FREEDOM OF LABOUR AND ASSOCIATION

FINAL SUBMISSION IN FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

JURISPRUDENCE II, SEMESTER VI DURING THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2020-21

SUBMITTED BY:-
YOGANAND

Roll No-1986, B.A.LL.B (hons)

SUBMITTED TO:-
DR. Manoranjan Kumar

Faculty of Jurisprudence II

March 2021

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA

1|Pag
e
 Table of Contents

Declaration 3

Acknowledgement 4

Research Methodology 5

Chapter 1 – Introduction 6

Chapter 2 –Freedom of labour and association 10

Chapter 3 – Freedom of association as a core labour right and the ILO 12

Chapter 4 - Freedom of association and human rights law 15

Chapter 5-Development of freedom of association outside ILO 18

Chapter 6- Freedom of association and Civil liberties 20

Chapter 7-Freedom of association and economic competetiveness 21

Conclusion

Bibliography

2|Pag
e
 Declaration by the Candidate
I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“freedom of labour and association” carried out under the supervision of Dr. Manoranjan
Kumar, Faculty of Jurisprudence II, Chanakya National law University. I have not submitted
this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of
my Project Report.

YOGANAND
BA. LLB.
ROLL NO. - 1986
Chanakya National Law University, Patna

3|Pag
e
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me immense pleasure to express my gratitude towards all those who have helped and
encouraged me for the completion of this project. They all rendered their valuable time and
services in making this project a success.

Firstly, I would like to thank the all mighty God for blessing and giving me support in
completing this project. I take this opportunity to express my deep regards to my guide, DR
Manoranjan Kumar for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this thesis.

At last, but not the least, I express my sincere thanks to my parents for their generous support
and cooperation throughout the project.

YOGANAND

6th Semester

B.A. LL.B.

Chanakya National Law University

4|Pag
e
AIMS & OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of the researcher is:

• To know the nature & scope of the concept of freedom of labour and association.
• To understand how Freedom of association a core labour right.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• Doctrinal method:- Books, internet, journals, judgements etc.
• Researcher is mainly relying on library based study.

SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

Primary sources -:

Theories of Jurisprudence, statutes, precedent & other official documents.

Secondary sources-:

statement of judges, websites, articles, news paper, books, journals etc

LIMITATION & SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Due to lack of time and lack of resources my research work is wholly based on doctrinal
method of research, my research work doesn’t rely on non-doctrinal research or empirical
research.

5|Pag
e
 Chapter -1

INTRODUCTION
Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and
collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. It is one of the most basic
rights enjoyed by humans. It ensures that every individual is free to organise and to form and
participate in groups, either formally or informally. The right to freedom of association is core
to any society. It is an indispensable right in enabling citizens to monitor the human rights
situation in a country and to support the implementation of human rights policies. It is key for
the work of human rights defenders. It is also a right that is at the very heart of the Human
Rights House concept. We advocate for the right to associate, and we live by it, experience it,
and know first hand how restrictions can affect associations.

The right to freedom of association covers organised and professional organisations such as
political parties, trade unions, public associations and non-governmental organisations with
employees. It also covers organisations based on volunteers, and covers groups and entities
with or without a legal personality.

States have an obligation to ensure that people are free to form and participate in associations
of any type and to engage independently in any legal and lawful activity. This includes being
able to seek and receive resources, to organise and to peacefully promote and protect human
rights.

The right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their own choosing is an
integral part of a free and open society. In many cases, these organizations have played a
significant role in their countries’ democratic transformation. From advising governments on
labour legislation to providing education and training for trade unions and employer groups,
the ILO is regularly engaged in promoting freedom of association. The ILO’s Committee on
Freedom of Association was set up in 1951 to examine violations of workers’ and employers’
organizing rights. The committee is tripartite and handles complaints in ILO Member States
whether or not they have ratified freedom of association conventions. Through the Committee
on Freedom of Association and other supervisory mechanisms, the ILO has frequently
defended rights of trade unions and employers’ organizations.

6|Pag
e
 Chapter -2

FREEDOM OF LABOUR AND ASSOCIATION

There were two striking developments in 1948 in the nascent field of international human rights
law. The first in time was the adoption by the ILO of the Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87); the second was the adoption by the United
Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a few months later. 1 The close relation
between some aspects of the two at the time has been maintained through the ILO’s supervisory
process ever since.

➢ What is Freedom of association?

It is the right of workers and employers to freely form and join Workers Organisations such as
trade unions, worker associations and worker councils or committees for the promotion and
defence of occupational interests.

It is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express,
promote, pursue and defend common interests. The right to freedom of association has been
included in a number of national constitutions and human rights instruments, including the
United States Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of association in the sense of workers' right to organize is
also recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor
Organization Conventions, and the latter also protects collective bargaining in the conventions
on freedom of association. The right to freedom of association is sometimes used
interchangeably with the freedom of assembly. More specifically the freedom of assembly is
understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights
instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to
freedom of assembly.

Freedom of association is a cornerstone of the ILO’s approach to development through decent

work; namely, ensuring that all men and women have the ability to obtain decent and
productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. In the ILO’s
2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation, freedom of association and
effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining were described as important pre-
conditions for the attainment of decent work, which is now recognised as part of the

7|Pag
e
Millennium Development Goals (MDG1), the international community’s blueprint for
development.

Freedom of association refers to the right of workers and employers to create and join
organisations of their choice freely and without fear of reprisal or interference. This includes
the right to establish and affiliate to confederations and international organisations. Linked to
freedom of association is the right to collective bargaining, which allows workers to negotiate
their working conditions freely with their employers. These rights are universal and apply
irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender, occupation, nationality or political opinion. They
apply to all workers and employers, including those in the informal economy who don’t usually
have formal contracts of employment. Freedom of association and the right to collective
bargaining are enshrined in the ILO’s Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise, 1948 (No 87) and Convention on the Right to Organise and Collective
Bargaining (No 98). These rights are recognised as fundamental rights in the ILO’s 1998
Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The right to freedom of
association is also recognised as a basic human right in various international instruments, most
notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

➢ Why is freedom of association important for development?

Sustainable development and poverty reduction are complex and challenging processes that
require progress on many different fronts at the same time. It is widely accepted that economic
growth is essential to the development process. However, inclusive growth and governance are
needed to ensure that economic development contributes to the well-being of the greatest
number of people, particularly poorer segments of society.

There are a number of ways in which strong and independent trade unions and employer
organisations can contribute to development. For example:

i. Worker and employer organisations can help to ensure robust debate on economic and
social policy issues, facilitate consultation with a broad cross-section of different
interest groups and spur employment-rich growth;
ii. Where government reaches agreement with employers’ and workers’ organisations, this
can help to ensure broad-based support for policy and legal reforms across a variety of
social and economic areas;

8|Pag
e
 iii. Trade unions and employers’ organisations can help to enable a more equitable
distribution of income through collective negotiations; and
iv. Workers’ ability to join together in organisations and collectively defend their interests
helps them to ensure that other labour standards – such as working time, health and
safety or wages – are put into practice.

Overall, as membership organisations, trade unions and employer organisations can provide an
effective and independent vehicle for voicing and representing the interests of their members,
who often represent a broad and diverse cross-section of the community.

Freedom of association is necessary to ensure that trade unions and employer organisations can
contribute fully to development processes: the ability of trade unions and employer
organisations to participate is only possible where their representatives can speak freely and
advocate on behalf of their members. This means that the right conditions must be provided for
their operation:

i. Trade unions and employer organisations must be free to conduct their activities
without interference or harassment;
ii. Workers must be free to sign up with the union of their choice;
iii. and Trade unionists must not fear dismissal, intimidation or persecution by virtue of
their trade union membership or activities.1

In addition to its status as a basic human right, freedom of association should be recognised as
an enabling right that underpins sustainable development and the decent work strategy.
Freedom of association empowers individuals to realise their potential and safeguard a whole
series of other rights at work; for example, by enabling collective negotiations to ensure fair
wages and working hours.2 Respect for rights at work and decent working conditions enable
individuals and communities to achieve their full human potential and claim their fair share of
economic and social development.3 As such, freedom of association is not just a desired
outcome of development, but an integral part of the broader process of development and a
critical component of all free and open societies. Without it, there can be no genuine or

1 FNV Mondiaal, Trade unions, poverty eradication and development, 2008, p 13.
2
ILO, Freedom of association in practice: lessons learned, Global Report under the follow-up to the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 2008, p ix.
3
3 ILO, Organisation, bargaining and dialogue for development in a globalising world, report for the Governing
Body

9|Pag
e
effective dialogue or cooperation between workers, employers and government on
development and labour issues.

• What are the Challenges?

Despite the fact that freedom of association represents a fundamental human right and the
benefits it can bring for development, this right is not universally recognised or uniformly
implemented in all countries. Some of the main challenges to freedom of association are:

i. Certain categories of workers face practical or legal barriers to achieving collective

representation. There may be laws that hinder the formation or recognition of unions,
for example in the public sector, export processing zones or agriculture. Additionally,
many workers, including migrants and those employed in the informal economy, may
face practical barriers to collective organisation. Women or young people in developing
countries may be disproportionately affected by these constraints, as they often
comprise the majority of workers in the above mentioned sectors.
ii. The exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining is dependent on the
maintenance of fundamental civil liberties, in particular the right to freedom and
security of the person, freedom of opinion and expression and protection of the property
of trade unions and employers’ organizations. Although the ILO Committee on
Freedom of Association has noted a decrease in such complaints, violations of civil
liberties, including incidents of violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, continue to take
place in all parts of the world.
iii. The right to freedom of association is also violated by acts of anti-union discrimination.
This may include prejudice or discrimination in relations to hiring, employment and
dismissal. In recent years, the ILO supervisory bodies have witnessed a surge in
complaints concerning acts of anti-union discrimination.4
iv. Another major challenge is interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and
employer organisations. This can include infringements on the right to freely: draw up
constitutions and rules, elect representatives, organize and control internal and financial
administration.
v. Monopolies are another denial of the right to organize, where laws effectively prescribe
that workers or employers must belong to one particular organisation, leading to the
suppression of independent social partner movements.
4 ILO, Global Report, 2008, p 11.

10 | P a g
e
 Chapter -3

Freedom of Association as a Core Labor Right and the ILO

Freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively have long been
recognized as fundamental rights, improving both work and living conditions, as well as the
“development and progress of economic and social systems.”5 Freedom of association, in
particular, operates as an organizational “meta-norm,” appreciated both as an independent
value and as a touchstone for the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) institutional
design. Despite the renewed interest of the ILO in various aspects of the norm, it lacks a
comprehensive normative framework for freedom of association. The central place freedom of
association assumes within the ILO and international labor law at large, contributes an essential
building block for the realization of Maupain’s statement that the ILO’s “golden age of
normative action” lies not in its past, but in its future. Indeed, one of the most celebrated, albeit
controversial,3 normative achievements of the ILO in recent years: the ILO’s Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (the 1998 Declaration), 6reaffirmed freedom of
association as one of the four universal rights of workers.5 Moreover, the right of freedom of
association is not only an important value in itself but a precondition to the effectiveness of the
ILO; as Creighton aptly puts it:

[r]espect for the freedom of association is an essential precondition of the effectiveness of the
ILO as a tripartite organization. Meaningful tripartism necessarily depends upon the existence
of free and effective organizations of employers and workers. Self-evidently, such
organizations can develop and function only in an environment where there is proper respect
for the right of employers and workers to associate and to organize their activities.

The decline in union density worldwide in the last few decades has adversely affected the ILO
tripartite structure, impairing what has always been considered an invaluable source of strength
of the ILO. Reinvigorating organizational efforts worldwide through the articulation and
enforcement of freedom of association are therefore central to the ILO’s effective operation
and to international labor law at large.

5 ILO, Freedom of Association in Practice: Lessons Learned, Global Report under the Follow-up to the
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Report of the Director-General
6
ILO, Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow Up

11 | P a g
e
Moreover, the ILO increasingly recognizes the norm of freedom of association as a touchstone
for its internal governance. Decreasing membership in unions and employers’ organizations
has exacerbated criticism of the ILO’s representativeness and legitimacy, buttressing a process
of reform in the ILO representation structure through a revised credentialing process of ILO
delegates.7 Freedom of association (at least its procedural aspects), being closely related to
tripartism, has played a crucial role in such reforms as well.

At the moment, however, these endeavors, while they are impressive, are hindered by the lack
of a comprehensive normative framework for the understanding of freedom of association.
Without such a framework, which would lay down a clear regulatory ideal of freedom of
association, related reforms to the ILO institutional design and its representative structure, are
bound to remain partial and inadequate. A clear normative understanding of where the ILO is
headed and what are the normative assumptions underlining reforms is a pre-condition for
success. Moreover, such a framework would ensure that ILO jurisprudence on freedom of
association, as elaborated by The Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA, or the
Committee) is consistent and will deliver a clear and comprehensible message to ILO members
worldwide on the particulars of this norm. It can further serve (as exemplified below) as a
foundation for critique of CFA jurisprudence, insuring continuous reevaluation and
improvement of the current understanding of the norm.

The concept of ED (equitable dialogue) is proposed as an all-encompassing framework that

can pave the way for an in-depth understanding of freedom of association. ED presents a
regulatory ideal, comprised of a mixture of descriptive and normative commitments. The
normative commitments include commitments to a particular democratic model (deliberative
democracy), and a particular understanding of the self as an embedded self.14 Furthermore,
ED endorses a general commitment to freedom, substantive equality and broad inclusion.15
The descriptive commitments arise from the doctrinal analysis of ILO jurisprudence of two
elements of freedom of association: the right of workers to freely organize and the right to
control their organization. This analysis of key doctrines within freedom of association reveals
a conceptual dichotomy consisting of competing visions of workers’ freedom of association: a
thinner and a thicker approach to this norm. ED captures, and further develops, the thicker
approach to freedom of association, latent in the ILO jurisprudence.
7See Virginia A. Leary, Lessons from the Experience of the International Labour Organization, in THE UNITED
NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, A CRITICAL APPRAISAL 58

12 | P a g
e
 Chapter -4

Freedom of association and Human Rights Law: Development through ILO

supervision
There were two striking developments in 1948 in the nascent field of international human rights
law. The first in time was the adoption by the ILO of the Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87); the second was the adoption by the United
Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a few months later. 8 The close relation
between some aspects of the two at the time has been maintained through the ILO’s supervisory
process ever since. The Universal Declaration is, of course, of great importance to the ILO in
its work for the promotion and defence of human rights.

It is of particular interest to the ILO that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims
in its Article 23, paragraph 4, that: “Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for
the protection of his interests.” This is a more specific manifestation of the right laid down in
article 20 of the Universal Declaration to “the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and
association”.

The inclusion of this principle in the Universal Declaration had been preceded by its inclusion
in three important ILO instruments. The first of these is the ILO’s Constitution, which in its
original version as Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles proclaimed that the High Contracting
Parties considered that the right of association “for all lawful purposes” is of “special and
urgent importance”, both for workers and employers.9 The Preamble to the Constitution
explicitly cites trade union rights among the measures that could improve working conditions
and thus assure peace. When in 1944 the ILO adopted the Declaration of Philadelphia, the
second of these fundamental texts, and in 1946 incorporated it into the Constitution, it
reaffirmed freedom of association as one of the fundamental principles on which the
Organization was based, and characterized it as “essential to sustained progress”.

8
The complete texts of both Convention No. 87 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are appended
to this issue of the International Labour Review.
9
Following its amendment in 1946, the ILO’s Constitution no longer includes the phrase “for all lawful
purposes”.

13 | P a g
e
The third of these fundamental texts was the Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The adoption of a specific Convention on this
subject in the ILO was not easy, as is outlined in Harold Dunning’s article in this issue of the
International Labour Review. It was put off many times as being too difficult to agree on, and
its lack began to be felt early. In 1921, the ILO adopted the Right of Association (Agriculture)
Convention (No. 11), which recognized in very general terms that workers in agriculture have
the same rights of association as workers in industry — but at the time the ILO had not yet
defined the freedom of association rights of industrial workers.

When the time did come, events moved fairly quickly. In the ILO itself, the 1944 Declaration
of Philadelphia contained the provision mentioned above. In addition, the Third Conference of
American States Members of the ILO adopted in 1946 a resolution on freedom of association
that spelt out the basic principles which would be included in Convention No. 87. In 1947, the
International Labour Conference adopted the Right of Association (NonMetropolitan
Territories) Convention (No. 84), which refers not only to the right of employers and workers
to associate for any legal purpose, but also to collective agreements, consultations and the
solution of labour conflicts.

Though ratified by only four countries, 4 this Convention had an important effect on the
development of international law on the subject.

The same year, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) examined
reports on freedom of association from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) 10 and
the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and decided to ask the ILO to include these subjects
on the agenda of its Conference. The ILO did so in 1947, and adopted a resolution which
prepared the ground for the adoption of Convention No. 87 in 1948, before the adoption of the
Universal Declaration, and of Convention No. 98 shortly thereafter, in 1949.

The adoption of international human rights law in a “legislative” process — in international

Conventions adopted by the ILO and the United Nations — really began only in 1948, with
that of Convention No. 87 and the Universal Declaration. Before the ILO was established, there
had been some early attempts to adopt international agreements on workers’ rights by
negotiation between States, but they had not been terribly successful. At the end of the First
World War, in 1919, the League of Nations and the International Labour Organization were

10 This was before the split in its membership which led to the establishment of the International Confederation
of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

14 | P a g
e
established, and the ILO set about adopting international Conventions on conditions of work.
The only instruments which really amounted to what are called “human rights” treaties today
were the Slavery Convention adopted by the League of Nations in 1926, and the Forced Labour
Convention (No. 29) adopted by the ILO in 1930 to develop the coverage of labour aspects of
slavery. But no other human rights instruments were adopted until after the Second World War.

Since 1948, the ILO and the United Nations have developed along parallel lines as far as
freedom of association issues are concerned — and other human rights questions as well —
and regional organizations have also developed both standards and supervisory capacity. But
consideration will first be given to how the United Nations and other organizations developed
the concepts, and then to the development of these principles by the ILO through its
Conventions and supervisory process.

15 | P a g
e
 Chapter -5

The development of freedom of association outside the ILO

The United Nations

Article 23(4) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, quoted above, is couched in
language deriving directly from Convention No. 87, and is a general statement of the same
philosophy. Article 2 of Convention No. 87 reads:

Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and,
subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own
choosing without any previous authorisation.

The main difference between this text and that of the Universal Declaration is that the latter
omits any reference to employers. Also, of course, it stops at the general expression of the
principle, as is its vocation.

In 1966, the United Nations codified the principles laid down in the Declaration in two seminal
texts: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both Covenants came into force ten years later once
they had received a sufficient number of ratifications; they are the most influential international
human rights instruments of broad coverage. They also followed the earlier ILO provisions on
freedom of association.

Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is its only detailed article
on freedom of association. The first paragraph of that Article is an almost exact restatement of
Article 23(4) of the Universal Declaration. The second paragraph states that no restrictions may
be placed on the exercise of this right “other than those which are prescribed by law and which
are necessary in a democratic society” and allows “lawful restrictions on members of the armed
forces and of the police in their exercise of this right”, as does Convention No. 87. The third
paragraph reads as follows:

Nothing in this article shall authorise the States Parties to the International Labour
Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such
a manner as to prejudice the guarantees provided for in that Convention.

16 | P a g
e
Entire legislative conformity is guaranteed with Convention No. 87 in this remarkable
provision, which was incorporated in the other Covenant as well.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains a more
detailed treatment of the same subject, in Article 8:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:

(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject
only to the rules of the organisation concerned, for the promotion and protection of his
economic and social interests. No restriction may be placed on the exercise of this right other
than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;

(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right
of the latter to form or join international trade-union organisations;

(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those
prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;

(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of a particular
country.

2. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these
rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the State.

3. Nothing in this article shall authorise the States Parties to the International Labour
Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such
a manner as to prejudice the guarantees provided for in that Convention.

In comparing this provision with ILO standards, Valticos and von Potobsky point out the
relative merits of the two approaches:

This provision is not as detailed as Convention No. 87. Moreover, the restrictions which it
authorizes might reduce considerably the extent of the protection which it affords. This applies
to the limitations which, contrary to Convention No. 87, are permitted as regards the members
of the administration of the State. This is also the case as regards the limitations

17 | P a g
e
“which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public
order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, for which there is no
equivalent in Convention No. 87. However, the obligations arising from that Convention are
expressly reserved by the saving clause contained in Article 8, para. 3, of the Covenant. On
the other hand, this Article recognizes the right to strike, but it leaves the conditions of its
exercise to the discretion of national legislations.11

Thus, while there are some differences, the ILO and United Nations texts are almost completely
consistent one with the other; certainly they have not been developed by the supervisory bodies
of the two organizations in a way which gives rise to any difficultie

11Nicolas Valticos and Geraldo von Potobsky: International labour law, 2nd revised edition, Deventer, Kluwer,
1995, p. 105.

18 | P a g
e
 Chapter -6

Freedom of association and civil liberties: Developed by ILO

supervisory bodies
This subject is of overarching importance in the field of freedom of association, and bears a
special relationship to the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There is a general consensus that respect for civil and political rights is necessary for the
exercise of trade union rights. In the preparatory report prepared for the adoption of Convention
No. 87, the Office stated that “freedom of industrial association is but one aspect of freedom
of association in general, which must itself form part of the whole range of fundamental
liberties of man, all interdependent and complementary one to another, including freedom of
assembly and of meeting, freedom of speech and opinion, freedom of expression and of the
press, and so forth”. 12

The supervisory bodies have always insisted on the importance of civil liberties. The
Committee on Freedom of Association in particular has stated that a “genuinely free and
independent trade union movement can only develop where fundamental human rights are
respected”. In 1992 the Director-General stated in his report Democratisation and the ILO that:
“The ILO takes a keen interest in civil and political rights, for, without them, there can be no
normal exercise of trade union rights and no protection of the workers”. In its 1994 General
Survey, the Committee of Experts stated:

The Committee considers that the guarantees set out in the international labour Conventions,
in particular those relating to freedom of association, can only be effective if the civil and
political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
international instruments, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
are genuinely recognized and protected. These intangible and universal principles, the
importance of which the Committee wishes to emphasize particularly on the occasion of the
75th anniversary of the creation of the ILO and the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of
Philadelphia, should constitute the common ideal to which all peoples and all nations aspire.

According to a Resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties,
adopted by the Conference in 1970, the civil liberties essential for the normal exercise of trade
union rights include: “(a) the right to freedom and security of person and freedom from
12
ILO: Freedom of association and industrial relations, Report VII, International Labour
Conference, 30th Session, 1947, Geneva, pp. 11 and 12.

19 | P a g
e
 arbitrary arrest and detention; (b) freedom of opinion and expression and in particular freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers; (c) freedom of assembly; (d) the right to a fair
trial by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) the right to protection of the property of trade
union organizations.” 13

13 ILO: Record of proceedings, International Labour Conference, 54th Session, Geneva, 1970, pp. 733-736.

20 | P a g
e
 Chapter-7

Freedom of association and economic competitiveness

While there is international consensus that freedom of association is a fundamental human

right, there has been debate regarding its impact on economic development. In particular, some
developing countries have expressed concern that the full exercise of freedom of association
and the right to collective bargaining could have a negative impact on their economic
competitiveness. This is premised on the idea that a high level of unionisation and collective
bargaining may lead to an excessive rise in labour costs as well as labour market rigidities.
However, a joint study by the ILO and the World Trade Organisation in 2007 noted that there
is little concrete evidence to support this view. The study points out that a narrow focus on the
economic aspects of these rights overlooks the undeniably positive benefits for development
that can flow from facilitating social dialogue between government, workers and employers.
These include promoting “broad social support for economic reforms ... as well as a more
equitable distribution of the burdens and benefits from trade liberalisation”.Moreover, trade
union density and collective bargaining are only one factor amongst many that can influence
economic performance, such as macro-economic policy, the broader regulatory framework and
skills availability.14

In fact, given the right domestic policies and structures, there is evidence to suggest that respect
for freedom of association can have a positive effect on economic development. For example,
a 2006 study on the effects of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and
democracy on exports found robust relationships between these rights and higher total
manufacturing exports, suggesting that freedom of association can enhance export
competitiveness. These studies suggest that freedom of association does not harm developing
countries’ prospects for growth and may even stimulate it. However, there is no single model
of industrial relations that is conducive to economic growth and the careful design of policies,
regulations and institutions is important to ensure that freedom of association reinforces
economic development and contributes to a positive business environment.

14
ILO, Organisation, bargaining and dialogue for development in a globalising world, report for the Governing
Body, GB.279/WP/SDG/2, November 2000, p 19

21 | P a g
e
 CONCLUSION
Freedom of association is a defining feature of democracy: the freedom of different interest
groups to collectively organise and represent their interests is one of the mechanisms by which
healthy democracies strike a balance between competing interests. As such, the levels of respect
for freedom of association in a society can be seen as a good indicator of the strength and
openness of a democracy. Where there are serious constraints on freedom of association and
other basic civil rights, economic and social development is threatened.

The right to organize and form employers' and workers' organizations is the prerequisite for
sound collective bargaining and social dialogue. Nevertheless, there continue to be challenges
in applying these principles: in some countries certain categories of workers (for example
public servants, seafarers, workers in export processing zones) are denied the right of
association, workers' and employers' organizations are illegally suspended or interfered with,
and in some extreme cases trade unionists are arrested or killed. ILO standards, in conjunction
with the work of the Committee on Freedom of Association and other supervisory mechanisms,
pave the way for resolving these difficulties and ensuring that this fundamental human right is
respected the world over. It is of particular interest to the ILO that the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights proclaims in its Article 23, paragraph 4, that: “Everyone has the right to form
and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” This is a more specific manifestation
of the right laid down in article 20 of the Universal Declaration to “the right of freedom of
peaceful assembly and association”.

The provisions of Convention No. 87, its place in general international human rights law and
the ways in which its principles have been developed by the supervisory bodies of the ILO and
by reference to the practice of member States, illustrates both the vitality of this supervisory
process, and the changing nature of the exercise of the right to freedom of association.

An important part of this study has been a critical examination of issues surrounding the status,
scope and importance of the right to freedom of association. This has included consideration
of the historical underpinnings of this right, as expressed in contemporary international human
rights law. Among the important matters discussed in this context has been the debate about
whether it is desirable to conceptualize labor rights as human rights. This has been the subject
of growing attention at the international level. Historically, there is documentation to suggest
that the ILO often framed the protection of labor conditions as 'standards' and 'principles' rather
than rights. However, especially in the context of globalization, there is now increasing
evidence of greater recognition of the importance of conceptualizing fundamental labor rights
22 | P a g
e
as human rights.

23 | P a g
e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Book:

• Freedom of association - Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of

Association, ILO

Websites:

• https://ergonassociates.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/wcms_160208.pdf?x74739

• file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/Freedom_of_Association_as_a_Core_Labor_Right_
and_t.pdf

• https://www.ilo.org/public/english/revue/download/pdf/swepston.pdf

• Anthony Forsyth, Exit Stage Left, now Centre Stage: Collective Bargaining under Work Choices
and Fair Work, in FAIR WORK: THE NEW WORKPLACE LAWS AND THE WORK
CHOIcEs LEGACY 135 (Andrew Stewart & Anthony Forsyth eds., 2009).

• Freedom of Association Convention, Access to the Workplace: Digest of Decisions of the

Committee on Freedom of Association, ILO Doc 2320061804 (2006).

24 | P a g
e