Page 836
32ND SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, GENEVA, 1949
Report by the Delegates of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
INTRODUCTION
1. The 32nd Session of the International Labour Conference was held in Geneva from 8th June to 2nd July, 1949.
2. The delegates appointed to represent His Majesty's Government were Sir Guildhaume Myrddin-Evans, K.Ĉ.M.G., C.B., Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service, United Kingdom Government representative on the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and Mr. William Taylor, C.B., Under-Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service, together with Mr. Mark Dalcour Tennant, Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service, as substitute delegate. Sir John Forbes Watson, K.C.M.G., Director of the British Employers' Confederation, Vice- Chairman of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, was appointed to represent the United Kingdom employers; and Mr. Alfred Roberts, O.B.E., Member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, General Secretary, Amalgamated Association of Card, Blowing and Ring Room Operatives, Member of the Governing Body of the Inter- national Labour Office, was appointed to represent the United Kingdom workers. In addition, 16 advisers were appointed to the Government delegates, 10 advisers, and a substitute adviser, to the employers' delegate and 10 advisers to the workers' delegate. The complete list of the delegation is given in Appendix I.
APPRECIATION
OF THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE
3. In the report which follows we have attempted, following normal practice, to give a short account of the proceedings of the Conference item by item. On this occasion we feel it would be appropriate to preface that account by some brief observations recording our impressions of the general results of the Conference.
4. By common
common consent this Conference achieved some outstanding successes. No international conference can do more than lay foundations. The construction of the building is the responsibility of the Member States when they come to decide how far they are able and willing to implement the conclusions of the Conference. This much can be said at once that the 32nd session of the International Labour Conference laid good and solid foundations. In addition to dealing with budgetary and financial matters, including the Organisation's budget for 1950, and with certain items which recur annually, the Conference adopted three new Conventions and three new Recommendations and revised five Conventions and one Recommendation. These instruments deal with certain aspects of such diverse subjects as Wages, Freedom of Association, Vocational Guidance, Migration for Employment, Fee-Charging Employment Agencies and Maritime questions The Convention dealing with Freedom of Associa- tion (The Application of the Principles of the Righ to organise and to Bargain Collectively) is of special significance. It is the result of careful and painstaking examination of three successive annual Conferences
66681
1
A 2
:
.
of the Internatgaa8 37abfirl 9ganisation, Rags &the foh Convention to be adopted in two years on a subject which hitherto has defied agreement on the international plane. Stated thus simply in terms of the work accom- plished and the instruments adopted this record of the Conference's three and a half weeks' session constitutes by any standards, a notable achieve- ment and one of which any Organisation might be proud. We may add that the ability of the Conference since the war to get through an increasingly heavy agenda in so short a space of time is in no small measure due to the work of the Director-General and his staff, to all of whom we would wish to express our appreciation, and to the efficiency of the machine which has been created.
5. Two of the revised Conventions-those dealing with Fee-Charging Employment Agencies and with Migration for Employment-are worthy of special note. The former includes provision for the alternative policies of abolition or regulation of fee-charging employment agencies, and States may ratify the Convention on the basis of one or other of these alternatives. The revised Convention on Migration for Employment consists of a relatively short Convention proper dealing with general principles, together with three Annexes containing detailed provisions; and States may ratify the Conven- tion alone or with any or all of the Annexes. This is an important development in I.L.O. legislative practice, since hitherto Conventions have consisted of a single series of provisions which have had to be ratified entirely and without reservation or not at all. Representatives of some States viewed this development with apprehension since, as they put it, provision in an international agreement of different standards, the adoption of either of which would be accepted as a basis for the ratification of the agreement, would in the long run lead to the general adoption of the lower standard. We do not share this apprehension. The method has obvious dangers. But we believe that, properly controlled, this development holds out much hope for the adoption by the I.L.O. in future of more effective instruments which will permit States to proceed to a particular objective by stages where they cannot arrive at one step, or will permit different States to proceed to the same objective by different roads as may be best suited to their traditions or principles. It seems to us that Mr. Lall (Indian Govern- ment delegate and Chairman of the Governing Body of the I.L.O.) stated the proper attitude to this question when, in a similar connection, he quoted an Indian proverb to the effect that "you cannot reach Heaven in one leap, but only by successive good acts".
6. The attitude of the Conference to these two Conventions was, in general, typical of its realistic approach to the problems with which it had to deal. Too often in the past the Conference has adopted instruments which, because of the particular method embodied in their provisions or of the very advanced standards which they set, had no chance of widespread ratification and even less of widespread implementation. The Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention, 1933, and the Migration for Employment Convention, 1939, which have now been revised by the instruments referred to in the preceding paragraph, are two cases in point; the former in sixteen years attracted ratification from only six States, the latter in ten years did not attract a single ratification. In recent years there has been a change in the attitude of delegates in regard to the standards there has been a real the altitudepot
to be set,
particular, since the
Conventions
desire to understand each other's point of view and a real effort to draw up instruments which are the result of general agreement, in the knowledge
420