II. Consultation with the representative employers' and workers'
organizations concerning this report
Governments are requested to provide copies of their replies to this questionnaire to the most representative employers' and workers' organizations in the country and to invite them to make such observations as they may consider relevant. While it would be desirable for such observations to be incorporated in the governments' replies, the employers' and workers' organizations may also transmit their comments direct to the ILO. (Add: document GB.244/MNE/1/3/Rev., para. 121) and GB.258/205, para. 67(c)).
Governments
(1) If this is a joint report, please indicate the names of the employers' and workers' organizations that participated in preparing this reply.
(2) In the event that this is not a joint report, please identify the employers' and workers' organizations to which copies of your report were sent.
Employers and workers
(3) In the event that employers' or workers' replies are being sent direct to the Office, have copies thereof been sent to the relevant government authorities and to the most representative employers' or workers' organization? If so, please identify them.
The report of the Government of Australia is not a joint one. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions were invited to contribute to the report, but did not do so.
The Government of Austria did not receive comments on its report from the representative employers' and workers' organizations.
The report of the Government of the Bahamas is not a joint one. Copies were sent to the Bahamas Employers' Confederation, the National Congress of Trade Unions and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas Trade Union Congress.
The Government of Bangladesh sent copies of the questionnaire to the following employers' and workers' organizations: Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA); Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Sramik Dal (BJSD); Jatiyo Sramik Federation (JSF); Jatiyo Sramik Jote, Bangladesh; Bangladesh Trade Union Centre (TUC). However, only the BEA made known its views, which were incorporated in the Government's report. The Bangladesh Employers' Association transmitted its reply to the ILO and sent a copy to the Government.
The Barbados Employers' Confederation did not send copies of its reply to the relevant government authorities and the most representative workers' organizations. The Barbados Workers' Union (BWU) states that it was invited by the Government to participate in the preparation of the Government's reply. A copy of the BWU's report was sent to the Government.
The Government of Belgium states that the reply of the National Labour Council constitutes an integral part of its report. The National Labour Council says that it was asked by the Government of Belgium to make known its views with regard to the effect given to the Tripartite Declaration.
The Government of Brazil sent copies of its report to three workers' organizations: the Single Central Organization of Workers (CUT), the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and "Força Sindical"; and four employers' organizations: the National Confederation of Agriculture (CUT), the National Confederation of Commerce (CNC), the National Confederation of Industry (CNI) and the National Confederation of Transport (CNT). The Single Central Organization of Workers sent its reply direct to the ILO with a copy to the Ministry of Labour of Brazil.
The Government of Cambodia reports that in the absence of employers' and workers' organizations, it has sent its report to staff representatives in two enterprises (names of individuals and enterprises given).
The Government of Canada requested comments from the following organizations, none of which made known their views: the Canadian Employers' Council; the Canadian Labour Congress; and the Confederation of National Trade Unions.
The Government of Chad sent copies of the questionnaire to the following organizations: the National Council of Chadian Employers (Conseil national du Patronat tchadien, CNPT); the Union of Trade Unions of Chad (Union des Syndicats du Tchad, UST); the Free Confederation of Workers of Chad (Confédération libre des Travailleurs du Tchad, CLTT); and the Confederation of Unions of Chad (Confédération des Syndicats du Tchad, CST). The UST submitted certain comments which were taken into account by the Government. One of these, was the suggestion that tripartite biennial consultations should be held to give effect to the Tripartite Declaration. A copy of the Government's report is being sent to each of the aforementioned organizations.
The Government of Chile states that copies of its report were sent to the Confederation of Production and Trade and the Single Central Organisation of Chilean Workers (CUT). None of the most representative employers' and workers' organizations made known their views.
The reply of the General Confederation of Democratic Workers of Colombia was copied to the Ministry of Labour with a request that it be sent to the employers.
The reply of the Government of Costa Rica is not a joint one.
The Government of the Czech Republic requested the two most representative employers' and workers' organizations to provide comments. The Confederation of Industry and Transport participated in the preparation of the Government's report, while the Czech and Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions prepared a separate report which was transmitted to the ILO through the Government.
The Dominica Employers' Federation did not send copies of its reply to the Government nor to workers' organizations.
The Government of Ecuador sent the questionnaire to the following employers' and workers' organizations: the National Federation of Chambers of Industries (Federación Nacional de Cámaras de Industrias); the Confederation of Workers of Ecuador (CTE) and the Ecuadorian Confederation of Occupational Organizations (Confederación Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Clasistas (CEDOC)).
The report of the Government of Estonia was prepared jointly with the Estonian Confederation of Industry and Employers, the Estonian Association of Small Business and the Association of Estonian Trade Unions.
The Government of Finland consulted certain competent authorities and the following organizations. It also requested contributions from them for the preparation of its report: the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT); the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries in Finland (Palvelutyönantajat); the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK); the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK); the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA); the Commission for Local Authority Employers (KT); the State Employer's Office (VTML). A copy of the report was sent to each of these organizations. The joint reply of the SAK, STTK and AKAVA was forwarded with the Government's reply.
The Government of Gabon sent its report to the following organizations: the Confederation of Gabonese Employers (CPG), the National Confederation of Gabonese Employers (Confédération Nationale du Patronat Gabonais), the Gabonese Trade Union Confederation (Confédération Syndicale Gabonaise) and the Gabonese Confederation of Free Trade Unions (Confédération Gabonaise des Syndicats Libres). The Government received a copy of the CPG's report.
The Government of Grenada sent copies of its report to the Grenada Employers' Federation and the Grenada Trades Union Council.
The Government of Hungary contacted the following employers' and workers' organizations, proposing that there be a tripartite discussion of its report. Discussions on the draft report were held in February 1996 with members of the Wage and Labour Committee of the National Conciliation Council to which the following belong: the Hungarian Association of International Companies; the National Association of the Industrial Corporation; the National Federation of General Consumer Cooperatives; the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperators and Producers; the Union of Agrarian Employers; the National Association of Entrepreneurs; the Hungarian Employers' Association; the Hungarian Industrial Association; the National Federation of Traders and Caterers; and the Federation of Hungarian Industrialists; the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions; the National Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions; and the Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions; the National Federation of Workers' Councils; the Cooperation Forum of Trade Unions; and the Trade Union Group of Intellectuals. The report was sent to each of these organizations. A summary of written comments by the first three workers' organizations mentioned is featured in the Government's report.
The Government of India sent copies of its report to the following: employers' organizations: the Employers' Federation of India, Bombay; the All India Organization of Employers, New Delhi; the All India Manufacturers' Organization, Bombay; the Standing Conference of Public Enterprises, New Delhi; workers' organizations: the All India Trade Union Congress, New Delhi; the INTUC, New Delhi; the HMS, New Delhi; the United Trades Union Congress (LS), Calcutta; the BMS, New Delhi; the United Trade Union Centre, Calcutta; the National Labour Organization, Ahmedabad; the National Front of Indian Trade Unions, Calcutta; the Trade Union Coordination Centre, New Delhi; the Centre of Indian Trade Unions. All of these organizations were requested to provide information for replying to the questionnaire. Most of them either did not send a reply or stated that they had no information to furnish.
The Government of Ireland sent copies of its reply to the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, inviting them to make comments.
The General Confederation of Industry (Italy) sent a copy of its reply to the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance.
The report of the Government of Japan includes the observations of the Japan Federation of Employers' Associations (NIKKEIREN). Copies of the Government's report were sent to NIKKEIREN and the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO).
Copies of the report of the Government of Jordan will be sent to the Amman Chamber of Industry, the Federation of Jordanian Chambers of Commerce and the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions. The Amman Chamber of Industry states that its report was prepared in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour and the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions.
The Korea Employers' Federation consulted with the American Chamber of Commerce and the EU Chamber of Commerce in Korea for the preparation of its reply, which it submitted direct to the ILO.
The report of the Federation of Luxembourg Manufacturers was sent to the Government, through which it was transmitted to the ILO. The Confederation of Independent Trade Unions sent a copy of its reply to the Government of Luxembourg.
The General Confederation of Employers of Mauritania states that its report contains no contribution from other sources.
The Government of Mauritius reports that no employers' or workers' organizations submitted replies even though copies of the report form were sent to each of them. Copies of the Government's report were sent to the Mauritius Employers' Federation and the following workers' organizations: Federation of United Workers; Federation of Progressive Unions; Free Democratic Unions Federation; Mauritius Labour Federation; Mauritian Confederation of Workers; Mauritius Labour Congress; Federation of Civil Service Unions; General Workers' Federation and the State Employees' Federation.
For the preparation of its report, the Government of Mexico asked the Mexican Confederation of Chambers of Industry (CONCAMIN) and the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) for comments.
The Government of Namibia says that this is not a joint report, and that copies were sent to the National Union of Namibian Workers and the Namibia Employers' Federation.
The Government of the Netherlands states that it was not possible to consult the employers' and workers' organizations in time to get their comments for inclusion in the report and that if they have any observations, they will be submitted to the ILO. The Federation of Netherlands Industry and Employers sent a letter to the ILO stating that it agreed with the Government's reply to the Sixth Survey.
The Government of New Zealand sent copies of its report to the New Zealand Employers' Federation and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.
The Government of Nicaragua states that it consulted the most representative employers' and workers' organizations (unnamed) in keeping with the provisions of Convention No. 144. Copies of its report were sent to the following organizations: National Union of Farmers and Livestock Breeders (Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos); the Higher Council for Private Enterprise (Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada); the Autonomous Confederation of Nicaraguan Workers (Central de Trabajadores de Nicaragua Autónoma); the Nicaraguan Workers' Confederation (Central de Trabajadores de Nicaragua); Sandinista Workers' Confederation; Agricultural Workers' Association; General Confederation of Workers (Confederación General de Trabajadores); Confederation for Action towards Trade Union Unity (Confederación de Acción de Unificación Sindical); and the Confederation of Trade Union Unity (Confederación de Unificación Sindical).
The Nigeria Labour Congress did not send copies of its reply to the Government and the Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association.
Copies of the Government's report were sent to the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry. The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry sent a letter to the ILO, indicating that it agreed with the statements made by the Government.
The Government of Pakistan asked the most representative employers' and workers' organizations for comments, but received no reply. The Employers' Federation of Pakistan did not send a copy of its reply to the Government.
The Independent Self-Governing Trade Union "Solidarno" sent a copy of its reply to the Government of Poland.
Copies of the report of the Government of Portugal were sent to the following employers' and workers' organizations: the Confederation of Portuguese Industry (CIP); Confederation of Farmers of Portugal (Confederação dos Agricultores de Portugal); Confederation of Trade and Services of Portugal (Confederação do Comércio e Serviços de Portugal); General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses) and the General Union of Workers (UGT). The UGT was the only organization that submitted comments in response to the Government's request. Those comments were included in the Government's reply. The General Union of Workers forwarded to the ILO, a copy of the reply that it had submitted to the Government of Portugal.
The Government of Romania sent its report to the National Confederation of Romanian Employers (Confédération Nationale du Patronat Roumain). Questionnaires were sent to the following workers' organizations: CNSLR-Fratia, "Le Blocul National Sindical" and CNS Cartel ALFA (full names not given), and to three MNEs (names given). The Government received no replies.
The St. Vincent Employers' Federation did not consult any of the other social partners for the preparation of its report.
The Government of Singapore states that its report was prepared in consultation with the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the National Trades Union Congress.
The Government of Slovenia sent copies of the report to the following employers' and workers' organizations: the Employers' Organizations of Slovenia; the Chamber of Economy of Slovenia; and the Employers' Association of Slovenia; the Confederation of Labour Unions' 90 of Slovenia; "Independence" -Conference of Independent Labour Unions of Slovenia (KNSS); PERGAM -- the Confederation of Labour Unions of Slovenia; and the Union of Independent Labour Unions of Slovenia.
The Government of Spain states that it requested information for the preparation of the report from the following employers' and workers' organizations, none of which replied: the Spanish Employers' Confederation (CEOE); the UGT; the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Committees (CCOO); the Basque Workers' Solidarity Movement (ELA/STV); and the Galician Inter-union Movement for Unity (Convergencia Intersindical Gallega). The General Union of Workers (UGT) reports that it was requested by the Government of Spain to submit comments, but did not receive a copy of the Government's reply. A copy of the UGT's report was sent to the Government.
The Employers' Federation of Ceylon, the Ceylon Workers' Congress and the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union contributed to the report prepared by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union points out that even though the subject of MNEs is not central to its concerns, it presented its observations on some of the questions. A copy of its reply was sent to the Government of Sri Lanka.
The Government of Swaziland states that this is not a joint report. Copies will be sent to the Federation of Swaziland Employers, the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions and the Swaziland Federation of Labour. The Government has not received copies of the reports of the workers or employers.
The report of the Government of Sweden incorporates statements and information from certain government agencies and the following employers' and workers' organizations: the Swedish Employers' Confederation (SAF); the Federation of Swedish Industries; the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO); and the Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO). The LO's reply includes individual statements by the Swedish Transport Workers' Union and the Commercial Employees' Union.
The Government of Switzerland sent the questionnaire to all relevant government services to obtain their views for the purpose of preparing the report. The following representative employers' and workers' organizations got copies of the questionnaire, and will be given copies of the report: the Swiss Union of Trade and Industry; the Central Union of Swiss Employers' Associations (UCAPS); the Swiss Farmers' Union; the Swiss Union of Arts and Crafts (USAM); the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (USS/SGB); the Federation of Swiss Societies of Salaried Employees (VSA); the Swiss Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC/CNG); and the Swiss Union of Autonomous Trade Unions.
The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic prepared its reply in consultation with the Chamber of Industry, which represents the employers. Copies of the reply will be sent to the most representative employers' and workers' organizations, as well as to the General Federation of Trade Unions and the Ministry of Industry. The Chamber of Industry sent a copy of its reply to the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The report of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago was not prepared in collaboration with the representative employers' and workers' organizations. However, copies will be sent to the Employers' Consultative Association and the National Trade Union Centre of Trinidad and Tobago.
The Government of Tunisia sent copies of its report to the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts and the Tunisian General Labour Union.
Copies of the Government of Turkey's report, which was prepared in consultation with the workers' and employers' organizations, have been sent to the Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations (TISK) and the Turkish Confederation of Trade Unions (TÜRK-IS). The Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations states that its views had been forwarded to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security upon request.
The report of the Government of the United Kingdom is not a joint one. It transmits that of the Confederation of British Industry and notes that the Trades Union Congress will submit its own reply. Copies of the Government's report were sent to these two organizations.
The Government of the United States consulted the United States Council for International Business and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) for the preparation of its report.
The Government of Uruguay states that it requested information from the Chamber of Manufacturers of Uruguay (Cámara de Industrias del Uruguay) and the Inter-Trade Union Assembly-Workers' National Convention (PIT-CNT). It also sought the collaboration of representatives of the Tripartite Advisory Group (Grupo Tripartito de Asesoramiento). However, it obtained no replies. Copies of the Government's report are being sent to the aforementioned employers' and workers' organizations.
The Government of Venezuela states that this is not a joint reply. The following organizations were officially informed of the preparation of the reply: Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers' Associations (FEDECAMARAS); the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation (CTV); the Unitary Central of Venezuelan Workers (Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Venezuela); the Confederation of Autonomous Unions (CODESA); and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT). The Government transmitted the report of FEDECAMARAS. The CTV said that it will submit its reply direct to the ILO. FEDECAMARAS states that its report is not a joint one and that it was sent to the ILO through the Government of Venezuela.
This is not a joint report, states the Zambian Government. Copies have been sent to the Zambia Federation of Employers in Lusaka and the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions in Kitwe.
The Government of Zimbabwe states that it sent copies of its report to the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and the Employers' Confederation of Zimbabwe. The Employers' Confederation of Zimbabwe states that it did not send copies of its report to the relevant government authorities nor to the most representative workers' organization.
At its 226th (May-June 1984) Session, the Governing Body once again called upon governments and employers' and workers' organizations to further promote acceptance of, and adherence to, the principles of the Declaration. One measure suggested was that the annual reports of enterprises (both domestic and multinational) should express support for, and adherence to, the provisions of the Tripartite Declaration. Other means include: the distribution of copies of the Declaration to the affiliates of employers' and workers' organizations (the second edition of the Declaration is available in 19 languages (translation of the text into ten other languages is under way; copies can be obtained from the ILO); and, discussion of the Declaration at seminars, round tables and other types of meetings. Ministers responsible for labour and social affairs could, for example, inform other ministries or government authorities involved in investment promotion, industry, services, etc. of the guidance offered by the Tripartite Declaration and provide copies thereof, stressing that a peaceful industrial relations climate, which the principles of the Tripartite Declaration aim to promote, is a sine qua non for investments and growth.
Governments could also promote and implement the principles of the Tripartite Declaration by, inter alia, initiating policies that would give more practical meaning to the principles set out in the Declaration and the standards embodied in the instruments appended to the Declaration. They should encourage their acceptance as constituting everyday norms of conduct to be observed by all concerned.
(1) What kind of promotional activities, if any, have been undertaken by government, the employers and workers -- alone or jointly -- during the last four years, with the aim of increasing awareness of the aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration?
The following respondents indicate that no promotional activities were undertaken during the period covered by the Survey:
Governments of: Bahamas, Grenada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Swaziland, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela
Employers' organizations: Barbados Employers' Confederation, Dominica Employers' Federation, Korea Employers' Federation, General Confederation of Employers of Mauritania, New Zealand Employers' Federation, Employers' Federation of Pakistan
Workers' organizations: Barbados Workers' Union, Malaysian Trades Union Congress, Nigeria Labour Congress, General Union of Workers (Spain), Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania, Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions
The Bangladesh Employers' Association reports that the Government may include the promotion of the observance of the Declaration as an item for discussion at meetings of the National Tripartite Consultative Committee on Labour Matters, "as and when considered necessary".
The Government of Cambodia states that because of the political situation in the country prior to 1993, this is the first time that it is receiving the questionnaire for the survey and for the same reason it was not possible to carry out any promotional activities.
The Government of Canada points out that its responses to different questions provide insights into the ways in which it has either directly or indirectly promoted the observance of the Tripartite Declaration in the country.
The Government of Chad reports that promotional activities will be discussed and agreed at the tripartite biennial consultations on the effect given to the Tripartite Declaration.
The Government notes that copies of the Tripartite Declaration were distributed to the most representative employers' and workers' organizations in Chile.
The General Confederation of Democratic Workers (Colombia) says that it is not aware of any promotional activities undertaken by the Government or employers to make the aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration better known.
The Government of the Czech Republic reports that the Czech version of the Tripartite Declaration has been published and made available to 76 regional employment services (labour offices), to enable them to acquaint themselves with this instrument and to monitor its implementation by MNEs in their respective regions. Copies were also sent to the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which, inter alia, look after the State's interests and cooperate in monitoring the implementation of the Declaration. The Czech and Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions notes that not much has been done in the past to promote awareness and observance of the Declaration, the significance of which is not fully appreciated by trade unions. It is of the view that international instruments such as the Declaration should be covered in workers' education programmes and other trade union activities carried out by the Czech and Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions. In December 1995 the ILO/ICFTU/MK OS seminar on "Trade Unions and Multinational Enterprises" was held in Prague. It helped to facilitate and increase very useful contacts between officials of the MK OS and the ILO, and as a result, greater attention will be given to the Tripartite Declaration and the procedure for examining disputes arising out of its application.
The Government of Finland prepared for the ILO, the second edition of the Finnish version of the Tripartite Declaration. It distributed 200 copies to the Finnish Tripartite ILO Committee, the Ministry of Labour, employers' and workers' organizations in Finland, and certain central libraries. Copies were also provided to the Ministry of Labour of Estonia. The Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers and the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries state that there is nothing new to report.
The Government of Gabon considers the enactment of the new Labour Code (amended by the Act 3/94 on 21 November 1994) as having the effect of promoting the principles of the Tripartite Declaration by virtue of its new provisions concerning dismissal procedures, safety and health and the right to collective bargaining.
The Government of Hungary states that consultations are being held in order to determine the best means of promoting and implementing the principles of the Tripartite Declaration.
According to the Government of Ireland, copies of the Tripartite Declaration were distributed to the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
The Government of Jordan states that the competent authorities, in cooperation with employers' organizations and trade unions, try to increase awareness of the aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration through seminars, lectures and workers' education courses. They have also taken these principles into account in the drafting of the new labour law and regulations. The Ministry of Labour has distributed the Arabic version of the Declaration. The Amman Chamber of Industry (Jordan) states that the Tripartite Declaration is respected and its aims are highlighted in seminars dealing with foreign investment questions.
The Government of the Republic of Korea states that the Central Labour Management Council has been conducting tripartite negotiations on major labour policy issues. The International Labour Policy Council, made up of tripartite representatives, consults on major foreign policy matters, including the ratification of ILO Conventions.
The Federation of Luxembourg Manufacturers states that the objectives and principles of the Declaration are largely accepted by the employers since they comply with national legislation. Hence, special promotional activities are unnecessary. The Confederation of Independent Trade Unions and the General Confederation of Labour are of the view that MNEs in Luxembourg generally respect the principles of the Declaration. Therefore, the observations made in the workers' reply are directed to government policy-makers. It would none the less be useful to distribute copies of the Declaration to enterprises and shop stewards, and to focus on this instrument in the training programme for shop stewards at the Higher Institute for Labour.
The Government of Malaysia reports that awareness of the aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration has been promoted through the introduction of new laws, promotional activities at Labour Day celebrations, and safety and health campaigns.
The Government of Mauritius considers that there is no need for specific promotional activities to increase awareness of the aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration as national labour legislation does not discriminate between multinational and national enterprises. Furthermore, information on all labour-related matters is disseminated by the Workers' Education Branch of the Ministry of Industrial Relations.
The Government reports that employers' and workers' organizations in Mexico are responsible for promoting awareness and observance of the Tripartite Declaration. This instrument is made known through seminars, conferences and similar activities. In addition, the six divisions of the Secretariat for Labour and Social Security which were asked to contribute to the preparation of the Government's report, and the other offices which they in turn contacted for further information, also became more aware of the content and aims of the Tripartite Declaration. The Mexican Confederation of Chambers of Industry (CONCAMIN) reports that the Tripartite Declaration has been made widely known among Chambers throughout the country which are members of CONCAMIN. The Confederation of Mexican Workers agrees with the Government.
The Government states that the tripartite Namibian Labour Advisory Council, set up within the framework of the Labour Act, is designed, inter alia, to promote awareness of the principles of the Tripartite Declaration.
According to the Government of Nigeria, the Tripartite Declaration is largely promoted at seminars and meetings. It may also be referred to in the course of dispute settlement initiatives, and in situations where advice and guidance on issues of relevance to it are sought. The Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association makes the same observations.
In 1994, the Independent Self-Governing Trade Union "Solidarno" sent the questionnaire and a copy of its reply to its members throughout Poland.
The Government of Portugal states that copies of the Tripartite Declaration were distributed to organizations (unspecified) and government departments, but that there has been no follow-up to see whether the recipients have promoted it. The General Union of Workers (Portugal) states that the Tripartite Declaration contains "very important principles and objectives" for workers and host countries to MNEs. It emphasizes the importance of implementing these principles "in their entirety" and calls for the setting up of machinery to "guarantee that these principles are effectively applied".
The Government of Romania sent copies of the Declaration to employers' and workers' organizations.
The St. Vincent Employers' Federation states that after gaining political independence in 1979, St. Vincent and the Grenadines continued to observe the ILO Conventions ratified by the United Kingdom, ILO Recommendations and the Tripartite Declaration.
The Government of Sri Lanka does not know of any promotional activities.
The Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO) are of the view that not enough is being done to make the Tripartite Declaration better known. The translation of the text into Swedish is a positive development. However, there is need for cooperation between the Government and the social partners to compile a single, user-friendly document featuring the OECD Guidelines, the Tripartite Declaration, and a summary of legal instruments that have a bearing on labour-management relations in MNEs. This may be of use to those involved in the drawing up and application of inter-company agreements in the social and labour fields. The LO and TCO express optimism that, with the conclusion of information and consultation agreements within the framework of the EC Directive on the establishment of works councils, greater account will be taken of the aims of the Tripartite Declaration and the OECD Guidelines.
The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic has distributed copies of the Declaration to the most representative employers' and workers' organizations. According to the Chamber of Industry, employers' and workers' organizations in the Syrian Arab Republic have been informed about the objectives and principles of the Declaration, and requested to respect them.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the Government has taken steps to form tripartite committees at various levels, to deal with issues of national and sectoral interests. The aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration are covered in these discussions.
The Government of the United Kingdom reiterates its commitment to the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment (paragraphs 21-23 of the Tripartite Declaration) and recalls its efforts to promote this principle through legislation and various initiatives to raise public awareness in this respect.
With reference to the United States, the Government states that the President's Committee on the ILO is the body in which tripartite consultations are held with respect to the promotion and observance of the principles of the Declaration. The President's Committee, as established by executive order, is chaired by the Secretary of Labor. Other members are the Secretaries of State and Commerce, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Presidents of the AFL-CIO and the United States Council for International Business and their designated representatives. The Model Business Principles (MBPs) adopted by the current US Administration in 1995 were presented to the ILO Governing Body Subcommittee on Multinational Enterprises in November 1995. The US Government representative emphasized that the MBPs are meant to complement the ILO's Tripartite Declaration, the OECD Guidelines and company codes of conduct. On numerous occasions Government representatives have sought to inform employers, labour, academic and civic organizations about the Tripartite Declaration, urging them to support it and pointing out its usefulness as guidelines for the drafting of company codes of conduct.
The Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers' Associations states that in recent years there have been considerable activities on a tripartite basis to address a wide range of issues, and especially with regard to social security. Employers and workers' organizations have been particularly involved in the meetings and round tables convened in an attempt to reach a consensus in this regard.
The Government of Zambia indicates that copies of the Declaration have been circulated to MNEs through the Zambia Federation of Employers.
The Government of Zimbabwe states that prospective investors are informed about the labour policy and requirements in the country by the Zimbabwe Investment Centre (ZIC) before they commence operations. In this respect promotional activities are carried out by the ZIC and potential investors are free to discuss the details of the labour regulations with the competent authorities. The Employers' Confederation of Zimbabwe states that the Government, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, and its affiliates have been jointly advocating the merits of tripartism, the right to collective bargaining and the preservation of employers' and workers' rights. The Government has made efforts to ratify a number of ILO Conventions and has passed legislation that has the effect of promoting the principles of the Tripartite Declaration.
IV. The Tripartite Declaration and various economic
and industrial sectors
At its 245th (February-March 1990) Session the Governing Body noted with regret that some member States in which MNEs had considerable activities had never replied to any of the surveys and that countries with important export-processing or special economic zones, had either not responded at all or only partially to questions relating to their experience with the Tripartite Declaration and its application (GB.244/MNE/1/3/Rev., para. 110).
(1) In the event that there are export processing or special economic zones in operation, do the labour laws applicable in such areas differ in any way from those applied elsewhere in the country? If so, please explain.
(2) Have workers in export processing and special economic zones the right to form associations of their own choosing and bargain collectively on the terms and conditions of employment which would apply to them?
(3) Do special incentives that may be offered to investors in such special areas limit in any way, directly or indirectly, fundamental human rights or basic trade union rights, employment security, equality of treatment, safety and health standards and other rights of workers?
(4) Is there any particular experience with regard to the application of the Tripartite Declaration in the various economic/industrial sectors on which you would wish to provide information?
(5) Can you provide any information specific to export processing/special economic zones or offshore production installations with regard to paragraphs 17, 20, 25, 26, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41, 45, 52, 54, 56 and 58 of the Declaration?
The following respondents state that there are no EPZs or SEZs in their respective countries:
Governments of: Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Estonia, Gabon, New Zealand, Slovenia, Swaziland, United Kingdom, Zambia
Employers' organizations: Barbados Employers' Confederation, New Zealand Employers' Federation, St. Vincent Employers' Federation, Employers' Consultative Association of Trinidad and Tobago
Workers' organizations: Barbados Workers' Union, Gabonese Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Independent Self-Governing Trade Union "Solidarno" (Poland)
The Government of the Bahamas indicates that the labour laws apply nationwide and that all workers can exercise their rights. Special incentives in no way adversely affect fundamental human rights, trade union rights, security of employment, equality of treatment and OSH standards.
The Single Central Organization of Workers states that employment in the Manaus Free Zone in Brazil has fallen by more than 60 per cent (no dates and figures given).
The Government of Chile states that the national laws, including those in the labour field, apply to enterprises operating anywhere in the national territory and on offshore installations.
The Government of Colombia states that free zones are delimited areas, with a special regime governing customs, foreign exchange, investment, tariffs and trade. Workers in these enclaves have the right to form unions of their own choosing and to bargain collectively. The regime governing free zones in no way infringes human rights and workers' rights. It does not adversely affect security of employment, equality of treatment, social security standards and other rights. The National Association of Manufacturers supports the Government's statement concerning the rights of workers in special economic and free zones in Colombia. The General Confederation of Democratic Workers states that there are nine free zones in which manufacturing and service activities are carried out in Colombia. The workforce in these zones is about 10,000 and 90 per cent of these workers earn the minimum wage only. Labour relations are not good and several factors, including inaccessibility to the premises, make it difficult to organize the workers. There are severe limits on freedom to exercise workers' rights and the situation with respect to safety and health is unsatisfactory. This Confederation considers the general situation to be very worrisome and it has made known its concerns to the competent authorities on numerous occasions.
The Government notes that labour laws that apply in EPZs in Costa Rica are the same as those applied in other parts of the country. Workers in the zones have the right to organize and bargain collectively and no investment-promotion incentives restricting human rights and trade union rights are granted.
The Government of the Czech Republic reports that there are no typical EPZs and that the national labour legislation in force applies throughout the country. Given the relatively short history of activities of MNEs in the country, no information is available concerning implementation of the Tripartite Declaration in individual sectors. The Czech and Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions states that at the beginning of the economic transformation process the Government had approved the establishment of about ten export or customs zones (names of free zones and warehousing complexes given) operating under advantageous regimes. They are under the supervision and control of the Customs Authority. They are not like the EPZs that exist in developing countries. While new zones have not been created in recent years, preparations are under way for the construction of the first European head office of a renowned MNE (name given) which will be granted a number of EPZ-type concessions. The venture is expected to provide about 800 jobs. On the whole, however, there are no special incentives for attracting foreign investors. Other location-specific advantages are emphasized. Freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution and all national laws which apply to the entire country, including the "zones".
The Dominica Employers' Federation points out that there are no exemptions from applying the labour laws in any part of the country and all workers can exercise their right to organize and bargain collectively. It notes that labour representatives are of the view that the National Development Corporation's practice of informing potential investors of the statutory minimum wage has had the effect of making wage negotiations "extremely difficult". Information for answering question (5) is not available.
The Government of Ecuador reports that it does not have information concerning the application of the Tripartite Declaration in particular sectors beside those referred to in other parts of its reply.
The Government of Egypt reports that the Law on Investments No. 230 of 1989 and its related regulations contain provisions governing different aspects of employment in EPZs. Under section 40 of the Law, the requirement that Egyptians must obtain permits to work in foreign enterprises will be waived for those recruited by free zone enterprises. The labour contract of Arabic-speaking workers must be in Arabic. It shall specify the type of work, duration of employment and the agreed wage. A copy "should" be supplied to the competent administrative authorities of the free zone, within two weeks of the start of employment. The EPZ administration is responsible for setting rules whereby Egyptians must comprise at least 75 per cent of the workforce and the minimum wage in the zone must not be lower than the statutory minimum. It also establishes the maximum daily and weekly working hours, overtime pay, social benefits including medical coverage, and safety and health requirements. The remuneration of production workers, salaried employees and professionals, as well as local executives and board members, shall be determined in foreign currencies and paid in their equivalent of Egyptian pounds at the exchange rate set by the Central Bank. The social insurance law applies to Egyptian workers in EPZs, and free zone enterprises are subject to environmental regulations. They must comply with national OSH norms, particularly those relating to the handling of dangerous materials and explosives.
The Government of Finland, the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers and the Employers' Confederation of Service Industries state that there is nothing new to report. The Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK) and the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA) report that the Tripartite Declaration applies to both national and multinational enterprises regardless of the sectors in which they operate.
According to the Government, labour laws in EPZs in Grenada are the same as those applied in the rest of the country. Workers in EPZs can form associations and bargain collectively. No incentives offered to investors in EPZs limit workers' rights, security of employment, safety standards or other rights.
According to the Government, there are no SEZs in Hungary at the moment. However provisions for the establishment of enterprise zones have been made in the proposed legislation on regional development, and preparations are being made to implement an experimental phase.
The Government of India reports that the labour laws apply throughout the country, including in EPZs. Workers in EPZs enjoy the right to form associations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively. The special incentives that are offered do not in any way limit fundamental human rights and basic trade union rights, nor do they adversely affect job security and OSH standards.
The Government of Ireland reports that the national labour laws apply throughout the country. Workers in EPZs, like other workers, have the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing, and to bargain collectively. No special incentives that may be offered to investors, have the effect of limiting any aspect of workers' rights.
The Government of Jordan reports that the labour legislation applies throughout the Kingdom, including in the free zones. Workers in these zones have the right to join trade unions and to bargain collectively. No special incentives offered to investors limit these rights. The Amman Chamber of Industry notes that the national labour laws apply to enterprises operating in free zones in Jordan, and workers are free to join trade unions. Employers can either become members of the employers' organization of their choice, or form their own organizations. There are no special incentives which are not in line with national laws and policies.
The Government of the Republic of Korea reports that labour disputes in EPZs are treated in the same way as those in the public services, where the cooling-off period is 15 days (ten days in other industries). In instances where a strike in the zone is considered as posing "serious problems for national life and the economy", the Labour Relations Commission, ex officio or at the request of the competent authority, can settle the dispute through compulsory arbitration. Workers in the zones have the same rights as workers in the private sector. No special investment-related incentives are offered that limit these rights. The Korea Employers' Federation reports that the labour laws are the same throughout the country and workers in the zones enjoy the same right to freedom of association as those elsewhere. There are no limitations on human rights or trade union rights in the zones. There is no difference between conditions that apply in the zones and those in other sectors of the economy.
The Federation of Luxembourg Manufacturers has noticed no difference in the degree of observance of the Tripartite Declaration in various regions or sectors, with regard to labour law, collective bargaining procedures, human rights and trade union rights.
The Government of Malaysia states that workers in EPZs and SEZs, like those in other parts of the country, have the right to form associations and to bargain collectively on their terms and conditions of employment. The existing labour legislation is generally applicable to EPZs and SEZs. However, due to the "peculiar" nature of their operations, exemptions may be granted by the Minister of Human Resources on a case-by-case basis. In such instances, the terms and conditions are more favourable than those provided by law. The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) reports that the same labour laws apply throughout the country. However, workers in EPZs, like those in other parts of the country, are restricted in their right to exercise freedom of association and collective bargaining. The restriction on freedom of association is an indirect incentive to MNEs and an infringement of the rights of workers. With respect to question (5), no consultations are held with workers' organizations, and to the best of the MTUC's knowledge, MNEs do not respect the provisions of the paragraphs in question. The provision of job security is not a priority for MNEs. By law, employers are free to reorganize their operations "as they please". The training provided is designed to meet the needs of the enterprise. The Government promotes a "low-wage policy" and MNEs appear to have taken their cue from this, by paying wages that are "extremely low" compared to that which they have the ability to pay. Where there are unions, MNEs maintain the minimum OSH standards. However, problems arise because most have no unions and there are not enough labour inspectors to visit all the workplaces. The labour legislation and industrial relations system are biased against workers who do not enjoy freedom of association, and are not adequately protected against acts of anti-union discrimination as regards their employment. Special investment-promotion incentives include limitations on the right to freedom of association, and the right to organize and bargain collectively. There is the example of an enterprise (named) that was able to avoid recognizing a company union by changing its name. The matter is still in the courts. Given the policy of keeping unions out of the electronics industry, the provisions of paragraph 54 of the Tripartite Declaration cannot be fulfilled. There are no labour-management consultations on matters of mutual concern. Dispute settlement is carried out using conciliation and arbitration machinery established by the Government.
The General Confederation of Employers of Mauritania notes that the same labour law applies throughout the country, and that no distinction is made with regard to EPZs. Workers in EPZs have the same right to freedom of association and collective bargaining as workers in the rest of the country. The investment code does not limit fundamental human or basic trade union rights, nor any other rights. There is no information regarding the application of the Tripartite Declaration, including in EPZs. The Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania states that even though the labour legislation does not distinguish EPZs from the rest of the country, its implementation is generally inadequate. All workers, regardless of the location of the enterprise, encounter difficulties with respect to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Special incentives offered to investors in EPZs have limited fundamental human rights and basic trade union rights, rights relating to job security, equality of treatment and OSH standards.
The Government states that enterprises in EPZs in Mauritius are governed by the Export Enterprises (Remuneration Order) Regulations 1984, as amended, and the Industrial Expansion Act 1993 which has repealed the Export Processing Zones Act 1970. Part VI of the Labour Act (Termination of Employment) does not apply to workers in EPZs, except in cases of unjustified dismissal. Overtime work is computed on a weekly instead of a daily basis, i.e. the worker has first to complete 45 hours of work per week (irrespective of the number of hours worked on a daily basis) before any overtime accrues. They may also be required to perform extra hours of work for up to ten hours per week. In most of the Remuneration Orders, provisions exist for retirement at the age of 60 or before 60 on medical grounds with payment of compensation commensurate with the length of service; but such provisions have not yet been incorporated in the EPZ Remuneration Order. Section 20 of the Industrial Expansion Act states that where "the services of an employee are terminated he shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be equivalent to: (i) where he reckons more than 12 months' but less than 3 years' continuous service with an employer, not less than one week's wages for each year of service; (ii) where he reckons not less than 3 years' continuous service with an employer, not less than 2 weeks' wages for each year of service". In other private sector enterprises, any worker with not less than 12 months' continuous service with a given employer and whose employment is terminated by the employer on justified grounds, is entitled to one quarter of a month's wages for each period of 12 months' service. The Industrial Relations Act in no way denies workers in EPZs the right to form or join associations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively. Special incentives that may be offered to investors in no way limit workers' rights, employment security, safety and health standards, and equality of treatment. As far as the application of the Tripartite Declaration is concerned, an EPZ is not considered to be different from other sectors of the economy.
The Government points out that since the labour legislation applies throughout Mexico, workers in EPZs enjoy the same rights as those in other sectors of the economy. Workers' rights and OSH standards are not adversely affected by investment-promotion incentives. The national labour laws and regulations apply throughout the country, regardless of the ownership of enterprises, reports the Mexican Confederation of Chambers of Industry. There is no restriction on freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Confederation of Mexican Workers agrees with the Government.
The Government of Namibia confirms that the labour laws apply equally in the EPZs and that workers enjoy the right to form and join associations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively. Special incentives granted to investors do not limit, in any way, trade union and other rights. The EPZ in Namibia is still in its embryonic stage, and therefore no specific information on it can be provided at this time.
According to the Government of Nicaragua, the national labour laws apply to workers throughout the country, including in the free zones. These laws must be respected by all enterprises and there are no special investment-promotion incentives that violate workers' rights and basic human rights. The Government recalls that the Minister of Labour recently made a statement to the national and international press, in the presence of representatives of employers' and workers' organizations and other social groups, in which he gave the assurance that there was no official opposition to the registration of trade unions and collective agreements in the free zones.
The Government points out that the EPZ in Nigeria was established by Decree No. 63 of 1992 which also provided for the setting up of the Nigerian Export Processing Zones Authority. The Authority has the following functions: administration and management of all EPZs in Nigeria; establishment of customs, police, immigration and similar posts in the zones; coordination of the functions of various public and private sector organizations operating within the zone; settlement of labour disputes in the zones in consultation with the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity; the adoption of investment promotion strategies in the zones; and the recommendation of additional EPZ-promotion incentives to the federal Government. The Authority has set up the first EPZ in Calabar, along with some basic infrastructure and administrative structures. It has determined the incentives for prospective investors, drawn up and approved conditions of service and labour regulations as well as by-laws for employees of the authority and companies operating within the zones. The conditions of employment are, on average, better than those of employees operating in both the private and public sectors. However, staff of the Authority and workers employed by companies operating in the EPZ cannot go on strike. The Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association concurs with the Government. The Nigeria Labour Congress reports that the EPZ is not yet functioning. The legislation governing its operation contravenes the principles of the right to organize and bargain collectively. Incentives for promoting investment in the zone therefore limit the exercise of trade union rights.
The Government of Pakistan reports that the labour legislation in force applies throughout the country. According to the Employers' Federation of Pakistan, EPZs and SEZs are different. In EPZs, special incentives in the form of exemptions from certain provisions of the Labour Code, are given to investors. As regards the SEZs, the concessions and exemptions granted have no bearing on labour issues. The national labour legislation applies.
The Government of the Philippines states that the national labour laws are applied throughout the country, including in EPZs. Workers in EPZs have the right to freedom of association and to engage in collective bargaining, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labour Code. Special incentives offered to investors do not limit the exercise of fundamental human rights, basic trade union rights, and other workers' rights. The Government reports the following with respect to specific paragraphs mentioned. Enterprises wishing to establish in EPZs consult with the Government through the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) as regards their manpower needs, facilities and other requirements in general, in order to harmonize their plans and programmes with national development policy (paragraph 17). Manufacturing enterprises in EPZs use local raw material whenever this is feasible and cost-effective. This also depends on whether the quality and quantity of the local material are comparable to that which can be obtained from foreign suppliers. With respect to paragraph 25, enterprises in EPZs offer more permanent jobs than other enterprises, and provide incentives and benefits as required by law. In the event of closures, companies in EPZs give due notice and separation payments to the workers concerned, in accordance with the applicable labour laws and regulations (paragraph 26). The same applies to workers whose jobs have been terminated as the result of the reorganization of an enterprise. Regarding paragraph 30, enterprises in EPZs provide periodic in-house training in order to upgrade workers' skills and/or expertise. Some are trained abroad to use the latest technology, to increase the company's productivity. Workers receive at least the statutory minimum wages and most enterprises pay more than the minima specified, thereby making wages comparable to those paid by non-EPZ companies (paragraph 34). In relation to paragraph 37, EPZ enterprises comply with national OSH standards and the EPZA carries out periodic inspections in coordination with the Department of Labour and Employment. It applies sanctions in cases of non-compliance with the law. Companies also provide medical facilities, including the services of a physician and a nurse. Referring to paragraphs 40, 41, 45, 52, 54, 56 and 58, the Government states that workers in EPZs "are encouraged to form their associations", in keeping with the national Constitution which guarantees this right. Periodic discussions with officials and representatives (unspecified) to settle matters on additional employment benefits and incentives are also encouraged with the aim of increasing workers' productivity. Collective agreements are concluded to settle working conditions and benefits. They are valid for between three and five years, and are "strictly observed by both parties". In order to avoid "any undue industrial unrest", there are dispute settlement mechanisms, and the EPZA, which is responsible for the administration of the zones, has set up Industrial Relations Offices in different EPZs, to monitor labour relations and recommend appropriate solutions to problems which may arise. These offices are under the direct supervision of the Industrial Zone Managers.
The Government of Portugal notes that while enterprises in the free zone, i.e. the Autonomous Region of Madeira, enjoy fiscal advantages, they are subject to the national labour laws.
The Government of Romania states that the labour laws applicable in EPZs do not differ from those that apply in the rest of the country, and workers in these areas have the right to exercise freedom of association and collective bargaining. The special incentives offered to investors in EPZs do not limit workers' fundamental human rights, basic trade union rights, rights relating to employment security, equality of treatment, OSH standards, and other workers' rights.
The General Union of Workers (Spain) states that the national labour legislation applies to all sectors of the economy. Freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively are guaranteed under the national Constitution and must be respected throughout the country. There are no investment-promotion incentives which have adverse effects on social and labour rights. There is no information available to reply to question 5.
According to the Government of Sri Lanka, the same labour laws apply in EPZs as in the rest of the country. However, dismissals in EPZ enterprises occur at short notice or without any notice at all. Workers in EPZs have the right to organize freely and engage in collective bargaining, but it has been reported that many MNEs in the zones have denied their workers these rights. The legislation incorporating the provisions of the National Workers' Charter is to make trade union recognition mandatory. There are no limitations imposed on the exercise of workers' rights because of special incentives granted to investors in EPZs. The Employers' Federation of Ceylon, referring to MNEs that belong to its organization, reports that the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka monitors wages, terms and conditions of employment, and industrial relations in enterprises operating under its administration.
The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic reports that the labour laws applicable in EPZs do not differ from those in force in the rest of the country. Workers in these areas have the right to establish trade union committees in collaboration with the relevant professional unions and to engage in collective bargaining. Special incentives in those areas limit neither fundamental human rights, nor basic trade union rights, nor workers' rights in general. There is no information about the implementation of the specific paragraphs mentioned, in EPZs. The reply of the Chamber of Industries is the same as that of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
According to the Government of Thailand the national labour legislation applies throughout the country, including in EPZs. Workers in EPZs are guaranteed the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Government does not offer any special incentives that may restrict workers' rights in EPZs.
The Government states that the labour laws apply throughout Trinidad and Tobago. Workers in EPZs have the right to form associations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively on the terms and conditions of employment.
The Government of Tunisia reports that it has always stressed the importance of increasing FDI and local-foreign joint ventures. The Government provides details of the features that make the two zones that have been set up attractive to investors. As regards labour issues, section 24 of Act No. 94-14 provides for the following: the concluding of fixed-term labour contracts between workers and employers in the zones; and the freedom of employers to recruit four expatriate, managerial/supervisory level staff members as long as the competent government authorities are notified. Enterprises in the zones must contribute to the national social security scheme. Expatriate staff can choose to be covered by a non-local social security scheme.
The Government of Turkey states that the legislation concerning EPZs provides for a ten-year moratorium on the application of the national legislation concerning strikes, lockouts and conciliation. During this period disputes will be dealt with by the Supreme Arbitration Committee. The Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions confirms that strikes are forbidden for a period of ten years following the establishment of EPZs. The rights of workers in these zones to form trade unions and to bargain collectively are upheld and there are provisions for compulsory arbitration in cases of disputes.
The Tripartite Declaration is observed throughout the United States, including in EPZs, reports the Government.
The Government of Venezuela indicates that the national labour legislation applies to all economic sectors and industries. Workers enjoy the same rights and guarantees. The Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers' Associations affirms that the national labour laws and regulations apply throughout the country, including in the free zones. Workers in these areas therefore have the same rights as those in other economic sectors, and the incentives offered to investors in these areas in no way obstruct the exercise of trade union rights, nor do they violate basic human rights.
The Government of Zimbabwe indicates that the 1994 Export Processing Zones Act provides for the establishment of EPZs. The question of whether the labour laws should apply in these zones is being debated, and it is expected that this matter would be resolved in a satisfactory manner before the zones go into operation. The Employers' Confederation of Zimbabwe states that while the questions on EPZs may not be applicable at the moment, it is worth noting that under the Export Processing Zones Act, the Labour Relations Act shall not apply in such zones. This, it believes, may lead to the erosion of workers' rights to form associations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively.
V. Disputes concerning interpretation of the
provisions of the Declaration
At its 232nd (March 1986) Session the Governing Body adopted a modified text (appended hereto) of the procedure for the examination of disputes arising out of the application of the Tripartite Declaration.
(1) Have any disputes arisen in your country as a result of different interpretations being given by parties concerned to any paragraph(s) of the Tripartite Declaration? If so, please provide details on the issues and the ways in which these were resolved.
(2) Does the procedure, as outlined, raise difficulties? If so, please explain and also suggest improvements you consider feasible.
The following respondents report that no disputes have arisen and that the procedure poses no difficulties:
Governments of: Bahamas, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Grenada, Hungary, India, Ireland, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Mexico, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United States, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Employers' organizations: Bangladesh Employers' Association, Barbados Employers' Confederation, Dominica Employers' Federation, Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers, Employers' Confederation of Service Industries (Finland), Amman Chamber of Industry (Jordan), Korea Employers' Federation, Mexican Confederation of Chambers of Industry, New Zealand Employers' Federation, Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association, Employers' Federation of Pakistan, St. Vincent Employers' Federation, Chamber of Industry (Syrian Arab Republic), Employers' Consultative Association of Trinidad and Tobago, Employers' Confederation of Zimbabwe
Workers' organizations: Barbados Workers' Union, Czech and Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions, Gabonese Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania, Nigeria Labour Congress, Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions
The Government of Chad is of the view that differences of interpretation may only arise when concrete steps are taken to apply the Tripartite Declaration in the future.
The Independent Self-Governing Trade Union "Solidarno" (Poland) recalls that there were difficulties with a local-foreign joint venture in the automobile industry in Warsaw, involving a partner from an EU country (company named). In 1995, the new board of the enterprise attempted to impose changes on the statute and structure of the union. In its opinion, the procedure cannot be utilized in practice because there is not enough political will and awareness on the part of the Government and the social partners to do so.
The General Union of Workers is of the opinion that the reason for which there have been no conflicts with regard to the Tripartite Declaration is because this instrument has not really been promoted. The trade unions have on occasion referred to it, but it has not been cited as frequently in labour courts as other international labour standards. The following factors account for this. The non-application of the Tripartite Declaration in Spain is widespread and it would require general political and economic measures to change this situation. Globalization and internal economic problems are responsible for this non-observance and for the measures that fail to take into account, social policy concerns. The Government has not responded to these developments for fear that enterprises would relocate. However, the fundamental rights of workers are not undermined by the presence of MNEs.
Geneva, 7 January 1997.
Replies received from international trade secretariats
The International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (FIET) states that it attaches great importance to the ILO's Tripartite Declaration, the relevance of which has become "greater than ever before". It monitors the social and labour-related activities and practices of MNEs in commerce, industry, banking, insurance, property maintenance and security services. It notes that it is involved in negotiations for the setting up of works councils in more than 100 MNEs operating within the EU, and that a few agreements in this regard have already been signed (examples of two MNEs cited by name). Downsizing and outsourcing are having adverse effects on security of employment, career prospects and working conditions in service sector MNEs. Regulatory reforms and the adoption of policies for promoting economic liberalization are making it easier for enterprises to close operations in certain locations and shift their activities to others. FIET touches upon the social and labour problems that exist in EPZs, particularly those in developing countries, and notes with concern that some of the critical issues may not come to the fore in the replies to the questionnaire. The organization, which, in 1994, had a membership of 11 million in 119 countries, affirms its commitment to promoting, inter alia, socially responsible behaviour on the part of MNEs. (A copy of FIET's Report on Activities 1991-1995 was attached to the reply.)
Comments by governments on reports submitted by
employers' and workers' organizations
direct to the ILO
Japan
The Government of Japan agrees that labour problems arising out of the activities of MNEs must be handled in conformity with the principles of the Tripartite Declaration.
Malaysia
With regard to the response of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) to question (1), paragraphs 1-7, the Government of Malaysia comments that the MTUC's statement that in 1988 the Government initially agreed to the formation of a national union for workers in the electronics industry is "inaccurate", as there was no such agreement.
Referring to the MTUC's response to question (1), paragraphs 8-12, the Government of Malaysia notes that the matters excluded from collective bargaining by the provisions of section 13(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (1967), are referred to as "internal management prerogatives". They are subject to negotiation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial decisions, and can be taken up as and when they arise, as opposed to the matters that have been collectively agreed upon and are negotiated at specific intervals. Such matters cannot be predetermined in a collective agreement, as such a course of action would ultimately affect management's effectiveness. However, it does not grant unfettered rights to employers. This is evident from numerous decisions of the Malaysian Courts, such as: trade unions have the right to question the reasons given for the non-promotion of a worker, in order to ascertain whether there is "proper cause"; the employer's prerogative of transfer is not unlimited, there should be no unreasonableness or mala fide on their part; termination cannot be effected by way of arbitrary retrenchment, the principle of "last in first out" has to be applied; unjust dismissal can entitle the worker to reinstatement; and matters such as allocation of duties cannot be covered by collective agreement since that would be contrary to acceptable international management practices.
As regards the MTUC's response to questions (1-4), paragraphs 13-20, the Government of Malaysia states that it is incorrect to attribute imbalances in employment and occupational structures to policies adopted by MNEs. It is due to a variety of factors such as the dual responsibilities of family and career, and the lack of marketable skills. These constraints are being recognized and efforts are being made to remedy the situation. Over the period of the Sixth Malaysia Plan (1990-1995), the rate of female participation in the labour force increased from 45.8 per cent to 47.1 per cent. This is expected to reach 47.5 per cent by the year 2000. The statement made by the MTUC that "MNEs appear to prefer the employment of foreign workers" is inaccurate. It is not a matter of preference, and where such employment is necessary, foreign workers constitute only a small percentage of the total workforce. A recent study of ten large MNEs undertaken by the Labour Department, found that, of a total workforce of 30,162, only 2,795 or 9 per cent were foreigners. Permission to employ foreign workers is granted only as a last resort, and as a temporary measure to help overcome a problem of labour shortage. Employers must take long-term corrective measures to fulfil their manpower needs and reduce their dependence on foreign workers. Contrary to the MTUC's contention, MNEs do generate a lot of indirect employment.
In response to the MTUC's reply to question (2), paragraphs 24-28, the Government of Malaysia states that the MTUC's claim appears to be based on isolated cases and does not reflect the general practice in the country.
As regards the MTUC's response to question (1), paragraphs 36-39, the Government of Malaysia comments that the statement that the principles of the Conventions and Recommendations are not applied to the greatest extent possible, is misleading. With regard to question (2(b)), the Government notes that workers' representatives in the National Council for OSH could raise the issue if it were true that information on OSH standards observed by MNEs in other countries, was not made available to them. It adds that the MTUC paints an inaccurate picture of the existing situation with regard to OSH norms applied by MNEs.
Referring to the MTUC's response to question (1), paragraphs 40-47, the Government of Malaysia states that workers employed in the electronics industries in MNEs are not denied the right to freedom of association since they are free to form establishment unions. To date, seven unions have been registered in the electronics industry. They enjoy the same legal rights and protection as national unions, including the right to strike and the freedom to affiliate with consultative bodies such as the MTUC. Establishment unions such as DMIB Bhd Employees' Union and the Telecom Employees' Union, are more effective in articulating the concerns of their members than are some of the national unions. These two unions are also affiliated to the MTUC. This comment is also relevant for the MTUC's replies to question (1), paragraphs 1-7 and question (1), paragraphs 8-12.
In response to the MTUC's reply to question (1), part III, the Government of Malaysia states that although the MTUC has not contributed much in this regard, the Government has promoted awareness of the aims and principles of the Tripartite Declaration.
With respect to the MTUC's response to question (2), part IV, the Government of Malaysia notes that workers in EPZs and SEZs have the same right, as workers elsewhere, to form associations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively on the terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the statement by the MTUC is incorrect. With regard to question (3), the MTUC's statement is misleading. Workers in EPZs and non-EPZ areas do not face any discrimination. With regard to question (5), the Government makes the following comments. Paragraph 34: the Government promotes a productivity-linked wage system and allows wage levels to be determined by market forces. Under conditions of full employment, workers can seek jobs in enterprises that offer competitive wages. Therefore, the allegations that a low wage policy is promoted is not true. Paragraph 37: in general, MNEs maintain standards that are in conformity with, and in many instances exceed, legislative requirements. This is evidenced by the fact that, since its inception, MNEs have won the National Award for Occupational Safety and Health every year. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 45: it is misleading to state that the existing industrial relations system is anti-labour and slanted towards employers, or that it limits workers' freedom of association and the right to organize. The MTUC should substantiate its allegations with respect to these paragraphs. Paragraph 52: it is misleading to state that the "company (named) was able to escape from recognizing the union formed by its employees by changing its name (new name given)" because the union was also allowed to change its name, and recognition was subsequently granted to the union by the company (named), upon the decision of the Minister. The court case referred to by the MTUC has been decided in favour of the workers. This comment also applies to the MTUC's reply to question (1), paragraphs 48-55.
Communications from governments, employers'
and workers' organizations which did
not submit reports
The following respondents informed the Office of the reasons for which they did not submit reports for the sixth survey.
The Government of Armenia states that since there are no MNEs in the country, it is not in a position to reply to the survey.
The Government of Bulgaria reports that since MNEs have only begun operating recently in the country there is not enough information available to prepare a reply. However, it adds that the entry and activities of MNEs are governed by the 1992 Economic Activities of Foreign Persons and Protection of Foreign Investment Act. The national legislation which deals with all labour-related matters applies to all enterprises, including MNEs. The law requires that foreign personnel be insured against temporary and permanent disability. The insurance contribution amounts to 20 per cent of the gross wage, and the contract of employment may provide for additional insurance. All companies, regardless of their origin, must respect the principles of ILO Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 122 and their corresponding Recommendations, as well as those of the Tripartite Declaration.
The Canadian Employers' Council states that in its view, the survey should have been "more limited in scope". Neither employers' organizations nor individual employers had the time and resources to provide the comprehensive replies requested.
The Danish Association of Managers and Executives (Ledernes Hovedorganisation) expresses its interest in the survey, but states that it does not have the necessary resources to devote to completing the questionnaire which is "far too comprehensive". It adds that conditions of work for its members in MNEs do not differ from those in national enterprises.
The Government of Israel states that it does not have the necessary information for preparing a reply.
The Federation of Jordanian Chambers of Commerce states that there are very few MNEs in the country, but that their participation in the domestic economy may well increase in the future, given the opening up of the region to foreign investment. The General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions is of the view that since there are virtually no MNEs in the country, there is no information for preparing a detailed report. It adds that the national labour laws and international labour standards must be respected by all enterprises.
The Government of Latvia reports that MNEs have only begun operating in the country recently. Consequently, there is not enough information to prepare a comprehensive reply. It adds that there are very few MNEs and their role in the domestic economy is still insignificant. The national labour and social legislation applies to all enterprises, including those with foreign participation, and so far there is no evidence that they are not respected. The Government consulted the Latvian Free Trade Unions Association and the Latvian Employers' Confederation, both of which share its views.
The Lithuanian Entrepreneur Association reports that since its membership does not include large MNEs it does not have the necessary information for preparing a reply.
The Malaysian Employers' Federation (MEF) states that it is not in a position to answer "the many questions", and adds that if the Office wishes to receive replies from employers' organizations, it "should select the appropriate questions". It notes that the majority of the questions are to be answered by governments (e.g., paragraphs 21-23, 29-32 and 36-39), certain can be answered by enterprises only (e.g., paragraphs 24-28 and paragraph 56), while others are complicated, and would require detailed study. The MEF suggests that the ILO undertake intensive research on multinationals in this age of globalization, because it is certain that the findings would be different from those expected.
The Government of Malta reports that there are hardly any MNEs established in the country and that consequently it cannot complete the questionnaire.
The Government of the Republic of Moldova indicates that there are no MNEs in the country at this time, and it is therefore not in a position to prepare a reply.
The Oman Chamber of Commerce and Industry states that it does not have the necessary information for preparing a reply.
The Industrialists' and Entrepreneurs' Union of Russia reports that employers in the Russian Federation fully support the principles of the Tripartite Declaration, which will provide guidance for their activities. It adds that MNEs do not have a high profile in the national economy and that there are not enough data for preparing a reply.
The Confederation of Trade Unions of Rwanda (CESTRAR) says that it is unable to prepare a report because of the political situation in the country.
The Government of South Africa states that the questionnaire is very detailed and complex, and that because of the lack of skilled manpower at the present time, it is unable to complete it. Business South Africa says that it does not have the time and resources to prepare a meaningful reply.
The US Council for International Business states that it did not send a separate reply because it had consulted with the Government of the United States for the preparation of the Government's report. It notes that it does not have "any major problems with the US Government response, as most of the questions on the survey were of a technical nature".
List of international labour Conventions and Recommendations
referred to in the Tripartite Declaration of Principles
concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
Conventions
Convention (No. 29) concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930.
Convention (No. 87) concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948.
Convention (No. 98) concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively, 1949.
Convention (No. 100) concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, 1951.
Convention (No. 105) concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957.
Convention (No. 110) concerning Conditions of Employment of Plantation Workers, 1958.
Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, 1958.
Convention (No. 115) concerning the Protection of Workers against Ionizing Radiations, 1960.
Convention (No. 119) concerning the Guarding of Machinery, 1963.
Convention (No. 122) concerning Employment Policy, 1964.
Convention (No. 130) concerning Medical Care and Sickness Benefits, 1969.
Convention (No. 135) concerning Protection and Facilities to be Afforded to Workers' Representatives in the Undertaking, 1971.
Convention (No. 136) concerning Protection against Hazards of Poisoning arising from Benzene, 1971.
Convention (No. 139) concerning Prevention and Control of Occupational Hazards caused by Carcinogenic Substances and Agents, 1974.
Convention (No. 142) concerning Vocational Guidance and Vocational Training in the Development of Human Resources, 1975.
Recommendations
Recommendation (No. 35) concerning Indirect Compulsion to Labour, 1930.
Recommendation (No. 69) concerning Medical Care, 1944.
Recommendation (No. 90) concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, 1951.
Recommendation (No. 92) concerning Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration, 1951.
Recommendation (No. 94) concerning Consultation and Cooperation between Employers and Workers at the Level of the Undertaking, 1952.
Recommendation (No. 110) concerning Conditions of Employment of Plantation Workers, 1958. £
Recommendation (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, 1958.
Recommendation (No. 114) concerning the Protection of Workers against Ionizing Radiations, 1960.
Recommendation (No. 115) concerning Workers' Housing, 1961.
Recommendation (No. 116) concerning Reduction of Hours of Work, 1962.
Recommendation (No. 118) concerning the Guarding of Machinery, 1963.
Recommendation (No. 119) concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer, 1963.
Recommendation (No. 122) concerning Employment Policy, 1964.
Recommendation (No. 129) concerning Communications between Management and Workers within the Undertaking, 1967.
Recommendation (No 130) concerning the Examination of Grievances within the Undertaking with a View to their Settlement, 1967.
Recommendation (No. 134) concerning Medical Care and Sickness Benefits, 1969.
Recommendation (No. 144) concerning Protection against Hazards of Poisoning arising from Benzene, 197l.
Recommendation (No. 147) concerning Prevention and Control of Occupational Hazards caused by Carcinogenic Substances and Agents, 1974.
Recommendation (No. 150) concerning Vocational Guidance and Vocational Training in the Development of Human Resources, 1975.
References to Conventions and Recommendations in
the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
A number of international labour Conventions and Recommendations containing provisions relevant to the Declaration are referred to in footnotes in the Declaration as well as in an annex. These footnotes do not affect the meaning of the provisions of the Declaration to which they refer. They should be considered as references to relevant instruments adopted by the International Labour Organization in the corresponding subject areas, which have helped shape the provisions of the Declaration.
Since the adoption of the Declaration by the Governing Body on 16 November 1977, new Conventions and Recommendations have been adopted by the International Labour Conference. This makes it necessary to include a new list of Conventions and Recommendations adopted since 1977 (including those adopted in June 1977), containing provisions relevant to the Declaration, and this list is set out below. Like the footnotes included in the Declaration at the time of its adoption, the new references do not affect the meaning of the provisions of the Declaration.
In keeping with the voluntary nature of the Declaration all of its provisions, whether derived from ILO Conventions and Recommendations or other sources, are recommendatory, except of course for provisions in Conventions which are binding on the member States which have ratified them.
List of Conventions and Recommendations adopted
since 1977 (inclusive) which contain provisions
relevant to the Declaration
| Number and title of Convention and Recommendation | Paragraphs of the
Declaration to which the instrument is relevant | |
| Conventions | ||
| No. 148 | concerning the Protection of Workers against Occupational Hazards in the Working Environment Due to Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration, 1977 | 36 |
| No. 54 | concerning the Promotion of Collective Bargaining, 1981 | 9, 49 |
| No. 155 | concerning Occupational Safety and Health and the Working Environment, 1981 | 36 |
| No. 156 | concerning Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment for Men and Women Workers: Workers with Family Responsibilities, 1981 | 21 |
| No. 158 | concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer, 1982 | 9, 26, 27, 28 |
| No. 161 | concerning Occupational Health Services, 1985 | 36 |
| No. 162 | concerning Safety in the Use of Asbestos, 1986 | 36 |
| Recommendations | ||
| No. 156 | concerning the Protection of Workers against Occupational Hazards in the Working Environment Due to Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration, 1977 | 36 |
| No. 163 | concerning the Promotion of Collective Bargaining, 1981 | 51, 54, 55 |
| No. 164 | concerning Occupational Safety and Health and the Working Environment, 1981 | 36 |
| No. 165 | concerning Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment for Men and Women Workers: Workers with Family Responsibilities, 1981 | 21 |
| No. 166 | concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer, 1982 | 9, 26, 27, 28 |
| No. 169 | concerning Employment Policy, 1984 | 9, 13 |
| No. 171 | concerning Occupational Health Services, 1985 | 36 |
| No. 172 | concerning Safety in the Use of Asbestos, 1986 | 36 |
List of Conventions and Recommendations adopted since 1986
which contain provisions relevant to the Declaration
Since the last update a number of international labour Conventions and Recommendations have been adopted by the International Labour Conference. Of these, it was considered that the following were relevant to the Tripartite Declaration and could further supplement those instruments already included in the Annex and the Addendum to the Declaration.
This Addendum was adopted by the Governing Body at its 264th (November 1995) Session.
- Convention (No. 167) and Recommendation (No. 175) concerning Safety and Health in Construction, 1988 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration);
- Convention (No. 168) and Recommendation (No. 176) concerning Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment, 1988 (relevant to paragraph 13 of the Declaration);
- Convention (No. 170) and Recommendation (No. 177) concerning Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work, 1990 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration);
- Convention (No. 173) and Recommendation (No. 180) concerning the Protection of Workers' Claims in the Event of the Insolvency of their Employer, 1992 (relevant to paragraph 28 of the Declaration);
- Convention (No. 174) and Recommendation (No. 181) concerning the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents, 1993 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration);
- Convention (No. 176) and Recommendation (No. 183) concerning Safety and Health in Mines, 1995 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration).