No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Violations of ILO Conventions by the USSR and Czechoslovakia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Current Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1980
References
1 See International Labor Organization [hereinafter ILO], Conventions and Recommendations Adopted by the International Labour Conference, 1919–1966, at 663 (1966).
2 See International Labor Conference [hereinafter ILC], Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations 165 (Report III, Part 4A, 63d Sess., 1977). Regarding trade union rights of collective farm members in the USSR, see id. Difficulties with regard to trade union rights of collective farm members also have arisen in other Eastern European countries.
3 Id. at 166.
4 Ibid. Article 19(8) of the ILO Constitution provides that the adoption of any convention or recommendation by the conference, or the ratification of any convention by any member shall not be deemed to affect any law, award, custom, or agreement that ensures more favorable conditions to the workers concerned than those provided for in the convention or recommendation. For the text of the ILO Constitution, see 62 Stat. 3485, TIAS No. 1868, 4 Bevans 188, 15 UNTS 35. For amendments of June 25, 1953, see 7 UST 245, TIAS No. 3500, 191 UNTS 143. For amendments of June 22, 1962, see 14 UST 1039, TIAS No. 5401, 466 UNTS 323.
5 ILC, 1977 Report of the Committee of Experts, supra note 2, at 167. See also 55 ILO Off. Bull. 147 (1972).
6 See Hazard, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1972), in Constitutions of The Countries of the World (eds. Blaustein & Flanz, 1971– ).
7 ILC, 1977 Report of the Committee of Experts, supra note 2, at 167.
8 ILC, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations 145 (Report III, part 4A, 65th Sess., 1979). For the comments of the committee on the situation prevailing in Czechoslovakia, see id. at 119.
9 Article 3 of Convention No. 87 concerns the autonomy of workers’ and employers’ organizations. It states that the public authorities “shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.” ILO Conventions and Recommendations, supra note 1, at 664.
10 ILC, Prov. Rec., 33d sitting, at 43/9 (65th Sess., June 26, 1979). The representative of the Soviet Government argued, inter alia, that the convention did not require that there should be a multiplicity of trade unions and that the request of the Committee of Experts to the effect that Soviet legislation be amended went beyond the framework of the convention. As regards the role of the Communist Party, he claimed that the committee engaged in a value judgment of a particular social system. The Soviet legislation merely confirmed conditions created by a historical process. The trade unions had freely accepted the leading role of the Communist Party. Members of the Communist Party “were a minority of trade union members, and, if the majority who were not party members agreed, their decision prevailed” [sic\]. This was in accordance with Article 3 of Convention No. 87. Id., Report of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at 36/39.
11 Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organize and to Bargain Collectively, Conventions and Recommendations, supra note 1, at 777.
12 ILO Governing Body [hereinafter GB] Doc. 209/6/6, Case No. 905, at 74–79 (1979).
13 Id. at 75. For a thorough discussion of the “direct contacts” procedure, see ILC, 1979 Report of the Committee of Experts, supra note 8, at 13–27.
14 GB Doc. 209/6/6, supra note 12, at 77–78.
15 Id. at 78–79.
16 Id. at 79.
17 G B Doc. 209/205 at 4; GB Doc. 209/PV, III/9–IV/4 (1979).
18 Conventions and Recommendations, supra note 1, at 969.
19 See 61 ILO Off. Bull., ser. A., No. 3, Supp. at 3, 10, 11 et seq. (1978). Article 24 of the ILO Constitution provides that if any representation is made to the International Labor Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the members has failed to secure the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it may think fit. It may be observed that Article 24 is of special significance because it allows complaints against governments to be submitted by organizations of employers or employees, rather than by governments (which are often anxious to avoid offending other governments). Article 25 states that if no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it. The procedure for the examination of representations is governed by Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body on April 8, 1932, and amended on February 5, 1938. See text in id. at 7–9. For the text of Manifesto 77, see id. at 54–56. For recent reports regarding the trials of members of the Charter 77 human rights group, see N.Y. Times, July 15, 1979, §A, at 3, col. 3; N.Y. Times, October 24, 1979, §A, at 1, col. 3.
20 See Off. Bull. Supp., supra note 19, at 34.
21 See id. at 17–18.
22 Id. at 45.
23 The court stated that
under section 53, subparagraph 1(c) of the Labour Code, an employer may exceptionally dismiss an employee . . . [who] has endangered the safety of the State, and secondly, if retention of the employee until expiry of the period of notice could endanger the due performance of the organization’s tasks. By the safety of the State was meant the integrity of the national territory, the integrity of the State’s capacity to organize its defence, the State’s international relations, and the integrity of state organs and the state secrets. These are fundamental principles of our state structure; they are fixed by the Constitution and protected y the Penal Code. . . .
The Court, in consideration of the statement by the Public Prosecutor . . . came to the conclusion that grounds for immediate dismissal were fully present, for the high degree of danger to the safety of the State, and therefore also to the work of the employing establishment, had been proved.
Id. at 47.
24 Id. at 4.
25 Id. at 5. The committee (id. at 4) cited an observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions (from its 1972 report at the 57th session, at pp. 203–04) with regard to Convention No. 111:
In protecting workers against discrimination on the basis of political opinion, the Convention implies that this protection shall be afforded to them in respect of activities expressing or demonstrating opposition to the established political principles . . . since the protection of opinions which are neither expressed nor demonstrated would be pointless, and that the protection afforded by the Convention is not limited to simple differences of opinion within the framework of the established principles.
The tripartite committee believed that the Committee of Experts had “made it clear that the definition of activities prejudicial to the security of the State or special requirements for certain specified forms of employment should not be such as to authorise measures inconsistent with the basic protection provided for by the Convention.” Off. Bull. Supp., supra note 19, at 4.
26 Off. Bull. Supp., supra note 19, at 5–6.
27 Id. at 1. See also The Implementation of ILO Conventions: The Czechoslovak Case, International Commission of Jurists, The Review 26 (No. 22, June 1979).
28 ILC, 1979 Report of the Committee of Experts, supra note 8, at 182–83; ILC 1979 Prov. Rec, supra note 10, Information and Reports on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, at 36/45–36/49.