|
GB.273/3
| ||
|
| ||
THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Follow-up action on the ILO Declaration on
fundamental principles and rights at work
and its follow-up
Contents
I. Timetable for the establishment of the follow-up
II. Implementation of annual reviews for non-ratifying States
1. The form that requests for information might take
2. Setting up a group of experts
3. Participation by non-member States
4. Whether or not to amend article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference
III. Implementation of the global report
1. Drawing up the global report
2. The respective roles of the Governing Body and the International Labour Conference
1. Following the adoption by the International Labour Conference of the ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and its follow-up on 18 June 1998, the Director-General confirmed, at the 272nd Session of the Governing Body, that a document on the measures and provisions needed to give effect to the texts in question would be submitted to the Governing Body during its session in November 1998.
2. The follow-up to the Declaration has implications at a number of different levels including that of the Programme and Budget, technical cooperation and administrative organization. Some of these implications will be considered in the Programme and Budget proposals for 2000-2001, which will contain suggestions on ways in which the necessary activities might be coordinated within the Office. This document will confine itself to matters relating to the timetable and procedure which must be settled before setting in motion the follow-up approved by the Conference. The proposals it puts forward take account not only of the text of the Declaration and its Annex but also of the legal and practical clarifications which were provided by the Office throughout the discussions by the Committee on the Declaration of Principles and which are reflected in its report.
3. There are two aspects to the follow-up: (i) an annual review of countries that have not ratified one or more of the Conventions relating to the four categories of fundamental rights, to be carried out once a year in the Governing Body; and (ii) a global report which will deal, each year, with one of these four categories of rights in turn for all countries, irrespective of whether or not they have ratified the Conventions relating to these rights. This global report will be first submitted to the Conference for tripartite discussion and then to the Governing Body, so that it might, among other things, draw specific conclusions from the tripartite discussion at the Conference on ways to provide assistance for the following four-year period.
4. In this context, three categories of questions need to be considered. The first concerns the general timetable for the establishment of the two components of the follow-up. The second and third concern the detailed modalities of application of these two components.
I. Timetable for the establishment of the follow-up
5. The crucial question here is how to introduce as quickly as possible (that is to say, during the biennium 2000-2001) the two components of the follow-up approved by the Conference and reduce the unavoidable transition periods for each of these two components. With regard to the annual reviews, this raises the matter of whether to discontinue the cycle of special reports introduced in 1995; with regard to the global report, the question is when and how the first global report might be produced.
1. The problem of transition for the annual reviews;
the special reports cycle
6. During the discussions on strengthening the supervisory mechanisms, it was decided in 1995 to make more regular use of the article 19 procedure with a view to promoting ratification of the fundamental Conventions, which was also the object of a campaign by the Director-General, launched following the Copenhagen Social Summit. It was agreed that each of the four categories of fundamental Conventions would be dealt with in turn in a special report. This procedure was first applied with respect to the elimination of forced labour (Conventions No. 29 and No. 105) and resulted in the presentation, as part of the general report of the Committee of Experts, of a special ten-page report at the last session of the Conference. The second report, concerning freedom of association, is under preparation.(1)
7. As was acknowledged during the preparatory work on the Declaration, these special reports would inevitably duplicate to a great extent the preparation, under the Declaration, of annual reviews, also based on article 19 of the Constitution, and of the global reports. Although it had been originally envisaged, in Report VII,(2) that the current cycle should be terminated since the special reports could provide, as it were, a point of reference with regard to law and practice in non-ratifying countries, the follow-up adopted by the Conference did not retain this idea; indeed, it was made clear during the discussions of the Committee on the Declaration of Principles(3) that the new follow-up would replace the system of four-yearly reports established in 1995. It should also be understood that the ratification campaign, which addresses the same Conventions and was launched by the Director-General in 1995 following the Copenhagen Social Summit, would also be discontinued. Reports on unratified Conventions would in effect give the replies which have up to now been requested in the context of that campaign.
8. Given the above, the Governing Body may wish to decide to discontinue the cycle beyond freedom of association, for which work has already entered its final phase. This solution would present more advantages than drawbacks in terms of economy and speeding up the transition process. To ensure an overall view of the situation, which originally would have been obtained upon completion of the first cycle of special reports, it would suffice to gather together the information required on law and practice in the non-ratifying countries by means of the first questionnaire concerning the two categories of rights not dealt with under those special reports (namely, discrimination and child labour), and subsequently to ensure that this information was regularly updated.
9. However, this course of action would not necessarily imply that the Governing Body would have to carry out annual reviews at the same time for all four categories of rights. In order to take account of new developments (including the proposed adoption in 1999 of the new Convention concerning the worst forms of child labour), it would be entirely possible to restrict the first annual review -- which could take place as early as March 2000 -- to two or three categories of rights, including freedom of association, the elimination of forced labour and, perhaps, discrimination, and to wait until 2001 to carry out an annual review covering all four categories, including child labour.
2. Speeding up the transition for the global report
10. The purpose of the global report is to take stock of the situation with regard to each of the four categories of fundamental rights and principles in turn, following a four-yearly cycle, for all Members, both ratifying and non-ratifying. This global report will serve as a basis for a plan of action for the particular category under consideration for the following four-year period. Bearing in mind this objective, the first report should be produced as soon as possible.
11. In this respect, freedom of association would appear to be a good candidate for the first global report in the year 2000, if the follow-up is set in motion in the very near future and a first annual review in the Governing Body can at least be carried out before the session of the Conference in June 2000. Quite apart from the inherent interest in the subject, it was suggested during the preparatory work that, for this particular category of rights, it would suffice to have carried out a single annual review to draw up a global report because, in this particular case, it would merely involve supplementing the information already provided in the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association which are normally restricted to specific complaints.(4)
12. If this solution is adopted, the Governing Body will have to take a decision on what should be done about the special report of 1999 which, in accordance with the questionnaire approved by the Governing Body at its 270th Session, is on freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Governing Body may decide: (i) either to request the Committee of Experts to suspend examination of the reports received under the procedure introduced in 1995, given that an annual report on freedom of association and collective bargaining will be examined within the framework of the Declaration the following year; or (ii) to continue examining the reports requested on freedom of association and collective bargaining by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, in view of the fact that the conclusions resulting from this work might be used for the global report -- but on the understanding that the discussion of this report shall exclude any further examination of the cases discussed the previous year, in accordance with paragraph I.2 of the Annex to the Declaration concerning the follow-up.
13. In the light of the foregoing, the Governing Body may wish, in order to set in motion the follow-up more quickly, to decide:
(a) to embark upon the procedure for the annual reviews from 1999 onwards (beginning with freedom of association and collective bargaining, forced labour and, if appropriate, discrimination) and to discontinue the cycle of special reports after the report on freedom of association that is currently in preparation;
(b) to produce the first global report on freedom of association for the year 2000 and to continue with the sequence of global reports on the basis of the following table;
(c) to carry out the necessary coordination of the reporting periods of reports required under article 22 to ensure that they are in line with the global report cycle.
II. Implementation of annual reviews for
non-ratifying States
14. The follow-up approved by the Conference is incomplete in certain respects. It will be necessary to:
(a) adopt the questionnaires on the four categories of fundamental rights;
(b) decide upon the appointment of a group of experts;
(c) specify conditions for representation of States which are non-members of the Governing Body;
(d) take a decison on whether to amend article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference to make clear the status of annual reports for the follow-up to the Declaration.
Some of these questions are linked. In particular, the mandate and working methods of the group of experts will be contingent to a great extent upon the formulation of the questionnaires. At this stage, no more than a few preliminary observations will be offered with a view to helping the Governing Body provide the Office with guidelines -- on the basis of which the Office will formulate more definite proposals for consideration by the Governing Body in March 1999.
1. The form that requests for information might take
15. As mentioned above, these questions must reflect the strictly promotional nature of the follow-up; the purpose of the Declaration is not to assess the application of Conventions which States have not ratified, nor is it to hold them to account in these areas. Its aim is rather to identify trends with regard to the constitutional principles addressed in these Conventions, based on an examination of changes in law and practice "in regard to the matters dealt with in the Convention" (article 19, paragraph 5(e), of the ILO Constitution). This procedure must, in particular, help to monitor the implementation of technical cooperation and evaluate new requirements. It is of course to be hoped that the follow-up and its accompanying assistance will help towards attaining the objectives in the Declaration to such an extent that there will no longer be any obstacles to ratification. However, trying to achieve ratifications is not the specific purpose of the annual review, although, of course, that should be the logical outcome of the whole process.
16. It is obviously very important that, bearing in mind the general objective outlined in the previous paragraph, the simplified questionnaires or requests for information addressed to non-ratifying States as part of the follow-up to the Declaration should be different from the traditional questionnaires used for the General Surveys and designed in such a way as to help these Members to identify trends and assess any requirements they may have for assistance from the Office; they should also provide the Governing Body with information conducive to a fruitful exchange of experience. The specific content of these questionnaires will need to be approved by the Governing Body at its March 1999 session, but a few clarifications might be useful at this stage to make a decision on the form the questionnaires should take. That form should conform to a single model for each of the principles and rights contained in the fundamental Conventions and might include the following elements:
- A reminder of the background to and purpose of the request (which would be the same for all the questionnaires and refer to the relevant paragraphs of the Annex to the Declaration), including the general objectives described in the first three paragraphs.
- For the different categories of rights, a reminder of the "principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions" (that is to say, recognized as fundamental) according to the terms of the Declaration. In this respect, it might be worth considering reminding those to whom the questionnaire is sent of the general meaning of the relevant principle as set out in the Declaration, rather than leaving this open to individual interpretation; this might help Members to provide pertinent and fairly standardized answers. In most cases, that could be done by referring to the definitions or objectives set out in the Conventions -- but obviously only to the extent that those definitions or objectives are couched in general terms, without reference to specific obligations.(5)
- Still with a view to helping Members provide relevant information for assessing trends and promoting an exchange of experience, it might be useful to provide certain benchmarks or indicators of progress.(6)
17. It goes without saying that the States concerned would not be expected to repeat information from one year to the next if there were nothing new to report. A special mention to that effect could be made in the information request form or in the covering letter.
18. At this stage, the Governing Body is required only to voice its initial ideas on the matter. Only at its next session will the Governing Body, through the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards, be called upon to examine specific proposals concerning these questionnaires, based on these ideas, according to the schedule finally agreed upon.
2. Setting up a group of experts
19. Report VII left open the option of appointing one or more rapporteurs or setting up a group of experts. The Conference opted for a group of experts (cf. Annex to the Declaration, II.B.3). The Committee gave little guidance as to the size of the group or the type of experts required, other than that it would be distinct from the Committee of Experts and that, in accordance with its terms of reference, it would not necessarily need to call on the assistance of jurists. The Employers did not have any strong opinions on whether these experts should be members of the Governing Body or not but felt that they would have to have the confidence of the Governing Body and be independent.(7)
20. Guided by the questionnaires, the work of the experts will consist, according to the Annex to the Declaration, of providing an introduction to the information gathered by the Office in such a way as to draw attention to trends or aspects which seem to warrant closer examination and which could give rise to an exchange of experiences. The difficulty of this work would therefore arise more from the degree of judgement required than from the workload. To be sure of enjoying the confidence of the three groups, the experts would not only have to have adequate knowledge and experience of the areas covered by the Declaration, but also a degree of familiarity with the Organization, its procedures and activities. Bearing in mind the likely volume of work, and in order to keep costs within reasonable limits, the number of experts might be limited to between three and five. It should be implicit that, without predicting the distribution of work, which could be decided among the experts themselves, the group would take collective responsibility for the report. The experts' mandate would need to be long enough to ensure continuity (at least three years, in keeping with the mandate of the Governing Body) and they should not have any other functions within the ILO and its various bodies.
21. With regard to this point and the previous one, the Governing Body is only called upon at this stage to express an opinion or put forward its initial ideas. The group of experts does not need to be set up before the first reports are received, so that the group would not have to be set up before November 1999. This being the case, the Director-General could, in the light of the general proposals which might be put forward on the basis of this document, formulate definitive proposals concerning the mandate, status and working methods and, if possible, the selection of these experts for the Governing Body's March 1999 session. Another point to be considered is whether or not the experts should have the right to speak during the discussion of the report (see below); it will also be necessary to specify how the experts are to be appointed and paid -- aspects which no doubt would be broadly based on the modalities applied to the Committee of Experts(8) or the judges of the Administrative Tribunal.
3. Participation by non-member States
22. The need here is to reconcile considerations of practice and of principle which do not necessarily coincide. The Standing Orders of the Governing Body are very strict with regard to participation by non-member States and, on several occasions in the past, the Governing Body has refused, sometimes in the face of very insistent requests, to allow States to have a say in its discussions -- even if they claimed a special interest in the subject under discussion. As things stand at the moment, non-member States may express their views only in cases where a particular dispute arises, in accordance with the general principle of audi alteram partem. An attempt must therefore be made to avoid any ambiguity as to the nature of the procedure; it must be absolutely consistent with the general purposes defined in the first three paragraphs of the Annex to the follow-up to the Declaration, including paragraph 2 concerning the principle of "double jeopardy", while being careful not to set a precedent allowing wider participation by non-member States. To meet these two concerns:
- first, the purpose of participation must be to give the States concerned an opportunity to provide clarification and encourage a fruitful dialogue, and not to justify their own positions, as in adversarial procedures;
- second, such participation will need to be restricted to cases which might be indicated by the group of experts. It would obviously be for the State concerned to decide whether or not to take advantage of such an opportunity. Information by the State concerned might be provided in writing.
23. To avoid setting a precedent, the Governing Body could organize the discussion of the annual report around informal meetings, possibly in the form of a "plenary committee", in which the experts might be called upon or authorized to participate. Given that such informal meetings may provide a degree of flexibility which appears to be needed -- and not just with regard to the matter of follow-up to the Declaration -- it might be appropriate to introduce into the Standing Orders of the Governing Body a general provision which could follow the present article 8 (Admission to meetings) and article 9 (Agenda of the Governing Body). By way of suggestion, the provision might be drafted as follows:
The Governing Body may decide to meet in a plenary committee to discuss questions which do not call for a decision [on the part of the committee], by giving, where appropriate, and according to the modalities defined by the committee, an opportunity to persons other than those authorized under the present Standing Orders to participate in the Governing Body to express their views. The plenary committee shall report to the Governing Body through a rapporteur (who may be the Chairperson) appointed for that purpose.
4. Whether or not to amend article 7 of the Standing Orders
of the International Labour Conference
24. As indicated above, the question now is whether to amend article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference in order to make it clear that the reports requested for the purpose of the annual reviews pursuant to the Declaration are not to be submitted to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, despite the fact that they refer to article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution of the ILO. As was noted in the document submitted to the Governing Body in March 1998,(9) article 7(1)(b) stipulates that information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution come within the terms of reference of this Committee. In this respect, it could be argued that the reports requested under the follow-up to the Declaration do not, strictly speaking, concern the "Conventions and Recommendations" and that the Governing Body, in adopting the detailed procedure pertaining to the annual review, might specify that the information requested for that review would not be regarded as information concerning the Conventions and Recommendations for the purposes of article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference. If it is considered preferable to avoid any ambiguity or uncertainty, a very simple amendment might be made to article 7(1)(b) of the Standing Orders of the Conference, comprising the addition of the phrase "except for information [requested under article 19(5)(e) but] examination of which shall be provided for in another manner, decided on by the Governing Body".
III. Implementation of the global report
25. In the light of the procedures described in Part III of the Annex to the Declaration and taking into account the overall objectives stipulated in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Annex, in particular the need to avoid any infringement of the principle of double jeopardy, two issues need to be clarified: the first concerns the gathering of information for the global report and the second the respective roles of the Governing Body and the International Labour Conference.
1. Drawing up the global report
26. The Annex states in general terms that the Director-General will be responsible for gathering information pursuant to article 22 and based "in particular" on the findings of the annual follow-up. Information other than that obtained under articles 22, 24 or 26 must, however, be official information or information gathered and assessed in accordance with established procedures. That may well include information available from official gazettes and information communicated to the Committee of Experts, as well as information obtained through procedures analogous to those of the ILO which are used in other international organizations (referred to in paragraph 3 of the Declaration) which are called on to support the efforts made by Members to attain the objectives of the Declaration. To ensure objectivity, the Office might request each of these organizations, when the global report is drawn up, to provide any relevant information that it has obtained on the fundamental right under consideration through its own procedures in the area in question during the preceding period.
2. The respective roles of the Governing Body
and the International Labour Conference
27. The follow-up approved by the Conference stipulates that the global report will be submitted directly to the Conference for tripartite discussion (Annex, III.B.2). It will then be for the Governing Body, in the light of the Conference discussions and any main ideas that may emerge from them, to formulate a plan of action for the category of rights under consideration. Indeed, it seemed only logical that any input from the Governing Body would be more useful after the general discussion at the Conference rather than before, as had been originally envisaged.
28. This reasoning should guide deliberations on ways to deal with the last issue under consideration. The Annex states only that the report should be the subject of tripartite discussion at the Conference. Although it specifies that the report will be submitted as a report of the Director-General, the question remains whether this tripartite discussion should take place in plenary, as is the case for the rest of the Director-General's Report, in a special sitting devoted to the matter, or in some other manner.
29. The first option would imply that the global report would be discussed together with the Director-General's Report to the Conference, which would create certain practical problems. Apart from ministers, only delegates are entitled to speak during the general discussion, which does not begin until the second week of the Conference. They may only speak for a length of time determined by the Standing Orders -- which, recently, has been reduced to five minutes as an exception to the Standing Orders. It therefore seems obvious that if this separate report is treated as an integral part of the Director-General's Report, delegates will inevitably be able to devote only a fraction of their speaking time to it.
30. A special session devoted to the global report might go some way towards eliminating this drawback. However, since such a session would still be governed by the provisions of the Standing Orders concerning the discussion of the Director-General's Report, it would not provide for the adoption of any conclusions (although a subsequent intervention by the Governing Body could remedy this problem). On the other hand, it might allow uninterrupted discussion of the global report, albeit for a limited period, and introduce more flexibility in the time authorized for delegates to speak. The Conference programme would obviously need to be adjusted to enable the rest of the Director-General's Report to be examined in the normal way. In fact, this could be part of a further restructuring of the Conference aimed at improving the way in which it can focus on different key issues.
31. The third formula mentioned during the Committee's discussions consists of submitting the global report to a Conference committee of restricted membership. Such a solution would normally be ruled out by the Standing Orders in the case of the Director-General's Report. However, there has been one exception, that of the follow-up to the Declaration concerning Action Against Apartheid in South Africa. The follow-up to this Declaration was based on a report which was regarded as distinct from the Director-General's Report, since it was intended to follow up a particular decision of the Conference concerning one of the items on its agenda. After being discussed directly in plenary for a number of years, this report was submitted at the recommendation of the Governing Body in 1980 to a tripartite committee of restricted membership which was responsible for reporting to the Conference. The solution was later institutionalized in the revised Declaration of 1981. In principle, this precedent might in future be applied to the global report, since both Declarations share a common legal basis and both were adopted during discussions on an item especially included on the agenda. There is, however, a risk that this solution might interfere with the work of the Committee on the Application of Standards, since it might lead to the reopening of questions which have already been the subject of conclusions and recommendations within the framework of the supervisory system. Normally, paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Declaration should preclude such an eventuality. If the solution of discussing the matter within a Conference Committee is adopted, it will be necessary to recall when the committee is set up that its terms of reference are circumscribed by the legal framework established in the Annex of the Declaration concerning the follow-up, in particular by the provisions of paragraph 2.
32. In the light of the above, it would be appear preferable to envisage examining the first global report at a special sitting. In accordance with the proposals made earlier in the text, this report would concern freedom of association and collective bargaining in the year 2000. It will subsequently be up to the Governing Body and the Conference to decide, in the light of experience acquired, whether examination of this report should be entrusted to a tripartite committee with limited participation.
* * *
33. In the light of the preceding analysis, the Governing Body may wish to request the Office to submit to the Governing Body at its next session, through the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards, specific proposals to settle the outstanding questions referred to above, taking due account of any observations made and ideas put forward on the matter.
Geneva, 6 October 1998.
Points for decision:
Paragraph 13;
Paragraph 33.
The provisional timetable for the different stages will be as follows:
|
November 1998 |
Selection of the main options and general guidelines established on the basis of this document. |
|
March 1999 |
Approval of any necessary amendments to the Standing Orders of the Governing Body and of any other provisions required on the basis of the guidelines established in November; approval of questionnaires for the first annual review; approval of the "status" of the experts (who might even be proposed for nomination at the end of the Governing Body meeting). |
|
April 1999 |
Mailing of questionnaires on two categories of rights with a request for replies for November 1999. |
|
June 1999 |
Approval of any required amendments to the Standing Orders of the Conference (if necessary). |
|
November 1999 |
Final appointment of the experts (unless this had been possible in March 1999) to allow them to prepare an introduction to the annual reviews starting at the March 2000 session. |
|
March 2000 |
First annual review (in accordance with the guidelines established in November 1998); approval and mailing of questionnaires for the two remaining categories of rights. |
|
June 2000 |
First global report (freedom of association and collective bargaining). |
|
November 2000 |
First follow-up discussion and establishment of a plan of action in the area of freedom of association by the Governing Body. |
|
March 2001 |
Annual review of the four categories of rights. |
|
| ||||||||
|
19 = Special report
|
Freedom of association |
Forced labour |
Equality of treatment |
Child labour | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
C.87 |
C.98 |
C. 29 |
C. 105 |
C. 100 |
C. 111 |
C. 138 | ||
|
| ||||||||
|
1998 |
March GB |
|||||||
|
ILC |
22 |
19 |
19 - 22 |
22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
||||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
(19) - 22 |
(19) |
22 |
22 |
||||
|
| ||||||||
|
1999 |
March GB |
|||||||
|
ILC |
(19) - |
(19) |
22 |
22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
22 |
|||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2000 |
March GB |
A |
A |
(A) |
(A) |
(A) |
(A) |
|
|
ILC |
G |
G - 22 |
22 |
22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
S |
S |
||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
22 |
G - 22 |
G |
22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
S |
S |
||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
22 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2002 |
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
22 |
22 |
G |
G - 22 |
22 | |||
|
Nov. GB |
S |
S |
||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2003 |
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
22 |
22 |
22 |
G | ||||
|
Nov. GB |
S | |||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2004 |
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
G |
G - 22 |
22 |
22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
S |
S |
||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2005 |
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
22 |
G -22 |
G |
22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
S |
S |
||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2006 |
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
22 |
22 |
G |
G - 22 |
||||
|
Nov. GB |
S |
S |
||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
22 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
2007 |
March GB |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
ILC |
22 |
22 |
22 |
G - 22 | ||||
|
Nov. GB |
S | |||||||
|
Cttee of Experts |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|||||
|
| ||||||||
1. The intended cycle was as follows:
- In June 1999, Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 98 (following preliminary examination by the Committee of Experts in November 1998);
- In June 2000, Convention No. 100 and Convention No. 111 (following preliminary examination by the Committee of Experts in November 1999).
- In June 2001, Convention No. 138 (following preliminary examination by the Committee of Experts in November 2000).
2. ILO: Consideration of a possible Declaration of Principles of the International Labour Organization concerning fundamental rights and its appropriate follow-up mechanism, International Labour Conference, 86th Session, Geneva, 1998, Report VII, p. 24.
3. ILO: Report of the Committee on the Declaration of Principles, International Labour Conference, Geneva, 86th Session, 1998, Provisional Record No. 20, para. 79.
4. ILO: Consideration of a possible Declaration ..., Report VII, op. cit., p. 25.
5. For example, with regard to the effective abolition of child labour, reference might be made to the overall purpose defined in Convention No. 138, which calls on ratifying Members to "pursue a national policy designed to ensure the effective abolition of child labour and to raise progressively the minimum age for admission to employment or work to a level consistent with the fullest physical and mental development of young persons". In the case of forced labour, the terms of the Declaration, combined with the very general definition given in Convention No. 29, would make it possible to define the principle as that of eliminating all forms of "work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person does not offer himself voluntarily". As regards discrimination in employment, the questionnaire might recall that this concept covers "any distinction ... which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation". This becomes a little more difficult in the case of freedom of association and collective bargaining, since Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 do not directly provide any definition, but the general principle, as identified in these two texts, might be "freedom for workers and employers to establish and run without interference organizations of their own choosing and to enjoy conditions that allow the organizations concerned to negotiate in the widest sense among themselves with a view to regulating conditions of employment".
6. To illustrate this, suitable indicators for child labour might be based on the compulsory school age, the means used to enforce it, the size of the school-age population and the available means for school education (one important question, once the new Convention has been adopted, will be whether, depending on the compulsory school age, provisions have been put in place to ensure that children are not exposed to the worst forms of work once they have started school). Reference might also be made to international cooperation and, in particular, to the IPEC programme. As regards discrimination in wages, on the basis of Recommendation No. 90, an attempt could be made to obtain information on changes in salary and wage differentials (planned or otherwise).
7. ILO: Report of the Committee on the Declaration of Principles, op. cit., para. 121.
8. i.e. Sw.frs.4,000 for each expert for a 15-day session, plus a per diem allowance of about US$200. One week might be enough for the group of experts and this would not encroach upon their possible participation in discussions in the Governing Body.
9. GB.271/3/1.