Ei-iE

Negotiations at the International Labour Conference in Geneva have ended in an abrupt deadlock after the Employers’ Group targeted the right to strike, arguing that it is not guaranteed by any International Labour Organisation convention.

In response to the Employers, the Workers’ Group stood its ground at the annual June meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS), to defend what they see as one of the fundamental rights of workers. As a major body of the International Labour Conference (ILC), the CAS brings together workers, employers and governments at the ILO headquarters in Geneva to examine the implementation of workers’ rights in 25 countries, monitors the respect of conventions by ILO member states and makes recommendations to governments.

“The right to strike is recognised in international and regional treaty instruments, and by decisions of regional and national courts,” said Fred van Leeuwen, General Secretary of Education International (EI), adding that EI is concerned with the paralysis of the ILO institutions while attacks on trade union and worker’s rights continue. “Without a right to strike, the right to association in the industrial relations context would be meaningless.”

At stake is the Employers’ Group’s repeated demand that a disclaimer banning the right to strike be added to the CAS conclusions relating to at least three countries, Algeria, Cambodia, and Swaziland, which were under examination for their application of ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.

However, this time the Workers’ Group decided to unanimously reject the demand, admitting that compromising once more on this fundamental workers’ right would create a dangerous precedent and severely compromise the work of the Committee. The Workers say they are very concerned that the Employers are increasingly questioning and trying to oppose the interpretation of not only Convention 87, but also other fundamental ILO Conventions, such as Convention 98 on the right to collective bargaining.

In what has now become a regular act, the Employers’ Group has tried to impede the work of the CAS since 2012. The group argues that the right to strike is not an explicit right in any ILO Convention, only in ILO jurisprudence, and therefore requests that Convention 87 be interpreted as not covering the right to strike. However, trade unions and the ILO Committee of Experts view the right to strike as a fundamental right; a last resort to balance power.

The persistent disagreement on the interpretation of ILO conventions is paralysing the work of the ILO supervisory mechanisms. It resulted in a first deadlock of the CAS discussions in 2012, where the right to strike was not discussed, but still led the Workers’ Group to compromise in 2013 to prevent the situation from reoccurring.

With CAS discussions now at a standstill, no conclusions were adopted for most of the countries under examination (the Committee had already adopted conclusions for the 6 ‘automatic’ country cases before the deadlock occurred).

In the meantime, the right to strike issue has been referred to the ILO’s Governing Body, which will meet in November 2014.  An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice could be requested to put an end to the dispute.