Luc Cortebeeck, President of the Workers' Group of ILO Governing Body

ACTRAV INFO: The 103rd Session of the ILC 2014 has now come to a close. As far as the Workers’ Group is concerned, what is your view on the way the conference was carried out and how would you interpret its results?

We, in the Workers’ Group, noted some very positive developments at this session of the ILC: the Protocol and the Recommendation on Forced Labour; the amendments to the ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006; the first discussions on transition from informal to formal economy, and lastly the perennial discussions on unemployment. Unfortunately the outcome of the Committee on the Application of Standards was less favourable.

First of all, let us talk about forced labour: According to ILO figures, almost 21 million people are victims of forced labour in the world today. Among them are 11.4 million women and girls; 19 million people are being exploited by individuals or private enterprises while more than 2 million are being exploited by States or rebel groups. In the world today, more than 4.5 million individuals are subjected to forced sexual exploitation, and the revenue from business based on sexual exploitation is estimated at 150 billion US dollars. The problem of forced labour exists in other sectors too, in particular domestic work, agriculture, construction, manufacturing production and the entertainment industry, not forgetting the migrant workers and indigenous populations who are the most vulnerable in forced labour. At this session, the Conference adopted two new instruments modernizing the ILO Convention on Forced Labour, No. 29, which dates back 1930 – a Protocol and a Recommendation on Forced Labour. The Protocol addresses all contemporary forms of slavery, the violation of the rights and dignity of 21 million people. The Protocol emphasises prevention as well as protection and compensation for victims. Consequently, governments must live up to their responsibilities and enact prevention measures against the fraudulent practices of some employers and some agencies, that exist worldwide. There is also a great responsibility on the part of the social partners and governments to monitor application of the Protocol in various countries. The Protocol and the Recommendation illustrate the success of trade unionism and constitute a victory for the ILO and tripartism. I congratulate all our colleagues who worked for the success of the Protocol.

The 2014 session of the Conference was also able to adopt amendments to the ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006 which affect many workers and seafarers. The ILO is providing very detailed legislation for the protection of these workers and seafarers; the amendments also demonstrate that ILO is modernizing and adapting to new problems and the situation in the world of work.

Another positive aspect of this session of the Conference has been the debate on the transition from informal to formal economy; a difficult question, but one that affects millions of people around the world – up to 80% of workers in some countries. The ILO, which has a responsibility to achieve full employment and decent work for all, must not forget this vast body of workers who have no rights or contracts. There are also many people who work for so-called employers, but who are also being exploited. The conclusions on this item include a description of informal work and a step towards access to decent work for this category of workers in the informal economy. A new debate will be held on this issue at the 2015 session of the Conference with a view to achieving a recommendation.

We also had the perennial debate on employment, as the ILO cannot forget that there are 200 million people worldwide who are unemployed. The demand for jobs remains worrying, not to mention the problems of long-term unemployment, part-time work, low salaries and precarious work. ILO has followed this evolution carefully and concluded that 600 million new jobs will need to be created in the next 10 years to respond to the global unemployment problem. Instruments such as ILO Employment Policy Convention No. 122, target the promotion of employment, and the social partners must be involved in this, through a constructive social dialogue established by governments. Fortunately, an agreement was reached on the conclusions of this debate.

ACTRAV INFO: Looking at the Committee on the Application of Standards, in 19 of the 25 cases that were looked at, no consensus-based conclusions was reached. What is your analysis on the work of this Committee?

Since 2012, we have noticed that our employer colleagues have been attacking the system of supervision and the right to strike, which is of utmost importance for the workers. These attacks impact on the ILO’s entire system of supervision and control, and the experts’ observations and recommendations are being attacked increasingly by the employers. These attacks are explained by the experts’ success: over the past fifteen years there have been more and more labour tribunals in many countries that have followed the experts’ interpretations and the employers do not appreciate such success. As the employers see it, the experts have neither the right nor the mandate to make interpretations that are binding worldwide. Thus in 2012, it was the right to strike that was being challenged by employers and now it is the interpretations of the experts of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention No. 102, the Employment Policy Convention No. 122, and even the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention No. 182 that are being debated by the employers. And they have already announced that there are other conventions on which they will not accept the observations of the experts.

The workers believe it is important for conclusions to be consensus-based. If we cannot achieve consensus-based conclusions, the ILO’s supervision mechanisms will be under threat. No government can follow the conclusions issued by the Committee on the Application of Standards if the employers and the workers have diverging views on the conclusions. Moreover, this attitude will push governments to doubt the ILO’s mechanism on supervision of standards. And if there no longer is any system of supervision, then the Committee on Application of Standards would serve no purpose! That’s why the workers wanted consensus-based texts, but without agreement from the employers, there are no conclusions. The workers have known for years that the employers would no longer accept the right to strike in the conclusions of the Committee on Application of Standards and that is why it was necessary to avoid that point, but the employers actually went much further than that and were demanding the inclusion of a very specific phrase concerning the right to strike, which specified that “the employers were not in agreement with the interpretation of the experts as regards the right to strike”.

Back in 2013 the workers had accepted this compromise but stipulated that they would no longer accept it in the future. This year, after the agreement within the Governing Body on the mandate of the experts, the workers’ view was that it was no longer necessary to state and restate this phrase. However, the employers once again demanded that this phrase be included in the conclusions in the cases and thus the workers could not accept this demand. This is why the employers did not want conclusions that were consensus-based. Within the Committee on the Application of Standards the workers were facing a choice between an absence of conclusions only on the three cases of Freedom of Association Convention No. 87, or to reject the conclusions on 19 cases. In the end we chose the second option, because the absence of conclusions on Convention No. 87 could have the risk of the employers repeating their demand in the future. Consequently, to send a strong signal, the workers decided that there would be no conclusions on the 19 cases submitted to the Committee on the Application of Standards, including the three cases relating to Convention No. 87. We deplore the lack of conclusions because these are serious situations for many workers around the world, but it was our duty to send a strong signal. I think we can no longer avoid the debate in the Governing Body on the right to strike as well as its’ interpretation. The question that is being asked now is: Is the right to strike included or recognized by Convention No. 87? This question will be raised at the International Court of Justice at The Hague if the majority of members of the Governing Body decide to appeal to its jurisdiction. It will not be easy, but I think that a definitive clarification from the ICJ is needed. The next session of the Governing Body in November will therefore be very important for the system of supervision but also for the future of the Committee on Application of Standards, which remains essential for evaluating States’ domestic legislation and practices in relation to ILO Conventions.

ACTRAV INFO: At this session of the Conference, the Director-General presented his report on fair migration. How do you evaluate the discussions on this theme and what follow-up proposals do the workers have on this issue?

The ILO Director-General Guy Ryder (on the left) at the Meeting with Workers' Delegates of the ILC, on 29 May 2014

Today the issue of migration concerns 232 million people who want to escape their reality, to find decent work and an income. That’s why the Workers’ Group is happy that the Director-General has reintroduced the question of migration. There are conventions to regulate migration which have not been ratified by dozens of countries. I think it is important that the ILO tackles this issue because for thousands of workers, migration is too often synonymous of tragedies such as Lampedusa, and the restrictive measures adopted by some countries are encouraging. I do not believe that there is a structural solution for migration. We must therefore promote decent work for migrant workers in the host countries and encourage development projects that create decent work in the countries of origin. There is also a need to take action against the intermediaries who flout human rights or the rights of workers and profit from this situation at the expense of the migrants. I think that we need restrictive measures and rules based on UN conventions, and on the ILO conventions. In conclusion, I think that the rights of migrants must be protected through procedures so that they can file complaints within the framework of the law and enjoy trade union freedom. Governments, employers and workers have a great responsibility to debate this issue and consider adapting the instruments of ILO to protect migrant workers.

ACTRAV INFO: This session of the ILC also saw the election of new members of the Governing Body. As far as the Workers’ Group is concerned, what are your priorities for the next three years?

We have lots of priorities. Some very important themes were debated at this session of the Conference, namely, the transition from informal to formal economy. We must also take into account the issues related to the supply chains of big companies. Today many multi-nationals have supply chains in developing countries with absolutely deplorable working conditions; the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh was an illustration of this. I think that governments and multinationals have a responsibility to establish decent work in these supply chains. The relationship between ILO and the private sector, namely the multinationals, is very important because today many workers are affected by these big companies.

The other important element is the problem of sexual exploitation that exists around the world. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) among others, has asked the ILO to put this theme on the agenda with a view to the adoption of an instrument, and discussions are underway.

There is also the Post-2015 Development Agenda and the United Nations has recognized decent work and social protection as structural means of combating poverty.

Strengthening the supervision mechanisms of ILO on the application of standards is a priority for the Workers’ Group. It will take trust, especially between the employers and the workers, because we need to reflect together, in a tripartite framework, on the strengthening and modernization of the ILO standards. And the Committee on Application of Standards must be operational if we are to achieve that goal. Let us not forget that ILO’s primary goal is decent work and the protection of workers. And that is why we need the instruments – the various conventions and recommendations. If we need to amend or modify these instruments, it must never be to the detriment of the protection of workers.

The Workers'Group members of ILO Governing Body (2011-2014)

So briefly, these are some of the priorities for the Workers’ Group for the next three years. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my fellow workers who have done an excellent job and who are leaving our group at the end of their mandates. Over these past three years, we have worked together with a very heterogeneous group, and have managed to defend the interests of workers. I wish them much success in their trade union battles to defend the rights of workers within their respective countries.

I would also like to welcome the new members, and wish them luck with our new mission within the Governing Body of the ILO, to defend the rights of workers and to strengthen the ILO through social dialogue and tripartism.