Chapter III. Training and employment

96. Equality of opportunity and treatment in employment for men and women workers with family responsibilities implies, in effect, the absence of discrimination in respect of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment and dismissal. As with the other ILO instruments in this field, however, Convention No. 156 and Recommendation No. 165 seek not merely to prohibit direct and indirect discrimination in each of these areas. The standards also call for the adoption of measures designed to promote the conditions in which workers with family responsibilities may enjoy full and genuine equality with other workers. Accordingly, they place emphasis on improving the employment possibilities and job security of workers with family responsibilities through strengthening their occupational qualifications.

97. Article 4, paragraph (a), and Article 7 of the Convention and Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Recommendation link the question of access to and integration in employment to those services, facilities and policies that would enable workers with family responsibilities to overcome the problems particular to their situation (that is, the restrictions that these workers face, because of their family responsibilities, "in preparing for, entering, participating in or advancing in economic activity" (Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2)). (Endnote 1)

98. Active measures to facilitate and promote access to employment necessarily include initiatives to make the workplace more responsive to the needs of workers, as well as efforts to provide adequate child-care and other family services and facilities to meet those responsibilities that workers would otherwise have to shoulder alone or neglect. While it must be stressed that the full implementation of the Convention and Recommendation requires concerted action in all of these areas simultaneously, this chapter is concerned with the specific measures taken to place workers with family responsibilities on an equal footing with other workers in the areas of training and employment. To avoid duplication with other areas of the report, reference is therefore made to the issues covered in other chapters only where these are relevant to the more limited questions of employment promotion or training measures.

Facilitating entry and re-entry to employment

99. Article 4, paragraph (a), of the Convention states that all measures compatible with national conditions and possibilities shall be taken to enable workers with family responsibilities to exercise their right to free choice of employment. In order to indicate clearly the scope of this provision, the Article specifies that the measures contemplated in this regard belong in the context of "creating effective equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers". (Endnote 2)

100. Reference to the preparatory work of the Convention indicates that the stipulation in Article 4, paragraph (a), that these workers be enabled to "exercise their right to free choice of employment", is to be considered as comprehending equality also in relation to access to vocational training, and access to employment and to particular occupations. Since the term "employment" was defined in the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, (No. 111), 1958, as including "access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations", it was not considered necessary to make specific reference to these additional matters in Article 4, paragraph (a). (Endnote 3)

101. The original motivation for including Article 4, paragraph (a), was to promote the adoption of measures that would enable workers with family responsibilities to choose freely the kind of employment that was compatible with their needs. (Endnote 4) While no qualification concerning the special needs of these workers appears in the adopted text of paragraph (a), Article 4 does refer, in its paragraph (b), to the requirement to take account of their needs in terms and conditions of employment and in social security. It is evident, nevertheless, that Article 4, paragraph (a), would have no consequence were it not to imply that family responsibilities affected negatively the exercise of the right to free choice of employment; and that conversely, the right to choose employment freely necessarily implies adopting measures which take into account those constraints.

102. A number of governments have stated that all workers, irrespective of their family situation, are guaranteed exercise of the right to free choice of employment. More specifically, many have stated that no measures prevent or restrict workers with family responsibilities from exercising this right; and that, moreover, national policies and legislation concerning equal opportunity and treatment in employment conform with the provisions of Convention No. 111 in prohibiting distinctions, exclusions or preferences on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin (Article 1, paragraph (a)). Some reports have indicated that present policies have been focused on generating employment opportunities for all workers, an evident priority in the face of massive unemployment.

103. Paragraph 15 of the Recommendation states in general terms that workers with family responsibilities should enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment with other workers in relation to preparation for employment, access to employment, advancement within employment and employment security. As has already been noted above, all of the ILO's equality instruments require that, within the framework of a national equal employment policy, action be taken not only to eliminate discrimination on the grounds specified in the particular standard but also to promote equality through a permanent process of rigorous action, capable of responding to changes in society. (Endnote 5) In this connection, the Committee would recall the possibility under the Convention of taking measures essentially for women whose family responsibilities restrict their opportunities for economic activity, so long as men are not barred from access to such measures should they find themselves in the same position. Concerning the practical measures taken to promote the employment and re-employment of workers with family responsibilities, a number of countries have included information in their reports on the programmes undertaken to assist women's access to the labour market which, as women tend to be primarily charged with family responsibilities, may be viewed as having a positive effect on applying the Convention and Recommendation. In Austria, for example, a number of measures aimed at women are being taken within the context of an active labour market policy to promote equal opportunities for women and men, including the appointment of a network of female counsellors in the regional employment offices, and a campaign entitled "labour market administration for women" launched in 1989 by the Labour Market Administration. The principle of employment equity is also central to the programmes undertaken by the Canadian Jobs Strategy -- a scheme providing assistance to persons with specific difficulties in finding and keeping lasting employment -- which has target levels for women and other groups identified as being underrepresented in the labour market. A Workforce Employment Agency programme in Greece to subsidize 10,000 new jobs for persons over the age of 25 years, awards higher subsidies for women taken on in the secondary and tertiary sectors than for men.

104. For the most part, national measures to promote the entry -- and more especially the re-entry -- to employment of workers with family responsibilities are integrated with vocational guidance and training services in the same way that these elements are linked in the Convention and Recommendation. In this respect, Article 7 of the Convention strengthens and amplifies Article 4 by providing that all measures compatible with national conditions and possibilities, including measures in the field of vocational guidance and training, shall be taken to enable workers with family responsibilities to become and remain integrated in the labour force, as well as to re-enter the labour force after an absence due to those responsibilities.

105. Paragraph 14 of the Recommendation proposes that services to enable workers with family responsibilities to enter or re-enter employment should be made available, within the framework of existing services for all workers or along lines appropriate to national conditions; and that such services should include, free of charge to the workers, vocational guidance, counselling, information and placement services which are staffed by suitably trained personnel and are able to respond adequately to the special needs of workers with family responsibilities. Particular attention was paid, in the preparatory work, to the retention of the word "enable" in Paragraph 14, against a proposal to replace it with the word "assist". (Endnote 6) This appears to indicate that, whatever the nature of the services provided -- which are not in any case listed exhaustively in the Recommendation -- they should be as effective as possible in meeting the stated goals. In addition, emphasis was placed on the importance of providing for measures to enable the personnel of vocational guidance, counselling, information and placement services, who may have a key role in promoting effective equality of opportunity, to receive special training on questions relating to the elimination of discrimination in order to enable them to serve workers with family responsibilities adequately. (Endnote 7)

106. An example of counselling for individual applicants for employment is offered by the Federal Employment Institution in Germany, which informs workers and employers about the labour situation, changes in trades, needs and possibilities of vocational training and entry into employment. Information centres have been set up for this purpose in employment offices, all of which are equipped with child-care facilities at the disposal of applicants.

107. Placement services may accord priority for employment specifically to all workers with family responsibilities. In Spain, the National Employment Institute is collaborating with local communities and businesses to set up work projects and services for unemployed workers registered with the Employment Office, who meet criteria, set by Order, of being adaptable to the post offered, of being unemployed the longest time and of having family responsibilities. In addition, Spain's Rural Employment Plan establishes as a selection criterion for its employment schemes, those unemployed workers who have dependent family members.

108. In some cases, rules or regulations require that applicants for employment indicate, on the relevant job application forms, whether they have dependent family members, among other personal data such as nationality and domicile. This is required, for example, in Mexico under the provisions of the Federal Labour Act, 1970, as amended in 1979. According to that legislation furthermore, employers are obliged, when all other conditions are equal, to give preference to certain categories of workers, including nationals, trade union members, those with the greatest seniority, and those workers who have family responsibilities and no other source of income. The Government of Mexico has referred to this provision as an example of the way that labour standards in that country place a value on family responsibilities, in particular, as regards access to employment. This approach may be contrasted with that found in other jurisdictions such as Colombia where, according to the Government's report, measures have been taken to prevent direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of marital status and family responsibilities through legislation which provides that applications for employment in governmental and semi-governmental agencies, and in the private sector, shall not require applicants to furnish information on their civil status and number of children.

109. Several governments have provided information concerning the measures taken to assist workers to reconcile their work and family responsibilities in the case of relocation, and more specifically through assistance to enter or re-enter employment given to the spouse or other family member of an employee who is obliged to move to a different location for job purposes. Though women are more likely to be in the situation of having to adapt to the relocation of their partners, the situation is changing as more women enter jobs that involve transfers. A recent report prepared for the Women's Bureau in the Canadian Ministry of Labour, surveys the ways in which leading Canadian companies are adapting their relocation policies and practices to meet the changing needs of employees and their families. (Endnote 8) The report places particular importance on the desirability of providing employment assistance to the transferring spouse.

110. The Government of Spain has referred to the 1990 agreements it concluded with the Governments of Canada and the United States, which accord to dependants of employees of diplomatic missions, consulate offices or permanent representatives of international organizations, the right to engage freely in remunerated activities in the host country. This subject has also been addressed by the Commission of the European Communities in view of the potential for migratory movements after the commencement of the single market in 1993. A report published in 1992 (Endnote 9) concluded that companies, administrations and the European Community must work to find solutions to the two issues particularly affected by mobility, namely, the loss of the spouse's job and the continuity of the children's schooling.

Training

111. Paragraph 13 of the Recommendation suggests that in accordance with national policy and practice, vocational training facilities and, where possible, paid educational leave arrangements to use such facilities should be made available to workers with family responsibilities. The inclusion of this provision was apparently not meant to advocate the introduction of paid educational leave in countries where such arrangements did not exist, but was rather intended to recommend the adoption, in countries where it was available, of measures to allow workers with family responsibilities to benefit from it on an equal footing with other workers. (Endnote 10)

112. Many of the reports reviewed indicate in general terms, that vocational guidance and training are provided for all workers on a non-discriminatory basis. It is encouraging to note from a number of the reports received that a variety of innovative training schemes have been launched to support, in particular, the re-entry into the labour force of persons who had withdrawn from paid employment to meet their family responsibilities. Some of the training programmes being undertaken are designed to prepare workers for making the transition into the labour force and focus on building confidence and social skills and providing information about employment rights, community services and facilities and career planning. In Ireland, a Return to Work programme provided by the Training and Employment Authority makes available preparatory training to women in the areas of personal, social and career planning skills, primarily on a part-time basis. A similar programme is also aimed at both men and women. Those who have completed this preparatory training are encouraged to take advantage of the further training opportunities available. The Irish Council for the Education, Recruitment and Training of Persons for Tourism also offers a Return to Work programme for mature persons who have been absent from the paid workforce for family reasons.

113. In countries where the entitlement to training is conditional upon a prior period of continuous paid employment, specific accommodation is sometimes made, either to exempt workers with family responsibilities from this criterion or to count as employment the period of time devoted to family obligations. In Germany, workers who have been in employment and who have thereby acquired entitlement to vocational training may interrupt their occupational activity for five years in respect of each child, without losing their acquired rights. One precondition to receiving a subsidy for adult education in Finland is that the applicant must have been in continuous full-time employment for at least five years: the time spent caring either for a child under 10 years of age or for some other close family member in need of special care is, however, counted as equivalent to full-time work.

114. In addition to facilitating the inclusion of workers with family responsibilities in training courses, some countries award allowances to trainees. Under the Australian student income support scheme (AUSTUDY), recent changes have made it easier for people with family responsibilities to undertake the necessary education and training to enter or re-enter employment: sole-parent pensioners in part-time study are now granted access to an education supplement so long as they are undertaking at least 25 per cent of a normal full-time study course; and through allowing deductions for each child, eligibility for the supplement (which depends on a means-test), has been made easier for married students with dependants. Workers in Belarus who are upgrading their skills whilst taking a break from work are entitled to receive the average wage they earned in their previous place of employment throughout the period of training. This right is also available to workers engaged in vocational training who have lost their jobs due to closures. Trainees who are eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits in Canada (where, under 1990 amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, benefit periods for training purposes may be extended to 156 weeks) are entitled to administration costs, course purchase and supplementary allowances for the care of dependants and travelling and living-away-from-home expenses during attendance at courses and programmes. In Finland, a training allowance equivalent to the daily unemployment allowance is available, and special support can also be granted to a person with several children during labour market training which includes basic, additional and supplementary training and retraining. Compensation for travel and eating costs during training can also be paid.

115. Many factors may impede or affect the successful transition from home into work for persons with family responsibilities. Apart from a lack of marketable skills, these members of the community are likely to lack confidence or skills to pursue employment opportunities (especially when their absence from the labour market has been of significant duration), and may need support in such areas as finding or financing child care or in arranging transport to training centres or to employment interviews. Some of the reports received have described programmes developed to deliver a consolidated package of assistance to those groups of persons who, because of their family situation, are particularly disadvantaged in obtaining and remaining integrated in employment. An Australian programme, the Jobs, Education and Training Programme (JET), aims to improve the financial circumstances of sole parents by facilitating their entry into the workforce through a coordinated programme of assistance which provides individual advice and access to employment, education, training and child-care opportunities. While all sole-parent pensioners are eligible for JET, priority is given to those who have been on a pension for over one year and whose children are over 6 years old; those whose youngest child with reach the age of 16 within two years; and teenage sole parents. Clients of JET and other disadvantaged jobseekers are accorded priority for access to the Employment Access Programme (EAS) which includes diagnostic assessment with a particular emphasis on those with family responsibilities; remedial training for clients with literacy, numeracy or the basic skills needs; wage subsidies to employers; training in job search techniques and short and longer-term vocational training courses. These forms of assistance are accompanied by training allowances, post-placement support services, the contracting of community or private sector agencies to provide placement services to clients who have suffered very long periods of unemployment, mobility assistance and child care.

116. Flexibility in the design, delivery and location of training courses is also a market feature of programmes developed to accommodate the restrictions faced by workers with family responsibilities in acquiring or upgrading the necessary skills for employment. A number of governments have referred to such forms of education and training as distance learning and multi-method tuition, which are increasingly provided by educational institutions for those citizens who would otherwise be unable to undertake the studies required to improve their labour market prospects or to seek advancement in their employment.

117. Relatively few reports have indicated that specific attention has been paid to the availability of paid educational leave for workers with family responsibilities, a measure that would appear to be of great value in enabling workers to compete for promotions in employment. An outcome of the comprehensive incomes and economic policy settlement agreed in Finland in 1990, was an experimental vocational training grant during a three-year period, which entitled persons aged between 30 and 60 years in fulltime public or private employment to be paid support from the Education and Redundancy Fund financed by employers. As a precondition for this support, applicants must have been in their current employment for at least one year and working full time for at least five years altogether.

Refusal or termination of employment

118. Article 8 of the Convention provides that family responsibilities shall not, as such, constitute a valid reason for termination of employment. Paragraph 16 of the Recommendation suggests more broadly that marital status, family situation or family responsibilities should not, as such, constitute valid reasons for refusal or termination of employment. The formulation of these provisions provoked so much discussion during the preparatory work that a general discussion was held in the course of the 1981 Conference Committee in order to allow a full consideration of the different points of view before finalizing the texts of the instruments. Some members of the Committee considered it essential that the Convention affirm the principle that family responsibilities should not constitute a valid reason for the termination of employment, since workers were often dismissed for reasons related to the fact that they had family responsibilities. Others considered that such a provision could prove a major obstacle to the ratification of the Convention. Further discussion concentrated on whether the Convention should proscribe termination on the basis of "family responsibilities" or on "sex", the point being made that since women largely bore responsibility for their families, they were more vulnerable to discrimination than men and accordingly, it was discrimination on the basis of sex that had to be eliminated. In the event, it was decided that Article 8 should be adopted in its present form. It was recalled, in this connection, that the Declaration on Equality of Opportunity and Treatment for Women Workers, adopted by the Conference in 1975, forbade discrimination against women, particularly on the grounds of marital status or family responsibilities.

119. There was also some discussion as to whether to include in Article 8 a provision forbidding the refusal of employment to a worker because of his or her family responsibilities. One government had pointed out that an employer's right to hire workers may be restricted by rules concerning, for example, the prohibition of sexual discrimination or by rules concerning such matters as powers of co-determination for trade unions; and rules could also exist enabling public authorities to exert a positive influence on recruitment, for example, with a view to promoting the recruitment of women. It was contended, however, that rules did not normally exist ensuring job applicants (whether men or women) individual rights against a possible employer. For this reason, it was considered that a prohibition on refusing employment on the grounds of marital status, family situation or family responsibilities was too broad and for that reason the Article was unlikely to be implemented in many member States unless existing legislation was revised extensively. If, on the other hand, the provision could be interpreted as prohibiting indirect sexual discrimination in this field, there would be no difficulty in applying the Article. (Endnote 11) It was suggested that the Convention concentrate on the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sex, in which case family responsibilities could continue to be used as a valid reason for refusing employment to a worker or for dismissing workers, provided that men and women were treated equally in such cases; or to concentrate on the elimination of discrimination on grounds of family responsibilities, in which case no reference should be made to refusal of employment. In the light of these considerations, it was agreed that this provision of the Convention should deal only with termination of employment.

120. The importance attached to the principle reflected in Article 8 is illustrated by the fact that though the question of termination of employment was under discussion simultaneously at the Conference, in connection with the first discussion of the Termination of Employment Convention (No. 158) and Recommendation (No. 166), 1982, it was decided nevertheless to include this provision in Convention No. 156 and Recommendation No. 165. In this regard, it should be noted that Convention No. 158 includes "sex", "marital status" and "family responsibilities" among the grounds which shall not constitute a valid reason for termination (Article 5(d)).

121. Some governments were concerned that the prescription of Article 8 not be interpreted as preventing termination of employment for a valid reason such as unsatisfactory performance, even where that reason is influenced, say, by the double burden of work and family responsibilities. It was for this reason that the words "as such" were introduced into the text of Article 8. (Endnote 12)

122. Moreover, Article 8 does not require that a reason must be given in all cases where workers with family responsibilities are dismissed. In circumstances where employment may be terminated only for valid reasons, Article 8 excludes family responsibilities as such, as a valid reason. In this respect, it may be noted that during the preparatory work, the competent Conference Committee considered that, in keeping with the flexibility allowed by Article 9 which permits application of the Convention by a variety of means, Article 8 would not necessarily require application by legislation. Accordingly, instead of calling for an explicit prohibition of termination on account of family responsibilities -- a notion which usually implied a legislative compulsion -- it was agreed that Article 8 should convey the idea that termination for the stated reason be considered as not justified, so that it would be possible to apply the Article by means other than legislation, without affecting the likelihood of achieving the result aimed at in the text under discussion. On the basis of this reference, it is clear then that Article 8 seeks to prohibit termination of employment on account of family responsibilities, but allows member States flexibility in determining the manner of implementation. (Endnote 13)

123. Very few countries have actually legislated to make "family responsibilities" an express ground on which discrimination in respect of all aspects of the employment relationship is proscribed. Those that have done so have evidently taken this action within the framework of wider measures to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in employment. It is interesting to note that examples of such legislation also prevent discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities in respect of access to employment, indicating a significant change from the situation which prevailed at the time the instruments were adopted. Comprehensive legislation concerning the protection and facilities for workers with family responsibilities was, for example, enacted in Greece (Endnote 14) in 1984, to apply to workers of either sex having responsibilities towards dependent children or other members of their family in need of care or support. The provisions of the Act are, according to section 1, "intended to facilitate the preparation for economic activity of the workers concerned, help them to find and keep a job and to enhance their career prospects". Direct and indirect discrimination is consequently prohibited with regard to access to employment, continuance in employment and in relation to career prospects (section 4). In addition, the Act specifies that family responsibilities shall not be grounds for terminating the employment relationship of the workers concerned (section 14). The Employment (Equal Opportunities) Law, 1988, of Israel forbids an employer from discriminating between his employees or between his employees or between persons seeking employment, on account of sex, being married or being parents in respect of acceptance for employment, terms of or advancement in employment, vocational training, dismissal or severance pay. The Government of Cyprus has referred to its ratification of the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), which provides that the grounds of "race, colour, sex, marital status, familyresponsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin" shall not constitute valid reasons for termination (Article 5(d)). Though no mention is made of the question of discrimination for reason of family responsibilities in regard to access to employment, the Government of Australia has indicated its intention to amend the Sex Discrimination Act, 1984, to prohibit dismissal on the ground of family responsibilities. Such a provision is already contained in the 1984 Termination, Change and Redundancy Decision of the federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (now called the Industrial Relations Commission) which has flowed onto around 500 federal awards and some state awards.

124. Without always explaining specifically its practical application for the purposes of the Convention, legislation has been cited in some reports which would appear to be intended to prevent discrimination in employment in connection with a worker's potential family responsibilities. (It is recalled that the ground of "marital status" is included together with those of "family situation" and "family responsibilities" in Paragraph 16 of the Recommendation.) In this regard, a number of member States have referred to provisions which include "marital status" among the grounds on which discrimination in employment, including termination, is prohibited. Since these clauses appear for the most part in legislation concerning equality between women and men, it is more likely that they were designed to prohibit primarily discrimination against women who marry (and who might therefore be considered more likely to have children) than that they were intended also to protect women and men with family responsibilities. The question of discrimination on the grounds of "marital status" is, however, also relevant to the issue of actual family responsibilities in the case where the spouse of the worker is in need of care and support. In general terms, provisions prohibiting the dismissal of either a pregnant woman or a woman who is absent on maternity leave may also be regarded as measures to guard against discrimination in respect of a woman worker's potential family responsibilities. Questions concerning maternity leave are outside the scope of application of the instruments under review here, although these matters obviously constitute an important part of any national policy in the area of equality of opportunity and treatment.

125. Dismissal also appears to be often prohibited in those instances when employees take advantage of rights which are guaranteed under legislation and which are relevant to the exercise of their family responsibilities. The Government of Canada states that provisions in the employment standards legislation of Canadian jurisdictions granting and regulating the right to various family leaves, such as maternity, parental, adoption and child care, also provide employment security safeguards for persons who avail themselves of those leaves. In Quebec, the relevant employment standards provision prohibits an employer from disciplining or taking other measures against employees who have refused overtime because of their unavoidable obligations relating to the care, health or education of their minor children. In Japan, the Law concerning Child Care Leave and Other Matters of 1991 prescribes that an employer shall not dismiss a worker for the reason that he or she has applied for or has taken a leave of absence for raising a child under the age of 1 year. The Government of the Netherlands has indicated that employees can never be dismissed on the grounds that they have taken parental leave. Though the source of this principle is not given, the Committee has noted that under the equality legislation of this country, which prohibits sex discrimination in connection with the termination of employment relationships, discrimination is defined as including indirect discrimination based on family circumstances or marital status. In Poland, the Labour Code provides that an establishment may not terminate a worker's contract of employment with notice while the worker is on leave or is absent from work for any valid reason, inter alia, if the worker must provide personal care for a child or other member of the family, if during this period the worker is entitled to a social insurance allowance.

126. Information has also been provided concerning the rights of workers with family responsibilities in the case of staff reductions or redundancy procedures. Several collective agreements in Finland stipulate that an employee's family responsibilities must be taken into account in determining the order in which the labour force may be reduced. In Germany, two recent decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court examined the question of the necessary staff reductions in the public service in the new Länder of Germany. While the Court upheld the legality of these reductions, it established exceptions regarding pregnant women and single parents by holding that the dismissals in those cases were inoperative since the 1990 Act concerning unification did not provide for any comprehensive, socially accepted supporting measures for these persons.

127. Finally, some reports reviewed make a general statement to the effect that "marital status" or "family responsibilities" do not constitute reasonable cause for refusing to employ or to dismiss workers. In the absence of further information, it is difficult to determine what protection is accorded to workers who may be refused employment or dismissed because of their family responsibilities. The Committee recalls, in this regard, that it has frequently had occasion to request further clarification on the application of Article 8 in the comments it has addressed to member States which have ratified the Convention. In particular, the Committee has requested information concerning any legislative provisions, collective agreements or court decisions to show that family responsibilities cannot constitute a basis for dismissal in employment.

Endnotes

Endnote 2

Endnote 3

Endnote 4

Endnote 5

Endnote 6

Endnote 7

Endnote 8

Endnote 9

Endnote 10

Endnote 11

Endnote 12

Endnote 13

Endnote 14

Cross references
Constitution: Article 19
Constitution: Article 22
Constitution: Article 35
Conventions: C111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
Conventions: C158 Termination of Employment Convention, 1982
Recommendations:R166 Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982