Employers' Handbook on ILO Standards-related Activities

OTHER STANDARDS-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
Calendar
July
(Year 1)
September
(Year 1)
January
(Year 2)
March
(Year 2)
June
(Year 2)
November
(Year 2)
After
November
(Year 2)
At any
time
ILO/government action
ILO sends report forms regarding
the Annual Review to governments
of countries which
have not ratified all the fundamental
Conventions; governments
are to “seek contributions
from the social partners
in completing their reports”.
Deadline for government reports;
copies to be sent by governments
to employers’ and
workers’ organizations.
ILO Declaration Expert Advisers
(IDEA) meet to review the
compilation of Annual Reports
and prepare an introduction.
GB discusses Annual Review.
Discussion of the Global Report
at the ILC.
GB draws conclusions from the
discussions of the Annual Review
(March) and the Global
Report (June) to identify priorities
and plans of action for
technical cooperation.
Follow-up measures, in particular
ILO technical cooperation,
at national level.
ILO/governments undertake
various measures to promote
understanding and observance
of the Declaration.
Employer
involvement/action
Employers in these countries
inform the ILO of their views
on the issues to be covered by
the Annual Review, either directly
or via their government.
Employers, if necessary, may
remind their government of its
reporting obligation.
Employer members of the GB
take an active part in this discussion.
Employer delegates to the ILC
actively engage in this discussion.
Employer members of the GB
participate actively in this discussion
and make their proposals
in this regard.
Employers actively engage in
follow-up at national level,
including ILO technical cooperation.
Employers’ organizations
make their member enterprises’
aware of the relevance
of the Declaration and advise
them in promoting its principles.
Nevertheless, the employers have emphasized that the rights and principles of the
Declaration have to be clearly distinguished from the – more far-reaching – obligations
under ILO Conventions. Furthermore, they have stressed that the possible elaboration
of a detailed “jurisdiction”, as has been the case with the principle of freedom of asso-
51