A. Introduction

1. In accordance with article 7 of its Standing Orders, the Conference set up a Committee to consider and report on item III of its agenda; "Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations". The Committee was composed of 184 members (100 Government members, 34 Employers' members and 50 Workers' members). It also included 12 Government deputy members, 29 Employers' deputy members and 80 Workers' deputy members. (Endnote 1) In addition, 28 non-governmental international organisations were represented by observers. (Endnote 2) The Committee elected its officers as follows:

Chairman: Mr. A. El Assar (Government member, Egypt);

The Committee held 21 sittings.

2. Pursuant to its terms of reference, the Committee considered the following questions: information on the submission to the competent authorities of Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the Conference, supplied under Article 19 of the Constitution; reports on the application of ratified Conventions, supplied under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution; and reports requested by the Governing Body under article 19 of the Constitution and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111) and Recommendation (No. 111), 1958. (Endnote 3)

3. As usual, the Committee began its work with a discussion of general questions relating to the application of Conventions and Recommendations and the discharge by member States of their obligations under the ILO Constitution in regard to such instruments. The Committee then discussed the general survey made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the effect given to Convention No. 111 and Recommendation No. 111. Finally, it considered a number of individual cases in respect of which the Committee of Experts had made observations in its report, concerning the application of ratified Conventions or compliance with the obligations to supply reports and to submit Conventions and Recommendations to the competent national authorities. The examination of these cases took as a starting point the observations made by the Committee of Experts, the observations of the Conference Committee in previous years and comments received from employers' and workers' organisations and, where appropriate, the reports of other ILO supervisory bodies; it involved consideration of written and oral explanations provided by the governments concerned. In view of the short time available, the Committee followed its usual practice of selecting a limited number of cases among the observations made by the Committee of Experts. A summary of the information supplied by the governments, of the discussions in the Committee and of any conclusions reached by it is set out in Part Two if this report.

B. General questions relating to international labour standards

Member States of the Organisation

4. The Committee welcomed the fact that Poland had decided to remain within the Organisation. The Government member of Poland stated that her Government was fully aware of the significance of this decision and of the scope of the obligations it imposed. After having informed the Committee of the major changes under way in her country in the political, economic and social fields, she stated that her Government, influenced by trade unions and benefiting from expert advice, was aware of certain imperfections in its legislation and of the problem of compliance with ratified Conventions. She expressed the hope that Poland would be given a reasonable period of time to revise its legislation without undue outside pressure.

40th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

5. This year the Conference commemorated three anniversaries which were of particular importance for the ILO: the 40th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 40th Anniversary of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rights to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the 30th Anniversary of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). Like the Committee of Experts, the Conference Committee welcomed the fact that the Director-General had devoted his Report to the Conference to human rights, and considered it particularly appropriate that this year the Committee of Experts' general survey dealt with the instruments on discrimination, for which reports had been requested under article 19 of the Constitution. The commemoration of these anniversaries gave occasion for an evaluation of the ILO's action in the field of human rights for which the Organisation had special responsibility and of the situation regarding the implementation of these rights throughout the world. This evaluation should, without complacency, measure the ground covered, but it especially should show what remains to be done before the rights recognised in the basic instruments become a reality for everyone everywhere.

6. The Committee recognised the vital contribution which the ILO had made towards the implementation of human rights through its action to define these rights and to have them applied. Since the ILO's creation and that of its supervisory procedures, international labour standards had had a profound influence on national legislation and practice and had improved the condition of workers in the world. In certain cases, as stated by the Government member of Argentina, referring to his country's experience, it was not only a question of fuller respect for rights or freedoms, but of human lives which had been saved. The Committee was convinced that to promote human rights, the ILO had to continue to establish standards adapted to developments in the world and to endeavour to improve the application of the procedures by which it ensured respect for these standards.

7. Several members made mention of the multiplicity of international instruments devoted to human rights, whether universal instruments such as the Universal Declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or regional instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights or the European Social Charter. The Workers' members recalled the special responsibility vested in the ILO in the field of economic and social rights. They stressed the importance of the Office's presence and participation in the organs of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and other international forums so as to avoid divergent interpretations between the organisations. The Government member of Spain paid homage to the valuable collaboration that the Office had given to the supervision of the European Social Charter; the 25th Anniversary of that instrument had been celebrated by a symposium held in Granada in October 1987.

8. The Committee considered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO Conventions on the basic human rights were as valid today as ever. They should not merely exist as instruments, but should be respected in practice. In this regard, numerous speakers, echoing the Director-General's Report to the Conference, deplored the gaps which existed between the acceptance of the principles and actual practice, as well as the numerous and at times massive violations of human rights which continued in all parts of the globe. The Government member of the USSR observed that the ILO's basic Conventions - those relating to forced labour, freedom of association, discrimination and employment policy - had only been ratified by two-thirds of the member States of the ILO. The Government member of Australia pointed out that over half of the observations made by the Committee of Experts in this year's report concerned these Conventions; on the other hand he noted that one-third of the cases in which progress was noted also related to these instruments. Placing the discussion in a historical perspective, the Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany referred to the progress achieved when human rights, which had previously been considered as moral rights, were recognised as positive laws. The Government member of Saudi Arabia emphasised the importance for respect for human rights of the observance of the precepts of Islamic law (the Shari'a), which prohibited discrimination and injustice.

9. The Employers' and Workers' members highlighted the interdependence and universality of human rights. They stressed that the economic and social rights which concerned the ILO could only become a reality when they were founded on civil and political freedoms, and considered that human rights could not be the privilege of certain groups. The Government members of the German Democratic Republic, as well as the Workers' members of the German Democratic Republic and the USSR, indicated the specific responsibility of the ILO in the field of human rights and stressed the importance of the right to work, without which all the other rights remained baseless; they cited in this respect the Director-General's Report, which stated that as long as large sections of the world's labour force were deprived of the opportunity to earn a decent living, they lacked the basis for freedom, dignity, economic security and equal opportunity. The ILO, however, had not expressly recognised the right to work in any instrument, although the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) could make a very useful contribution to the solution of employment problems. They hoped that the ILO would give greater priority to the struggle against unemployment and the quest for full employment since it was the most appropriate forum to collect and exchange information and experience concerning these problems, which affected all countries in one way or another, and to make recommendations on this subject. The Workers' member of the USSR indicated that the trade unions of his country were aware of the possible effects of the current structural transformations and technological changes and were following with interest the experiences of other countries which could be of advantage to his country. The Government member of Hungary thanked the Employment and Development Department of the Office for the assistance received in this field.

10. Reference was made to the effects of the economic crisis on the effective enjoyment of human rights. The Workers' members considered that the crisis should not be used as a pretext for threatening workers' basic rights, whether relating to freedom of association, the right to work or protection against discrimination. The Government member of Venezuela was of the opinion that on the anniversary of certain basic instruments relating to human rights, finding a solution to the economic crisis, which increased the inequalities between individuals and between nations, was the key to ensuring respect for human rights, and in particular the right to development (concerning the application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), see paragraphs 50 to 58 below).

40th anniversary of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)

11. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the adoption by the International Labour Conference of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee reiterated the special importance that it attached, just as the Committee of Experts had, to this Convention. Freedom of association was an indispensable condition for social progress. Moreover, it was the foundation of the ILO because of its tripartite structure.

12. The Workers' members were pleased at the high number of ratifications (98) reported to date for Convention No. 87. Recalling the resolution adopted on this subject by the Conference in 1987, they addressed an appeal to member States to ratify the Convention, if they had not already done so, and to ensure its full application.

13. The considerable impact that Convention No. 87 had had on national legislation and practice was stressed. The Government member of Spain stated that the ratification of the Convention by his country has enshrined the principle of pluralist representation in the field of labour, and that the Convention had inspired the 1978 Constitution and its implementing laws. The Workers' member of Japan, describing the efforts made by the unions in his country to have Convention No. 87 ratified, and the difficulties encountered in having it applied, highlighted the role played in this regard by the ILO's supervisory system, in particular the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Conference Committee. In his opinion, the case of Japan's application of the Convention on freedom of association illustrated the importance of international labour standards when supported by effective supervisory machinery. Several speakers stressed the important role played by the unions in their countries. The Workers' member of the German Democratic Republic observed that a certain number of countries had devoted considerable efforts to implementing trade union rights and had provided an outstanding legislative basis for effective trade union representation; these positive experiences should be taken more into account during discussions at the international level.

14. In paragraph 17 of its general report, the Committee of Experts noted with concern that restrictions on freedom of association were often the consequence of general limitations to civil liberties and emphasised that the fundamental guarantees of civil liberties conditioned the effective exercise of the principles of freedom of association. The Employers' and Workers' members associated themselves with these observations.

15. The Employers' and Workers' members stated that only respect for the fundamental principle of Convention No. 87 - that workers and employers should be able, without previous authorisation, to establish and join organisations of their own choosing - would ensure fruitful social dialogue which would in turn be the basis for sharing responsibilities and tasks. By virtue of this principle, governments should tolerate the existence of social forces which enjoyed independence from the State.

16. The Workers' members noted that the application of Convention No. 87 continued to meet with serious difficulties in many countries. They regretted that the economic crisis which raged throughout the world was at times used as a pretext for anti-union repression and they stressed that in some countries trade union delegates were the first to be dismissed, clearly a discriminatory practice. In their opinion, the weakening of trade unionism did not lead to a more efficient functioning of the economy. On the contrary, strong unionism was needed to overcome the crisis and to carry out an effective employment policy. Referring to the situation in Africa, the Workers' member of Senegal welcomed the restoration of trade union freedoms in several countries of that continent, but regretted the persistent violations of those freedoms in others. He pointed out that the conditions imposed on the governments of developing countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were sometimes at the root of violations of freedom of association and the right to work.

Ratification of Conventions

17. The total number of ratifications at 31 December 1987 was 5,308. In 1987, as in 1986, 35 ratifications had been registered.

18. The Workers' members and many Government members expressed concern at the slower pace of ratifications. It was pointed out that only two-thirds of the ILO's member States had ratified the basic Conventions on human rights and that for these Conventions as well, the pace of ratifications had slowed down. The Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that ratification was a sovereign act which had to be preceded by serious consideration; it was at least a moral duty for members of the Organisation to aim seriously at ratification. The Government member of Czechoslovakia pointed out that non-ratification provided governments with immunity from supervision.

19. Several members considered that the Office should actively endeavour to investigate the causes for this slowing down and seek ways of remedying it. Two main explanations were put forward: the economic crisis and the administrative problems of newly independent countries. For their part, the Government members of Bulgaria and the German Democratic Republic thought that the reasons for the slowing down in ratifications should rather be sought in the way the supervisory machinery worked, and that an improvement in this connection would no doubt stimulate ratification. The Government member of Iceland, speaking also on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, suggested that the Office, with the support of the social partners, envisage setting annual ratification objectives by region, aiming particularly at the instruments having a global significance. The Workers' member of the UniteStates suggested using tripartism as the catalyst for new ratifications and gave the example of his country which, after 35 years' of abstention, had recently decided to ratify two Conventions - the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) and the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147). In his opinion, it was the lack of consensus between the social partners which hindered any progress, and it was the dynamism of tripartism - a more effective, better organised and more coherent tripartism - which unblocked the situation. A procedure now existed for examination, on a continual basis, of non-ratified Conventions through a tripartite consultative committee, and three new ratifications were under study. The Government member of the United States confirmed this statement and emphasised that the ratification by her country of Convention No. 144, which embodied the systematic co-operation between government, employers and workers, was proof that it took the principles and procedures of the ILO very seriously.

20. Other speakers mentioned the ratification of certain Conventions by their countries in 1988. Argentina had ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156) and had approved the ratification of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No, 154). Belgium had ratified the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), the Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 (No. 149) and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154); the ratification procedure was under way for three other Conventions. China had ratified the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159). In the Federal Republic of Germany ratification procedures were underway for three Conventions. Hungary had ratified the Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161). The Netherlands had ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156) and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159). The USSR had ratified the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148) and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159).

21. The Committee was informed that, since the beginning of the year, the Office had received 68 new ratifications so that the number of ratifications for 1988 would be higher than in 1987 or 1986. It was recalled that the Office helped governments and organisations of employers and workers to take decisions in full knowledge of the facts and that certain Conventions had considerable impact which went well beyond the number of ratifications they had received.

22. The Government member of Australia observed that the rate of ratifications fluctuated and that the importance of the number of ratifications should not be overestimated. The number had no significance in itself, for what was important was the way in which the Conventions were applied in practice. The fact that governments appeared less inclined to ratify was perhaps a sign of the seriousness with which they regarded their obligations. The Employers' members considered that while ratification was important, because it was the basis for supervision, the goal was implementation of standards in practice.

Denunciations

23. In 1987, one denunciation was registered concerning the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45). Since the beginning of 1988, five further denunciations had occurred, four of which concerned Convention No. 45. The Government member of Australia stated that he was somewhat concerned that this was the first time that his country had denounced a Convention, namely Convention No. 45. In so doing, it had recognised that it could no longer apply it, which was preferable to non-observance of obligations. The Workers' member of the Netherlands regretted that his country appeared to have developed a habit of announcing possible denunciation whenever difficulties in application arose. He stated that his country's intention to denounce the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121) had been preceded by hasty consultations, which were not worthy of the seriousness that should be given to denunciations. The Government member of the Netherlands indicated that the denunciation of Convention No. 121 had become necessary because the system in force in the Netherlands was not in conformity with the Convention, and affirmed that the consultations required had taken place.

Review of special protective standards concerning women

24. Noting the high number of denunciations relating to the Conventions on night work for women and the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45), a number of speakers saw this as a sign that a re-examination of the instruments according special protection to women had become necessary. They noted with interest that this year, as had been done in 1986 for the Conventions on night work, the Committee of Experts had requested the Governing Body to seek a solution to the growing difficulties encountered in the application of Article 3, paragraph 1, of the White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 (No. 13), which prohibits the employment of women in any painting work of an industrial character involving the use of white lead.

25. It was recalled that the path to follow as concerned special standards on the protection of women had been indicated by the Conference in its 1975 Declaration and 1985 resolution concerning equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women, which requested member States to review protective legislation in the light of recent scientific knowledge and technological changes, and requested the Office to review periodically the instruments on protection, such as Convention No. 89, so as to determine whether their provisions were still adequate and appropriate. The instruments concerned were those providing standards of protection not linked to maternity and the reproductive function. The Governing Body had included on the agenda of the 1989 Session of the Conference the revision of Convention No. 89 and the adoption of new standards on night work in general.

26. The Employers' members and several Government members stressed the contradiction existing between special standards of protection and the principle of equality between women and men and considered that certain employment prohibitions had to be re-examined in the light of technical and medical progress. In the opinion of the Government members of Spain and Tunisia, the review of protective standards should not, however, call into question the protection of maternity. These members, as well as the Government member of Portugal, welcomed the forthcoming revision of Convention No. 89. The Government member of Belgium indicated that this revision was the subject of broad consultations in his country which demonstrated the complexity and importance of the problem. The Employers' members agreed that the protection of maternity should be maintained but stressed the cost of this protection should be borne by society at large and not only by the employers, failing which the employment prospects of women might come under threat.

27. The Workers' members recognised that a reexamination of Conventions Nos. 89 and 13 was justified. Nevertheless, they regretted that certain countries had denounced Convention No. 89 without waiting for its revision; they stressed that, while awaiting the review of Convention No. 13, its application should continue to be supervised. They expressed the hope that the new standards which would be adopted would not amount to a step backwards for the workers (see also paragraph 82 below).

The supervisory system

28. A great number of speakers paid homage to the quality of the Committee of Experts' report. The spokesmen of the Workers' members and the Employers' members, speaking on behalf of their members, as well as the Government members of Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland (speaking also on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), Netherlands, Nigeria, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and the United States stated that the Committee of Experts had once again given proof of its principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality, to which they reiterated their attachment.

29. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality to which his Government also was attached, did not prevent account being taken of economic and social conditions in the evaluation of the effect given to the standards of the ILO. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR was in favour of a flexible interpretation of these standards. The Government members of Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland (speaking also on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) and Portugal reaffirmed their support of a uniform interpretation of standards, without which there could be no equality of treatment.

30. The Government member of the German Democratic Republic stressed the difficulties involved in comparative law, and expressed his respect for the work of the Committee of Experts, not only for the volume of its work, but also for the courage with which this Committee examined the application of Conventions in such different States. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR acknowledged the considerable work accomplished by the Committee of Experts and considered it a positive fact that in its report this year, it had noted new elements and had reflected to some extent the discussions in the Conference Committee. The Government member of the USSR welcomed the fact that in its evaluation of the application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), the Committee of Experts had adopted a differentiated approach to the problem of employment in which it took account of the diversity of economic and social conditions. The Workers' member of the USSR noted that this year the report of the Committee of Experts showed a certain understanding of the difficulties which certain countries encountered in the application of Conventions.

31. Nevertheless, these members, as well as the Government members of Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia and the Workers' member of the German Democratic Republic, drawing attention to the continued drop in the member of ratifications registered and of reports and replies supplied by governments, and to the problems encountered during discussions within the Conference Committee, considered that it was necessary to improve the supervisory system in order to increase the number of ratifications and the participation of governments in the supervisory procedures. These members were of the opinion that a system giving greater importance to dialogue and to a spirit of understanding would be more efficient in ensuring the implementation of the ILO's standards, since the role of the supervisory system should be to assist member States in fulfilling their obligations, and not to judge or condemn. That was why it was necessary to give a more important role to the Conference Committee and to promote dialogue within this committee. The Government member of Czechoslovakia compared the ILO supervisory system with that of the United Nations and pointed out that the former, in spite of emphasising the importance of dialogue, relied predominantly on assessment by experts.

32. As regards the respective roles of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, the Government member of the USSR stated that the tripartite Conference Committee, which was provided for in the Constitution and whose terms of reference were governed by the Standing Orders of the Conference, had a major role to play. However, there was barely a reference to the Conference Committee's report in the report of the Committee of Experts. He recalled that in the report of the 1986 Session, two questions had been put to the Committee of Experts: the first concerned the right of the Committee of Experts to establish for itself its principles and methods of work, and the second inquired whether these principles and methods should be governed by the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Conference and, if not, why not. The Committee of Experts had provided a de facto reply to the first question by adopting its principles and methods of work, but the second question still warranted a reply. He considered that the relationship between the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts should be governed by a Standing Order and proposed that at least one representative of the members of the Committee of Experts should attend the Conference Committee. The Government members of Czechoslovakia and the Ukrainian SSR regretted the absence of an organic link between the supervisory bodies. The former stressed that, in practice, the only co-ordinating element between the various supervisory bodies was the Office; the latter suggested that the Chairman of the Committee of Experts should come and present his Committee's report before the Conference Committee and that certain experts - including those responsible for the most important Conventions - take part, in an individual capacity, in the work of this Committee.

33. As regards the working methods of the Conference Committee, the Workers' member of the USSR stated that the Committee should not proceed like a court and condemn governments. He proposed that over the next two or three years, as an experiment, the Committee should no longer use special paragraphs in its report, while continuing to draw governments' attention to the need to improve their legislation and practice and showing them the ways and means to surmount existing shortcomings. In this way, governments would be less hesitant in appearing before the Committee and the recommendations and proposals to improve the situation would enable the trade unions to bring pressure to bear on their governments. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic drew a distinction between the nature and the work of the Conference Committee under the terms of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Conference, and those of commissions of inquiry provided for under articles 24 to 34 of the Constitution, and stated that it was not for the Conference Committee to make judgements; it should consequently limit itself in its conclusions to expressing a wish, a regret or a preoccupation, according to the seriousness of the case, and should not include in its report special paragraphs on specific countries. The Government member of the German Democratic Republic stated that it was preferable to have an exchange of experiences rather than to make criticisms in special paragraphs, although these did not amount to sentences or judgements. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR stated his preference for an approach based on co-operation and well-intentioned dialogue rather than formalist statements such as those which appeared in the special paragraphs.

34. Another possible change in the procedure followed by the Conference Committees was put forward by the Government member of Czechoslovakia. He observed that the procedures followed by the Conference Committee to adopt conclusions on individual cases did not take sufficient account of the importance of these conclusions for the government concerned, and suggested that in certain cases the Committee carry over the adoption of proposed conclusions to its next sitting, so as to enable the Government representative to reflect on them without reopening the discussion. Exceptionally, minor changes could be made to the proposed conclusions, but only with the prior agreement of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairmen of the Committee.

35. The Government member of France stated that the supervisory system was alive and functioning well thanks to its pragmatic approach, which had allowed it to evolve over its 60 years of existence. A spirit of pragmatism had led to the creation of the Committee of Experts in 1926, because it was not possible for the Conference itself to examine the reports of governments. There was also pragmatism in the sharing of roles between the supervisory bodies, the technical study being vested in the experts, tripartite consideration in this Committee and political sanction in the plenary of the Conference. These roles were clear and complementary. Since the Committee of Experts was a technical and legal, but not a judicial body, and had a collegial nature, it would hardly be useful to have one or two experts appear before this Committee. Furthermore, a reading of its report clearly showed that the Committee of Experts took thorough account of the work of this Committee. And finally, there was legal pragmatism, as the methods of work of the ILO were the result of a combination of two legal systems, that of written law and that of common law. The Committee of Experts had worked for over 60 years by virtue of the principles of common law, without having any written regulations.

36. The Employers' members and the Workers' members, as well as the Government members of Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany associated themselves with this statement. The spokesmen of the Employers' and Workers' members repeated that it was for the Committee of Experts itself to establish its working methods. The Government member of Uruguay considered that asking members of the Committee of Experts to come before this Committee to give explanations would not encourage the independence and impartiality of the Committee of Experts, in that it was a body having quasi-jurisdictional functions.

37. Many speakers from the three groups stressed the importance of dialogue. The Employers' members and the Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany recalled that the supervisory system was not based on constraint but on obligations freely assumed by member States. The Employers' members recalled that these obligations included that of supplying reports and that of appearing before the Conference Committee to discuss problems of application; furthermore, dialogue did not mean that violations of standards were accepted, or that distinctions were not drawn between these violations according to their degree of seriousness. The Workers' members recognised that it was not for the supervisory bodies to condemn but to assist, and that it was therefore necessary to show understanding. They considered, however, that this should not prevent the Conference Committee from highlighting the most serious violations so as to encourage governments to make progress in the future. The Government member of the United States also believed that the supervisory process should be based on constructive dialogue and co-operation and that the objective of the supervisory machinery was not to criticise but to bring about improvements. That was why she hoped that, in its report, the Conference Committee would place more emphasis on cases of progress achieved following its discussions.

38. The Workers' and Employers' members, as well as the Government members of Australia, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and the United States, stated that they were in favour of maintaining the working methods currently used by the Conference Committee. The Government member of France, supported by the spokesmen of the Employers' members and the Workers' members, and by the Government members of Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany, recalled that, in 1980, the Conference Committee had already modified its methods of work so as to strengthen dialogue, and that the conclusions set forth by the Chairman of the Committee after the discussion of a particular case are only a factual statement and not a judgment. To a delegate concerned to discuss the formulation of this factual statement would be unacceptable and would prolong the debate. As for special paragraphs, they were a way of attracting the Conference's attention to particularly important cases, emphasising both the difficulties and progress. The Committee should not deprive itself of this procedure. The Government member of Nigeria stated that he was not opposed in principle to the idea of allotting more time for the adoption of conclusions. The Government member of the Netherlands considered that the formulation of conclusions by the Chairman should not be the subject of negotiations with the Government member involved and that it was premature to envisage the suppression of special paragraphs. The Employers' members observed that if, instead of special paragraphs, the Committee were to make recommendations to governments on the specific measures to be taken to ensure the application of a Convention, this might be perceived by the government as greater interference in their internal affairs.

39. The Workers' members of Norway expressed the hope that the Committee of Experts, in one of its next reports, would study the problem of divergencies which might exist between the interpretation of the ILO's standards by the ILO's supervisory bodies, on the one hand, and the interpretation given by governments and national courts, on the other. Such divergencies, if they led to a rejection by the government concerned of the conclusions of the supervisory body as had recently occurred, prejudiced the credibility of the supervisory bodies. In his opinion, the risk of such divergencies was greater for the so-called promotional Conventions - which did not lay down self-executing standards, but rather goals to be promoted through measures left to the discretion of each member State - and where the Constitution of a country did not provide that ratified instruments were automatically to be incorporated into the internal legal system. It would be desirable for the Committee of Experts to examine whether in the future Conventions should be formulated in the form of instruments capable of being directly applied through national laws, and to discuss the pros and cons of the different systems of incorporating instruments into national law. He also drew the Committee of Expert's attention to the consequences of the failure to publish texts of ratified Conventions in official gazettes.

40. The Workers' members, the Employers' members and a number of Government members were concerned at the statistics contained in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning the manner in which governments were fulfilling their obligation to supply reports. These statistics showed that a growing number of governments were not supplying the reports due or were supplying them only a long time after the date fixed, or were not supplying the information requested. Pointing to the particularly low percentage (9.5 per cent) of reports received by the due date (15 October), the Government member of India, supported by the Government member of Bulgaria, wondered whether it would not be better to advance it, so as to ensure that the reports would arrive in good time to be examined with the necessary care. The Employers' members, stressing with a number of other members the considerable volume of work which fell on the Committee of Experts, stated that perhaps the time had come to review again the periodicity of reports with a view to lightening the workload both of the supervisory bodies and of the governments.

41. The Workers' member of the Netherlands, supported by the Government members of the German Democratic Republic, India and Venezuela, regretted that the Committee of Experts' report had only been received shortly before the opening of the Conference and that this had not allowed sufficient time for adequate consultation. The Government members of India and Venezuela suggested that the date for the meeting of the Committee of Experts be advanced. The representative of the Secretary-General pointed out that between the end of the session of the Committee of Experts and the date on which the report was sent out, considerable work had to be done. Since 1926, almost all the meetings of the Committee of Experts had taken place in the month of March; for various reasons, a change to this date would involve numerous difficulties. Over the past few years, the Office had looked at this problem and had tried to find solutions. Some measures had already been taken in this regard, such as the sending to each government of advance copies of the Committee of Experts' general report and of the observations concerning that country immediately after the Committee of Experts' session.

Constitutional procedures of complaint and representation and other procedures

42. The report of the Committee of Experts supplied indications on the cases in which there had been recourse to the constitutional procedures of complaint and representation, and on the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association drawn to the attention of the Committee of Experts. The Workers' members and several Government members noted that the number of these cases continued to increase, which showed that the employers' and workers' organisations were more aware of the procedures available to them to enforce respect for the Conventions of the ILO. The Government member of Spain, referring to the representations presented under article 24 of the Constitution by Spanish trade union organisations concerning the observance by Spain of Conventions Nos. 111, 117 and 131, stated that his Government was complying with all these procedures but would propose a change in the Standing Orders governing the representations procedure so that the examination of the receivability of a representation would no longer be limited to an examination of the form, but could also involve questions of substance, so as to avoid losing time when representations were clearly unfounded.

The role of workers' and employers' organisations

43. The Employers' members, the Workers' members and a large number of Government members welcomed the ever-growing participation of employers' and workers' organisations in the functioning of the supervisory machinery, as evidenced by the record number (182) of observations received this year by the Committee of Experts from such organisations. The Employers' and Workers' members approved the importance that the Committee of Experts attached to the ratification and implementation of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). They stressed that tripartism, which was at the basis of the ILO and which was provided for in many Conventions, presupposed the independence and autonomy of each party. Several speakers indicated that their countries had ratified this Convention and were putting into practice the consultations required by it. The Government member of the United States stated that the recent ratification of this Convention by her country showed its attachment to the principles of the ILO, and the Worker member of this country indicated that the process by which this ratification, together with the ratification of the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147), had been obtained was an example of the efficiency of tripartism.

Action by the Office: direct contacts and other forms of assistance to governments

44. During 1987, direct contacts missions concerning freedom of association visited the Dominican Republic and Turkey; the Regional Advisers for standards, whose task is to assist governments in fulfilling the obligations arising from the ILO's Constitution and ratified Conventions, visited 34 countries in Africa, America and Asia and the Pacific; ten officials from nine countries undertook training in the International Labour Standards Department; this department organised three regional seminars on international labour standards for government officials directly responsible for questions related to international labour standards, and the Regional Advisers participated in the work of several seminars organised by other ILO departments in various regions of the world. The Office organised tripartite national seminars on international labour standards in ten countries. Five seminars were held for organisations of employers or workers, including one on freedom of association and one on human rights.

45. The Committee welcomed the continuation of these activities which were aimed at assisting member States of the Organisation to fulfil better their obligations regarding standards and to promote a greater understanding of standards and the standard-setting procedures of the ILO. It agreed that these activities, which should be strengthened, were particularly useful for developing countries, whose problems concerning standards often arose from administrative and financial difficulties. The Government member of Belgium, supported by the spokesman of the Workers' members, considered that a better knowledge by the public at large of the ILO's standard-setting action would reinforce its efficiency and that activities in this connection, using the media, should be undertaken.

46. Several speakers stressed the considerable and growing volume of work entrusted to the Office to enable the supervisory bodies to fulfil their functions and to assist governments in respecting their obligations. The Government members of Australia, Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland expressed the hope that, despite the current budgetary difficulties, sufficient resources would be given to the responsible department reflecting the fundamental importance of standards and of the supervisory system, as well as the volume and increasing complexity of work relating to these questions.

47. The Government members of Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United Arab Emirates congratulated the Office on the fact that this year, for the first time they had received translations in Arabic of the Committee of Experts' comments. They considered that this measure would help the government concerned to comply better with their obligations and hoped that the Office would continue this practice in the future. They also hoped that the texts of the ILO Conventions and Recommendations would also be translated into Arabic. The representative of the Secretary-General stated that this translation was under way and that Arabic texts should be available by the next session of the Conference. The Government member of Uruguay, supported by the Government member of Venezuela, expressed the wish that the Office send to governments the report forms on ratified Conventions in good time, so that they could use them in the procedure of submitting the instruments adopted by the Conference to the competent national authorities. The Government member of Portugal suggested that the Office send consultants for short visits to assist governments in preparing their reports.

Standard-setting activity and technical co-operation

48. In paragraphs 51 and 73 to 75 of its general report, the Committee of Experts welcomed the administrative measures recently taken by the Office to strengthen the links between international labour standards and the technical co-operation activities of the ILO. It noted the measures taken to inform external services and experts of the Office regarding developments in the field of standards which might concern their local projects and activities, including - where appropriate - the comments made by the Committee itself, and the special contribution that certain regional and national technical co-operation projects could make to the achievement of the objective set by international labour standards. The Committee of Experts encouraged the Office to continue its efforts, and it expressed the hope that the bodies which financed technical co-operation would be able to support them with adequate resources.

49. Numerous speakers from all three groups supported the Office's initiative. The Workers' members observed that technical co-operation should always go hand in hand with international labour standards. The Government member of Australia considered that the technical co-operation activities of the Organisation should be used to encourage member States to implement the standards adopted by the Organisation. The Government member of Tunisia suggested that priority be given to projects encouraging the realisation of promotional standards such as those relating to employment, vocational training, or equality of opportunity and treatment, which required practical measures involving large financial resources; he also suggested that the Office do more to sensitise the development assistance organisations which financed technical co-operation projects, so that they would steer their action towards fields having a direct link with the implementation of international labour standards. The Government member of Bulgaria considered that technical co-operation in the field of employment should be the subject of careful study, and stressed the contribution made by the Office in the field of vocational training by the creation of institutes for vocational training in the framework of various technical co-operation projects both at the national and regional level.

Application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)

50. As in previous years, the Committee of Experts this year included in paragraphs 50 to 57 of its general report, general comments on the application of this Convention based on an examination of the reports supplied by 44 countries. In these comments, the Committee took account of the information contained in the reports, the discussions at the previous session of the Conference Committee and the development which had occurred in the field covered by the Convention; it described the changes in the various countries and set out its approach to the problems raised by the application of the Convention. Many speakers congratulated the Committee of Experts for these general comments and for the way in which it had gone about evaluating the implementation of the Convention. In particular, the dialogue which was taking place between the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on these problems was considered to be exemplary. The Government member of the USSR praised the Committee of Experts for taking a differentiated approach to the problems of employment by considering the variety of situations and possible solutions.

51. Once again, emphasis was placed on the magnitude and seriousness of the problem of employment. As the Director-General pointed out in his Report to the Conference, the rates of growth of the world economy remained modest and the long-term trend was towards a decline. Unless the principal industrialised countries took major decisions to counteract that trend, it appeared set to continue - if not indeed to worsen in the years ahead. In addition, as several members of the Committee had stated, the problem of employment which until now also arising, increasingly, in countries having centrally planned economies which were confronted with the huge task of restructuring their economy and reforming their methods of economic management. Therefore, employment should be a major concern for the ILO, and the Organisation's resources should be mobilised to assist member States in this sphere.

52. The Committee was convinced that in today's world, as the Director-General stated in his Report to the Conference, full, productive and freely chosen employment was not an outdated notion and should remain a vital goal of national policy for all States, as required by Convention No. 122. The Government member of Bulgaria agreed with the analysis made by the Committee of Experts that Convention No. 122, which was generally considered as the classic example of a promotional Convention, also had the nature of a legal instrument giving rise to concrete obligations. Among these obligations, the Committee of Experts had rightly highlighted the consultation of employers' and workers' organisations and representatives of the persons affected by the measures to be taken. Several speakers mentioned the tripartite co-operation existing in their countries on employment problems.

53. The Employers' members repeated the opinion they had expressed at the last session of the Conference, to the effect that employment questions were closely linked to economic, fiscal and monetary policies. They supported a balanced relationship between the various policy areas and opposed the misconception that an isolated or single-focused labour market policy could be successful; a policy which generated growth without inflation would lead to better results in the employment field as well. The Government member of Belgium repeated his Government's doubts concerning the ability of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee to evaluate the overall economic policies of States.

54. In paragraph 54 of its general report, the Committee of Experts referred to the conclusions of the High-Level Meeting on Employment and Structural Adjustment which was called by the ILO in October 1987. The meeting took note of the serious consequences for employment of the heavy indebtedness of developing countries, a problem which had to be handled through international co-operation within the framework of an open international commercial system. It recommended that structural adjustment policies include measures to augment the employment opportunities of the vulnerable groups of the population and that they give priority to the rural sector. It considered that the ILO could intensify its action, in co-operation with other agencies, to help countries in their efforts towards structural adjustment, for example, by developing employment statistics, assisting the poorest people to increase their productive capacity, and studying the structural adjustment programmes which had created jobs and which had had so much success in both industrialised and developing countries. It concluded that the ILO should promote tripartite consultation and co-operation on adjustment and remain vigilant in ensuring full respect for its standards on employment, basic human rights and tripartism. In paragraph 55 of its report, the Committee of Experts noted that among developing countries, many governments had referred in their reports to stabilisation or structural adjustment programmes, sometimes adopted as a result of consultations with international financial institutions, which had involved measures of austerity having negative effects on employment. It seemed to the Committee that such cases were prime examples of situations where the conclusions adopted by the High-Level Meeting could be directly applied. The Committee of Experts also observed that it was clear from the reports of governments that the effect of the ILO's technical assistance in employment - which had been very positive in several fields - might be greatly diminished when austerity programmes were imposed on developing countries to the point where unemployment and underemployment continued unchecked. It expressed the hope that countries in this situation would soon be able to feel the benefit of international and inter-organisational co-operation which had been called for by the High-Level Meeting.

55. The Workers' members and the Government members of Morocco and Venezuela stressed the importance of the conclusions of the High-Level Meeting on Employment and Structural Adjustment, and expressed the hope that these conclusions would be implemented. They drew particular attention to those concerning the need for better co-ordination at the international level between economic, financial and monetary policies and social policies, and those concerning the ILO's role in this regard, to ensure that structural adjustment policies did not run counter to the ILO's objectives, in particular to those relating to full employment. The Workers' members were of the opinion that the ILO should ensure that these policies not cause a deterioration in the living standard of the population. The Government member of Venezuela stated that the economic crisis due to the external debt and international trade gave rise, above all, to political problems which had to be resolved by the political will of member States; she invited the Committee of Experts to continue to study the problems of indebtedness and international trade. The Government member of Nigeria emphasised that a number of developing countries had had difficulties in implementing Convention No. 122 because of their numerous economic problems, and particularly those relating to debt and the balance of payments. In those countries, structural adjustment policies had had far-reaching implications for employment and growth. The Government member of Bulgaria suggested that the Committee of Experts study more thoroughly the problems of debt and unemployment in the rural sector and the relationship between social security and employment.

56. In paragraph 56 of its general report, the Committee of Experts indicated that this year it had been pleased to find signs of a reversal of the continuous advance of unemployment in several industrialised countries, but stated that it would still carefully monitor several problem areas, including growth of long-term unemployment and irregular forms of employment, such as part-time work, temporary work and short-term contracts, which were not always what workers would voluntarily choose and could be used to avoid compliance with basic minimum standards.

57. The Employers' members and the Government member of the United Kingdom regretted the pejorative connotation of the word "irregular", used by the Committee of Experts to describe flexible forms of employments, since these were preferred by an increasing number of persons and made a not unsubstantial contribution to the absorbtion of unemployment in certain industrialised countries. The Employers' members observed that the development of these forms of employment was an irreversible phenomenon resulting from changes in the organisation of work, brought about by structural and technological developments. The problem currently facing governments and employers' and workers' organisations was how to master this phenomenon and to adapt the standards and mentalities which reflected other types of work organisation and employment. Some trade unions were hostile to these forms of employment, whereas others adopted a more positive attitude and had already concluded collective agreements on the subject. It was true that these new forms of employment means that it would be more difficult for the union to organise such workers. But it would also be more difficult to organise the employers. The solution to this problem should be left to the free choice of the workers and employers, as provided for in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Government member of the United Kingdom noted the progress achieved in his country and stated that his Government welcomed the creation of jobs of all types, including flexible forms of jobs, as long as they corresponded to the needs of expanding economies and the wishes of the labour force. The Government member of Bulgaria mentioned that these forms of employment were now recognised in the legislation of several countries and often corresponded to the wishes of the workforce.

58. The Workers' members observe that where the employment situation had improved, this had not come about by curtailing trade union rights, but by positive and concerted employment policies adopted by the governments concerned in line with the requirements of the Convention; an effective employment policy should be based on consultations and required a strong trade union movement. As for new forms of employment, they emphasised that flexibility should not mean the destruction of workers' rights. Unions accepted these new forms of employment on the condition that they corresponded to the free choice of workers, that they respected the standards set by law or collective agreements and were supervised by adequate inspection machinery. However, in many industrialised countries workers were forced to accept unstable, part-time or fixed-term work and poorer conditions of work and wages; small and medium-sized undertakings which created the most jobs by using these forms of employment were often the ones with little trade union representation and where safety standards were not adequately respected owing to insufficient inspection. Unions should fight to have these forms of employment covered by collective bargaining and to reduce the hours of work for everyone through collective agreements.

Application of the Labour Inspection Convention 1947 (No. 81), and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129)

59. In paragraphs 58 to 60 of its general report, the Committee of Experts noted with concern that in many countries which had ratified one or the other of the labour inspection Conventions some of the fundamental provisions of these Conventions were not fully applied. The provisions in question were those laying down measures of a practical nature to ensure the effective functioning of the labour inspection services (namely, the recruitment of sufficient numbers of inspectors capable of performing the various tasks, and the provision to inspectors of transports and other material resources indispensable for the performance of their duties), and the provisions relating to the publication and transmission to the Office of the annual reports on labour inspections activities.

60. The Workers' members and the Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic thanked the Committee of Experts for having drawn attention to these difficulties; the Workers' members shared the Committee of Experts' hope that the governments concerned would not fail to take the necessary measures, possibly with the assistance of the International Labour Office, to improve the situation. The Workers' member of the USSR stated that the ILO should give special attention to labour inspection, on which depended the effective application of measures of protection taken for workers. He indicated that in his country labour inspection was the responsibility of the trade unions and had considerable prerogatives, including the right to close undertakings when the life and health of the workers was in danger. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom observed that certain governments which encouraged irregular forms of employment reduced, at the same time, labour inspection personnel, whereas it was in undertakings which used these forms of employment that inspection was the most necessary. The Workers' member of Chile stated that when labour inspectors did not enjoy trade union protection as provided by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), they were not in a position to perform the duties entrusted to them by the labour inspection Conventions without fear of reprisals.

Application of Conventions to offshore industrial installations

61. The Workers' members noted that the Committee of Experts intended to examine this question further when the preliminary study initiated by the Office on this subject had been completed. they expressed the hope that this study would be completed before the next session of the Conference.

Seafarers

62. The Workers' members were concerned that a new Maritime Session of the Conference did not appear to be envisaged before the end of the century. The Workers' member of Argentina stressed the very difficult and special problems facing seafarers in the present serious crisis of the merchant marine. He drew attention to the recent trend in industrialised countries having a maritime tradition of establishing special registration systems to reduce labour costs; such systems allowed them to avoid the application of international standards and collective agreements, and resulted in a worsening of the working and living conditions of the seafarers concerned. Such systems had been established by France, which created the flag of Kerguelen Islands, and the United Kingdom using the Isle of Man, and Norway. He considered that since there was not a committee on the application of standards within the Maritime Session of the Conference, it was indispensable for the present Committee to ensure supervision of the application of the maritime Conventions. He addressed an appeal to countries at war to apply the 1987 (Maritime) Session of the Conference resolution urging them not to attack ships flying the flag of a neutral country. It was recalled that the general survey to be carried out by the Committee of Experts at its 1990 session would cover the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147), which had an extensive scope, especially in view of all the instruments listed in its annex.

Submission of certain instruments to the competent authorities of the European Communities

63. Referring to paragraphs 124 and 125 of the general report of the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members expressed their concern that, owing to problems of division of competence between the European Communities and their member States, the Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport) Convention, 1979 (No. 153) had not yet been ratified by any of the States which were members of the European Communities at the time of the adoption of that Convention, and that, with the exception of Italy, none of the member States of the EEC had apparently yet submitted the Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162) to the competent authorities. They invited the Office to intensify its discussions with the Secretariat of the European Communities so as to reach a rapid solution to these difficulties which were liable to recur in the future for each new instrument. The representative of the Secretary-General recalled that the Conventions, whose ratification by member States of the European Communities might depend on an internal Community procedure, could only be those involving fields within the exclusive competence of the Communities; only a relatively limited number of Conventions might therefore have their ratification delayed by the intervention of the Communities. He also recalled that the ILO Constitution permitted no ratifications other than those effected by member States of the ILO and that the European Communities as such did not meet this requirement. In addition, several Community countries had ratified Convention No. 144, which provided for the consultation of the social partners during submission and ratification of ILO instruments. These characteristics which were peculiar to the ILO had to be reconciled with the internal legal requirements of the Communities. Meetings had recently taken place between the Secretariat of the European Communities and the Office with a view to overcoming these difficulties. Solutions were envisaged which should ensure respect for the constitutional provisions of the ILO as regarded submission and ratification, as well as the full application of the provisions of Convention No. 144 relating to consultations with the social partners.

C. Reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111) and Recommendation (No. 111), 1958

64. The Committee examined the Committee of Experts' general survey on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111) and Recommendation (No. 111), 1958. In accordance with the established procedure, the general survey took account of information from 139 States and 17 non-metropolitan territories supplied under article 19 of the ILO Constitution or submitted in regular reports under article 22 of the Constitution by States which have ratified the Convention. Comments received from 18 employers' and workers' organisations were also taken into account.

General observations

65. The Committee stressed that the general survey was remarkable in analysing comprehensively and in depth the content of the 1958 instruments and the approaches taken to them, as well as the problems encountered at the national level in application of the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The large number of examples drawn from almost all member States - regardless of whether they have ratified the Convention or not - made it possible to undertake a comprehensive study of the application of these instruments. Many speakers considered the general survey an important contribution to the 40th anniversary of the Convention and Recommendation and the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Employers' members thought that the list of examples highlighted the variety of situations in which discrimination can arise and showed that discrimination exists in all countries. Although this didactic approach was justifiable, it made the task of assessing the seriousness of infringements of the Convention in each country a delicate one. Some Government members saw evidence of misunderstandings in the opinions expressed on some aspects of the situation in their respective countries, whilst at the same time expressing appreciation of the Committee of Experts' general survey as a useful guide for member State's policies in the promotion of equality in employment and occupation. The Workers' and Employers' members regretted that despite the great interest attached to the question there had been insufficient time for the report to be studied more closely.

66. The Workers' members stated that the interval of 17 years since the last general survey of this subject by the Committee of Experts was too long and should be shortened in the future. The Workers' member of Portugal thought that general surveys concerning the basic rights of workers should be made at shorter intervals both because of the basic nature of the rights concerned and because of rapid and far-reaching changes in the labour sphere.

67. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran indicated his Government's view that the Committee of Experts had not been impartial or objective in the parts of the general survey dealing directly with the situation in his country.

68. Many speakers in the discussion gave further information on the application of the principle of equal opportunity and treatment in their respective countries. In most cases this information concerned either measures taken to overcome discrimination in employment and occupation since the Committee of Experts' report was prepared, or details of the individual situations described in the report.

69. As the Committee of Experts noted in paragraph 15 of the general survey, information supplied is often incomplete, because the scope of the instrument has not always been accurately gauged either as to the types of measures to be taken to promote equality and eliminate discrimination or as to the diversity of the forms of discrimination covered. The Employers' members noted that the reports submitted by member States were not always sufficiently detailed to enable a suitably thorough analysis of the practice. The Workers' member of Finland pointed out that the various grounds of discrimination under the Convention did not receive an equal degree of attention. He pointed out that governments' reports should always be prepared in collaboration with employers' and workers' organisations, whose comments should be included in the reports.

70. The Committee noted that the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation laid down in the 1958 instruments was a fundamental one: it is included in the ILO Constitution, reaffirmed in several instruments and resolutions, and further developed in the Convention. The Workers' members pointed out that equal opportunity and treatment were founded in the values of solidarity and respect for the human condition. They recalled that the precondition for the promotion of equality was the existence of a sound political climate and a state of true liberty. In certain cases, the contention of threats to national security were used as pretexts which could lead to discrimination against workers. Martial laws could also lead to abuses. The Employers' members stated that the Convention's aim was to ensure human dignity and freedom by prohibiting discrimination based on race, colour, sex, social origin, national extraction, religion or policial opinion. Its objective was to enable people to live as they saw fit, or in other words, to give everyone the freedom to be different. The Government member of the United States stated that the fact that the Convention applied the principles of equality, dignity and freedom to all fields of labour made it a key Convention at the core of the ILO's standard-setting activities. The Government member of the USSR stressed the importance of Convention No. 111, which had a direct relation to human rights and touched all aspects of labour relations. The Government member of Czechoslovakia stated that human rights were indivisible and that equality of opportunity depended in large measure on the general economic and social environment, particularly the employment situation. This opinion was shared by the Government members of Bulgaria and the German Democratic Republic - who considered that high unemployment tended to make discrimination worse - and the Workers' members of the Byelorussian SSR, Spain and the Netherlands. The last of these pointed out that the general survey stressed the need to declare and pursue an active policy for freely chosen employment in order to ensure equal opportunity and treatment. The Government member in order to ensure equal opportunity and treatment. The Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the prohibition of discrimination was a question of human rights, but that a number of human rights did not have an absolute value: this was reflected in the exceptions to the principle of equality allowed under Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Convention, although these should not lead to undue limitations being placed on the protection which the Convention seeks to guarantee. The same speaker wondered whether a Convention aimed at guaranteeing human rights could be interpreted in such manner as to give complete protection to those who condone the suppression of human rights. The Government member of Morocco considered that the Convention had had a marked influence on national legislation, since nearly all national enactments on the subject appeared after the Convention came into force. The Workers' members raised the point that the question of equality of opportunity and treatment in the public sector had hardly been addressed and they wished to make reference to the provisions of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

71. The general survey and the discussion in the Committee both demonstrated clearly the connection between Convention No. 111 and several other international standards. The Workers' member of Colombia questioned the scope for practical application of a Convention aiming at the promotion of equal opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation when Conventions on related subjects were not ratified or observed. The Employers' and Workers' members and several other speakers identified the connections between Convention No. 111 and the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156), as well as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Employers' members and several other members, however, regretted that the general survey did not give greater attention to discrimination based on membership or non-membership in an employers' or workers' organisation. It was recalled that these matters were dealt with specifically in the 1983 general survey of instruments on freedom of association and collective bargaining. Some speakers also referred to the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) and the instruments on labour inspection and employment services. Attention was drawn also to the connection between the Conventions on forced labour and Convention No. 111. The Workers' member of Chile referred to the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), which excluded race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin from the valid grounds for dismissal. The Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that in the interpretation of Convention No. 111 account should be taken of other ILO Conventions and human rights instruments adopted by other organisations, so as to ensure a coherent legal order. The Government member of Tunisia referred to various instruments dealing with equal opportunity and treatment adopted by other international organisations. The number of supervisory bodies for such instruments had increased, leading to problems of co-ordination. The same speaker raised the question of how the ILO participated in the supervisory bodies of other organisations. Reference was made to paragraphs 38 to 47 of the Committee of Experts' general report, which dealt with functions regarding other international and regional instruments and collaboration with other international organisations.

Ratification

72. The Committee noted with satisfaction that there had been 109 ratifications of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), making it one of the five most ratified of all ILO Conventions; however, it was particularly concerned that still further progress should be made in this respect. It noted the significant results arising from the Governing Body's decision in 1979 to invite countries which had not yet ratified the Convention to supply four-yearly reports dealing exclusively with ratification difficulties, measures proposed to overcome them, and ratification prospects. This procedure should be maintained because it had contributed to eleven new ratifications. Several members recalled that tripartite consultations could help the ratification process. The Employers' member of the United States referred to the tripartite consultation system in his country and indicated that tripartite legal review prior to a decision to ratify would be impossible without such outstanding and comprehensive general surveys. The Employers' member and Workers' member, as well as the Government member of Japan and the Employers' member and Workers' member of the United States, stressed the need to ensure stability and continuity in the conclusions and interpretations contained in general surveys, so that the validity of the undertakings made or envisaged by member States would not be put at risk. Many speakers pointed out that nearly a third of the member States had not yet ratified the Convention, and urged that an appeal should be made to them to make every effort to examine the case for ratification.

73. The Committee therefore proposed that on adoption of the present report the Conference should appeal to all member States to ratify the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 (No. 111).

Practical application

74. The Workers' members drew attention to the potentially wide gap between the principle of equal opportunity and treatment - with which everyone could agree - and its practical application. The Committee of Experts had adopted a positive approach to the general survey, but there still seemed to be cases of discrimination in very many countries at various stages of development and with various economic and political systems. Similarly, many speakers pointed to cases of failure to apply the Convention - sometimes involving serious breaches of its principle - referring particularly to apartheid in South Africa and the situation of Palestinian workers in the occupied Arab territories. These problems were dealt with in separate reports of the Director-General. The Workers' member of Portugal considered that the gap between the principle and its practical application was due to the fact that governments often follow contradictory policies in this area. She said that the promotion of equality required a variety measures which must be co-ordinated to avoid losing sight of the ultimate aim in the specific fields of employment, education, vocational training, social security, taxation, culture, etc. The Government member of Italy stated that the principle should be implemented not just formally in the law but through the promotion of real equality in practice. Several speakers thought that practical application of the principle depended on supervision, sanctions and remedies which States that have ratified the Convention should develop and apply to ensure that the principle is implemented.

Grounds of discrimination

75. The great majority of interventions concerned discrimination based on sex, reflecting the scope of direct and indirect discrimination and the importance of measures to be taken to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment. The Employers' and Workers' members recalled the existence and, in certain cases, the worsening of discrimination based on grounds such as race and colour, national extraction, social origin, religion or political opinion. On this latter criterion, an observer representing the International Federation of Free Teachers' Union expressed his concern at the situation of teachers and referred to the numerous cases of dismissal for political reasons cited in the general survey. He stated that teachers, by their very function, were more threatened than other occupational categories by these discriminatory measures. It was essential that the member States adopt and apply provisions enabling the teaching profession to benefit from the protection stipulated in the Convention. The Workers' members referred to the situation of migrant workers, handicapped workers and members of minority groups, who encountered many difficulties in training and employment. Continuous efforts should be made to reduce the obstacles they faced in relation to equality of opportunity and treatment.

76. Although nationality was not a ground of discrimination listed in the Convention, the Government members of Hungary and Italy indicated that the labour legislation in their countries applied both to national and foreign workers without any form of discrimination and they mentioned the measures adopted in this connection by their governments and court decisions.

77. The situation of older workers and young workers was also considered by the Committee. The Government member of Spain referred to the mandatory retirement age and pointed out that it was not reasonable to presume general incapacity for all persons of a certain age; however, in view of the necessity of creating job opportunities, it was acceptable to set a maximum number of years of employment. The Workers' member of Chile, referring to the situation of older and young workers who had experienced discrimination in employment and wages, expressed the hope that the attention of the Conference would be drawn to this type of discrimination and to the search for measures to remedy it.

Continuity and scope of action

78. The majority of speakers emphasised the need for continuous action and openness to progress in the fields where the national policy of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation should be applied. The possibility of improving the application of the principle was ever-present and required a continuous process and constant vigilance. Taking the example of persons suffering from the AIDS virus, the Government member of the Byelorussian SSR indicated that the emergence of new problems liable to be the basis for discrimination required the adoption of measures on a national scale within the framework of the Convention. A few speakers referred to the flexibility available in the application of the Convention, and especially to the application of the principle of equality through measures adapted to national conditions and practice. In this regard, it was recalled that adjustment to national conditions and practice concerned the methods by which the principles of the Convention were to be implemented within the framework of the national policy of equality, and not to the objectives set by the Convention. The Workers' member of Spain indicated that flexibility in the application of the Convention could not amount to an excuse for the fact that the result obtained was completely different to that envisaged by the Convention.

79. Numerous speakers referred to the very great diversity of measures aimed at ensuring the application of a national policy of equality of opportunity and treatment: repeal of the legislative provisions and discontinuance of the administrative measures which might have discriminatory effects; appeal and remedial procedures; the creation of bodies responsible for the application and supervision of the national policy on equality; positive action aimed at promoting equality in fact; education and information activities with a view to preventing discrimination; co-operation between all the appropriate social institutions and particularly between the employers' and workers' organisations. These measures should be co-ordinated within the framework set by the national policy of equality of opportunity and treatment. The diversity of measures reflected the breadth of the fields covered by the Convention... access to training; access to salaried and non-salaried employment; working conditions, etc. Numerous members stressed that training was the essential means of promoting equality. The elimination of discrimination implied continuous action in this field, particularly for vocational training which had to be accessible to everyone, adapted to the requirements of the undertaking with the aim of preparing the recipient for active life, and should enable the attainment of freely chosen and productive employment. The Government members of Bulgaria and Hungary recalled that free training and other measures in this field were the basis which should allow everyone, including disadvantaged persons, to have access to training and education. Several speakers mentioned the various means of action taken by workers' organisations in the field of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment. The Government member of Morocco suggested a strengthening of the workers' education programmes based essentially on training in drawing up collective agreements covering, inter alia, the determination of objective criteria for wage levels and internal promotion. The Government member of Ethiopia referred to the specific role played by the women's organisation in her country in adopting and implementing policies, programmes and measures which contributed to equality between women and men.

Indirect discrimination

80. The issue of indirect discrimination, which referred to apparently neutral regulations or practices resulting in unequal treatment of persons having certain characteristics or belonging to groups capable of being identified by determined characteristics (for example, sex, race, colour, religion) was addressed by several speakers. The Employers' members reaffirmed the special importance they attached to the suppression of indirect discrimination, which was not always easy to prove or to define. As regarded discrimination based on sex, practical measures should be taken so as to eliminate a too rigid division of work between men and women, particularly by breaking down the prejudices which still existed today regarding women's work. A few speakers remarked that the consequences of the concentration of women in some types of jobs or certain sectors of activity led to disparities in wages and conditions of employment. The Government member of Senegal thought that the persistence of indirect discrimination based on pregnancy, family responsibilities, civil status or professional experience warranted the adoption by governments of positive measures.

Affirmative action

81. The adoption of affirmative action programmes or correctional programmes stemmed from the observation that the banning of discrimination was not enough to eliminate it in actual practice. Several speakers stressed the great impact that the adoption of legislation had on the practical implementation of equality of rights and on the prohibition of discrimination, or the pedagogic strength that it could have in eliminating stereotypes. However, legislation or standards adopted through collective agreements did not suffice to eliminate discrimination in fact. The Workers' member of Sweden stressed that only the joint action of regulation and affirmative action encouraging the understanding and acceptance of the principles of non-discrimination could allow the elimination of the various forms of discrimination. The Employers' members supported this point of view and emphasised that certain positive measures - particularly in the framework of recruitment policies - should be carefully considered so as to avoid creating new discriminations. The Government member of Sweden wished to draw the Committee's attention to the distinction between "affirmative action" and "protective measures" proposed by the Committee of Experts. Protective measures were established on a permanent basis, whereas affirmative action became unnecessary as soon as the special target groups were able to exercise their rights of equality in practice. She also noted with great interest the account in the general survey of the question of sexual harassment and the measures which should be adopted in this connection.

Measures of protection

82. Numerous speakers referred to the relationship between certain protective measures - particularly relating to female labour - and equality in employment without distinction based on sex. The Employers' members indicated that the provision of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which special measures of protection shall not be deemed to be discrimination, was the expression of a legal fiction which was of little usefulness in practice if those who were supposed to benefit from the protection were in fact placed in a less favourable position because of it. They considered that a revision of the obsolete measures of protection, such as the ban on night work by women, was a better solution than that of seeking refuge in the Utopia of a general ban on night work. The Government member of Sweden recalled the position of her Government regarding the protective provisions which might be more of a brake on progress towards complete equality between women and men at work. The Government member of Venezuela noted that the Committee of Experts had pointed out that the abolition of the ban on night work by women was not the only way of achieving equality and that other considerations also had a role to play in this connection. Several speakers emphasised the need for careful study before abolishing the protective provisions so that account would be taken not only of the principles which underlay them, but also of the realities facing women workers. The Government members of Belgium and Venezuela recalled that at the present state of play it was necessary to ask whether, for medical or social reasons, certain protections ought not to be extended to all workers and whether the suppression of some forms of protection might not be accompanied by the appearance of new discrimination, for example, due to a lack of community services. The representative of the World Federation of Trade Unions was of the opinion that the removal of existing protections might aggravate the discrimination existing in fact by creating a purely formal equality. As regarded the measures adopted for ethnic minorities and other social groups, the Government member of India recalled that the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention gave legitimacy to the measures permitting the reservation of posts in the administration to members of disadvantaged groups.

Appeal and remedial procedures

83. Observance of a policy of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation depended in part on appeal procedures and available means of compensation. In this regard, the Committee looked at several questions: the burden of proof; conciliation procedures; protection against reprisals; and means of compensation. As regarded the question of the burden of proof in judicial proceedings, the Workers' member of Norway considered that experience had shown the difficulties faced by an employee in proving discriminatory behaviour, and stated that it was therefore vital to reverse the burden of proof on to the employer in all cases of discrimination in employment and occupation. The Employers' members indicated that they could not accept a solution which, to some extent, prejudiced employers in all cases. Referring to the examples of solutions to the problem of sharing the burden of proof contained in the general survey, they considered that the proof did not always have to fall exclusively on employers or workers and that, for example, the establishment of objective proof might be required, or the courts might be able to decide freely. The Workers' member of the Netherlands stated that conciliation was preferable to drawn out legal proceedings in that it was efficient, quick, less onerous and encouraged action by the unions on behalf of the workers. The Workers' member of the Ukrainian SSR stressed the importance of supervision for avoiding discrimination against workers and the activities which the trade unions undertook in this connection. He referred to the situation in his country where trade union legal consultation services informed the workers of their rights, while labour inspection could take adequate measures to abolish violations which were observed. The Government members of Hungary and Sweden recalled the importance of guarantees against measures of reprisal. Very often, persons who had suffered discrimination would hesitate in using appeal procedures for fear of measures of reprisal. The Workers' member of Portugal highlighted the role that labour inspection could play in this field and expressed the wish that specific training on this question be provided for inspectors. Compensation for discrimination should meet two requirements: it should amount to adequate compensation, not necessarily financial, for the person discriminated against, and it should have a dissuasive effect on persons wishing to practise discrimination. The Government member of Belgium noted in this regard that the effectiveness of civil, penal and administrative sanctions depended on their severity and on the conviction with which the authorities applied them.

Co-operation with employers' and workers' organisations

84. The Workers' members regretted that the discussion within the Committee had not touched in sufficient detail on the co-operation of governments with employers' and workers' organisations with a view to ensuring the promotion of equality of opportunity at the national level. They considered that the International Labour Office should look at this question in more detail to study solutions in conformity with the Conventions. They urged member States to ratify and to apply the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) with a view to improving collaboration between the social partners and governments.

Conclusions

85. Many members expressed the wish that the work accomplished by the Committee of Experts could continue to be used in the future. The Workers' members proposed that the general survey be broadly disseminated to all interested parties and that it be used in the framework of the promotional activities undertaken by the Office, activities which should, in the opinion of the Workers' member of China, be further developed. They also expressed their agreement with the proposal to use the conclusions of the Committee of Experts to encourage and promote the ratification and application of Convention No. 111 in the framework of tripartite consultations.

86. By virtue of the Constitution of the ILO, and particularly the principles set forth in the Declaration of Philadelphia which is an integral part of it, all member States are called upon to act in favour of equality of opportunity without discrimination. This principle, reaffirmed in many instruments, was specified in the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). Equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation without distinction based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, is based on the values of solidarity, dignity, respect for human beings, and freedom which were recalled by most of the members of the Committee. Given the fundamental nature of the principle in the Convention, the Committee proposed that the Conference, in adopting this report, address a solemn and urgent appeal to all countries which had not yet ratified the Convention to give careful study to the explanations and conclusions of the general survey so as to envisage the possibility of ratifying the Convention in the near future, and to ensure its full observance.

D. Compliance with specific obligations

87. The Committee decided that, in examining individual cases relating to compliance by States with their obligations under or relating to international labour standards, it would follow the same working methods and apply the same criteria as last year.

88. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee considered the manner in which effect was given to article 19, paragraphs 5 to 7, of the ILO Constitution. These provisions require member States within 12 months, or exceptionally 18 months, from the closing of each session of the Conference to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted at that session to "the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, or the enactment of legislation or other action", and to inform the Director-General of the ILO of the measures taken to that end, with particulars of the authority or authorities regarded as competent.

89. The Committee noted from the report of the Committee of Experts that considerable efforts had been made in a number of countries in the fulfilment of their obligations in regard to submission, namely Brazil, Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia and Uganda. In the course of its session, the Committee was informed by various other States of measures taken to bring Conventions and Recommendations before the competent national authorities. It welcomed the progress which had been achieved, and expressed the hope that improvements would occur in States that still experienced difficulties in complying with their obligations.

90. The Committee noted with regret that no indication was available that steps had been taken to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted during the 66th to 72nd Sessions of the Conference (1981 to 1986) to the competent authorities, in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution, by Grenada, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, United Republic of Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago.

91. The Workers' and Employers' members and many Government members expressed their concern at difficulties still being encountered by some governments in complying with their obligation to report on the application of ratified Conventions. Only 9.5 per cent of the reports due had been received by the date fixed by the Governing Body. By the date of the meeting of the Committee of Experts, however, this percentage had risen to 78.4 (which represented a drop compared to 1986 and 1987, for which the figures were 79.2 and 78.7 per cent respectively). Since then, further reports have been received, bringing the figure to 86 per cent (as compared to 87.1 in 1987).

92. This year, only 46 per cent of the reports for which information on practical information had been requested contained such information; this represented a considerable decrease over previous years (53 per cent in 1987 and 52 per cent in 1986). Several speakers regretted this decrease. The Employers' members emphasised the importance of sending such information, since without it, it was impossible to know if the Convention was being applied.

93. It was recognised that shortcomings in complying with the reporting obligations were often due to a shortage of staff having the requisite knowledge and experience, particularly in developing countries. This underlined the importance of measures of training and assistance by the International Labour Office, to which reference has been made earlier in this report. (See also paragraph 40 above.)

94. The Committee noted with regret that no report on ratified Conventions had been supplied for the past two years by Fiji and Sao Tome and Principe.

95. The Committee noted with regret that first reports on ratified Conventions had not been supplied since 1986 by the following States: Jamaica, (Conventions Nos. 149 and 150) and Yugoslavia (Convention No. 158). It stressed the special importance of first reports, on the basis of which the Committee of Experts could make its evaluation of compliance with the Conventions.

96. In this year's report the Committee of Experts had noted that 34 governments had not communicated replies to most or all of the observations and direct requests relating to Conventions on which reports were due for examination this year, involving a total of 224 cases (compared with 185 cases last year and 127 the previous year). The Committee expressed its concern at the increase in these cases. It was, however, informed that, since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, 12 of the governments concerned had sent replies which would be examined by the Committee of experts next year.

97. The Committee noted with regret, however, that no information had yet been received regarding all or most of the observations and direct requests of the Committee of Experts to which replies were requested for the period ending 30 June 1987 from the following countries: Brazil, Cape Verde, Congo, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Fiji, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mauritania, New Zealand (Niue Islands), Niger, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles and Yemen.

98. Again this year, the Committee did not have to apply the criterion "The government has failed during the past three years to indicate the representative organisations of employers and workers to which, in accordance with article 23(2) of the Constitution, copies of reports an information supplied to the ILO under articles 19 and 22 have been communicated".

99. The Committee noted the explanations provided by the governments of the following countries concerning difficulties encountered in discharging their obligations: Brazil (problems of communications and language difficulties), Cape Verde (communications problems), Grenada (administrative difficulties), Haiti (political situation), Islamic Republic of Iran (state of war), Jamaica (human and financial resources), Mauritania (administrative difficulties), New Zealand (Niue Islands) (limited local resources), Niger (administrative difficulties), Papua New Guinea (administrative difficulties), Sierra Leone (administrative difficulties), Suriname (political and constitutional situation), Yemen (human resources and language difficulties). (Details of these explanations appear in the reports of the discussions of these cases, in Part Two of this report.)

100. The Committee noted with particular interest the steps that had been taken by a certain number of governments to ensure compliance with ratified Conventions. It welcomed the fact that this year the Committee of Experts had been able to list, in paragraph 105 of its report, a major increase in the number of such cases, in which governments had made changes in their law and practice following comments made by the Committee. There were 67 such cases, relating to 36 States and 4 non-metropolitan territories from all regions having different social and economic systems. Over 1,730 cases of progress have been recorded since the Committee of Experts began listing these cases in its report in 1964. These results are a tangible proof of the effectiveness of the supervisory system, and of the willingness of member States to participate in the supervisory procedures.

101. In the course of the present session, the Conference Committee was informed of a certain number of other instances in which legislative or practical measures had recently been taken or were about to be adopted by governments with a view to ensuring the implementation of ratified Conventions. While it was left to the Committee of Experts to examine these measures, the Conference Committee welcomed these renewed indications of the efforts made by governments to comply with their international obligations and to act upon the comments of the supervisory bodies.

102. The Committee thought it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to a number of important cases which it had considered.

103. The Committee considered it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to the discussions which it had regarding the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs, the full record of which will be found in Part Two of this report. 104. As regards the application by the Central African Republic of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative as well as of the detailed discussion which took place within the Committee. It recalled that it had been discussing this case for a great number of years. It regretted that the direct contacts mission agreed to by the Government these last two years had not taken place. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to eliminate the existing discrepancies and that a direct contacts mission would take place in the very near future so as to enable the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association to be informed of the legal and factual situation in the country, in particular regarding the recently adopted legislation. It duly noted the readiness of the Government to welcome such a mission and hoped that the Government would take all the practical measures required for this in the very near future.

105. As concerns the application by the Dominican Republic of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative, as well as the extensive and detailed discussion which took place in the Committee while expressing its concern as regards the situation. The Committee welcomed the proposal made by the Government to invite an ILO direct contacts mission. It expressed the hope that this mission would assist in removing the discrepancies which existed regarding the application of these Conventions as well as the other questions covered by the Commission of Inquiry in 1983, and that the Government would be able to report progress in law and practice the following year.

106. As regards the application by Ecuador of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee took note of the explanations provided by the Government representative and of the indications supplied on the questions posed by the Committee of Experts. The Committee noted that the Government had accepted several of the recommendations which had been made in the course of the direct contacts mission. The Committee hoped that the other discrepancies would be eliminated on an urgent basis so as to bring the legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention. It requested the Government to provide full information in reply to all the points raised by the Committee of Experts, and in particular regarding any measures taken or envisaged in connection with the application of the Convention. As for the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative. It recalled that this case had been examined in 1987 and on many previous occasions. It noted that the current information showed that the Government was not willing to amend one aspect of the shortcomings mentioned by the Committee of Experts. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would soon take the necessary measures to amend Decree No. 105 and the Maritime Police Code so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention, and that at the next session of the Conference it would be able to note real progress.

107. As regards the application by Pakistan of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Committee noted the explanations given by the Government representative. As the main issues raised had been repeatedly discussed previously, the Committee again expressed its serious concern and urged the Government to take very shortly the necessary measures to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention, and to supply the detailed information requested by the Committee of Experts. As regards the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative and of the discussion within the Committee. The Committee observed with concern that there had been no progress towards bringing the legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee consequently expressed the firm hope that efforts would be made to re-consider the legislation in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts with a view to eliminating the serious divergencies which had existed for many years.

108. The Committee trusted that the governments concerned would take all the measures necessary to correct the deficiencies noted and invited them to use appropriate forms of ILO assistance, including direct contacts, to ensure that real progress is achieved by next year in regard to the observance of their obligations under the ILO Constitution and the Conventions in question.

109. During the examination of the application of certain Conventions, the Committee noted with grave concern that there had been continued failure over several years to eliminate serious discrepancies in the application by the Islamic Republic of Iran of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).

111. As already indicated, reports had been requested in 1987, under article 19 of the Constitution, on the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111) and Recommendation (No. 111), 1958. The Committee noted that, of the 191 reports requested, 139 (or 72.7 per cent) had been received.

112. The Committee noted with regret that, during the past five years, none of the reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations requested under article 19 of the Constitution had been supplied by: Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago and Yemen

113. The Committee welcomed the fact that, this year, all the governments present at the Conference replied to the invitation extended to them to participate in its work. It expressed its appreciation of the collaboration that it had received from 46 governments which provided information on the situation in their countries and took part in the discussions of individual cases which concerned them.

114. The Employers' members and the Workers' members regretted that the discussion of individual cases had been delayed this year because government representatives were not prepared in time for the discussion. At their initiative, the Committee held an informal discussion to examine the various means that could be taken, if necessary, to improve the organisation of its work and allow for a more rational use of the available time for the discussion of individual cases. The Secretariat was requested to prepare a document on the basis of the suggestions made with a view to preparing the work of the Committee for next year.

115. The Committee noted with regret that certain countries which were not represented at the Conference (Djibouti, Fiji, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saint Lucia and Seychelles), as well as Sao Tome and Principle, whose representatives had had to leave the Conference before its closure, had consequently been unable to participate in the Committee's examination of the cases relating to them. It agreed that any mention of cases concerning those countries should be made in the appropriate paragraphs of this report and should be made known to the countries concerned in accordance with the usual practice.

Geneva, 17 June 1988.

(Signed) A. EL ASSAR,

J. J. ELMIGER

Endnotes

Endnote 2

Endnote 3