On 15 June 2000,
the ILO Maternity Protection Convention and Recommendation
were approved by the Conference plenary. The vote was unexpectedly
favourable.
Convention:
For 304; Against 22; Abstentions 116 (Quorum 267)
Recommendation: For 315; Against 16: Abstentions 108 (Quorum
267)
Unexpectedly
favourable, because rumours had been circulating that the
employer group's decision to abstain would make it difficult
to reach quorum and because a number of government delegations
were reported to either wish to abstain or vote against
the new instruments. In the event, a new Convention and
Recommendation on Maternity Protection came into being.
In the words
of ILO Director-General Juan Somavia:
"As
is normal in a negotiation, the final text does not reflect
everybody's aspirations. Some wanted a Convention limited
to general principles, others wanted stronger and more
extensive provisions than were finally agreed. But the
net outcome on balance is an instrument which will help
ensure that the interests, needs and rights of millions
upon millions of mothers and children will be respected."
This new Convention
183 is a revision of Convention 103 (1952). Comparing Convention
183 with 103:
Gains
-
The new Convention
covers all employed women, including women in atypical
form of dependent work (including home workers, domestic
workers and part-time workers, provided they have a
spoken or written contract and work for pay). A conservative
estimate suggests that at least 250 million more women
would be covered.
-
A new provision
on health protection of pregnant and breastfeeding women
has been added.
-
Minimum maternity
leave was raised from 12 to 14 weeks in the Convention
and from 16 to 18 weeks in the Recommendation. (A significant
improvement although the Maternity Protection Coalition
had campaigned for 16 and 26 weeks respectively.)
-
A six-week
period of compulsory postnatal leave was returned to
the Convention; the length had not been specified in
the previous draft. The Convention allows countries
to change this directive if workers, employers and governments
all agree to shorten the compulsory leave period or
have none at all.
-
It is no
longer possible to exclude "certain categories
of enterprises" from the scope of the Convention.
-
In the Convention
breastfeeding breaks are recognized as a woman's right.
-
Combining
nursing breaks to shorten the workday, a provision from
Recommendation 95 (1952), is now part of the Convention.
-
Women cannot
be dismissed because they are breastfeeding. If a breastfeeding
woman is fired and files a complaint, the employer has
the burden of proving that pregnancy and breastfeeding
were not the cause of her termination.
-
The provision
that provides for breastfeeding breaks as (paid) working
time was successfully defended against deletion or downgrading.
-
Obtaining
a medical certificate to qualify for longer or more
frequent nursing breaks could be a hardship for women
with little access to a doctor. The new Recommendation
allows for "other appropriate certification as
determined by national law and practice" as an
alternative to a medical certificate.
Losses
-
Scope: countries
can exclude certain categories of employed women if
employers, workers, and government agree, but they must
report periodically on what they are doing to extend
the coverage of the Convention to those groups.
-
The duration
of a woman's entitlement to breastfeeding breaks (i.e.
until the baby reaches a certain age) is left up to
national law and practice. Previously no duration was
specified.
-
The new Convention
specifies one or more daily breaks and leaves
the exact number and length up to national law and practice,
as in the 1952 Convention. (The Maternity Protection
Coalition was campaigning for two daily breaks of at
least one half-hour each.)
-
Recommendation
95 suggested subsidizing the costs of workplace facilities
for breastfeeding mothers at the expense of the community
or by compulsory social insurance. The new recommendation
does not state who should pay for such facilities.
No change
The Maternity
Protection Coalition advocated for strengthening the provision
of facilities for nursing mothers at the workplace by bringing
it from the 1952 Recommendation into the new Convention.
This failed by just one vote and thus remains in the new
Recommendation.
Increased
flexibility
Several articles
containing breastfeeding and other protective provisions
for working mothers, which were spelled out in the 1952
Convention (and in the original Convention 3 of 1919) are
now to be determined by "national law and practice."
This increased flexibility was a stated goal of the employers
group, the ILO Secretariat and some industrialized countries,
who considered that it would facilitate ratification of
the new Convention by a greater number of member states.
Since some flexibility is embodied in Convention 183, we
will now have a chance to see whether this claim was justified.
The terminology "national law and practice" is
both a danger and an opportunity for breastfeeding groups
at national level. As part of the ratification process,
national breastfeeding advocates must ensure that they will
be part of determining their "national law and practice"
on all aspects of maternity protection.
Need for global
action
Convention 183
and its Recommendation will come into force when it has
been ratified by two countries. The low level of ratification
of Convention 103 (38 countries) has been a concern for
the ILO. When the Convention on the Elimination of the Worst
Forms of Child Labor was opened for ratification in June
of 1999, 26 member states ratified in its first year, and
many more began the ratification process. With a precedent
like that, there will be pressure to ratify the new Maternity
Protection instruments. Breastfeeding advocacy groups must
be involved in the process.
During the discussions
of the Committee on Maternity Protection, a number of countries
requested the ILO to provide advice and technical cooperation
to support the development of their national policies to
enable them to ratify the new Convention. The Director General
has signalled the ILO's readiness to provide such assistance
on request.
"The
challenge for us all is to see the cause of gender equality
and the struggle for maternity protection as a basic need
and a basic right. We have affirmed that all in society
Ð employers, workers, governments, and society at large
Ð share the responsibility for maternity protection. We
look forward to working with you to make this a reality."
(Juan
Somavia, ILO Director-General.)
Quotes
of Mr. Somavia from International Labour Conference, 88th
Session, Provisional Record 25 (Add.) "Reply by the
Director-General to the discusion of his Report (addendum),
4. Maternity Protection."
Additional
information:
www.ilo.org
www.waba.org.my/ilopage.htm
The Maternity
Protection Coalition is comprised of the following groups:
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA)
International Lactation Consultants Association (ILCA)
with technical support from:
LINKAGES
Project Section for International Maternal and Child Health
(IMCH), Uppsala University, Sweden
UNICEF
Contact for
further information :
GIFA, Geneva
Infant Feeding Association, Avenue de la Paix 11,
1202 Geneva, Switzerland Phone : +41 22 798 91 64 Fax: +41 22 798 44
43
Email: gifa@iprolink.ch
See press release
5 June 2000: Hard bargaining
at ILO
See the daily
updates posted on the ILO
Campaign website.
See the Coalition
intervention at the Committee on Maternity Protection.
