|
GB.273/LILS/4 (Rev.1)
| ||
|
| ||
|
Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards |
LILS |
|
| |
FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Report of the Working Party on Policy
regarding the Revision of Standards
A. Effect given to the recommendations of the Working Party
B. Deferred examination of Conventions Nos. 94 and 96
C. Examination of the need for revision of Conventions concerning seafarers and fishermen
I.1. C.147 -- Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976
I.2 C.108 -- Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958
I.3 C.145 -- Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976
II. Training and entry into employment
II.I C.9 -- Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920
II.2 C.22 -- Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926
III. Conditions for admission to employment
III.1 C.7 -- Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920
III.2 C.15 -- Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) Convention, 1921
III.3 C.58 -- Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936
III.4 C.16 -- Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921
III.5 C.73 -- Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946
D. Examination of the need for revision of Recommendations (First stage)
1. In accordance with the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 271st Session (March 1998), the Working Party met on 10 November 1998, under the chairmanship of Mr. J.-L. Cartier (Government, France). The Employer Vice-Chairperson and the Worker Vice-Chairperson were Mr. D. Funes de Rioja (Argentina) and Mr. J.-C. Parrot (Canada), respectively.
2. The Chairperson proposed that as it was highly likely that the discussion on the fourth agenda item would be extended, the Working Party should, whatever happened, devote the last hour of the session to a discussion on the methodology of analysing recommendations. The case-by-case examination of these recommendations would be deferred to the next meeting of the Working Party. The Chairperson also pointed out that at the end of the meeting, a timetable of the Working Party's future work would be discussed. Finally, whilst appreciating the quality of the documents submitted, he appealed to the Office to ensure that the members of the Working Party might receive its documents in enough time before the session.
3. The Employer members joined with the request made by the Chairperson concerning the availability of documents, especially when they were fairly technical and required very close examination.
4. The Worker members also expressed the same concerns concerning the late delivery of the documents, which moreover constituted an excellent basis for discussion.
* * *
A. Effect given to the recommendations of the Working Party (1)
5. The Chairperson stressed the usefulness of this document and, in particular of the information note appended to it. He pointed out that the structure of the information note had been slightly changed, following the discussions of the Working Party in March 1998. He also mentioned that following the work of the Conference in June 1998, and especially in view of the adoption of the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, paragraph I.3(a) should be amended to reflect the fact that the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) was now classified as one of the fundamental Conventions.
6. The Worker members expressed their agreement on the issue of the classification of Convention No. 138 and further proposed that there should be a change in the title of the information note to give a better idea of its content, i.e. the stage the Working Party had reached in its work.
7. The Employer members supported the views of the Chairperson and Worker members concerning the significance of this document, not only for the members of the Working Party, but also for the Office and the multidisciplinary teams. As regards the fundamental Conventions to which paragraph 3 of the Appendix referred, they acknowledged that these Conventions remained fully relevant and up-to-date, but felt that they were not immutable. Even if they did contain fundamental principles, they could, at a particular point in time, require re-examining without this affecting either their spirit or basic principles. Concerning the promotion of the ratification of revised Conventions (paragraphs 15 to 21 of the Appendix), the Employer members stated that they would like to see appropriate follow-up measures taken. Finally, on the subject of paragraph 28, the French and English text should be brought in line with the Spanish text to reflect that the Governing Body had decided to defer the decision on the shelving of ten Conventions and not the actual shelving itself.
8. The Worker members stated that they were entirely in agreement with this last adjustment proposed by the Employer members.
9. The Chairperson summarized the points raised by both groups. After a discussion, the Working Party adopted a new title for the Appendix: "Information note on the state of the work and decisions taken concerning the revision of standards".
10. The representative of the Government of Sweden also stressed the significance of this document and was pleased that it had been put at the disposal of the members of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. She pointed out that this information note summarized decisions taken on almost 120 Conventions and that the follow-up measures envisaged would involve additional work at the national level. Concerning the amendment to the Constitution, the 14 ratifications noted in paragraph 2 of the document were relatively encouraging, given the protracted nature of national ratification procedures.
11. The Worker members noted that the English wording of the first sentence of paragraph 18 concerning the "revising Conventions" was not in line with the French text.
12. A representative of the Director-General explained that this ambiguity was due to a difference between the official terminology of the Organization and the common usage of the term "révisante" ("revising" in English). In paragraph 18, reference was made to the most recent Conventions. He added that the changes suggested in particular by the Worker members would be taken into account in the document submitted to the Working Party in March 1999.
13. The Employer members stressed, following the intervention of the representative of the Government of Sweden, that steps must be taken to ensure that the amendment to the Constitution entered into effect before the year 2000. They believed that initiatives already taken along these lines should be continued. It was very positive that there had been 14 ratifications or approvals of the amendment -- but that was not enough. The ratification process should be speeded up, as should the activities of this Working Party. They believed that the final goal was to have a fully effective and useful standard-setting system, in view of the objectives at stake. There should be an improvement in the pace of the proceedings of the Working Party, which had not been entirely satisfactory until now.
14. The Chairperson stated that the Director-General had relaunched the ratification campaign of this amendment amongst member States, which should especially concentrate on the nine other States of chief industrial importance (as China had already ratified the amendment).
15. The representative of the Government of the United States pointed out that it was important to continue distributing the information note to the delegates at the Conference. Concerning the process of ratification of the amendment to the Constitution, he confirmed that this was taking place in his country, but required a considerable amount of time.
16. The Chairperson concluded by stressing the importance of this amendment, and noting that it was also of symbolic value.
* * *
B. Deferred examination of Conventions Nos. 94 and 96 (2)
I. Employment services and agencies
I.1 C.96 -- Fee-charging Employment Agencies Convention (Revised), 1949
17. When introducing the Office's proposals, the Chairman suggested amending subparagraph (a) so that the words "if and" would be deleted so that the last part of the sentence would read: "when Convention No. 181 shall have come into force".
18. The Employer members and Worker members supported the Chairperson's suggestions and agreed that the Office's proposal should be thus amended.
19. The Working Party proposes:
(a) to recommend to the Governing Body that it invite the States parties to Convention No. 96 to contemplate ratifying, as appropriate, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), the ratification of which will, ipso jure, involve the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 96, when Convention No. 181 shall have come into force;
(b) that the Working Party (or the LILS Committee) re-examine the status of Convention No. 96 in due course.
* * *
II. Conditions of work -- wages
II.1 C.94 -- Labour Clauses (Public Contracts Convention, 1949
20. The Chairperson introduced the two alternative recommendations contained in the Office's proposal.
21. In view of the document submitted and the information available, the Employer members felt that it would be wiser to recommend the maintenance of the status quo with respect to Convention No. 94 and to re-examine this issue at a later date.
22. The Worker members, for their part, preferred the first proposal on the grounds that seven member States had reported that ratification of this Convention was imminent or under serious consideration, while in four others the ratification prospects had to be further examined. They also noted the Resolution concerning public procurement for construction services and labour clauses, adopted at the Tripartite Meeting on Social and Labour Issues concerning Migrant Workers in the Construction Industry, which encouraged the ratification of this Convention.
23. The representative of the Government of Sweden announced that her country had, for some time already, been envisaging ratification of this Convention. In view of the positions expressed by both groups, she suggested that the proposal of the Office should be amended to read as follows: "to invite member States to examine the possibility of ratifying the Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention, 1949 (No. 94)".
24. The Employer members recalled that nine member States had pointed out that they had encountered difficulties involved in the ratification of the Convention. They stated that they were prepared to accept the wording proposed by the representative of the Government of Sweden. However, they suggested that subparagraph (b) of the second option be maintained.
25. After a discussion in which it was stressed that consultations among member States on the possible obstacles and difficulties affecting the ratification of this Convention had already taken place in 1997, the Working Party agreed to maintain the first option proposed by the Office as amended by the representative of the Government of Sweden and supplemented with subparagraph (b) of the second option.
26. The Working Party proposes:
(a) to recommend to the Governing Body that it invite member States to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 94;
(b) that the Working Party (or the LILS Committee) re-examine the status of Convention No. 94 in due course.
* * *
C. Examination of the need for revision of Conventions concerning seafarers and fishermen (3)
27. The Chairperson pointed out that the Working Party was entering a new stage in its work. Conventions on seafarers and fishermen constituted a category of Conventions apart: they were adopted by the Conference convening at a special session attended by experts in maritime issues. In its analysis, the Office had applied the same criteria as those used for other Conventions, with a number of adjustments. Conventions on seafarers and fishermen differed in a number of respects from other Conventions: on the one hand, they were ratified by less member States; on the other hand, they were usually declared applicable to a large number of non-metropolitan territories. The Chairperson also recalled that unofficial consultations had been held with some members of the Joint Maritime Commission (JMC). The Office's proposal were based to a great extent on the recommendations of an informal Joint Working Group of shipowners' and seafarers' representative organizations, which met in Geneva in July 1998. However, in a number of cases, the Office had distanced itself from these recommendations on account of legal considerations.
28. The Worker members pointed out that the criteria applied and methodology used by the ISF/ITF Working Group to examine Conventions concerning seafarers and fishermen were the same used to examine other Conventions. After having thanked both organizations for their work, the Worker members stated that the recommendations of the working group should be examined closely but that they did not necessarily commit the present Working Party to adopt them unchanged. In some cases, they would have to be qualified to ensure consistency in the practices and methods of the Working Party.
29. The Employer members approved of the criteria for the examination of these Conventions and the methodology applied, and of the informal consultations with the representatives of shipowners and seafarers. As for instruments concerning the working and living conditions of fishermen, they stated that they agreed with the opinion expressed in the letter from the International Organisation of Employers (Annex II) concerning the specific nature of these instruments and emphasized the need to be familiar with the ideas of employers' organizations in the fishing sector. They felt that the procedure of informal consultations was extremely useful and should be applied in examining instruments on fishermen. As regards requests which might be made to member States concerning any obstacles and difficulties they might encounter in ratifying Conventions on seafarers and fishermen (paragraph 11 of the Office document), the Office should think carefully about the way these consultations could be most effective. Above all, the letters sent by the Office to the constituents should be drafted in such a way as to encourage them to take positive action.
30. Following clarifications provided by a representative of the Director-General, the Chairperson pointed out that these requests for information would not overlap with requests made under article 19 of the Constitution.
31. The Employer members expressed the opinion that sending official letters without specific questions would result in very sketchy replies. Constituents should be encouraged, as far as possible, to provide detailed replies.
32. A representative of the Director-General pointed out that replies from governments were not always sketchy; indeed, some of them were extremely detailed. He mentioned that the Office would take into account the comments made in preparing the letters requesting information.
33. The Chairperson felt that the issue raised by the Employer members was pertinent. The Office might judge itself whether the questionnaires it sent to member States prompted satisfactory replies or if, on the contrary, they were too general in nature -- in which case additional clarifications should be added.
34. The representative of the Government of Sweden stated that she was pleased with the serious and in-depth work carried out by the Office in preparing this document. The consultation procedure carried out in this context had made it possible to draw upon the expertise of both groups. She nevertheless stressed that although this procedure had strengthened the bipartite consultations, the same could not be said for the tripartite consultations. Concerning the reference made to the Joint Maritime Commission in paragraph 5 of the document, she wondered about the role of this Commission compared with that of the Working Party. Finally, she hoped that account would be taken of the fact that this document would be examined by experts in maritime matters, who were not familiar with the procedures of the Working Party.
35. A representative of the Director-General specified that the Joint Maritime Commission was a bipartite commission made up of representatives of shipowners and seafarers which, for years now, had been developing a programme of standard-setting activities, including proposals for new standards or the revision of maritime instruments. The Commission submits opinions to the Governing Body and reports to the Committee on sectoral and technical meetings and related issues (STM). The last meeting of the Joint Commission had been in 1991. During the current session of the Governing Body, the STM was going to examine a proposal to hold a new meeting of the Commission during the next biennium. At this meeting, the Commission would examine, amongst other things, the decisions taken following the recommendations of the Working Party. The role of the Joint Commission is therefore mainly of an advisory nature.
36. The Chairperson recalled that the Joint Maritime Commission was not a decision-making body.
I.1. C.147 -- Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards Convention, 1976
37. The Chairperson pointed out that Convention No. 147 was a particular case, given that other Conventions, contained in its Appendix, were involved in its examination.
38. A representative of the Director-General pointed out that this was a fundamental maritime Convention; it was also extremely complex. Indeed, Article 2(a) stipulated that member States having ratified the Convention undertook to have laws and regulations substantially equivalent to the Conventions or Articles of Conventions referred to in the Appendix to the Convention. It was worth considering what the repercussions would be for Convention No. 147 if a decision was taken to revise, shelve or abrogate one of the Conventions mentioned in this Appendix. The Office had sent to the secretaries of the group of shipowners and seafarers of the Joint Maritime Commission a letter pointing out that the revision of one of these Conventions would not affect the obligations of States having ratified Convention No. 147. The Office had not, in this letter, commented on the possible effects of the shelving or abrogation of a Convention mentioned in the Appendix to Convention No. 147. This issue, which was particularly pertinent in the case of Conventions Nos. 7, 23 and 53, was much more delicate. Consequently, the Office recommended the Working Party to defer the examination of these three Conventions to its next meeting, in order to be able to examine in a more detailed way the legal and technical implications of any decisions which might be taken concerning them.
39. The Employer members stressed the importance and complexity of Convention No. 147 and its Protocol. They agreed with the recommendation of the Joint Working Group to promote the ratification of this Convention. However, they felt it would be preferable to examine Convention No. 147, its Protocol and appendices together in the light of the comments made by the Office on the Conventions mentioned in the appendices.
40. The Worker members also expressed the wish to take up the matter of the nine Conventions as a whole submitted for examination to the Working Party which are mentioned in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 or to its Protocol.
41. As regards Convention No. 147 itself, the Worker members proposed to delete, in subparagraph (b) of the Office's proposal, the reference to the re-examination of the status of Convention No. 147: it was the list of Conventions appended to this Convention, and not the Convention itself, which should be re-examined in due course.
42. The Employer members shared this point of view.
43. The Chairperson concluded that the Working Party agreed with subparagraph (a) of the Office's proposals concerning Convention No. 147. As regards subparagraph (b), the Working Party felt that only the status of Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 and in the Appendix to the 1996 Protocol should be re-examined in due course.
44. The Working Party agreed to continue its discussion of Convention No. 147 and to postpone consideration of the Conventions listed in the Appendix to that Convention and in the Protocol of 1996 to its meeting in March 1999.
I.2 C.108 -- Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958
45. As with other instruments linked to Convention No. 147 referred to above, the Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 108 to its next meeting.
I.3 C.145 -- Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976
46. The Working Party expressed its agreement with the Office's proposals, namely:
(a) to recommend to the Governing Body that it invite member States to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 145, and to inform the Office of the obstacles and difficulties encountered, if any, that might prevent or delay the ratification of Convention No. 145;
(b) that the Working Party (or the LILS Committee) re-examine the status of Convention No. 145 in due course.
* * *
II. Training and entry into employment
II.I C.9 -- Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920
47. The Chairperson noted that the Office's proposal was slightly different from the recommendation of the informal Joint Working Group.
48. The Employer members supported the Office's proposal, as it was in line with the methodology adopted by the Joint Working Group.
49. The Worker members, for their part, supported the recommendation of the Joint Working Group.
50. The Chairperson stressed that reference had to be made to the denunciation of Convention No. 9.
51. After an exchange of views, the Working Party expressed its agreement with the Office's proposals, namely:
(a) to recommend to the Governing Body that it invite the States parties to Convention No. 9 to contemplate ratifying the Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers' Convention, 1996 (No. 179), the ratification of which will, ipso jure, involve the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 9;
(b) that the Working Party (or the LILS Committee) re-examine the status of Convention No. 9 in due course.
II.2 C.22 -- Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926
52. The Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 22 to its next meeting.
* * *
III. Conditions for admission to employment
III.1 C.7 -- Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920
53. The Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 7 to its next meeting.
III.2 C.15 -- Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) Convention, 1921
54. The Chairperson noted that Convention No. 15 no longer served any purpose. Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the proposals presented in the document seemed acceptable, but he felt that there were too many States parties to Convention No. 15 for it to be abrogated already. Subparagraph (c) of the Office's proposals should perhaps be modified to the effect that abrogation would be considered only once a substantial number of denunciations had been registered. The other Conventions listed for possible abrogation had only been ratified by an extremely small number of countries. This point could be made by introducing the words "in due course" in subparagraph (c).
55. The Employer members supported the Office's proposal and stressed the importance of ratifying Convention No. 138. Thirty-two denunciations of Convention No. 15 had already been registered, and its abrogation could be considered when more States had ratified Convention No. 138. The reference in subparagraph (c) of the Office's proposals to the possibility of considering the abrogation of Convention No. 15 did not mean that it would necessarily be abrogated as soon as the constitutional amendment enters into force. The proposal could specify that abrogation would be considered when a substantial number of denunciations had been registered.
56. The Worker members supported the Chairperson's suggestion. The shelving of Convention No. 15 with immediate effect met the immediate requirement, and the matter of its abrogation could be reconsidered later. There was a risk that considering Convention No. 15 for abrogation when the constitutional amendment enters into force might be taken as a precedent for abrogating Conventions with a large number of ratifications.
57. The representative of the Government of Mexico, together with the representative of the Government of Chile, wondered why a Convention should be retained when it no longer served any purpose, even though it had admittedly been ratified by a fairly large number of countries.
58. A representative of the Director-General proposed a new subparagraph (a), to read: "that it take note that the activities covered by Convention No. 15 no longer exist".
59. The Working Party agreed with the suggestion of the representative of the Director-General.
60. The Chairperson also suggested that a reference to the denunciation of Convention No. 15 be inserted in new subparagraph (b). The Working Party agreed to add the words "the ratification of which will, ipso jure, involve the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 15".
61. The Working Party proposes to recommend to the Governing Body:
(a) that it take note that the activities covered by Convention No. 15 no longer exist;
(b) that it invite States parties to Convention No. 15 to contemplate ratifying the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), the ratification of which will, ipso jure, involve the denunciation of Convention No. 15, on the conditions stated in Section 10(5)(c) of Convention No. 138;
(c) that Convention No. 15 be shelved with immediate effect;
(d) that Convention No. 15 be considered, in due course, for abrogation by the Conference when the constitutional amendment enabling abrogations enters into force.
III.3 C.58 -- Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936
62. The Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 58 to its next meeting.
III.4 C.16 -- Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea) Convention, 1921
63. The Worker members agreed with the Office's proposals but did not want the Convention to be dealt with in conjunction with Convention No. 73, since consideration of the latter would be postponed to the next meeting of the Working Party.
64. The Employer members supported the Office's proposals and suggested, for the sake of clarity, that subparagraph (b) be split into two. This suggestion was adopted by the Working Party.
65. The Working Party proposes to recommend to the Governing Body:
(a) the revision of Convention No. 16;
(b) that it invite the member States to inform the Office whether a revision of this Convention should be included in the portfolio of proposals for the agenda of the International Labour Conference:
(i) as a separate item; or
(ii) for joint consideration with a possible revision of the Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73).
III.5 C.73 -- Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946
66. The Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 73 to its next meeting.
* * *
IV. Certificates of competency
IV.1 C.53 -- Officers' Competency Certificates Convention, 1936
67. The Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 53 to its next meeting.
IV.2 C.69 -- Certification of Ships' Cooks Convention, 1946
68. The Employer members supported the Office's proposals.
69. The Worker members noted that 36 ratifications had been registered for this Convention and that there had been new ratifications in recent years. There was nothing to suggest a priori that Convention No. 69 needed to be revised. Consequently, it might be preferable initially to invite member States to inform the Office of the obstacles and difficulties encountered, if any, that might prevent or delay its ratification.
70. The Chairperson noted that the Joint Working Group had recommended that this instrument be revised.
71. The Employer members felt that, if the Working Party did not propose the revision of Convention No. 69 immediately, further consideration of the matter should be postponed so that the Office might submit additional information on the subject.
72. A representative of the Director-General said that the Office had recently received information on food and catering for ships' crews in the course of a recent campaign focusing on the working and living conditions of seafarers that had identified a number of deficiencies in this respect. The Office was quite prepared to pass this information on to the Working Party at its next meeting.
73. The Working Party agreed to postpone consideration of Convention No. 69 to its next meeting and requested the Office to submit additional information on the need for its revision.
* * *
74. The Working Party agreed to postpone to its next meeting consideration of the other Conventions concerning seafarers that were examined in the Office document.
* * *
D. Examination of the need for revision of Recommendations
(First stage)
(4)
75. The Chairperson recalled that the Working Party wished to take up the question of the methodology for examining Recommendations. Summarizing the introduction to the Office's paper, he drew attention to the observation in paragraph 2 that the Organization should have no more than one up-to-date Recommendation on any given subject. The procedure for revising Recommendations was set out in article 45 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, but in practice this article had virtually never been invoked, the Conference always choosing to replace Recommendations rather than revise them. In 1948 the Governing Body had considered that a new Recommendation took the place of an earlier Recommendation provided that this was so stipulated. A systematic study of international labour standards in 1974 identified, on the one hand, those Recommendations that were still of current interest and, on the other, those that were no longer of interest or had been superseded. The 1979 and 1987 Ventejol Working Parties, which also examined the Conventions and Recommendations, adopted a new classification of international labour standards that included all the Recommendations. They did not give their views on the effect of revising or replacing Recommendations, nor on the measures to be taken with respect to obsolete Recommendations. In 1979 the Governing Body asked the Office to set aside certain Recommendations, and it therefore omitted 64 Recommendations from the new compilation of international labour standards. The Working Party should clarify any ambiguities in this area, and for this the Office had proposed a number of criteria. The Working Party was invited to note that the Organization had in the past replaced Recommendations rather than revised them, replacement being more far-reaching and also more flexible than revision. As to the juridical implications of replacing an earlier Recommendation, there was no explicit provision on the subject but rather a practice adhered to by the Organization -- albeit not always consistently.
76. At the request of the Chairperson, a representative of the Director-General clarified paragraph 23, which related to paragraph 35. The latter paragraph proposed that the Office submit a document to the Working Party to determine whether it would be useful to codify the practice adhered to in the past, without prejudging the form that such codification might take. The document could also be submitted to the Working Party when it finished its case-by-case examination of the Recommendations.
77. Before proceeding to the case-by-case examination of the Recommendations, the Worker members asked for additional information in the form of a list of autonomous Recommendations and of Recommendations linked to a Convention, and a list of the 64 Recommendations omitted from the compilation published by the Office. They felt that Recommendations should normally be treated in the same way as their accompanying Conventions. The list requested should accordingly indicate the decisions taken by the Governing Body on the Conventions. Should the Office propose a different treatment for a given Recommendation, it should explain why. They also wondered about the meaning of "give effect to" in the case of a Recommendation and asked if the Office could, for example, take the content of such Recommendations into account in its technical cooperation activities, seminars, etc. As to paragraphs 28 and 32 and the link between a Recommendation and an item on the Conference agenda or in the portfolio of proposals, the Worker members observed that the Governing Body's choice of agenda items for forthcoming sessions of the Conference could not be taken for granted.
78. The Employer members recalled that the discussion was only at its introductory stage. They distinguished between Recommendations linked to Conventions and autonomous Recommendations and had several questions to ask. Was paragraph 35, for instance, referring to a codification or a form of consolidation of the Organization's past practice? Was it to be a codification of the effects or of the principles? Did paragraphs 30 and 31 go together? Would paragraph 34 apply to autonomous Recommendations? What about Recommendations previously considered by the Office to be no longer of any interest?
79. Replying to the questions raised by the Employer and Worker members, a representative of the Director-General pointed out that paragraph 25 of the paper indicated that Recommendations would normally be treated in the same way as Conventions. It could however happen that, in a particular instance, the Working Party might wish to propose a different solution for a Recommendation. The words "give effect to" related to the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution. Should it be decided to codify past practice, it would be for the Working Party to decide on the scope of the codification. As to paragraphs 30 and 31, the former referred to Recommendations that had been legally replaced whereas paragraph 31 concerned obsolete Conventions that had not been so replaced and whose withdrawal might be proposed. He went on to say that some Recommendations that had been considered in 1974 to be no longer of interest had nevertheless been examined by the Ventejol Working Parties in 1979 and 1987. The Working Party therefore had an essential role to play in making clear recommendations as to the situation of the various Recommendations.
80. The Employer members also wondered about the implications of the shelving or abrogating a Convention for an accompanying Recommendation.
81. The Worker members observed that, in such a case, the same solution would normally apply to the Recommendation.
82. The Chairperson recalled that, should the case arise, it would be for the Office to demonstrate that a Recommendation linked to an obsolete Convention was still of current interest.
83. A representative of the Director-General stated that the secretariat had taken due note of the views expressed by the members of the Working Party regarding the burden of proof and the drawing up of lists of Recommendations. He observed that the Working Party had opted for a case-by-case examination of the Recommendations and that in certain specific instances, therefore, it would always be possible to waive the principle that a Recommendation should be treated in the same way as its accompanying Convention.
* * *
84. Following an exchange of views, the Working Party agreed to consider the following points at its meeting in March 1999:
- an information note on the state of work and decisions taken concerning the revision of standards;
- the examination of the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147), and of the Conventions mentioned in the Appendix to that Convention and the Appendix to the 1996 Protocol;
- the examination of the other maritime Conventions whose consideration had been postponed;
- the examination of the Recommendations (first stage);
- the follow-up to the Working Party's recommendations.
85. A representative of the Director-General mentioned that the document on follow-up measures would contain a summary of the replies from constituents to the Office's requests for information. He added that the lists requested by the Worker members in connection with the paper on Recommendations would also be circulated.
86. The representative of the Government of Mexico emphasized that these lists would make the Working Party's work easier as it could then concentrate on the Recommendations that warranted special attention. He expressed his great satisfaction at having taken part in the work of the Working Party.
* * *
87. The Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards is invited to:
(a) take note of the report of the Working Party on Policy Regarding the Revision of Standards, based on the documents submitted by the Office;
(b) examine the proposals in the corresponding paragraphs of this report on which the Working Party has reached consensus.
Geneva, 11 November 1998.
Points for decision:
Paragraph 19;
Paragraph 26;
Paragraph 46;
Paragraph 51;
Paragraph 61;
Paragraph 65;
Paragraph 87.
1. GB.273/LILS/WP/PRS/1
2. GB.273/LILS/WP/PRS/2
3. GB.273/LILS/WP/PRS/4
4. Document GB.273/LILS/WP/PRS/3.