| GB.267/9/1
267th Session Geneva, November 1996 |
NINTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Reports of the Committee on Legal Issues and
International Labour Standards
First report: Legal issues
1. The Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards met on 14 November 1996 and was chaired by Mr. J.L. Ilabaca Orphanopoulos (Government, Chile). The Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons were Mr. D. Funes de Rioja and Mr. J.C. Parrot respectively.
I. Draft Standing Orders for the new regional meetings
2. The Committee had before it a paper(1) prepared by the Office and containing a draft set of Rules which the Governing Body had been empowered by the International Labour Conference at its 83rd Session (June 1996) to adopt on an experimental basis for the new regional meetings. These were to be held instead of the originally planned regional conferences. The new Rules were a simplified version of the Rules for the regional conferences to take into account the shorter duration of the regional meetings (three days) and the results which were intended to be achieved.
General observations
3. There was general consensus in the Committee on the broad terms of the proposals contained in the draft Rules. The Worker members proposed that when the Director-General issued the invitation to governments to attend the regional meetings, it should contain a specific request to them to ensure adequate representation of women in the tripartite delegations. The representative of the Government of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Asian and Pacific Government group, observed that when the new experimental arrangements for regional conferences had recently been introduced, Asia had been the first region to experiment with them. The experience gained at the first regional conference in the cycle had been used to improve the other regional conferences. Asia would again be the first region to experiment with the new arrangements under the new Rules for Regional Meetings. It was hoped that an evaluation would be made later in order to determine whether these arrangements were satisfactory or needed improvement. This view was confirmed by the representative of the Government of Japan. The representative of the Government of China felt that in view of the short duration of the Conference, it would be preferable for the group meetings to be held half a day in advance. The representative of the Government of Japan saw the changes in the new draft Rules as reflecting the efforts being made to reduce budgetary expenditure and to explore new ways of organizing the International Labour Conference. The representative of the Government of Austria pointed to the risk that the new meetings, although intended at present to be experimental, since they were not to replace the regional conferences, would remain a permanent feature. The Legal Adviser explained that, as indicated in the Office paper, the Rules were to be applied on an experimental basis and would be evaluated after experience had been gained in their use. In view of the short duration of the meetings, the draft Rules contained simplified procedures. They did not prejudge policy decisions already taken by the Governing Body, for instance as regards the object of the report. Where questions could not be dealt with under the draft Rules, they would be resolved by reference to the existing Rules governing regional conferences, which remained applicable on a subsidiary basis.
Article 1
4. Concerning the reference in paragraph 1 to the payment of travel and subsistence expenses of tripartite delegations, the Employer members considered that if the proposals contained in the paper before the Committee under the second item on its agenda(2) concerning possible amendments to the Standing Orders of the Conference with respect to the non-payment of delegates' expenses, were to be approved, it would be appropriate to include a similar provision in article 8 of the draft Rules concerning the Credentials Committee. This position was supported by the Worker members. The representatives of the Governments of Germany and the Russian Federation, while supporting the Employers' proposal, felt that it was necessary to return to this point after discussion of that agenda item, which would then probably require an amendment to article 8.
5. The representative of the Government of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Asian and Pacific Government group, felt there was a need for clarity with regard to the procedures governing non-governmental organizations, and that particular attention should be paid to their nature and to the type of activities they were engaged in to ensure compatibility with the Rules of the Organization. Concerning the number of advisers accompanying delegates, it was felt that this should be determined by individual governments taking into account the fact that there would only be a single item on the agenda. The representative of the Government of China considered that non-governmental organizations invited by the Governing Body should be strictly limited and should be directly involved in activities in the region.
Article 2
6. The representative of the Government of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Asian and Pacific Government group, stated that previously there had been a suggestion that the agenda of the meeting should deal with ILO activities in the region, but noted that the Office paper referred to a single agenda item on a subject related to ILO activities. They hoped the meeting would be able to discuss ILO activities in the region rather than a subject related to ILO activities. In the latter case, prior consultations with the regional groups would be necessary. This view was confirmed by the representative of the Government of China. The Legal Adviser explained that the existing provision was flexibly worded and did not prejudge the question raised. Account would certainly be taken by the Governing Body of the comments made in this regard.
Article 3
7. The Worker members considered that the phrase "conclusions or reports" should more appropriately read "conclusions and reports". The rationale for the replacement of "or" by "and" was to ensure that results were achieved by the meeting and thereby avoid it having a report without any conclusions. The representative of the Government of Germany expressed doubts concerning such an amendment, since the proposal would then suggest that each meeting would have to adopt both a report and conclusions. In his view, certain items on the agenda would only require a report and would not necessarily be suitable for adopting conclusions. The Legal Adviser explained that the existing wording contained a degree of flexibility leaving it to the discretion of the Governing Body to decide whether the meeting could adopt conclusions, or resolutions, or both.
Article 4
8. The Employer and Worker members, together with the representatives of the Governments of Austria and Germany, referred to the inconsistency in paragraph 2 which stated that reports would reach governments at least three months before the opening of the meeting, while the Office paper referred to two months. The Legal Adviser explained that the three-month deadline provided for in paragraph 2 was the correct figure, but could be modified if the Governing Body were to approve a shorter interval.
Article 5
9. The representative of the Government of Austria, supported by the representative of the Government of Germany, considered that there was a need to have a strict delineation of nationalities in that article, as was the case with the Rules governing regional conferences. The representative of the Government of France was surprised by the reference to nationalities in article 5, as he had always considered that the Employers' and Workers' delegates were nominated without reference to nationality. The Legal Adviser recalled that the reference was embodied in the existing Rules governing regional conferences, but the detailed provisions on priority for groups had in the interests of simplification not been included in the draft texts. To the extent to which the existing Rules governing regional conferences were applicable on a subsidiary basis, any problems that could arise in this regard could however be resolved by reference to those Rules. He therefore proposed the deletion of the phrase "all of whom shall be of different nationalities".
Article 8
10. The Employer members questioned whether the requirement of 30 days in paragraph 1 for the deposit of credentials was appropriate or too long.
11. In response to the proposal put forward by the Employer members to insert a provision in paragraph 3 to enable the Credentials Committee to deal with complaints concerning the non-payment of expenses in accordance with article 1, paragraph 1, the Legal Adviser drew attention to the short duration of the meeting and the priority which the Credentials Committee would have to give to objections to credentials. The representative of the Government of Germany suggested that the time-limit that was set for objections could also be made applicable to such complaints.
12. Following the discussion of agenda item 2,(3) it was agreed to insert the following text at the end of paragraph 3 after the word "Rules": "The Committee may also consider any complaint alleging that a Member has failed to carry out its responsibility in accordance with article 1, paragraph 1, to pay travel and subsistence expenses of the tripartite delegation."
Article 9
13. Concerning paragraph 4, the Worker members felt that non-governmental organizations should have the same right to address the meeting as intergovernmental organizations and that they should not be limited to circulating statements. The representative of the Government of Germany could not support that position, since in his view this implied a cost in both time and money.
14. Concerning the more restricted right of non-governmental organizations to address the meeting, the Legal Adviser explained that the solution proposed was dictated by practical considerations. The objective was to enable the meeting to complete its agenda within the time available. These same considerations were applicable to the five-minute limitation imposed on delegates in paragraph 6. It was, however, up to the Governing Body to make provision for non-governmental organizations to speak with the agreement of the Officers, as was the case for other meetings. Following a request for clarification on paragraph 4 by the representative of the Government of Malaysia, the French text was brought into line with the English, and it was confirmed that the permission of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons was necessary in order for non-governmental organizations to circulate statements for information of the meeting. In the light of the discussion, the words "make or" have been added in paragraph 4 and the relevant phrase would now read: "... may, with the permission of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, make or circulate statements ... ."
15. The representative of the Government of Austria considered that the five-minute time-limit for speeches provided for in paragraph 6 was too short, as it encouraged delegates either to speak too quickly or to leave out certain comments from their speeches. However, the representatives of the Governments of France and the United Kingdom supported the five-minute rule.
16. With reference to paragraph 6, the representative of the Government of Italy sought clarification of paragraph 6, whose wording gave the impression that the consent of the whole meeting would be required to allow an exception to the five-minute rule in the case of each speech. He considered that this requirement would be impractical and that it was preferable to leave it to the discretion of the Chairperson, as was the usual practice. The Legal Adviser agreed that it was ambiguous, but considered that the provision as worded gave the meeting the flexibility to extend the time-limit for speeches if the list of speakers permitted. At the same time, it would allow the Chairperson on an ad hoc basis to give a speaker, at his or her request, more time in a particular case.
Article 10
17. The representative of the Government of the United Kingdom expressed support for the simplified voting procedures reflected in this provision.
Article 11
18. The representative of the Government of Japan sought clarification on the reference in paragraph 1 to working languages since the Rules for the regional conferences referred to official languages. He asked whether these were limited to the three working languages of the Conference (English, French and Spanish) or whether the Governing Body could decide on languages other than the three in question, account being taken of the languages of a particular region. The Legal Adviser explained that the intention was to allow the Governing Body to take a decision, taking account of budgetary constraints, of the languages used in the region and of the languages in which documents would be circulated, in addition to interpretation. This decision would be taken on a case-by-case basis. This position was approved by the representative of the Government of Germany.
Article 12
19. The representative of the Government of Austria expressed his discomfort at the reference to the present text of the Rules concerning Powers, Functions and Procedure of Regional Conferences convened by the International Labour Organization, which were now becoming out of date.
20. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Governing Body --
- adopt the draft Rules for Regional Meetings as set out in Appendix I to this paper;
- give effect to the draft Rules as from 1997 for the Regional Meeting to be held in Asia on an experimental basis before they are submitted to the International Labour Conference for confirmation;
- decide that the Rules be accompanied by an introductory note based on paragraphs 1 to 6 of document GB.267/LILS/1.
II. Possible amendments to articles 5 and 26 of the Conference
Standing Orders particularly with respect to the
non-payment of delegates' expenses
21. The Committee had before it a paper(4) proposing the text of possible additions to article 5, paragraph 2, and article 26 of the Conference Standing Orders, so as to cover consideration by the Credentials Committee of complaints of non-compliance with article 13, paragraph 2(a), of the Constitution. Following the orientations given by the Committee when it considered this question at the Governing Body's 265th Session (March 1996), the proposed amendments had as their primary objective to ensure that at the very least, and as a matter of priority, before making any other appointments, members would appoint and make provision for covering the expenses of the four delegates specified in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Constitution without transforming that minimum requirement into a norm. Without being a disincentive to the appointment of advisers, the amendments sought to discourage unequal treatment as between the three groups. Due consideration had been given to the financial constraints of certain governments as well as to the factor of trade union pluralism. Account was also taken of the need to avoid unduly increasing the workload of the Credentials Committee.
22. The Employer members agreed with the analysis in the document as well as the reasons which justified the amendments proposed, since the existing Standing Orders contained no clear basis on which the Credentials Committee could deal with such complaints, which served as a safeguard for tripartism. There was a need to address both the question of Members who did not pay at all, as well as the cases of imbalance in meeting that obligation. With regard to the proposed text of new paragraph 10(b) of article 26, there was a need to make it clear that complaints based on both subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 9 of that article were covered. The Committee subsequently agreed that the following phrase should be added after "non-payment" in paragraph 10(b), "... of travel and subsistence expenses in the circumstances set out under (a) or (b) of paragraph 9 or by an organization ...".
23. The Worker members considered that there were certain limits to the effectiveness of the cautious approach taken by the Office paper. Their main concern related to the fact that significant numbers of delegates had to leave the Conference before it ended on account of the failure of their governments to meet their obligations to pay their expenses. This adversely affected the voting strength of the groups. They considered that there was an inconsistency in the wording in new paragraph 9(a) and (b) of article 26, in that while (b) provided that the Committee had to unanimously consider that there was a serious imbalance, it was not obliged to consider the complaint at all since the text provided that it only "may consider" such complaints. They proposed the replacement of "may" by "shall" and the deletion in paragraph 9(b) of the words "... which the Committee unanimously considers to be a serious one ..."; they noted that the concept of unanimity was already covered in the proposed paragraph 11 of article 26. They also suggested the replacement of the word "refused" in paragraph 9(a) by a word such as "failed".
24. While the representative of the Government of Mauritius fully supported the principle of parity between the advisers of each group, he felt that flexibility was necessary, particularly in the case of small countries. In his view, a certain amount of imbalance should be allowed as long as the parties which were under-represented agreed. He felt that acceptable wording could be found to accommodate this point. The representative of the Government of Austria shared the views of the Government of Mauritius, and added that there was a need for greater clarity on the question of advisers, which remained unclear under the Constitution.
25. The representative of the Government of the United States agreed that the primary objective of the amendments should be that priority be given to the payment of the expenses of the four delegates in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, but that this should not become the norm. She was not sure that the provisions necessarily avoided the use of the procedure as a "back door" for alleging that a government had appointed an insufficient number of advisers. Nor was it clear to her what criteria would be used to determine whether there was a serious imbalance in the appointment of advisers or how governments would be able to exercise their right of reply in the case of a complaint. It was also difficult to see how the workload of the Committee would be limited.
26. The representative of the Government of the United Kingdom, while noting that many of the concerns previously expressed by governments had been met, agreed with the points made by the United States Government. The reference to the degree of seriousness of the imbalance would be more acceptable if account were taken of the proportions provided for under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Constitution.
27. The representative of the Government of the Russian Federation had ambiguous feelings about the proposed amendments. While he could support the proposals that some changes could be made, he was concerned by the provision that would permit complaints to be lodged if the expenses of advisers were not paid. In his view, article 3, paragraph 1, of the Constitution contained an obligation to appoint four delegates and to pay for their expenses, while the provision relating to the appointment of advisers was in another article of the Constitution which only stated that the governments may appoint advisers, making it an optional requirement. He could not therefore agree to the proposed text, which would permit complaints by advisers. This, in his view, would lead to the opposite result to that sought, in that governments would not nominate advisers from the non-Government groups.
28. The representative of the Government of Germany could not agree with the opinion expressed by the Government of the Russian Federation in that, in his view, while the word "may" in article 3, paragraph 2, of the Constitution enabled governments to appoint advisers, this did not mean that they were free to create a flagrant imbalance between the groups as regards the number of advisers whose expenses were covered. He referred to the need for "equality of armament" or the need to maintain an appropriate balance, which may not mean complete equality. He also referred to the constitutional obligation to have a minimum of four delegates, and to incomplete delegations where a government had not nominated an Employers' or Workers' delegate, a fact that was normally reflected in the reports of the Credentials Committee.
29. The representative of the Government of Finland considered that the proposals in the Office paper were flexible enough to be experimented on, and that they could be changed if necessary. Concerning article 3, paragraph 2, of the Constitution on the appointment of advisers, he stated that while their appointment was optional, once a government had decided to nominate advisers it was not optional to favour one group.
30. The representative of the Government of France considered that the procedures contained in the text were simplified, and unlike those relating to objections, they were unofficial and less public. A unanimous decision by the Committee was necessary and, unlike in the case of the objection procedure, failure to achieve unanimity meant that the complaint would not be referred to the Conference. He was somewhat embarrassed by the wording of paragraph 9(a), as he felt that it was insufficient to indicate that a State had refused to pay. Account had to be taken of cases where governments paid late or made part payment. Concerning the question of the imbalance in the appointment of advisers, he considered it necessary to distinguish on the one hand the obligation on governments to nominate the four delegates, and on the other the option given to them to appoint advisers. It was necessary to make provision for the latter case, as had been done in the proposed text of paragraph 9(b) of article 26; unanimity among the members of the Credentials Committee on a complaint would point to the serious nature of the imbalance. The Credentials Committee would, however, have to take into account the various situations that could arise and which would need to be examined calmly.
31. The Employer Vice-Chairperson assured the Committee that neither the assessment of the seriousness of the imbalance nor the unanimity criterion would cause any difficulty. He referred to the detailed wording of the draft Rules and provided clarifications on the methods of work of the Credentials Committee, which gave due consideration to the receivability of complaints. He explained that in view of the limited membership of the Credentials Committee (three members), deliberations were not protracted and the members usually decided on the basis of unanimity. The cases identified as involving a serious imbalance would be obvious ones.
32. On the question of the imbalance in the appointment of advisers, the Legal Adviser confirmed the opinion expressed by the representative of the Government of Germany. There could indeed be justifications for a certain imbalance, and the text provided for safeguards as to the conditions under which such imbalances could be considered objectionable. First, the imbalance must be abnormal or serious, and it must be manifest. Secondly, the Committee must reach unanimous agreement in this respect. The substance of the wording proposed thus maintained an equilibrium between the different concerns expressed in the discussions. However, to meet one of the points made by the Worker members, he proposed that paragraph 9(b) read, "the complaint alleges a serious and manifest imbalance as between the number of Employers ...". With respect to the discretion given to the Committee by the word "may", which had been questioned by the Worker members, the Legal Adviser pointed out that its purpose was to ensure that the Committee gave priority to its primary role of considering objections to credentials.
33. The Committee decided that the words "refused to pay" in paragraph 9(a) should be replaced by "failed to pay", as proposed by the Workers' group in particular. It also approved the amendment proposed by the Legal Adviser concerning subparagraph (b) of paragraph 9, noting the reservation of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to the inclusion of that subparagraph.
34. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Governing Body propose to the 85th Session (June 1997) of the International Labour Conference that it adopt the amendments to article 5, paragraph 2, and article 26 of the Conference Standing Orders as set out in Appendix II to this report.
III. Other legal questions
35. Concerning two problems raised by the Office, the Committee considered it would be useful for the Office to submit proposals to it at the Governing Body's next session in March.
36. The first was the time-limit for submitting objections to credentials under article 26, paragraph 4(a), of the Standing Orders, which was 72 hours after the publication of the name of the delegate or adviser concerned. With the shortening of the Conference, it was important that objections should be lodged as early as possible so that they could be properly considered by the Credentials Committee. Under the present rule, such consideration was sometimes difficult and even impossible (where the name of the person objected to appeared only in the final list of participants).
37. The other problem concerned the case where the right to vote had been restored to a Member in arrears in the payment of contributions, under an arrangement for the consolidation of arrears, but where the Member had made a payment after the end of the year for which it was due. Because of the wording of article 32, paragraph 2, of the Conference Standing Orders, the Member concerned lost the right to vote once again, even though by the time of the June Conference it was up to date with its repayments and contributions. This had caused inconvenience to the Conference on two occasions in recent times, since restoration of the right to vote -- which had been a foregone conclusion in such cases -- required a two-thirds majority and a record vote.
Geneva, 19 November 1996.
(Signed) J.L. Ilabaca Orphanopoulos, Chairperson.
Points for decision:
Paragraph 20;
Paragraph 34.
Appendix I
Draft Rules for Regional Meetings
Article 1
Composition of Regional Meetings
1. Each Regional Meeting shall be composed of two Government delegates, one Employers' delegate, and one Workers' delegate for each State or territory invited by the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization to be represented at it. Acceptance by a State or territory of an invitation to be represented at a Regional Meeting implies that it assumes responsibility for the travel and subsistence expenses of its tripartite delegation.
2. (1) Delegates may be accompanied by advisers, and any such delegate may by notice in writing addressed to the Chairperson appoint one of his or her advisers to act as his or her substitute.
(2) An adviser who is acting as substitute for his delegate may speak and vote under the same conditions as the delegate who is being replaced.
3. Employers' and Workers' delegates and advisers shall be chosen in agreement with the industrial organizations, if such organizations exist, which are most representative of the employers or workers as the case may be in the State or territory concerned.
4. Any Member of the International Labour Organization and any State which is not a Member of the International Labour Organization which has been invited by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office may be represented at the Meeting by an observer.
5. Ministers from States or territories represented at the Conference or from constituent states or provinces thereof whose departments deal with the questions discussed by the Meeting and who are not delegates or advisers may also attend the Meeting.
6. Representatives of official international organizations and of non-governmental international organizations which have been invited by the Governing Body, either individually or as a result of a standing arrangement, to be represented at the Meeting may attend it as observers.
Article 2
Agenda of Regional Meetings
The Governing Body shall establish the agenda for the Regional Meetings.
Article 3
Form of decisions of Regional Meetings
Subject to any specific indication by the Governing Body to the contrary, the decisions of Regional Meetings shall take the form of resolutions on matters relating to the item(s) on the agenda, conclusions or reports addressed to the Governing Body.
Article 4
Reports for Regional Meetings
1. The International Labour Office shall prepare a report on the items on the agenda designed to facilitate an exchange of views on the issues referred to the Meeting.
2. The report shall be despatched by the Office so as to reach governments at least three months before the opening of the Meeting. The Officers of the Governing Body may approve shorter intervals if exceptional circumstances so require.
Article 5
Officers of the Meeting
1. Each Regional Meeting shall elect as officers a Chairperson and three Vice-Chairpersons.
2. The three Vice-Chairpersons shall be elected by the Meeting on the nomination of the Government, Employers' and Workers' delegates respectively.
Article 6
Duties of the Officers
1. It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to declare the opening and closing of the sittings, to bring before the Meeting any communication which may concern it, direct the debates, maintain order, ensure the observance of the present Rules, put questions for decision and announce the results of any voting.
2. The Chairperson shall not take part in the debates and shall not vote, but may appoint a substitute in accordance with article 1, paragraph 2(1), of these Rules.
3. If the Chairperson is absent during any sitting or part of a sitting he or she shall be replaced by one of the Vice-Chairpersons, who shall act in rotation.
4. A Vice-Chairperson acting as Chairperson shall have the same rights and duties as the Chairperson.
5. The Officers of the Meeting shall arrange its programme of work, and fix the date and time of the sittings of the Meeting and of its subsidiary bodies, if any; they shall report to the Meeting on any matter requiring a decision for the proper conduct of its business.
Article 7
Committees
Each Regional Meeting shall appoint a Credentials Committee and any other subsidiary body as the meeting may consider appropriate. Any such subsidiary body shall operate mutatis mutandis under the rules applicable to the Meeting.
Article 8
Credentials
1. The credentials of delegates and their advisers at Regional Meetings shall be deposited with the International Labour Office at least thirty (30) days before the date fixed for the opening of the Meeting. A provisional list shall be established and available at headquarters fifteen (15) days before the opening of the Meeting.
2. The Credentials Committee shall consist of one Government delegate, one Employers' delegate and one Workers' delegate.
3. The Credentials Committee shall examine the credentials of delegates and their advisers and any objection alleging that an Employers' or Workers' delegate or adviser has not been nominated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 1 of these Rules. The Committee may also consider any complaint alleging that a Member has failed to carry out its responsibility in accordance with article 1, paragraph 1, to pay travel and subsistence expenses of the tripartite delegation.
4. An objection shall not be receivable in the following cases:
- if the objection is not lodged with the secretariat of the Meeting by 11 a.m. on the first day of the Meeting, unless the Committee considers that there were valid reasons why the time-limit could not be respected;
- if the authors of the objection remain anonymous;
- if the objection is based upon facts or allegations identical to those which the International Labour Conference or an earlier Regional Conference or Regional Meeting has already discussed and recognized to be irrelevant or devoid of substance.
5. The Credentials Committee shall promptly submit its report on each objection to the Meeting, which may request the Office to bring the report(s) to the attention of the Governing Body.
Article 9
Right to address the Meeting
1. No delegate shall address the Meeting without having asked and obtained the permission of the Chairperson, who shall normally call upon speakers in the order in which they have signified their desire to speak.
2. The Director-General of the International Labour Office or his or her representative may, with the permission of the Chairperson, address the Meeting.
3. Persons entitled to take part in the Meeting in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 5 of article 1, and representatives of official international organizations may, with the permission of the Chairperson, address the meeting during any discussion in plenary.
4. Representatives of non-governmental international organizations entitled to take part in the Meeting as observers in virtue of paragraph 6 of article 1 may, with the permission of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons, make or circulate statements for information of the Meeting on matters included in its agenda. If agreement cannot be reached, the Chairperson shall refer the matter to the Meeting for decision without discussion.
5. The Chairperson may withdraw the right to speak from any speaker whose remarks are not relevant to the subject under discussion.
6. Except with the special consent of the Meeting, no speech shall exceed five minutes.
Article 10
Voting and quorum
1. Subject to the provisions of article 13, paragraph 4, of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization,(1) every delegate shall be entitled to vote individually on all matters which are under consideration by the meeting.
2. If one of the Members represented fails to nominate one of the non-government delegates whom it is entitled to nominate, the other non-government delegate shall be allowed to sit and speak at the meeting, but not to vote.
3. Decisions shall, whenever practicable, be taken by consensus. In the absence of consensus duly ascertained and announced by the Chairperson, decisions shall be taken by a simple majority of the votes cast by the delegates who are present at the sitting and entitled to vote.
4. Voting shall normally be by show of hands.
5. A vote is not valid if the total number of votes cast for and against is less than half the total number of delegates at the Meeting entitled to vote.
6. The vote shall be recorded by the Secretariat and announced by the Chairperson.
7. No resolution, conclusion, report, amendment or motion shall be adopted if the number of votes cast for and the number of votes cast against it are equal.
Article 11
Languages
1. The Governing Body shall determine the working languages of the Meeting.
2. The Secretariat shall make arrangements for interpretation and for translation of documents into and from other languages, taking into account the composition of the Meeting and the facilities and staff available.
Article 12
Other provisions
Any matter not expressly covered by these Rules shall be dealt with mutatis mutandis by reference to the relevant provisions of the Rules concerning the Powers, Functions and Procedure of Regional Conferences convened by the International Labour Organization.(2)
1 This provides that a Member of the Organization which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contribution to the Organization shall have no vote if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two years. This deprives its tripartite delegation of the right to vote.
2 The following provisions of the Rules concerning the Powers, Functions and Procedure of Regional Conferences convened by the International Labour Organization may be considered to be relevant: articles 7, 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27.
Appendix II
Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference
Article 5
The following sentence, in bold print, should be added to article 5, paragraph 2, of the Standing Orders of the Conference:
"The Credentials Committee shall examine the credentials of delegates and their advisers, and any objection relating thereto, in accordance with the provisions of Section B of Part II. Within the limits laid down in the said Section B, the Committee may also consider any complaints of non-observance of paragraph 2(a) of article 13 of the Constitution."
Article 26
The following paragraphs should be added at the end of article 26 of the Conference Standing Orders:
"9. The Credentials Committee may consider complaints that a Member has failed to comply with paragraph 2(a) of article 13 of the Constitution, where:
- the Member is alleged to have failed to pay the travelling and subsistence expenses of one or more of the delegates that it has nominated in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, or
- the complaint alleges a serious and manifest imbalance as between the number of Employers' or Workers' advisers whose expenses have been covered in the delegation concerned and the number of advisers appointed for the Government delegates.
10. A complaint referred to in paragraph 9 shall not be receivable in the following cases:
- if the complaint is not lodged with the Secretary-General of the Conference before 10 a.m. on the seventh day following the opening of the Conference and the Committee considers that there is insufficient time to deal with it properly;
- if the complaint is not lodged by an accredited delegate or adviser alleging non-payment of travel and subsistence expenses in the circumstances set out under (a) or (b) of paragraph 9 or by an organization or person acting on his or her behalf.
11. The Credentials Committee shall, in its report, present to the Conference any conclusions that it has unanimously reached on each complaint considered by it."