Extract
[...] The mechanism provided by the bill relies on 'work notifications' communicated by the employer to a trade union and 'identifying the people who must work to ensure the service levels planned for strike days'.26 The British government thus wants to restrict strikes, notably following the social movements that occurred in 2022-2023 in the United Kingdom to demand better wages and working conditions. The British trade union federation Trades Union Congress (TUC) has stated that it has lodged a complaint with the ILO to contest this bill27. British TUC unions consider that this 'anti-strike' law is not in line with international labour standards established by the ILO. However, according to Branislav Rugani, the right to strike as such 'is not inscribed in any ILO convention: only trade union freedom is'28. This ILO complaint by British unions thus seems 'risky'. [...]
[...] » hosted by Lord Henry KC, Professor Tonia Novitz and Professor Martins Paparinskis, on 27 November 2023 Legal Standards : - Article 2 of the ILO Convention No. 87 - Article 65 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice - Note introductory by the ILO for case 191 - Right to strike under the ILO Convention No. 87 - Report of the ILO of 14 September 2023, 349th special session, Geneva November 2023 - Order of 16 November 2023 on Case 191 - Right to strike under the ILO Convention No. [...]
[...] BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles : - CONNOLLY H., "United Kingdom. The British government wants to restrict the right to strike in response to a historic social movement", Chronicle International of the IRES, 2023/2 (n°182), p.3-17. - « Right to Strike: The introduction of a minimum service at the United Kingdom contested before the ILO Social Liaisons Daily, The News n°18877, Section Actors, Debates, Events, 2023. - GERNIGON Bernard, ODERO Alberto and GUIDO Horacio, The principles of the ILO on the right to strike, International Labour Review, vol no 1998. [...]
[...] Thus, this joint declaration of 2015 did not allow for the blocking, between the groups of employers and workers, to be stemmed on the right to strike. According to Alain Supiot, « since more than ten years, the system of supervision of labor standards has thus been blocked and contested in its very legitimacy »20. Above all, even if the ILO Constitution (Article 37) provides that, unless it is to establish its own court, " all difficulties of interpretation of its conventions will be submitted to the International Court of Justice [ICJ] », the representatives of employers, in concert with those of the most authoritarian regimes, have fiercely opposed the application of this provision. [...]
[...] In what way does the ILO's accession to the ILO demonstrate that its tripartite functioning is an obstacle to the recognition of the right to strike? Following a request submitted by the workers' group and supported by 36 governments, the International Labour Organization's (ILO) Governing Body decided, at its 349th resumed session held on 10 November 2023, to submit the long-standing dispute over the interpretation of Convention No regarding the right to strike, to the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 37 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization (ILO).1 This conflict concerns the question of whether the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected by Convention No The latter, adopted on 9 July 1948 by the General Conference of the ILO, concerns trade union freedom and the protection of trade union rights, but it does not explicitly recognize the right to strike. [...]
