Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation: adoption; ILO 2007 Conference Agenda: Labour Department
LABOUR
AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES SELECT COMMITTEE
27 February 2007
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION:
ADOPTION; ILO 2007 CONFERENCE AGENDA: LABOUR DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
Chairperson: Ms P Temba (ANC,
Mpumalanga)
Documents handed out:
Instruments for the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organisation Presentation [please email info@pmg.org.za]
Audio Recording of
the Meeting
SUMMARY
The Committee adopted an amendment to the Constitution of the International
Labour Organisation proposing that redundant recommendations and conventions be
removed from its Body of Standards.
The Department of Labour also briefed the Committee about the May 2007 Annual
Conference of the Organisation, including that the aborted fishing sector
recommendation will again form part of this year’s agenda.
MINUTES
Department of Labour (DOL) presentation
Mr Les Kettledas, Deputy Director-General: Labour Policy and Labour Market
Programmes, presented the amendments to the constitution of the International
Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO had been in existence for a long time and
some conventions were no longer considered as relevant today as they once were
as circumstances have changed to accommodate the changing world. The ILO has had to move with the times and
therefore the Abrogation Amendment was introduced. Abrogation ultimately means
that obsolete conventions would no longer apply in the ILO.
The amendment satisfies legal requirements and constitutes an effective way of
updating the Body of Standards while still contributing to the overall
objectives of the ILO. It provides a
system that is up to date, coherent and relevant. The effect of abrogation is simply to
eliminate all legal effects definitively arising out of the convention that has
been abrogated between the organisation and its members. Therefore member
states that have ratified the relevant conventions need not submit reports and
need not be subjected to compliance with these conventions. The legal
ramifications associated with the convention then falls away. No complaints can
be heard for non-observance of the conventions that have fallen under the
abrogation rule. Support for the abrogation rule does not imply that member
states who have inserted those conventions into their laws have to amend their
laws.
The amendment will only enter into force after 120 member states, including
five of the ten members of Chief Industrial Importance, have ratified it. Six
of the ten important members have ratified, while another thirty or so ordinary
members were required. Although, this is
a constitutional requirement for some reason or other member states have
ignored the importance of ratifying the amendment.
The process for abrogation is that the Governing Body of the ILO meets in
between conferences to recommend which conventions should be abrogated. A
majority of two thirds of delegates present at the conference may abrogate any
convention if it appears that the convention is no longer necessary.
The Chairperson put the Amendment to the vote and it was unanimously adopted.
Department of Labour briefing on ILO Conference (May 2007) agenda
Mr Kettledas said the standing items were the Report of the Chairperson of the
Governing Body, the Annual Report of the Minister of Labour of South Africa and
the Report of the Director General: Labour. A Global Report is also tabled
which is a follow up to the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work. This year the report will be on the Elimination of
Discrimination in Respect to Employment and Occupation. The agenda will also include the ILO’s
Programme and Budget proposal for 2008\9.
The Conference also set parts of the agenda. This would include a
recommendation and convention covering standards for the fishing sector; the
ability of the ILO to assist member states with globalisation; the ILO’s
functionality and sustainable enterprises. The Chairperson will submit a report
to the conference on the work carried out by the Governing Body for the year.
The conference will then debate the report.
The follow-up report, Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,
which was instituted in 1998, calls for the Directors General to issue a report
providing a dynamic global picture relating to the four pillars; namely the
abolition of forced labour, eliminating child labour, rights at work, and
social protection. This year the global report will focus on both member states
that have and have not ratified the relevant ratified conventions. All 179
member states would have to submit reports on this. There will also be a
discussion on the implementation of these conventions.
In 2005 the fishing sector convention was not adopted because of a lack of
quorum and employers seemed reluctant to agree.
The accompanying recommendation was however adopted. The conference
requested that the governing body place this item on the agenda again. It would
deal with all the issues that are pertinent to employees in the fishing sector.
Discussion
Mr D Gamede (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) enquired about the differences between federal
and non-federal states’ contributions.
Mr Kettledas responded that federal and non-federal states are treated equally
on contributions, and the only difference is the amount of time that is allowed
for the member states to guide the recommendations or conventions through their
relevant competent authorities. Federal
states are allowed 12 months whereas non-federal states are allowed 18 months
for this.
Mr J Sibiya (ANC, Limpopo) asked if any members of the ILO had veto powers.
Mr Kettledas responded that even though the ILO is an agency of the United
Nations (UN) no member had veto power. All were considered equal.
The Chairperson wanted to know how members planned to deal with casualisation
of labour.
Mr Kettledas replied that the ILO was promoting the Decent Work Agenda which
constitutes of four pillars: the rights, social protection, social dialogue and
employment. South Africa had done a lot
to facilitate this agenda.
Mr Sibiya wanted to know if the ILO had adopted existing South African labour
practices.
Mr Kettledas said South Africa has had quite an influence on the ILO in terms
of our practices.
Mr Sibiya asked how the Director-General report would deal with those members
that have not ratified a recommendation or convention.
Mr Kettledas said that the global report deals with the follow-ups to
Principles and Rights to Work. All
member states should adopt all eight of the principles and conventions, whether
they ratified them or not. The global
report will reflect those that did not adopt the mechanism and identifies the
problems that could have led to non-ratification.
Mr M Mzondeki (ANC, National Assembly)
wanted to know what happened to members that did not comply with conventions.
Mr Kettledas replied that usually moral pressure would be applied for
non-compliance, but the ILO could also use the International Criminal Court to
enforce compliance.
Mr Mzondeki asked for more information about the participation of Parliament in
the ILO.
Mr Kettledas indicated that only a few MPs usually attended the conference as
observers, basically just familiarising themselves with the process. He
encouraged more parliamentarians to attend.
Mr Mzondeki asked if Parliament appropriated money for SA’s membership of the
ILO.
Mr Kettledas responded that member states contribute according to their Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). The amount also corresponds to the contribution made to
the UN. The budget runs over a two-year
period. The ILO budget faced some
challenges because of greater demands made on it.
Ms N Ntwanambi (ANC, Western Cape) asked
if the conference location is moved around.
Mr Kettledas said the annual meetings always take place in Geneva. The regional meetings moved around however.
Ms Matlhoahela (ID, Northern Cape) asked why the fishing sector recommendation
was changed after the legal advisor reviewed it.
Mr Kettledas replied that on that specific subject, the Fishing Sector
Recommendation, there was initially a quorum, but not later. It was then viewed
as an illegal recommendation and had to be reviewed.
Mr Sibiya asked what role regional organisations played in the ILO.
Mr Kettledas said that regional organisations looked at the issues raised by
the ILO and then adopted a co-coordinated regional perspective or view on the
issue. For example, regional
organisations would meet decide jointly on an African perspective of a
particular issue.
The meeting was adjourned.