 |
 |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean Pierre BARROIS" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 20 July 2000 08:25 JP Barrois Senior Lecturer and trade unionist International Campaign in Defence of ILO convention 103 Dear Friend, This is to draw your attention on an international appeal in defence of Maternity rights launched by an international meeting of trade unionists which took place in Geneva on June 12 . The recent 88th annual Assembly of the ILO voted for the revision of ILO Convention 103 on the Protection of Maternity Rights, with 304 votes in favour of the revision, 22 votes against and 116 abstentions. The revised Convention now authorises the dismissal of pregant women ! It is a tremendous blow against workers right and a step back to 19th century conditions. The trade unionists assembled in Geneva on June 12 decided to launch the appeal I am sending you to organise the resistance to reclaim the rights which were codified in ILO 103 before revision. It has to be added that this question should be very sensitive in Britain where under the growing pressure of trade unionists, the Government had ratified ILO 103 just three days before it was revised. In three days the new rights won by women workers were scrapped! It is all the more important to organise a very broad campaign to reclaim these rights. I very much hope you will agree to endorse the appeal and E mail me back your endorsement either in a personal capacity or on behalf of your organisation. Yours JP Barrois APPEAL International Campaign to Reclaim the Rights codified in Convention 103 and to restore ILO 103 They dared to revise ILO Convention 103! They dared to authorise the dismissal of pregnant women workers! On 15 June 2000, in Geneva, the participants in the 88th annual Assembly of the ILO voted for the revision of ILO Convention 103 on the Protection of Maternity Rights, with 304 votes in favour of the revision, 22 votes against and 116 abstentions. In some quarters, such as in the international press, this is spoken of as a " victory", an "improvement" of the protection of pregnant women workers. At first glance, it could look like a progressive step. Maternity leave is actually extended from twelve weeks to fourteen, daily breaks for breast-feeding will be paid time, a woman worker cannot be made redundant during her leave... But let us not deceive ourselves. A close reading of the first ten articles of the new Convention show that it is far from progressive. Article 6 of ILO Convention 103 (adopted in 1952) was strictly worded: "While a woman is absent from work on maternity leave in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of this Convention, it shall not be lawful for her employer to give her notice of dismissal during such absence, or to give her notice of dismissal at such a time that the notice would expire during such absence." It was clear-cut, straightforward, indisputable: under no circumstances, whatever the reason, could a woman be dismissed during maternity leave. When a woman left her job on maternity leave, she was sure of returning to her job at the end of her leave. Article 8 of the revised Convention reads totally differently: "It shall be unlawful for an employer to terminate the employment of a woman during her pregnancy or absence on leave referred to in Article 4 or 5 or during a period following her return to work to be prescribed by national laws or regulations, except on grounds unrelated to the pregnancy or birth of the child with its consequences or nursing. The burden of proving that the reasons for dismissal are unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth with its consequences or nursing will rest on the employer." It is a fact: the absolute ban on dismissing pregnant women workers has been lifted. The revision opens the way to possible dismissal during pregnancy or absence on maternity leave. Every working woman knows that any employer can find, in a blink of an eye, grounds "unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth with its consequences or nursing". ` Of course, there will be no link between dismissal and motherhood....at least no obvious link. That the burden of proving that the reasons for dismissal are "unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth with its consequences or nursing" will rest on the employer cannot hide the fact that the absolute ban on dismissing women workers who are pregnant or on maternity leave has been lifted. Mrs Samuels, who reported before the ILO commission, herself recognised that the revised convention opened the way to dismissal when she said: "The period during which a woman is protected against dismissal has been extended, it now includes the pregnancy, the maternity leave and a period after return to work. With the new Convention, protection is no longer absolute but dismissal will be possible only if it is unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth." Where is the progress, if the threat of dismissal looms over pregnant women's heads? Some Latin American governments voted against the revision, on the grounds that they "refused to adopt a convention authorising the dismissal of pregnant women". The international press covering the ILO Assembly reported that "the absolute ban on the dismissal of pregnant women has been lifted". Can we really talk of "improvement" ? Maternity leave has been extended from 12 to 14 weeks. They tell us: of course, the dismissal of pregnant women is no longer strictly banned, but in exchange maternity leave has been extended. Why ever should we have to give up a right in exchange for a small concession? Besides, it is plain wrong to talk about a "progressive step", because they are not telling us everything. Convention 103 was clear: "The period of compulsory leave after confinement shall be prescribed by national laws or regulations, but in no case be less than six weeks." The revised Convention says (Article 4, paragraph 4): "With due regard to the protection of the health of the mother and that of the child, maternity leave shall include a period of six weeks' compulsory leave after childbirth, unless otherwise agreed at the national level by the government and the representative organisations of employers and workers." What do they mean by "unless otherwise agreed at the national level" ? If each member state can decide for itself whether postnatal leave is compulsory, that means there are no more common norms and rules. It means the introduction of "flexibility", as pointed out by Mrs Samuels herself. Flexibility is the direct opposite of rights and regulation. We do not accept! We have a mandate. For several months, tens of thousands of workers and trade unionists, elected representatives from a range of political views, men and women in more than sixty countries, have added their names to the international appeal in defence of ILO 103 Protecting Maternity Rights. On 11 June 2000, at an international conference of trade unionists from 32 countries convened at the initiative of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples ( ILC), women workers launched an appeal to the representatives of the workers, the employers and the governments assembled in Geneva: "Don't vote for the revision of ILO 103!" The revision represents a massive step backwards for millions of women workers round the world. Women from all over the world said : "We, women, never give up. What is at stake is our children, their health and lives; no rhetoric, no smokescreen will convince us otherwise. We hereby solemnly undertake that whatever happens, we will defend the right to maternity leave codified in Convention 103. We, women, will defend civilisation. Maintain Convention 103 as it is, as an Imperative Convention! Maintain all the rights codified in the Convention!" In this appeal, we have only focused on Articles 8 and 4 of the revised Convention - called Convention 2000. But each of these Articles gives cause for concern. Each statement opens the door to a threat, to an interpretation in favour of governments and employers and against the rights of women. We are well aware that the protection of pregnant women workers is already under threat from European Union directives. "Convention 2000" is a tool for reducing the protection of pregnant women workers. Maternity leave is now under threat! Today, we must fight for more progress, for more protection for pregnant women. The children represent the future for our countries. Let us aim for true social progress, which takes human dignity into account. We must not let them be born into a world which is hostile to them before they even arrive. We the undersigned call on all working men and women, trade unionists, to join the campaign to Reclaim the Rights Codified in Convention 103, restore ILO 103! We support this appeal ABUL, Bashar, Bangladesh, ; ALTMAN, Michael, Germany, ON ASA SPD; ANOR, Albert, Switzerland, SSP; ANOR, Alexandre, Switzerland, member of the Swiss socialist party; BAIBORODOVA, Svetlana, Russia, Association of Trade Unions DEFENSE; BARRIERA, Gabrielle, Switzerland, UCPO; BARROIS, Jean-Pierre, France, ILC.; BEGUELIN, Matthieu, Switzerland, unionist; BERGER , Christof, Switzerland, unionist post; BRAND, Pierre-Alain, Switzerland, UCPO; CASAGRANDE, Marco, Switzerland, UCPO; CHANEL, Didier, France, unionist; CHARALAMBUS, Charlie,National Committee Against PFI UK ; COLLARD, Alain, France, unionist; CSAI, Chongguo, Chine, Chinese Labour Party; DELEY, Luc, Switzerland, unionist SSP; DORIANE, Olivier, France , unionist; ERWIN, Salazar, Peru, ULST-CGTP; FOFANA, Ibrahim, Guinea, SG UGT-G; FOFANA, Ibrahima, Guinea, ; GBIKPI-BENISSAN, Norbert Tévévi, Togo, unionist; GLUCKSTEIN, Daniel, France, Labour Party; GROTJOHANN, Anna, Germany, OTV; GUELPA, Severin, Switzerland, unionist; GULZAR, Ahmad. Ch., Pakistan, All Pakistan Trade Union Federation; HEBERT, Patrick, France, unionist (CGT-FO); HOFER, Daniel, Switzerland, UCPO, FTMH; HOMEM, Anisio Garcez, Brazil, Labour party national direction; IMSIROVIC, Pavlusko, Yugoslavia, unionist; ISELI, Claude, Switzerland, SAEN; LANDRY , Abdou, Switzerland, UCPO; LANGALET, Dominique, France, unionist; LICHTSCHLAG, Charles, Switzerland, SSP; LIEGEOIS, A, France, unionist; LINS, Rosana, Brazil, dol Sul programme; MABASA, Tziyani Lybon, South Africa, Political leader; MADDALENA, Silvio, Italy, PRC, UCPO, FTMH; MAILLOT, Dominique, France, unionist, Work conditions inspector; MARQUISET, Jean-Charles, France, unionist; MOSTAFA, Foster ; MOUTOT, Dan, France, ; NKUZIMANA, Paul, Burundi, University workers' Union; OSTROSKI, Paulo, Brazil, CUT; PALACIOS, Evelyn, Mexico, Sec. SNTE; ROBERT, Max, Switzerland, UCPO; SAGNON, Tolé, Burkina Faso, SG CGT-B; SAGNON, Tolé, Burkina Faso, SG CGT-B; SALAZAR, Erwin, Spain, ; SCHUSTER, H. W., Germany, OTV; SHAPIRA, Daniel, France, Mouvement du manifeste des 500 pour l'indépendance syndicale; SOKOL, Markus, Brazil, Labour Parti National Direction; SOW, Bayla, Senegal ; SPADARI, Anna M., Brazil, CGT; SPADARI, Anna-Maria, Brazil, PT San Paulo; STALDER, Yves, Switzerland, UCPO; TAFFAZUL, Hussein, Bangladesh, President BJSF; TAKJUT, Amar, Algeria, unionist UGTA; TCHIMPAGILA, Simon, Congo, SG CDT; TURRA, Julio, Brazil, CUT, national direction; VARALDO, Lorenzo, Italy, unionist; VASQUEZ, Luis, Mexico, ; YAO, K. François, Côte d'Ivoire, SG SYNASEG. First endorsers in Britain ( Pers. Cap. ) Joe Benton, MP; Women's Health Information & Support Service (WHISS); Martha Osamor, T&G , Tuc Race Relations Committee, Geoff Martin Convenor London Region Unison, Tina Downes, Vice-President, NATFHE ( Pers cap) Val Shield ATL; Lou Gladden, Shropshire Unison; Charles Charalambus, National Committee against PFI and Privatisation, Donald McMillan Middlesex University; Geraldine Bailey; Dr. S. P. Chakravarty AUT; Julie Marshall, University of Manchester AUT, Steve Donnelly AEEU Liverpool, shop steward, Nick Phillips Brent UNISON , Juliet Goldbart MMU,NATFHE, Deborah Richardson Writtle College; Steve Hogan (Assistant to Jeremy Corbyn MP - TGWU);Mary Pearson;J Fredericks Unison, Muriel Cole, Branch Secretary, UNISON University of Bristol Branch, Audrey Brown University of York; Ledwith, Frank; Peter Glanville University of York Sports Centre, Francis, Raymond Nottingham University, Clair Jordain-Wheeler AUT; Dr Fiona Bowie University of Wales Lampeter; Ben Rickman Secretary Brent Trades Union Council; Helen Twidle University of Wales, Sue Bruley University of Portmouth, Roger Welch (NATFHE) University of Portsmouth, Joy Bent NATFHE, L.A.Old University of Newcastle, K.V.Rao City University AUT, Harriet Bradley University of Bristol AUT, B D Najak University of Durham, Business School AUT, Wendy Richards University of Keele AUT, Dr Luke Desforges AUT University of Aberythwyth; Ms..E Martins NATFHE; Adrian Pearce President AUT University of Bradford Br;Dr G. Paizis AUT University College London;Amanda Sives AUT Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London;David Grimes Univiersity of Reading; Christine Ditchfield; Ann Pethers University of Bristol; Stuart Bennett University of Sheffield; ENDORSEMENT FORM I endorse the appeal I want to join the British Committee to Reclaim the Rights Codified in Convention 103 On behalf of my union/organisation / In a personal capacity Name:............................... Address:........................................................ ............................................................................ ..... Union/Organisation:.....................Phone:.................... Fax: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Universite de CRETEIL-PARIS12 Tel. : (16) 1.48 89 18 37 Internet : [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%