The ILO and the Right to Strike

Abstract

The author argues that the June 2012 challenge by the ILO Employers' group to the hitherto generally accepted view regarding the right to strike under the Freedom of Association Convention, No. 87, is at odds with the historical understanding of the framework in which the Convention is embedded. She demonstrates how the ILO constituents have consistently recognized that there is a positive right to strike, which is inextricably linked to – and an inevitable corollary of – the right to freedom of association. The article also analyses the relative roles of the ILO supervisory bodies in this regard.

Hoisted on their own petard? Business and human rights

“…This statement was made despite the fact that since 1952, its very first year of operation, the tripartite Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association has proceeded in the belief that a right to strike exists (Bellace, 2014).…”

“…At the outset of the 2012 CAS meeting, the vice chair of the Employers group expressed the Employers' dissatisfaction with parts of the General Survey and took the position that neither the preparatory work for C. 87 nor the text itself ‘offers a basis for developing, starting from the Convention, principles regulating in detail the right to strike’ and that ‘the right to strike has no legal basis in the freedom of association Conventions’ (ILO, 2012b: 47). This statement was made despite the fact that since 1952, its very first year of operation, the tripartite Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association has proceeded in the belief that a right to strike exists (Bellace, 2014).…”

New Directions in Employment Relations Theory: Understanding Fragmentation, Identity, and Legitimacy

“…International organizations, including multinational firms, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and multilateral institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and the European Commission, play an expanding role in a range of areas. They are involved in promoting global flows of goods, services, finance, and people; establishing the regulatory framework for these flows; and policing compliance with rules (Bellace 2014). Meanwhile, multinational firms have organized their own private regulation efforts, coordinating networks of organizations involved in standard setting and monitoring (Kuruvilla, Liu, Li, and Chen 2020).…”

From a ‘Moral Commentator’ to a ‘Determined Actor’? How the International Labour Organization (ILO) Orchestrates the Field of International Industrial Relations

“…This system of 'naming, shaming and reforming' (field notes) combines technical (legal) examination by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) with tripartite (political) review in the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) at the annual ILC. The legitimacy of CEACR's interpretation of Conventions had been simmering since the fall of the Berlin Wall, if not before (Bellace 2014), but the issue came to a head at the ILC in June 2012 when the Employers' Group prevented the CAS adopting a list of cases to be discussed, thereby bringing this aspect of the ILO's supervisory system to a halt for the first time since it began functioning in 1927 (ILC.2012/101/27/PV: 2-5). Ostensibly, at the heart of the Employers' disquiet was the 'right to strike' and their desire to limit any action to the workplace level (Swepston 2013: 217), thereby weakening the bargaining power of labour (e.g.…”

“…the ability of workers in GSCs to lawfully engage in secondary action, boycotts and the like). However, on the specific question of whether a right to strike can be read into the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 (C.87), the answer -in law and in practice -is evidently 'yes' (Bellace 2014;Swepston 2013), which suggests an ulterior motive (alternative template) behind the Employers' counter-framing.…”