International Promises and Domestic Pragmatism: To What Extent will the Employment Relations Act 1999 Implement International Labour Standards Relating to Freedom of Association
| Date | 01 May 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00269 |
| Published date | 01 May 2000 |
| Author | Tonia Novitz |
International Promises and Domestic Pragmatism: To
What Extent will the Employment Relations Act 1999
Implement International Labour Standards Relating to
Freedom of Association
Tonia Novitz*
This paper explores the rhetoric and reality surrounding implementation of
international labour standards in the Employment Relations Act 1999. It focuses
on UK commitments relating to freedom of association and considers whether the
new legislation goes any significant way towards their fulfilment. The paper
begins by outlining obligations which arise from a state’s membership of the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) and ratification of ILO Conventions. It
then goes on to examine indications that, since the change of government in 1997,
there has been a significant shift in UK policy relating to such international
obligations. The remainder of the paper examines reforms made by the
Employment Relations Act to trade union recognition, protection of strikers from
dismissal and prevention of anti-union discrimination. It emerges that the Third
Way proposed by the present Labour Government entails a complicated detour
from the path of full compliance with ILO standards.
Each year, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) holds a conference. This
forum provides Governments with the opportunity to state the extent of their
commitment to international labour standards. In 1997, shortly after Labour’s
electoral victory, the new UK Government representative said that he welcomed
the opportunity to put on record the UK’s ‘wholehearted commitment to human
rights and our full support for the ILO’s efforts to promote internationally
recognised core labour standards’.1In 1998, the same Minister claimed that the
policies of a UK Labour Government ‘on employment and human rights’ shared
the same objectives as the ILO. Moreover, his Government was ‘on target’ for
delivering those policies.2This year, in July, the Minister continued in a similar
vein, emphasising the Government’s support for recent ILO initiatives and
criticising another state which had failed to comply with the recommendations of
an ILO Commission of Inquiry.3
Some will regard these statements as curious, given the contrast between
undertakings given on the international stage and pledges made in the domestic
sphere. The Government’s industrial relations agenda, set out in its White Paper
on Fairness at Work, did not emphasise ILO standards. From this policy
ßThe Modern Law Review Limited 2000 (MLR 63:3, May). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 379
*Department of Law, University of Bristol.
Based on a paper presented at the Annual Industrial Law Society Conference in September 1999. Thanks
go to Paul Skidmore and Phil Syrpis for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. Any errors are my own.
1 See Record of Proceedings (1997) International Labour Conference (ILC), 85th Session, UK Minister
of State for Employment (Andrew Smith). Statement discussed HL Deb vol 595 col 428 1 December
1998, per Lord Davies of Coity.
2Record of Proceedings (1998) ILC 86th Session, UK Minister of State for Employment (Andrew
Smith).
3Record of Proceedings (1999) ILC 87th Session, UK Minister of State for Employment (Andrew
Smith).
To continue reading
Request your trial