individual cases are proposed by the Chairperson
of the Committee, who should have sufficient time for reflection to draft the
conclusions and to hold consultations with the Reporter and the Vice-Chairpersons
before proposing the conclusions to the Committee. The conclusions take
due account of the elements raised in the discussion and the information provided
by the government in writing. The conclusions should be adopted within
a reasonable time after the discussion of the case and should be succinct.
Use of special paragraphs
It has been the practice of the Conference Committee for many years to draw
the attention of the Conference to its discussion of certain particularly serious
cases relating to non-compliance with the provisions of ratified Conventions,
including the most serious cases of continued failure of application. It therefore
includes these cases in special paragraphs in the general part of its report.
20 It is important to emphasize that, while taking all these elements into account, the Worker and
Employer Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee have on many occasions indicated that these elements
cannot reflect, or be equivalent to a simple mathematical formula.
Document No. 88
Compendium of rules applicable to the Governing Body
of the International Labour Office, Annex I, Standing
Orders concerning the procedure for the examination
of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the
Constitution of the International Labour Organization
Compendium of rules
applicable to the Governing
Body of the International
Labour Office
International Labour Office, Geneva, 2021
47
Annex I
Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the
examination of representations under articles 24
and 25 of the Constitution of the International
Labour Organization
Introductory note
1. The Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination
of representations were adopted by the Governing Body at its 57th Session
(1932) and amended on some points of form at its 82nd Session (1938). They
were revised by the Governing Body at its 212th Session (February–March
1980).
2. In adopting further amendments at its 291st Session
(November 2004), the Governing Body decided to precede the Standing
Orders with this introductory note, which summarizes the various stages of
the procedure while indicating the options open to the Governing Body at
the various stages of the procedure in accordance with the Standing Orders
and with the guidance that emerges from the preparatory work of the
Standing Orders and the decisions and practice of the Governing Body.
3. The Standing Orders comprise six titles, the first five of which
correspond to the main stages of the procedure, namely: (i) receipt by the
Director-General; (ii) examination of receivability of the representation;
(iii) decision on referral to a committee; (iv) examination of the
representation by the committee; and (v) examination by the Governing
Body. The sixth title of the Standing Orders concerns the application of the
procedure in the specific instance of a representation against a non-Member
State of the Organization.
General provision
4. Article 1 of the Standing Orders concerns the receipt of
representations by the Director-General of the ILO, who informs the
Government against which the representation is made.
48
Receivability of the representation
5. Examining receivability means determining whether the prior
conditions that have to be satisfied before the Governing Body can proceed
to examine the merits of the representation and formulate
recommendations have been met.
6. The examination of receivability is, in the first instance, entrusted to
the Officers of the Governing Body, to whom the Director-General transmits
all the representations that are received. The Officers of the Governing Body
make a proposal with respect to receivability, which is communicated to the
Governing Body; the Governing Body then decides whether it deems the
representation receivable. Although the Standing Orders specify that the
Governing Body must not, at this stage, enter into a discussion of the merits
of the representation, the conclusions of its Officers regarding receivability
may be the subject of discussions.
7. Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders, the Office
invites the Government concerned to send a representative to take part in
these deliberations if that Government is not a member of the Governing
Body.
8. The conditions of receivability for representations are set out in
article 2, paragraph 2, of the Standing Orders. Four of the conditions simply
relate to the form of submission (paragraph 2(a), (c), (d) and (e)), while the
remaining two conditions may require examination of the representation in
greater depth: these relate to the industrial character of the association that
is making the representation, on the one hand (paragraph 2(b)), and, on the
other hand, the indication of in what respect the State concerned is alleged
to have failed to secure the effective observance of the Convention to which
the representation relates (paragraph 2(f)).
The representation must emanate from an industrial association
of employers or workers (article 2, paragraph 2(b),
of the Standing Orders)
9. The following principles may guide the Governing Body in its
application of this provision:
• The right to make a representation to the International Labour Office is
granted without restriction to any industrial association of employers or
workers. No conditions are laid down in the Constitution as regards the
size or nationality of that association. The representation may be made by
49
any industrial association whatever may be the number of its members or
in whatever country it may be established. The industrial association may
be an entirely local organization or a national or international
organization. 1
• The widest possible discretion should be left to the Governing Body in
determining the actual character of the industrial association of employers
or workers which makes the representation. The criteria to be applied in
this connection by the Governing Body should be those which have up to
the present guided the general policy of the Organization and not those
laid down by the national legislation of States. 2
• The Governing Body has the duty of examining objectively whether, in fact,
the association making the representation is “an industrial association of
employers or workers”, within the meaning of the Constitution and the
Standing Orders. It is the duty of the Governing Body to determine in each
case, independently of the terminology employed and of the name that
may have been imposed upon the association by circumstances or
selected by it, whether the association from which the representation
emanates is in fact an “industrial association of employers or workers” in
the natural meaning of the words. In particular, when considering whether
a body is an industrial association, the Governing Body cannot be bound
by any national definition of the term “industrial association”. 3
10. Moreover, the Governing Body might apply mutatis mutandis the
principles developed by the Committee on Freedom of Association on
receivability as regards a complainant organization that is alleging violations
of freedom of association. Those principles are formulated as follows:
At its first meeting in January 1952 (First Report, General observations,
paragraph 28), the Committee adopted the principle that it has full freedom
to decide whether an organization may be deemed to be an employers’ or
1 Proposed Standing Orders concerning the application of articles 409, 410, 411, §§4 and 5, of the
Treaty of Peace, explanatory note of the International Labour Office submitted to the Standing
Orders Committee of the Governing Body at its 56th Session (1932).
2 Proposed Standing Orders concerning the application of articles 409, 410, 411, §§4 and 5, of the
Treaty of Peace.
3 See representation submitted by Dr J.M. Curé on behalf of the Labour Party of the Island of
Mauritius concerning the application of certain international labour Conventions in the Island,
Report of the Committee of the Governing Body (adopted by the Governing Body at its
79th Session), ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol. XXII (1937), 71–72, paras 6–7.
50
workers’ organization within the meaning of the ILO Constitution, and it
does not consider itself bound by any national definition of the term.
The Committee has not regarded any complaint as being irreceivable
simply because the Government in question had dissolved, or proposed to
dissolve the organization on behalf of which the complaint was made, or
because the person or persons making the complaint had taken refuge
abroad.
The fact that a trade union has not deposited its by-laws, as may be
required by national laws, is not sufficient to make its complaint
irreceivable since the principles of freedom of association provide precisely
that the workers shall be able, without previous authorization, to establish
organizations of their own choosing.
The fact that an organization has not been officially recognized does not
justify the rejection of allegations when it is clear from the complaints that
this organization has at least a de facto existence.
In cases in which the Committee is called upon to examine complaints
presented by an organization concerning which no precise information is
available, the Director General is authorized to request the organization to
furnish information on the size of its membership, its statutes, its national
or international affiliations and, in general, any other information
calculated, in any examination of the receivability of the complaint, to lead
to a better appreciation of the precise nature of the complainant
organization.
The Committee will only take cognizance of complaints presented by
persons who, through fear of reprisals, request that their names or the
origin of the complaints should not be disclosed, if the Director-General,
after examining the complaint in question, informs the Committee that it
contains allegations of some degree of gravity which have not previously
been examined by the Committee. The Committee can then decide what
action, if any, should be taken with regard to such complaints. 4
4 See paras 35–40 of the Procedures of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission and the
Committee on Freedom of Association for the examination of complaints alleging violations of
freedom of association (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee,
fourth edition, 1996, Annex I).
51
The representation must indicate in what respect it is alleged that the
Member against which it is made has failed to secure the effective
observance within its jurisdiction of the said Convention (article 2,
paragraph 2(f), of the Standing Orders)
11. In examining this condition of receivability, particular importance
is attached to article 2, paragraph 4, of the Standing Orders, which provides
that in reaching a decision concerning receivability on the basis of the report
of its Officers, the Governing Body shall not enter into a discussion of the
substance of the representation. It is important, however, that the
representation be sufficiently precise for the Officers of the Governing Body
to be able to legitimately substantiate their proposal to the Governing Body.
Reference to a committee
12. If the Governing Body deems, on the basis of the report of its
Officers, that a representation is receivable, it shall usually set up a tripartite
committee to examine the representation (article 3, paragraph 1). However,
depending on the content of the representation, the Governing Body has,
under certain conditions, other options:
(a) if the representation relates to a Convention dealing with trade union
rights, the Governing Body may decide to refer it to the Committee on
Freedom of Association for examination in accordance with articles 24
and 25 of the Constitution (article 3, paragraph 2);
(b) if the representation relates to matters and allegations similar to those
which have been the subject of a previous representation, the
Governing Body may decide to postpone the appointment of the
committee to examine the new representation until the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has
been able, at its next session, to examine the follow-up to the
recommendations that were adopted by the Governing Body in relation
to the previous representation (article 3, paragraph 3).
13. It is the practice for the report of the Officers of the Governing
Body concerning the receivability of the representation to also include a
recommendation concerning reference to a committee. It is for the
Governing Body to appoint the members who make up the tripartite
committee, taking into account the conditions established in article 3,
paragraph 1.
52
Examination of the representation by the committee
14. Under article 6, the tripartite committee charged with examining a
representation must present its conclusions on the issues raised in the
representation and formulate its recommendations as to the decisions to be
taken by the Governing Body. The committee examines the merits of the
allegation made by the author of the representation, that the Member
concerned has failed to secure effective observance of the Convention or
Conventions ratified by the Member and indicated in the representation.
15. The powers of the tripartite committee during its examination of
the representation are laid down in article 4. Article 5 concerns the rights of
the Government concerned if the committee invites it to make a statement
on the subject of the representation.
16. Moreover, the committee may apply, mutatis mutandis, two
principles developed by the Committee on Freedom of Association:
(a) In establishing the matters on which the representation is based, the
committee may consider that, while no formal period of prescription has
been fixed for the examination of representations, it may be very
difficult – if not impossible – for a Government to reply in detail
regarding matters which occurred a long time ago. 5
(b) In formulating its recommendations as to the decision to be taken by
the Governing Body, the committee may take into account the interest
that the association making the representation has in taking action with
regard to the situation motivating the representation. Such interest
exists if the representation emanates from a national association
directly interested in the matter, from international workers’ or
employers’ associations having consultative status with the ILO, or from
other international workers’ or employers’ associations when the
representation concerns matters directly affecting their affiliated
organizations. 6
Consideration of the representation by the Governing Body
17. On the basis of the report of the tripartite committee, the
Governing Body considers the issues of substance raised by the
5 Digest of decisions, 1996, para. 67.
6 Digest of decisions, 1996, para. 34.
53
representation and what follow-up to undertake. Article 7 determines the
modalities for the participation of the Government concerned in the
deliberations.
18. The Standing Orders recall and determine two options provided for
in the Constitution that are open to the Governing Body if it decides that a
representation is substantiated, it being understood that the Governing
Body remains free to take or not to take these measures:
(a) Under the conditions laid down in article 25 of the Constitution, the
Governing Body may publish the representation received and, if
applicable, the statement made by the Government concerned; in the
event that it so decides, the Governing Body also decides the form and
date of publication.
(b) The Governing Body may, at any time, in accordance with article 26,
paragraph 4, of the Constitution, adopt, against the Government
concerned and with regard to the Convention the effective observance
of which is contested, the procedure of complaint provided for in
article 26 and the following articles (article 10 of the Standing Orders).
19. Furthermore, the Governing Body may decide to refer issues
concerning any follow-up to the recommendations adopted by the
Governing Body to be undertaken by the Government concerned to the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations. That Committee shall examine the measures taken by
the Government to give effect to the provisions of the Conventions to which
it is a party and with respect to which recommendations had been adopted
by the Governing Body.
Representations against non-Members
20. Article 11 of the Standing Orders stipulates that a representation
against a State which is no longer a Member of the Organization may also be
examined in accordance with the Standing Orders, in virtue of article 1,
paragraph 5, of the Constitution, which provides that the withdrawal of a
Member of the Organization shall not affect the continued validity of
obligations arising under or relating to Conventions that it had ratified.
* * *
54
Standing Orders
Adopted by the Governing Body at its 57th Session (8 April 1932),
modified at its 82nd Session (5 February 1938), 212th Session (7 March 1980),
and 291st Session (18 November 2004).
GENERAL PROVISION
Article 1
When a representation is made to the International Labour Office under
article 24 of the Constitution of the Organization, the Director-General shall
acknowledge its receipt and inform the Government against which the
representation is made.
RECEIVABILITY OF THE REPRESENTATION
Article 2
1. The Director-General shall immediately bring the representation
before the Officers of the Governing Body.
2. The receivability of a representation is subject to the following
conditions:
(a) it must be communicated to the International Labour Office in writing;
(b) it must emanate from an industrial association of employers or workers;
(c) it must make specific reference to article 24 of the Constitution of the
Organization;
(d) it must concern a Member of the Organization;
(e) it must refer to a Convention to which the Member against which it is
made is a party; and
(f) it must indicate in what respect it is alleged that the Member against
which it is made has failed to secure the effective observance within its
jurisdiction of the said Convention.
55
3. The Officers shall report to the Governing Body on the receivability
of the representation.
4. In reaching a decision concerning receivability on the basis of the
report of its Officers, the Governing Body shall not enter into a discussion of
the substance of the representation.
REFERENCE TO A COMMITTEE
Article 3
1. If the Governing Body decides, on the basis of the report of its
Officers, that a representation is receivable, it shall set up a committee for
the examination thereof, composed of members of the Governing Body
chosen in equal numbers from the Government, Employers’ and Workers’
groups. No representative or national of the State against which the
representation has been made and no person occupying an official position
in the association of employers or workers which has made the
representation may be a member of this committee.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, if a
representation which the Governing Body decides is receivable relates to a
Convention dealing with trade union rights, it may be referred to the
Committee on Freedom of Association for examination in accordance with
articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, if a
representation which the Governing Body decides is receivable relates to
facts and allegations similar to those which have been the subject of an
earlier representation, the appointment of the committee charged with
examining the new representation may be postponed pending the
examination by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations at its next session of the follow-up given to the
recommendations previously adopted by the Governing Body.
4. The meetings of the committee appointed by the Governing Body
pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be held in private and all the
steps in the procedure before the committee shall be confidential.
56
EXAMINATION OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE COMMITTEE
Article 4
1. During its examination of the representation, the committee may:
(a) request the association which has made the representation to furnish
further information within the time fixed by the committee;
(b) communicate the representation to the Government against which it is
made without inviting that Government to make any statement in reply;
(c) communicate the representation (including all further information
furnished by the association which has made the representation) to the
Government against which it is made and invite the latter to make a
statement on the subject within the time fixed by the committee;
(d) upon receipt of a statement from the Government concerned, request
the latter to furnish further information within the time fixed by the
committee;
(e) invite a representative of the association which has made the
representation to appear before the committee to furnish further
information orally.
2. The committee may prolong any time limit fixed under the
provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, in particular at the request of the
association or Government concerned.
Article 5
1. If the committee invites the Government concerned to make a
statement on the subject of the representation or to furnish further
information, the Government may:
(a) communicate such statement or information in writing;
(b) request the committee to hear a representative of the Government;
(c) request that a representative of the Director-General visit its country to
obtain, through direct contacts with the competent authorities and
organizations, information on the subject of the representation, for
presentation to the committee.
57
Article 6
When the committee has completed its examination of the
representation as regards substance, it shall present a report to the
Governing Body in which it shall describe the steps taken by it to examine the
representation, present its conclusions on the issues raised therein and
formulate its recommendations as to the decisions to be taken by the
Governing Body.
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATION
BY THE GOVERNING BODY
Article 7
1. When the Governing Body considers the reports of its Officers on
the issue of receivability and of the committee on the issues of substance,
the Government concerned, if not already represented on the Governing
Body, shall be invited to send a representative to take part in its proceedings
while the matter is under consideration. Adequate notice of the date on
which the matter will be considered shall be given to the Government.
2. Such a representative shall have the right to speak under the same
conditions as a member of the Governing Body, but shall not have the right
to vote.
3. The meetings of the Governing Body at which questions relating to
a representation are considered shall be held in private.
Article 8
If the Governing Body decides to publish the representation and the
statement, if any, made in reply to it, it shall decide the form and date of
publication. Such publication shall close the procedure under articles 24 and
25 of the Constitution.
Article 9
The International Labour Office shall notify the decisions of the
Governing Body to the Government concerned and to the association which
made the representation.
58
Article 10
When a representation within the meaning of article 24 of the
Constitution of the Organization is communicated to the Governing Body,
the latter may, at any time in accordance with paragraph 4 of article 26 of the
Constitution, adopt, against the Government against which the
representation is made and concerning the Convention the effective
observance of which is contested, the procedure of complaint provided for
in article 26 and the following articles.
REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST NON-MEMBERS
Article 11
In the case of a representation against a State which is no longer a
Member of the Organization, in respect of a Convention to which it remains
party, the procedure provided for in these Standing Orders shall apply in
virtue of article 1, paragraph 5, of the Constitution.
Document No. 89
List of Complaints/Commissions of Inquiry (1934-to date)
NORMLEX Information System on International Labour Standards Search User guide Glossary
Complaints/Commissions of Inquiry (Art 26)
Display By:
Filter by:
2023
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2023 - NICARAGUA - C087, C098, C111, C144 (Pending)
Complaint alleging non-observance by Nicaragua of Convention No. 87, Convention No. 98, Convention No. 111, and
Convention No. 144, filed by various delegates at the 111th Session of the International Labour Conference (2023) under
article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB 349/INS/19/1)
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2023 - GUATEMALA - C087, C098 (Pending)
Complaint alleging non-observance by Guatemala of the Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 98, filed by various
delegates at the 111th Session of the International Labour Conference (2023) under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.349/INS/19/2)
2022
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2022 - MYANMAR - C029, C087 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISION OF INQUIRY established in accordance with article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning
the non-observance by Myanmar of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
(No. 87), and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
(GB.344/INS/12) (GB.345/INS/5/2) (GB.349/INS/14)
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2022 - AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, BULGARIA, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECHIA, DENMARK,
ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, HUNGARY, IRELAND, ITALY, LATVIA, LITHUANIA,
LUXEMBOURG, MALTA, NETHERLANDS, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SPAIN,
SWEDEN - C111, C122 (Closed)
Complaint alleging non-observance by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. 111) and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)
(GB.346/INS/18/3)
2019
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2019 - BANGLADESH - C081, C087, C098 (Pending)
Complaint concerning non-observance by Bangladesh of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Freedom
of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and
Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by several delegates to
the 108th Session (2019) of the International Labour Conference
(GB.337/INS/13/1) (GB.340/INS/14(Rev.1)) (GB.341/INS/11(Rev.1)) (GB.342/INS/INF/2) (GB.343/INS/10(Rev.2)
(GB.344/INS/13(Rev.1)) (GB.346/INS/11(Rev.2)) (GB.347/INS/15(Rev.2))
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2019 - CHILE - C087, C098, C103, C135, C151 (Closed)
Complaint concerning non-observance by Chile of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Maternity
Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the
By Year By Country By Status
Reports of commissions of inquiry All complaints
Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by a
delegate to the 108th Session (2019) of the International Labour Conference
(GB.337/INS/13/2) (GB.340/INS/15(Rev.1))
2016
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2016 - BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA - C087, C095, C111 (Closed)
Complaint concerning non-observance by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), and
the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), made under article 26 of the ILO
Constitution by a delegate at the 105th Session (2016) of the International Labour Conference
(GB.328/INS/18/2) (GB.329/INS/16(Rev.))
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2016 - CHILE - C087, C098, C103, C135, C151 (Closed)
Complaint concerning non-observance by the Republic of Chile of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right
to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the
Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135),
and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by a
delegate to the 105th Session (2016) of the International Labour Conference
(GB.328/INS/18/1) (GB.329/INS/12/(Rev.))
2015
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2015 - BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA - C026, C087, C144 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the observance by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the Minimum
WageFixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.144)
(GB.325/INS/16/1) (GB.326/INS/9(Rev)) (GB.328/INS/12(Rev)) (GB.329/INS/15(Rev)) (GB.331/INS/14(Rev))
(GB.332/INS/10(Rev)) (GB.333/INS/7/1) (GB.337/INS/8)
2014
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2014 - QATAR - C029, C081 (Closed)
Complaint alleging non-observance by Qatar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Labour Inspection
Convention, 1947(No. 81), made by delegates to the 103rd Session (2014) of the International Labour Conference under
article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.322/INS/14/1) (GB.325/INS/10(Rev.)) GB.326/INS/8(Rev.) GB.328/INS/11(Rev.) GB.329/INS/14(rev.) GB.331/INS
/13(Rev.)
2013
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2013 - FIJI - C087 (Closed)
Complaint concerning non-observance by Fiji of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), made by delegates to the 102nd Session (2013) of the International Labour Conference under
article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.319/INS/15/1) (GB.320/INS/11) ( GB.322/INS/9/1) (GB.324/INS/5) (GB.325/INS/9 (Rev.)) (GB.326/INS/7(Rev.))
2012
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2012 - GUATEMALA - C087 (Closed)
Complaint concerning non-observance by Guatemala of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), made by delegates to the 101st Session (2012) of the International Labour
Conference under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.316/INS/15/2)(GB.317/INS/17/6)(GB.319/INS/7)(GB.320/INS/9)(GB.322/INS/8(Add))(GB.324/INS/4)(GB.325
/INS/8(Rev1))(GB.326/INS/6(Rev))(GB.328/INS/10(Rev))(GB.329/INS/13(Rev))(GB.331/INS/12 (Rev&Add))
(GB.332/INS/9 (Rev))(GB.333/INS/4(Rev)(GB.334/INS/9(Rev)
2011
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2011 - BAHRAIN - C111 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the non-observance by Bahrain of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention,
1958 (No. 111), made by delegates to the 100th Session (2011) of the International Labour Conference under article 26 of
the ILO Constitution
(GB.312/INS/16/1) (GB.317/INS/13/1) (GB.320/INS/15/1)
2010
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2010 - MYANMAR - C087 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the non-observance by Myanmar of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), made by delegates to the 99th Session (2010) of the International Labour
Conference under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.309/7) (GB.316/INS/7)
2008
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2010 - ZIMBABWE - C087, C098 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the observance by the Government of Zimbabwe of the Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,
1949 (No. 98)
(GB.307/5):(Vol. XCIII, 2010, Series B, Special Supplement)
2004
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2004 - VENEZUELA - C087, C098 (Closed)
Complaint concerning non-observance by Venezuela of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98),
made by various delegates at the 92nd Session (2004) of the Conference under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.291/17):(O.B. LXXXVIII, 2005, Series B, No. 3):(GB.310/7)
2003
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 2003 - BELARUS - C087, C098 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the Observance by the Government of the Republic of Belarus of the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
(Vol. LXXXVI1, 2004, Series B, Special Supplement)
1998
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1998 - NIGERIA - C087, C098 (Closed)
Discontinuation of the procedure initiated by the Governing Body in accordance with article 26(4) of the ILO Constitution
concerning the observance by Nigeria of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention,
1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
(GB.271/18/5):(GB.272/7/1):(GB.273/15/1):(GB.275/8/2)
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1998 - COLOMBIA - C087, C098 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the non-observance by Colombia of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98),
made by delegates to the 86th (1998) Session of the Conference under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO
(GB.273/15/2):(GB.274/8/2):(GB.276/8):(GB.276/7/2):(GB.278/4):(GB.281/8)
1996
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1996 - MYANMAR - C029 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
(Vol. LXXXI, 1998, Series B, Special Supplement)
1992
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1992 - COTE D'IVOIRE - C087 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the observance by Côte d'Ivoire of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) presented by Workers' delegates to the 79th Session (1992) of the International
Labour Conference under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO
(GB.253/15/29):(O.B. Vol. LXXV, 1992, Series B, No. 3):(O.B. Vol. LXXVI, 1993, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXXVII, 1994,
Series B, No. 3)
1991
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1991 - SWEDEN - C087, C098, C147 (Closed)
Complaint by Mr. Von Holten, Employers' delegate of Sweden to the 78th (1991) session of the International Labour
Conference, under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning the observance of Sweden of the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976, (No. 147)
(GB.251/7/3):(GB.252/7/9):(GB.258/13/9):(GB.262/15/2)
1989
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1989 - ROMANIA - C111 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organisation to examine the observance by Romania of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention,
1958 (No. 111)
(Vol. LXXIV, 1991, Series B, Supplement 3)
1987
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1987 - NICARAGUA - C087, C098, C144 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution to examine the observance
by Nicaragua of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right
to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour
Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).
(Vol. LXXIV, 1991, Series B, Supplement 2)
1986
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1986 - LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA - C095, C111, C118 (Closed)
Complaint by the Government of Tunisia concerning the observance by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of the Protection of
Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and the
Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118).
(GB.240/14/26)
1985
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1985 - FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - C111 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organisation to examine the observance of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111),
by the Federal Republic of Germany
(Vol. LXX, 1987, Series B, Supplement 1)
1982
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1982 - POLAND - C087, C098 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY instituted under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the complaint on the observance by Poland of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.
98)
(Vol. LXVII, 1984, Series B, Special Supplement)
1981
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1983 - DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and HAITI - C029, C087, C095, C098, C105 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the observance of certain international labour Conventions by the Dominican Republic and Haiti
with respect to the employment of Haitian workers on the sugar plantations of the Dominican Republic
(Vol. LXVI, 1983, Series B, Special Supplement)
1978
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1978 - PANAMA - C023, C053, C068 (Closed)
Complaints made by the Government of France concerning the observance by Panama of the Officers' Competency
Certificates Convention, 1936 (No. 53) and of the Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23) and the Food and
Catering (Ships' Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68)
(GB.207/6/6):(GB.208/21/10):(GB.209/3/11):(GB.210/7/29):(GB.211/5/9):(GB.213/6/3):(GB.214/5/5):(GB.219/16/6):
(GB.221/19/15):(GB.222/18/7):(GB.223/5/8):(GB.223/5/18):(GB.226/13/5)
1977
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1977 - ARGENTINA - C087 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the observance by Argentina of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), made by delegates at the 63rd Session (1977) of the Conference under article 26 of the ILO
Constitution
(GB.203/19/42):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series
B, No. 3):(O.B. Vol. LXII, 1979, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXII, 1979, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXIII, 1980, Series B,
No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXIII, 1980, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXIV, 1981, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXIV, 1981, Series B, No.
3):(O.B. Vol. LXV, 1982, Series B, No. 3):(O.B. Vol. LXVI, 1983, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXVI, 1983, Series B, No.
2):(O.B. Vol. LXVI, 1983, Series B, No. 3)
1976
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1976 - PANAMA - C055 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the observance by Panama of the Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention,
1936 (No. 55), made by the Government of France
(GB.201/23/17):(GB.201/23/41):(GB.202/7/15)
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1976 - URUGUAY - C087, C098 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the observance by Uruguay of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), made by
delegates to the 61st Session (1976) of the Conference under article 26 of the ILO Constitution
(GB.200/17/44):(O.B. Vol. LX, 1977, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LX, 1977, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LX, 1977, Series B,
No. 3):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No.
3):(O.B. Vol. LXII, 1979, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXII, 1979, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LXII, 1979, Series B, No.
3):(O.B. Vol. LXIII, 1980, Series B, No. 1)
1975
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1975 - BOLIVIA - C087 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the observance by Bolivia of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise
Convention, 1948 (No. 87), made by a number of delegates to the 60th Session (1975) of the Conference under article 26
of the ILO Constitution
(GB.198/6/4):(GB.198/6/5):(O.B. Vol. LX, 1977, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LX, 1977, Series B, No. 2):(O.B. Vol. LX, 1977,
Series B, No. 3):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No. 1):(O.B. Vol. LXI, 1978, Series B, No. 2)
1974
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1975 - CHILE - C001, C111 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the observance by Chile of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), and the
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
(Report of the Commission, ILO, 1975)
1968
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1968 - GREECE - C087, C098 (Closed)
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2017 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the complaints concerning the observance by Greece of the Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
(Vol. LIV, 1971, No. 2, Special Supplement)
1962
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1963 - LIBERIA - C029 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the complaint filed by the Government of Portugal concerning the Observance by the
Government of Liberia of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
(O.B., Vol. XLVI, 1963, No. 2, Supplement II)
1961
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1962 - PORTUGAL - C105 (Closed)
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization to examine the complaint filed by the Government of Ghana concerning the observance by the Government
of Portugal of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
(Vol. XLV, 1962, No. 2, Supplement II)
1934
COMPLAINT (article 26) - 1934 - INDIA - C001 (Closed)
Complaint concerning the observance by India of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), made by the
Workers' Delegate of India
(O.B. Vol. XX, No.1, 1935, p.15)
Volume 2 - Documents 59-89