|
GB.271/10/2
| ||
|
| ||
TENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Reports of the Programme, Financial and
Administrative Committee
Second report: Personnel questions
Contents
Statement by the staff representative
Composition and structure of the staff
Matters relating to the ILO Administrative Tribunal
1. The Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee of the Governing Body met on 18 March 1998 and was chaired by Mr. Oechslin (Employer, France; Employer Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body). Mr. U. Kalbitzer (Government, Germany) was the Reporter.
Statement by the staff representative
2. The Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee pointed out that the United Nations agencies, including the ILO, did not grant their workers the fundamental right to collective bargaining, which was however protected by the international Conventions of the ILO itself. This categorical affirmation was contained in the preamble to a resolution adopted by the Public Service International at its last congress in November. The Union was willing to qualify matters a little by recognizing that although some organizations continued to deny this right to their workers, the ILO had embarked on a promising path towards achieving what was still lacking: the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, which was one of the Union's priority points of action for 1998. Thus the Director-General had accepted, some time ago, the establishment of a Joint Committee on Collective Bargaining. He had asked Mr. Bill Brett, who was highly appreciated by the Union, for his collaboration in determining more exactly the concept itself of collective bargaining within an international organization and to examine this matter further. The Joint Working Party on Collective Bargaining had resumed its work recently. The Union was very enthusiastic and was absolutely determined this year to sign an agreement with the Director-General. Why this year in particular? This was, in the view of the Union, the ideal year because of the examination by the Governing Body of a draft Declaration on fundamental rights. According to this Declaration, member States would have to guarantee, inter alia, the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. Thus, in 1998 the International Labour Office should itself set an example and present to the international community and other international organizations a model of consultation in the day-to-day running of the Organization which reflected the necessary coherence between its message and the practice of the Office. The Union had made proposals within the Joint Working Party for the establishment of a bargaining system that would allow recourse to independent and impartial machinery, as provided for by ILO Conventions. For this reason the Union requested the Governing Body to support its action in securing the fundamental right to collective bargaining for all workers, including those of the ILO, and to encourage the overture made by the Director-General in agreeing to discuss with the Union the question of the signature of an agreement on collective bargaining.
3. Another priority point for Union action in the current year was linked to the very important discussions to be held by the Governing Body on the assessment of the Active Partnership Policy. The Union had noted with great interest the recommendations of the Working Party on the Evaluation of the Active Partnership Policy, whereby "future evaluations should involve discussions with both constituents and ILO staff, both at headquarters and in the field". The application of the Active Partnership Policy had resulted in significant movements of staff from headquarters to the field, and vice-versa. Staff management was becoming difficult because the Office had to deploy the necessary human resources to carry out this policy, which sometimes resulted in conflicts with legitimate staff interests. The Union wanted to insist on the process of consultation of which the administration should be mindful, above all as regards the transfer of officials from one post to another. In this respect, the Union called the attention of the Governing Body to a Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, whereby, in the absence of consultations at the appropriate time, that is, before a decision was taken, the fact of not consulting an official constituted "a serious affront to his dignity and a breach of the Organization's obligation of respect towards him as a member of its staff". Such consultation must be more than a matter of mere formality: to undertake consultations once a decision had already been taken meant, according to the Tribunal, that the process was already "tainted ... beyond redemption". Another aspect that was crucial to the Union and which it wished to emphasize within the framework of staff mobility policy concerned equality of treatment. The Director-General, in his circular on the mobility policy, had clearly stated that in taking decisions he would endeavour not to penalize persons who had not had the opportunity to go to the field. What did that mean if an official had not had the opportunity to go to the field, but could not apply for certain competitions in which field service was a condition for participation? Appropriate importance should be given to this question by the Joint Working Group on Human Resources Management. As regards the question of professional qualifications, it was worth asking whether it would perhaps not sometimes be preferable to leave a post vacant rather than appoint someone who did not have the necessary qualifications, which was not in the interest of either the constituents or officials themselves and their own motivation.
Composition and structure of the staff
(Eighth item on the agenda)
4. The Committee took note of a paper(1) containing statistical information on the composition and structure of the ILO staff, effective 31 December 1997, submitted in accordance with the practice established at the 184th Session of the Governing Body.
5. Mr. Blondel, on behalf of the Worker members, noted that the Office document gave a complete overview of the staffing situation in the ILO. Referring to the different categories of statistical data provided, he stated that the document did not provide data relating to the qualifications or professional competencies of the staff. In his view, the principal objective of the Office's personnel policy should be to recruit staff of the highest standards of competence. On the whole, the picture presented in the document differed little from a year ago, which the Workers found worrying. The progress noted between 1984 and 1994 with regard to the recruitment of women appeared to have ground to a halt. There was little change in geographical distribution. Following the number of transfers to the field which had taken place over the last few years, the distribution of staff between Geneva and the field had remained stable. No fixed-term contracts had been transformed into without-limit-of-time contracts. Referring to table VIII, he reiterated the need for the Office to continue its efforts to attain more equitable geographical distribution and increase the number of women on the staff. Further to his discussions with the Staff Union in respect of geographical distribution and the number of unrepresented countries on the staff, he emphasized the need for more transparency if it was necessary to give temporary priority to recruiting from such countries in order to redress the imbalance. He supported the Staff Union's wish for more information and reiterated his wish that qualifications and competence be emphasized when transfers were examined.
6. Mr. Marshall, on behalf of the Employer members, appreciated the valuable information contained in the document. Referring to the policies to improve the levels of employment, particularly in respect of women and young people, he emphasized the importance of matching this policy with other Office policies, such as those on mobility, in order to retain within the ILO the levels of skills and competence required to maintain a high quality of output. Balance in the application of policies was critical. He was concerned that certain areas should not be left underskilled because of the application of policies without due consideration to their overall impact.
7. The representative of the Arab Labour Organization found the document interesting, but expressed some disappointment with regard to the application of equitable geographical distribution within the ILO, particularly as regards the Arab subregion, since of the 19 Arab member countries, eight were unrepresented. Moreover, the contractual status of the staff of the 11 represented countries should be reviewed, since only four staff members held permanent contracts. While recognizing the efforts made, he expressed the hope that the ILO, particularly the Office in Beirut, would pursue its efforts to increase the number of staff from the Arab subregion, including through the notification of vacancies to the Beirut Office. Referring to the documentation submitted to the Committee, he regretted that fewer documents were now available in Arabic, and he urged the ILO to redress this situation.
8. The representative of the Government of Egypt, referring to the worldwide changes and challenges that were bound to occur with the arrival of the twenty-first century, hoped the Organization would make every effort to adapt to the concerns of its member States. The Office paper showed that the geographical distribution had not changed as regards Africa, and that the number of high-level posts for the African region had in fact diminished. The imbalance in the attribution of higher posts to African countries should be redressed. The African Regional Office should also be strengthened in terms of staff. Referring to the need to maintain a high degree of competence and qualifications among the staff, she emphasized the need to reinforce the policy on rejuvenation and the promotion of women.
Decisions of the United Nations
General Assembly on the report
of the International Civil Service Commission
(Ninth item on the agenda)
9. The Committee had before it a paper(2) reporting the decisions taken by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1997 on the recommendations contained in the ICSC's annual report concerning conditions of service of staff in the international civil service.
10. Mr Blondel noted the apparent contradiction in the General Assembly's stressing the need for competitive employment conditions in the common system and reaffirming the Noblemaire principle on Professional staff salaries, while at the same time refusing to contemplate a change in the reference civil service for salary determination. He recalled the long-standing opposition of the Workers' group to the proposal for a single post adjustment for Geneva based on the cost of living in Geneva and in neighbouring France: it would reduce staff salaries and create problems of a practical and legal nature. His group therefore welcomed the fact that the ICSC and Geneva-based organizations had drawn these issues to the General Assembly's attention, which had now called for further examination of certain points. It was hoped that the results of these studies would put an end to the issue. He noted the reaffirmation given by the General Assembly to the Flemming principle for the remuneration of General Service and related staff. He asked what ILO management intended to do in relation to the new ICSC guidelines on performance management and whether there would be any recourse by the Office to appointments of limited duration, which were now being implemented by some common system organizations. The initiative to improve the ICSC's consultative arrangements was a positive move. The Workers' group would look closely at any developments concerning the proposed ICSC report on new approaches to human resources management and measures to improve the status and representation of women in common system organizations. Finally, he offered the support of the Workers' group to the request in the earlier statement by the ILO staff representative for broader consultation with the Staff Union on human resource management issues in the Office.
11. Mr. Marshall noted the delay in the General Assembly in taking a final decision on the Geneva post-adjustment issue and recognized the need for further consideration of certain practical issues which lay behind this. His group would be interested to hear whether the new performance management guidelines issued by the ICSC had been of any assistance to the Office, and whether there was any internal practice in this area which may be enlightening. His group would also wish to see the report currently being prepared by the ICSC on new approaches to human resources management when it became available.
12. The representative of the Government of France observed that, by comparison with earlier years, there had been certain favourable developments at the last session of the General Assembly in relation to decisions concerning the ICSC report. He congratulated the management of the Office on its contributions in this area.
13. The representative of the Director-General (the Director of the Personnel Department) responded to the questions raised by the Workers' and Employers' spokespersons. She clarified that the ILO did not intend to introduce the code of conduct recently adopted by the General Assembly for UN Secretariat staff. If the ILO was to adopt a new code of conduct for its staff, it would be developed internally. Performance management was being discussed with the Staff Union in the Joint Working Party on Human Resources Development. The new ICSC guidelines in this area had provided useful information, but not all aspects of the guidelines were useful. She would be pleased to share the document with Mr. Marshall at a later stage. The Office was not considering using appointments of limited duration of the type used for special, limited purposes, primarily in relation to peacekeeping forces in the UN. The ILO had consultancy contracts that meet current needs.
Pensions questions
(Tenth item on the agenda)
Decisions of the United Nations General Assembly on
administrative expenses of the United Nations
Joint Staff Pension Fund
14. The Committee had before it a paper(3) reporting on the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board to the United Nations General Assembly in December 1997 and the General Assembly's reaction to a unilateral decision of the United Nations administration to charge the Fund for additional administrative costs, which would have had negative actuarial implications for the Fund.
15. Mr. Blondel said the paper presented detailed information on an interesting and important issue, but, despite the UN General Assembly's corrective action, wondered whether any future difficulties were expected, as any negative implications for the Fund would affect ILO staff.
16. Mr. Marshall emphasized that it was critical that these types of decisions should be taken after consultation and in a manner that would avoid negative actuarial implications for the Fund. The administrative costs of the Fund appeared to be one-third of the budget, and he inquired whether they were thought higher than normal.
17. The representative of the Government of France, who currently held the Chair of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, recalled that the Office periodically reported on Pension Fund issues as these were a matter of staff concern. He assured the Committee that the future of the Fund and its actuarial situation were stable. The incident in the Standing Committee of the UN Joint Staff Pension Board had to be put in perspective. However, it was serious, and it was important to recognize that the UN General Assembly had taken the appropriate corrective action. He noted that the budget for the 1998-99 biennium was not definitive and would be considered by the UN Joint Staff Pension Board at its next regular session in July 1998.
18. The representative of the Director-General emphasized that the paper was not meant to raise undue concern, but simply to inform the Committee of some issues that might have serious implications and to serve as background for a possible future paper on Pension Fund cost-sharing arrangements among member organizations. In response to Mr. Marshall's inquiry, she offered to provide further clarification on the budget of the Fund following the meeting of the Committee.
Matters relating to the ILO
Administrative Tribunal
(Eleventh item on the agenda)
Recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction
by two intergovernmental organizations
19. The Committee had before it a paper(4) proposing approval of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO by two intergovernmental organizations: the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the Energy Charter Conference (ECC), which was established by the Energy Charter Treaty, adopted in 1994 but not yet entered into force.
20. Mr. Blondel agreed with the proposal before the Committee, it being understood that, while the recognition of IHO could be approved immediately, the recognition of ECC could only be approved once the Treaty entered into force, i.e. after 16 April 1998.
21. Mr. Marshall supported approval of the proposals. However, he reminded the Committee of the Employers' earlier suggestion to consider full recovery of the cost of the service provided by the ILO Administrative Tribunal. It was appropriate for the Office, as the competence of the Tribunal continued to expand, to move in this direction. He requested feedback on this proposal at the Committee's next meeting.
22. The representative of the Government of the United States shared this view and suggested that the Office make every legal and legitimate effort to recover all the overhead costs possible.
23. A representative of the Director-General (the Legal Adviser) noted that, contrary to what might be thought, the average cost of a case before the ILO Administrative Tribunal was extremely moderate: according to a comparison made by a former Judge of the Tribunal who had previously also been a Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, it was only a fraction of the cost of a case before the latter court. This was presumably also why organizations demonstrated such an interest in using the ILO Administrative Tribunal. This being said, the cost-sharing issue was very complex. The current formula could perhaps be reviewed, especially if the proposal to widen the competence of the Tribunal to organizations other than those strictly intergovernmental was accepted. He therefore proposed that a paper providing all the relevant information be prepared by the Office for submission to the Committee.
24. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body --
- approve the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction by the International Hydrographic Organization with effect from 1 July 1998;
- authorize its Officers to approve the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction by the Energy Charter Conference as soon as --
- the Energy Charter Treaty had entered into force; and
- the decisions of the provisional Energy Charter Conference accepting the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and approving the Energy Charter Secretariat's Staff Regulations and Rules had been endorsed by the Energy Charter Conference.
Possible amendment to article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the
ILO Administrative Tribunal regarding the nature of international
organizations entitled to recognize the competence of the Tribunal
25. The Committee took note of a paper(5) concerning the examination by the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards(6) of the above amendment so as to allow international organizations other than those strictly intergovernmental in character to recognize the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
26. The Committee had before it a paper(7) proposing to renew for a period of three years the appointments of Mr. Michel Gentot, Mr. Julio Barberis and Mr. Jean-François Egli, which expired in July 1998, and, for a period of one year only, given the doubt he had expressed regarding his availability, the appointment of Mr. Mark Fernando, which also expired in July 1998.
27. The Committee unanimously recommends that the Governing Body submit to the International Labour Conference, for adoption at its forthcoming session, the following resolution:
The General Conference of the International Labour Organization,
Decides, in accordance with article III of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, to renew the terms of office of Mr. Michel Gentot (France), Mr. Julio Barberis (Argentina) and Mr. Jean-François Egli (Switzerland) as Judges for a period of three years, and to extend the term of office of Mr. Mark Fernando (Sri Lanka) as a Judge for one year.
Other personnel questions
(Twelfth item on the agenda)
Consultations on human resources management
and development: Progress report
28. The Committee had before it a paper(8) reporting on progress in consultations on the issue of human resources management since the 268th Session of the Governing Body (March 1997), as requested by the Worker Vice-Chairperson and detailing the points on which agreement had been reached, those on which agreement had not yet been reached, and those yet to be considered by the Working Party established in July 1997.
29. Mr. Blondel, taking note of the paper and of the numerous meetings held by the Working Party, observed that it was not easy to assess whether real progress was being achieved, despite the detailed information provided by the Office. He drew attention to the importance attached by the staff representative and the Workers' group to effective consultations and sound industrial relations. They wished to see the conclusion of an agreement setting out the framework for collective bargaining, including arbitration procedures.
30. Mr. Marshall noted the progress report with interest. However, in view of his group's request of November 1997 for a comprehensive debate on mobility, it was rather disappointing that no document was submitted on the subject for discussion at the present session. He therefore asked that an appropriate paper be prepared and submitted for consideration by the Committee at its November meeting.
31. The Committee took note of the progress report.
Geneva, 23 March 1998.
(Signed) U. Kalbitzer,
Reporter.
Points for decision:
Paragraph 24;
Paragraph 27.
1. GB.271/PFA/8.
2. GB.271/PFA/9.
3. GB.271/PFA/10.
4. GB.271/PFA/11/1.
5. GB.271/PFA/11/2.
6. GB.271/LILS/1.
7. GB.271/PFA/11/3.
8. GB.271/PFA/12.