Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

A Government representative stated that his Government considered it regrettable that this case had been selected for discussion in this Committee. In light of the detailed procedure drawn up for the implementation of this Convention with the social partners in 1977, it was difficult to understand the allegations made by the Trades Union Congress (TUC). That written agreement established the basis of the practice which had remained unchanged over the years. Neither of the social partners had indicated to the Government that this procedure was no longer acceptable. If it was considered that there were genuine problems with the established procedure, then why did the TUC not approach the Government directly to explain its difficulties? The Government would have been more than willing to discuss the issues. As concerned the TUC's allegations with respect to consultation on article 22 reports, the Government indicated that all reports were sent to the social partners at exactly the same time as they were sent to the ILO. Given the respective geographical locations, the social partners were likely to receive the reports first. This procedure was in line with the 1977 agreement which determined that consultation would normally take place by correspondence. He emphasized the importance placed by his Government on its ILO obligations. The Government made a point of responding as fully as possible to the Committee of Experts' comments and any comments made by the social partners. The consultative procedure established had worked successfully over the last 15 years because it enabled the social partners to participate very effectively in the entire supervisory process and led to a fruitful and ongoing dialogue between the Government, the social partners and the supervisory bodies. While the Government was willing to discuss any difficulties with this procedure, he stressed that compliance with reporting obligations was a prime consideration. Unless reports were submitted to the ILO in reasonable time, the supervisory machinery simply could not function. He regretted the allegation that no effective consultations had been held with respect to the possible denunciation of the Migration for Employment (Revised) Convention, 1949 (No. 97). Not only were full consultations undertaken, but the views expressed by the social partners had a very obvious and direct effect on the outcome. The Government had written to the social partners in November 1991 concerning the possibility of denouncing Convention No. 97. Both social partners responded, questioning the necessity of denouncing this Convention. Following the suggestion of the TUC, the Government consulted the ILO. As a result of the technical advice provided by the Office, the Government concluded that denunciation would, after all, not be necessary and informed the social partners. This was clear evidence of the effectiveness of the consultative process. The process was begun as soon as the possibility of denunciation was envisaged, thereby ensuring that consultations could be carried out well in advance of any decision. The procedure was clearly not a mere formality and the events demonstrated that the employers and workers had a useful say and directly influenced the course of action adopted. He concluded by expressing the hope that, given the long-established practice of consultation on international labour standards, this Committee would agree that his Government had demonstrated, through its actions, its commitment to the application of the Convention.

The Workers' members recalled that, while consultation had a different connotation from mere "information" and from "co-determination", the Committee of Experts in its General Survey on this Convention pointed out that consultation should be able to have some influence on the decision to be taken. They granted the Government representative's point with respect to the effectiveness of the consultation concerning the possible denunciation, but noted that it was the only such example which could be offered. Tripartism should generate an internal debate, directly with the social partners. The procedure followed in the United Kingdom, however, was merely a formal one. This was evidenced by the fact that this issue was now being discussed by this Committee rather than by the concerned parties in their own country. All the previous methods of consultation had been dismantled. Consultation with the social partners should not be supplanted by the Citizen's Charter. The form of consultation did not have to be highly structured but some discussion had to take place. This had not been the case for years. Letters from the TUC to the Government often went without reply. They noted that it was in the Government's interest to discuss with the social partners, for example, legislation affecting the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Lack of consultation on such matters resulted in unnecessary discussion in this Committee. True, discussion need not necessarily affect the final decision, but at least discussions would have already been held and, if brought before this Committee, it would not be the first time for the parties to hear each other's views. Unfortunately, this was precisely the situation which had not taken place with respect to the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122). The Government, however, seemed to be arguing that, since there would be disagreement, there was no point in discussing. On the positive side, the Workers' members welcomed the indication that the new Secretary of State for Employment had invited the Secretary of the TUC for a meeting. If this represented the first sign of a change in the Government's position, they were eager to embrace it. They did not insist that agreement should result from the consultations, but they urged that such consultations take place at the national level since that was where the Government made its decisions. They hoped that the promised meeting would signify a change and wished to encourage the Government to move in this direction. If, however, no progress could be noted, they considered that this case and all the other cases concerning the United Kingdom Government would have to be discussed at length in this Committee instead of eternally within the country between the Government and the new social partners.

The Employers' members highlighted the fact this was the first time that the application of this Convention by a particular country had been discussed in this Committee. They expressed the opinion that the discussion of this case was premature. They noted that the Workers' members had not mentioned the 1977 agreement concerning the procedure for implementing this Convention. Perhaps this discussion could have been avoided if the concerns had been raised first within the country. They recalled that the Convention called for effective consultations between representatives of government, workers and employers with respect to: replies to questionnaires, article 19 submission, article 22 reports, examination of unratified ILO Conventions and proposals for denunciation of ILO Conventions. Certain of these obligations were also set forth in articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution and article 39 of the Standing Orders of the Conference. They were therefore applicable to all member States, regardless of whether the Convention had been ratified. They noted, however, that effective consultations required more than simply attaching worker and employer comments to government reports. Different facts and circumstances might require different procedures for consultation. Consultation could be made by telephone or by mail with respect to matters which were not controversial. On questions which might be more controversial, however, meetings prior to the Government's submission of reports to the ILO might be required. Without criticizing the 1977 agreement, they suggested that a new consultative procedure might need to be considered. They noted the Government's changes to the consultative procedures with respect to Convention No. 122 so as to meet the needs of current circumstances and suggested that this approach could be applicable within the context of this Convention and the five areas on which consultations were required. Regardless of their outcome, the consultations called for by this Convention could only enhance the quality of the Government's involvement in, and submissions to, the ILO.

The Government representative expressed his disappointment that the Workers' members did not comment on the procedure established in 1977 and that the workers in his country had not first expressed any difficulties which they might have had with this procedure directly to the Government. In reply to the comment made by the Employers' members, he indicated that his Government was perfectly prepared to consider changes if they were necessary, but stressed that the Government's capacity to send reports as close to the deadline as possible had to be safeguarded.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received in August 2010 including replies to its 2008 observation. The Government indicates that it holds regular tripartite meetings and also arranges for separate tripartite consultations on particular subjects. The Government further indicates that it continues to provide comprehensive information, beyond the minimum necessary, so that the Committee of Experts, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) can have more context to scrutinize and understand action taken, to allow for fuller dialogue, including with the ILO, and for the sharing of good practice. The Government also regrets that not every report is completed in time to include comments of the social partners when reports are sent to the ILO. The Government intends to continue to update social partners on progress of reports and is open to, and encourages discussion with, social partners on all ILO matters. The Committee invites the Government to continue to report on measures taken to promote tripartite consultations on international labour standards, as required under the Convention, and on any follow-up to recommendations derived from such consultations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report received in August 2008 and the comments transmitted by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) in September 2008. The Government indicates that it continues to consult social partners, both formally and informally, through regular pre- and post-Conference meetings and pre-Governing Body meetings. The Government states that every effort is made to provide all reports to the social partners in good time, notwithstanding other staff pressures during the reporting period and the need to consult a very wide range of government departments, as well as the devolved administrations on most of the reports prepared by the Government. The TUC again expresses its deep concern over the persistent late delivery of reports by the Government, which hinders the TUC’s ability to provide its comments in accordance with the deadline set by the ILO. The Committee invites the Government and the social partners to re-examine the effectiveness of the consultative procedures in place for consultations on questions arising out of reports to be prepared under article 22 of the Constitution (Article 5, paragraph 1(d) of the Convention).

Article 5, paragraph 1(c). Ratification prospects. The Committee notes with interest that the ratification of Convention No. 187 was registered on 29 May 2008. The Government also indicates that it considered its position on the ratification of the Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention, 1949 (No. 94), in the context of preparations for its report under article 19 of the Constitution, and that it relayed its view thereon to the Conference Committee during its discussion of the 2008 General Survey. The TUC welcomes the ratification of Convention No. 187; however, it regrets the backlog of ratifications and the failure of the Government to move towards ratification of other instruments. The TUC recalls its view that the failure to re-ratify Convention No. 94 is inconsistent with other government initiatives that advise companies on contract compliance on labour clauses. The Committee invites the Government and the social partners to continue to report on measures taken to promote tripartite consultation on international labour standards, as required by Convention No. 144, in particular on the outcome of consultations held to re-examine the prospects of ratification of unratified Conventions, and on any follow-up to recommendations derived from such consultations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report for the period ending May 2006 and the comments by the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The TUC welcomes the effective tripartite consultation about the Labour Maritime Convention, 2006, and the additional meetings on the Conference agenda on the items on fishing, safety and health and the employment relationship. The TUC indicates that face-to-face tripartite consultation on most ILO matters is restricted primarily to the main meetings before the sessions of the Conference and the Governing Body. Consultation about the application of ratified Conventions in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Convention No. 182, remains restricted primarily to making the Government’s article 22 reports available to the social partners for their comments. The Committee observes the TUC’s concerns on the late delivery of reports, which prevents it from commenting on them in good time. The Committee refers once again to its previous comments, and in particular to its 2002 observation, and invites the Government and the social partners to address the concerns of all participants in the operation of the procedures required to ensure effective consultations within the meaning of the Convention. It hopes that the Government and the social partners will re-examine the manner in which the Convention is being applied with a view to ensuring that all stakeholders have taken appropriate measures to achieve the satisfactory application of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report for the period ending May 2004 including its reply to the 2002 observation. The Government indicates that in light of comments received from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) the meetings were mainly concerned with practical arrangements; a number of changes to the format have been introduced. The meetings are now firmly focused on the main agenda items to be addressed by the Conference or the Governing Body, and allow for a full exchange of views as well as the early identification of areas of common interest or areas of concern. The Government also held separate ad hoc meetings with the social partners. The Committee welcomes this approach and hopes that in its next report the Government will continue to report on the operation of effective tripartite consultation on the matters covered by the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report received on 21 September 2001 and the comments on the application of the Convention by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) which were forwarded to the Government by the Office on 20 November 2001. In its report, the Government recalls that, following the 1993 discussion in the Conference Committee, it modified the procedures previously agreed upon between the parties as regards the reports submitted under article 22 of the Constitution on the application of ratified Conventions. It is the practice of the Government to forward copies of the reports, including all observations and direct requests arising from previous reports, to the TUC and to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) for comment before they are sent to the ILO. Any observation received by the Government from either organization is then forwarded to the ILO. The Government expresses its satisfaction with the system, agreed to by all parties. However, it regrets that occasionally, due in part to the heavy reporting schedule and the desire to keep to the ILO’s reporting timetable, reports have been forwarded to the TUC and the CBI at the same time as being sent to the ILO. The Government indicates that it is making every effort to ensure that this practice is kept to an absolute minimum.

2. In its comments, the TUC states that in view of the range of issues requiring substantive tripartite discussion, and the range of levels of agreement about them, it wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment and Education in July 2000 suggesting that it would be an opportune moment to establish a National Tripartite ILO Committee and pointing out that this is a common practice in many member States. The Government rejected the suggestion, stating that it believes the current consultative procedures are adequate. The TUC adds that informal meetings are held occasionally. The pre-conference tripartite delegation meeting has, for the past decade, discussed agenda items only superficially, and has been focused mainly on practical arrangements without substantive tripartite consultation on policy matters. The Government does not provide a forum for the formulation of a common tripartite response to ILO requests for information, questionnaires or regular tripartite reporting on the application of Conventions. In conclusion, the TUC regrets that social partners are still without a formal tripartite forum in which the ILO matters that fall under the purview of the Convention can be discussed.

3. In its 2000 General Survey, the Committee pointed out the very flexible wording of the provisions contained in Article 2 of the Convention which leave considerable latitude to Members with regard to the choice of consultation procedures, while Recommendation No. 152 provides a non-exhaustive and indicative list of ways in which consultations might be undertaken (including a committee specifically constituted for questions concerning ILO activities). The nature and form of the procedures are to be determined in each country in accordance with national practice, after consultation with the representative organizations (paragraphs 52-54).

4. As it also recalled in its 1993 observation, the Committee has highlighted in the 2000 General Survey that in order to be "effective", consultations must take place before final decisions are taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures adopted. The important factor is that the persons consulted should be able to put forward their opinions before the Government takes its final decision. The effectiveness of consultations thus presupposes in practice that employers’ and workers’ representatives have all the necessary information far enough in advance to formulate their own opinions (paragraph 31).

5. The Committee notes that at its 90th Session (June 2002), the Conference adopted a resolution concerning tripartism and social dialogue in which it emphasized, inter alia, that social dialogue and tripartism have proved to be valuable and democratic means to address social concerns, build consensus, help elaborate international labour standards and examine a wide range of labour issues on which the social partners play a direct, legitimate and irreplaceable role. It also notes that the TUC has for a long time been calling for a revision of the operation of the procedures that give effect to the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government and the social partners will examine the manner in which the Convention is applied and that the Government’s next report will contain indications on any measures taken in order to continue developing effective tripartite consultation in the sense of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that a government report was received in September 2001 and that the Trades Union Congress submitted comments on the application of the Convention in November 2001. It decided to postpone the examination in order to provide the Government the opportunity to respond.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s latest report which covers the period ending in June 1999. In its 1995 observation, the Committee noted the consultation held in 1993 between the Government and the social partners arising from discussions which took place in the same year in the Conference Committee on the Application of the Convention as regards the reports to be submitted to the ILO under article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO. It notes that no comment has been formulated since by the participating representative organizations on the consultation procedures regarding this point. It invites the Government to continue to supply detailed information in its next reports on the consultations held on each of the questions listed under Article 5(1) of the Convention, and to indicate, where appropriate, any reports and recommendations arising from the consultations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

1. The Committee has noted the report provided by the Government for 1992-94 in reply to its previous comments. The Committee has also noted the discussion at the Conference Committee in June 1993 as well as the observations drawn up by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

2. The questions which were the subject of allegations by the TUC and the comments made within the framework of the supervisory mechanism concerned primarily the consultations within the scope of Article 5, paragraph 1(d) and (e), of the Convention on, firstly, the questions arising out of reports to be made under article 22 of the ILO Constitution and, secondly, proposals on denouncing ratified Conventions.

3. The Committee notes with interest that following its comments and the discussion in the Conference Committee, the Government and the social partners came to an agreement in 1993 to amend the text of the 1977 agreement concerning consultations on reports due under article 22 of the Constitution. The new arrangements should ensure efficient consultations as provided in Article 2 of the Convention, with a view to preparing reports on ratified Conventions, in particular when they are the subject of comments by the supervisory bodies. The CBI has expressed its satisfaction with the functioning of the new procedure. For its part, the TUC, while having accepted the 1993 amendments, continues to express doubts as to the efficiency of consultations, due to the Government's refusal to accept the conclusions and recommendations of the supervisory bodies: according to the TUC the new procedure will not significantly improve the enforcement of ratified Conventions, which is the purpose of Convention No. 144.

4. With regard to consultations on proposals to denounce ratified Conventions, the Committee notes that the decision not to denounce Convention No. 97, taken with the approval of the TUC, seems to demonstrate the efficacy of these kinds of consultations although, in the case of denouncing Conventions Nos. 99 and 101, the TUC, after consultation, expressed regret that the Government had not replied to its arguments in favour of maintaining the ratifications.

5. The Committee, recalling its previous comments on the extent of the consultation requirement under the Convention, hopes that through good faith use of the consultation procedure, as amended by agreement between the Government and the social partners, the Convention obligations will be fully met in the interest of all the parties.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the application of the Convention for the period 1990-92, received on 9 October 1992. It also notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in a communication dated 13 January 1993 addressed directly to the International Labour Office.

2. The TUC alleges, first, that the reports to be submitted to the ILO under article 22 of the ILO Constitution are sent to the TUC only after the Government has completed them and, sometimes, several weeks after they have been completed. On its reading of the Convention, the TUC considers that consultations on questions arising out of these reports are required before the reports are sent to the ILO. Referring more specifically to the application of ratified Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 122, which prompted comments by the Committee of Experts, the TUC complains that the Government refused to discuss the Committee's conclusions and alleges that there were no effective consultations on the application of ratified Conventions. Lastly, referring to Convention No. 97, the TUC also alleges that there were no effective consultations on the proposals concerning the denunciation of ratified Conventions.

3. The provisions which are the subject of the TUC's observations are Article 2, paragraph 1, and Article 5, paragraph 1(d) and (e). On the basis of its General Survey of 1982, the Committee wishes to recall, firstly, the purpose of these provisions. According to Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, consultations shall address questions that may arise out of reports to be made to the ILO concerning the application of ratified Conventions. In such cases, consultations concern first and foremost the content of the reply to the comments of the supervisory bodies. Article 5, paragraph 1(e), establishes the principle approved by the Governing Body in 1971, that whenever a denunciation is envisaged, before taking a decision the Government should consult the representative organizations of employers and workers on problems encountered and measures to be taken to resolve them.

4. With regard to the scope of the obligation to hold consultations, the Committee has pointed out, in particular in its General Survey referred to above, that the obligation to hold consultations must be fulfilled before the proposed measures are decided upon, if the procedure is not to be a mere formality. This is essential when it is apparent that either the employers or the trade unions may have views that differ from those held by the Government. As for the results of the consultations, although they are not binding on the Government, the latter is none the less obliged to ensure that tripartite consultations are effective, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1. For the Committee, "effective consultations" are consultations which enable employers' and workers' organizations to have a useful say in matters relating to the activities of the ILO referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1.

5. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the above comments into consideration and that it will conduct the required consultations, particularly on questions arising out of reports on ratified Conventions and proposals concerning the denunciation of Conventions, in keeping with the spirit and letter of the provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's report and its reply to the comments submitted by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on the application of the Convention.

2. In a communication dated 4 January 1989, the TUC alleged in substance, firstly, the lack of effective consultation (on the part of the Government) regarding the denunciation of Conventions and, secondly, the failure to hold consultations on the proposals that were adopted, through European Community procedures, for the conduct of negotiations about issues arising in draft ILO instruments.

3. With regard to the first question concerning consultation on proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions and the allegation that the Government did not take into consideration the views and proposals made by the TUC, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government, which confirms that noted previously by the Committee concerning the application of Article 5, paragraph 1(e) of the Convention. The Committee can only therefore refer, once again, to its previous comments and to its 1982 General Survey (concerning Convention No. 144 and Recommendation No. 152) in which it observed (paragraph 42) that the views expressed in the course of consultations are not a form of participation in decision-making but simply one stage in the process of reaching a decision.

4. With regard to the second question, the TUC denounced the lack of prior consultation when the December 1986 Decision was taken by the Council of Ministers of the Community concerning the adoption of rules for the conduct of negotiations on draft ILO instruments in matters in which the Community has exclusive competence. According to the TUC, the lack of consultations with the TUC and the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) on the implications of this Decision and possible developments, which raise questions and concerns, is a violation of Convention No. 144. The Convention requires that consultations on standards should be held at the national level, and the main concern of the TUC is that effective consultations should be ensured with national employers' and workers' organisations at all the stages of the formulation and implementation of standards. In its reply, the Government, after referring to the confidentiality of negotiations as justifying the absence of prior consultation, notes that the December 1986 Decision clearly establishes that member States will have to comply fully with the provisions of Convention No. 144.

5. Indeed, the Committee notes that under the terms of the above Decision, the Council and the Commission agreed that in the event of the Community having exclusive competence the preparation of standards should proceed "with due regard for Convention No. 144 and for the autonomy of both sides of industry". It also notes that in a later decision of 30 December 1989 (concerning the negotiations for the International Labour Conference on safety in the use of chemicals at work), the Council agreed to re-examine the Decision of 22 December 1986, with a view to supplementing it, if need be, by the addition of provisions designed to prevent difficulties arising from the ILO's Constitution or practices. Furthermore, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report concerning the Government's replies and comments on the proposed texts relating to items on the agenda of the 76th Session of the Conference, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention, and on each of the questions raised in paragraph 1. However, the Committee notes the concerns expressed by the TUC as regards the implications of the 1986 Decision and the questions that it raises. Although the decision-making procedures of the Community are clearly outside the scope of the Convention, national organisations of employers and workers are justified in ensuring that these decisions do not have an unfavourable impact on the effectiveness of the implementation of the obligations to which the States in question have subscribed under this Convention. The Committee trusts in this connection that the will expressed by the Council of Ministers and the Commission of the Community to ensure "full respect" for the Convention means that "effective" consultations will continue to be held at the national level, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.