Poorna Poovamma K.M - 18A086 - THE ILO SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102) - UNITED KINGDOM AND NETHERLANDS

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
LABOUR LAW II- INTERNAL CONTINUOUS EVALUATION SUBMISSION
MAY, 2022
THE ILO SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102)-
UNITED KINGDOM AND NETHERLANDS
GROUP VI- FINAL SUBMISSION
PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

NAME: POORNA POOVAMMA K.M. DR. ASHA VERMA
SEMESTER: VIII ASST. PROF. OF LAW, GNLU
COURSE: B.A., LL.B. (HONS.)
REGISTRATION NUMBER: 18A086
Page | 1
DECLARATION
GNLU Project* Details and Academic Integrity Form

*
(Seminar paper/Research paper/Project/Article)
Student Name: Poorna Poovamma K.M.
Registration No. and Semester: 18A086
Subject: Labour Law II
Faculty Member: Dr. Asha Verma
Faculty Member Assistant: N/A
Allocation Date: N/A
Title Registration Date: N/A
Reason for selection of title: N/A
Synopsis Filing Date: N/A
Final Version Filing Date: 29th May, 2022
Faculty’s pre-submission progress N/A

report, if necessary:
Extension of timeline requested and N/A

approved by faculty:
Viva-Voce/Group Discussion: N/A
Total duration: N/A
Faculty Member Signature
Academic Integrity Declaration

I warrant and represent that the attached report/research work/articles does not infringe upon any copyright or
other right(s), and that it does not contain infringing, libelous, obscene or other unlawful matter and that I have
given appropriate credit to the original author or source of information and fully adhered to GNLU research
guidelines. I am aware that the non-compliance with the GNLU academic integrity directive may result into
non-evaluation of the academic/research work, attracting failure in the subject or course and any other measures
as decided by the concerned faculty members.
Student Signature & Date Poorna Poovamma K.M.

(29.05.2022)
*PDAIF is an integral part of the GNLU Exam Records and shall be considered and complied with the GNLU
Exam Rules. Student shall be responsible to ensure full compliance with the above details.
Original: Exam Department
Copy: 1. Student 2. Faculty Member
Page | 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Asha Verma, Assistant Professor of Law, GNLU for giving me an
opportunity to undertake this research project. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all
those who gave me valuable insight in preparing the project.
Furthermore, I am thankful to the facility of E-library provided by the university that helped
me immensely in the course of writing this paper.
Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND AND
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….5
2. ANALYSIS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONVENTION BY THE UK AND THE
NETHERLANDS…………………………………………………………………………5
3. COMPARISON BETWEEN NETHERLANDS AND UK AND
CONCLUSION…………………..10
4. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….12
Page | 4
THE ILO SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102)-
UNITED KINGDOM AND NETHERLANDS
A. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention (1952) [“Convention”] is

considered as the most important of the Social Security Conventions as it is the only
convention which provides for global norms regarding nine branches of social security. 1 The
Convention demands ratifying to countries to gradually extend the rights of social security
while mandating the ratification of only three of the nine branches of social security. 2
On the basis of this background, the author has chosen to undertake an analysis of the
Convention in its application in the countries of United Kingdom [“UK”] and Netherlands.
This analysis shall include the adoption of standards laid down in the Convention by UK and
Netherlands, and shall also seek to analyse the experience of the two chosen states in the
implementation and adoption of the Convention.
The author has also provided the authors’ own beliefs and analysis of the policies adopted by
the countries in compliance with the Convention. Lastly, by way of conclusion, the author
has given a comparison between the policies adopted by both the countries in furtherance of
the Convention, and has hoped to add on to the existing literature regarding the discussion
surrounding the present Convention.
B. ANALYSIS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONVENTION BY THE UK AND THE
NETHERLANDS
I. Standards adopted by UK and its experience
a) Report of the Committee of Experts [“COE”] on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations [“CEACR”]
The United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 27 th April, 1954 and has accepted Parts II-
V, VII and X of the Convention.3 The Convention requires that actuarial valuation be carried
out regularly in order to ensure that there is a regular growth with respect to policies in order
1
THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, THE SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION,
1952 (NO. 102), JUNE 28, 1952 (ENTRY INTO FORCE APRIL 27, 1955).
2
3
ILO, Ratifications of C102- Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), ILO,
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312247.
Page | 5
to ensure sustainable development.4 In the 106th Session of the ILO Labour Conference in
2017, a Government Representative of the UK stated that the government systematically
undertook valuations with respect to its compliance with the Convention in providing benefits
of income-related and social assistance for those belonging to low income groups. 5 The COE
at the ILO Labour Conference 2017, noted that the approach followed by UK in the
implementation of the Convention is providing contribution-based, income-based social
security benefits, and also aim in reduction of poverty through social assistance schemes such
as the National Insurance Contributions.6 The contribution-based and income-based approach
adopted by UK is in furtherance of articles 16, 22, and 62 of the Convention which relates to
the sufficiency of benefits that are to be accorded.7
With respect to implementation of Part III of the Convention, which deals with sickness
benefits, the UK government has devised beneficiary measures of such a nature wherein both
the government as well as employer contributes to offer benefits to the disadvantaged person
through a mixture of insurance benefits and non-contributory income- tested benefits in order
to guarantee the rights provided under Part III of the Convention. 8 In furtherance of Part III of
the Convention, two measures partly by employers and partly by self-contribution which are
the Statutory Sick Pay [“SSP”] available to workers by the employers and the Employment
and Support Allowance [“ESA”] which is a contribution-based scheme are available to those
seeking sickness benefit.9
However, the ESA is only available to those employed and self-employed workers whose
earning does not fall under the ambit of the SSP or whose accrual of benefit of under the SSP
4
5
ILO, Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, 106TH
SESSION, GENEVA, 2017, http://ilo.int/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/
meetingdocument/wcms_560957.pdf.
6
ILO, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, 106TH SESSION, GENEVA, 2017,
HTTPS://WWW.ILO.ORG/PUBLIC/LIBDOC/ILO/P/09661/09661(2017-106-1A).PDF.
7
meetingdocument/wcms_560957.pdf; THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, THE SOCIAL SECURITY
(MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102), JUNE 28, 1952 (ENTRY INTO FORCE APRIL 27, 1955, art.
22, 16, 62.
8
9
Page | 6
is terminated post a duration of 28 weeks.10 As per the COE Report, the SSP is considered as
the primary benefit scheme for the purpose of sickness benefit in furtherance of article 18 11 of
the Convention.12 Complementarily, the ESA plays a secondary role by according benefits to
those are not entitled to draw benefits under the SSP.13
b) Social Assistance versus Social Benefit
However, UK has stressed on the exclusion of income-tested benefits on the basis that a
ratifying member has the discretion to declare the benefits that it wants to offer in accordance
with the Convention and that income-tested benefits are more of an assistance rather than a
benefit and that the ratifying country is only obligated to follow the essence of the
Convention.14The COE has disagreed with this expression of the UK government and referred
to Article 67 of the preparatory document of the Convention wherein it is stated that,
“[article 67] applies to cases of social assistance under which the benefit may be reduced by
part of the income or means of the beneficiary during the contingency. Safeguards are
obviously required if social assistance is to be admitted for the purpose of compliance … A
Member wishing to comply on the basis of social assistance would therefore have to prove
that its maximum benefit, which will be payable to a family without sufficient means, is
actually a subsistence benefit and large enough to permit the family to live under tolerable
conditions”.15
c) Calculation of benefits
Articles 16, 22, and 62 of the Convention 16 provide for the calculations of sickness benefit
(Part III), unemployment benefit (Part IV), and survivors benefit (Part X), and the COE has
10
11
1952 (NO. 102), JUNE 28, 1952 (ENTRY INTO FORCE APRIL 27, 1955), art. 18.
12
13
14
15
Report V(B), INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, 35TH SESSION, GENEVA, 1952.
16
1952 (NO. 102), JUNE 28, 1952 (ENTRY INTO FORCE APRIL 27, 1955), art. 186, 22, 62.
Page | 7
recommended for inclusion of Child Tax Credits, which is a form of social security, in the
calculation in order to ensure compliance with the Convention.17
II. Author’s Analysis
Thus, what can be seen in the UK context is that though there are welfare schemes in
compliance with the Convention, there seems to be a disagreement regarding the terms social
benefit and social assistance with the UK government arguing that social assistance schemes
such as Universal Credit which are income-tested benefits do not fall under the mandate of
the Convention. The author believes that the aim of the Convention is to benefit all persons
who are working and that their social rights are protected, and hence what is required in the
UK context is for the government to not harbour such strict interpretation of terms, and
instead harmonise the interpretation so that a review of the existing welfare schemes pursuant
to the Convention can be carried out, as suggested by the COE. 18 If UK does not include
social assistance under its domestic framework, then essentially it would not be in
compliance with the Convention as per article 67 of the Convention. This is thus the need of
the hour in UK so that the mandate of the Convention is utilised to maximise the social
security of the working people.
III. Standards adopted by the Netherlands and its experience

a) Parts of the Convention which are inapplicable in the Netherlands due to adoption
of other conventions and international instruments
Netherlands adopted the Convention on 11th October, 1962 and had initially accepted Parts II-
X of the Convention.19 Initially, Netherlands had accepted Part III of the Convention
however, with the adoption of various conventions as time progressed, many parts of the
Convention have become inapplicable in the Netherlands.20
As per article 75 of the Convention, if any convention(s) is ratified and adopted by a member
nation at a later point in time, and such convention(s) deals with subject matters dealt in the
17
18
19
20
Page | 8
minimum standards Convention then, the provisions relating to the particular subject matter
in this Convention would cease to be applicable.21
Pursuant to article 75 of the Convention, to this day, many of the parts of the Convention
accepted by Netherlands is no longer applicable. 22 With the adoption of the Employment
Injuries Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121)23, Part IV of the Convention ceased to apply to
Netherlands.24 However, as long as the Convention is in force for a member nation is
obligated to comply with provisions of other parts as prescribed under article 2 of the
Convention.25
On adoption of the Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits Convention, 1967 (No.
128)26, Parts IX, Part V and Part X of the Convention would cease to apply on Netherlands
acceptance of Part II, Part III, and Part IV of convention No. 128. 27 However, there would
seem to be no much change in social security rights entitled to persons as the acceptance of
provisions of convention No. 128 would deem to signify acceptance of Part IX, Part V and
Part X of the Convention as long as no declaration has been made pursuant to article 38 of
convention No. 128.28
Lastly, on adoption of the Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention 1969 (No. 130) 29,
subject to article 2 and declarations as under article 3 of the Convention, Part III of the
Convention has ceased to apply to Netherlands.30
b) Report of the CEACR in 103rd Session

21
22
ILO, The State of Applications of the Provisions for Social Securityof the International Treaties on Social
Rights Ratified by Netherlands, 2016,
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_498325.pdf.
23
ILO, EMPLOYMENT INJURY BENEFITS CONVENTION, 1964 (NO. 121), ADOPTED 08 JULY, 1964.
24
25
26
THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION, INVALIDITY, OLD AGEAND SURVIVORS’ BENEFITS
CONVENTION, 1967 (NO. 128), 29 JUNE, 1967.
27
28
29
ILO, MEDICAL CARE AND SICKNESS BENEFITS CONVENTION 1969 (NO. 130), ADOPTED 25 JUNE, 1969.
30
Page | 9
The COE in the 103rd Session noted a contradictory statement made by the Netherlands
government wherein they had stated that maternity care would be provided to both mother
and baby for up to 10 days pursuant to childbirth and that there would be no cost sharing to
this effect. However, in a previous reply to the COE, the government of Netherlands had
stated that all childbirth medical care would be covered as a part of basic coverage, thus
giving rise to a contradiction.31 Keeping in mind convention No. 130 adopted by Netherlands,
the COE was of the opinion that medical care with respect to pregnancy and related
complication and issues would be covered free of charge until the health of the mother and
the baby improves.32
IV. Author’s analysis
It is evident that Netherlands has adopted most of the ILO conventions in a timely manner
thus ensuring its domestic policies and practice to be in compliance with international
standards. Though, Netherlands adoption of subsequent conventions made many parts of the
Convention that it had accepted to be inapplicable, the essence of the Convention has been
retained due to the fact that as long the Convention is in force, member nations would be
obligated to comply with the provisions of the Conventions. Netherlands timely adoption of
various social security and related conventions show that the country is dedicated to ensuring
a safe and healthy working space for the working people. However, one concern that the
author would like to address is the fact that in providing pregnancy related medical coverage
to mother and child, it has come to be believed that only a woman working in an
establishment would be entitled to the same. the author believes that the same benefit should
be extended to a man in the event of the birth of his child, and provide medical care to his
partner/wife and the baby. As the concept of medical care and benefit was extensively
discussed in this research, the author believes that making the provision of medical benefit
gender neutral would be more inclusive. In simpler words this can be equated to and goes in
the same line as the arguments of seeking adequate paternity leave instead of only prescribing
to maternity leave.
C. COMPARISON BETWEEN NETHERLANDS AND UK AND CONCLUSION
31
32
Page | 10
Over the course of this research, the author has discussed the adoption of the Convention in
two developed European countries namely, UK and Netherlands. It is evident from the
research that UK and Netherlands have taken different approaches in the adoption of the
Convention. Firstly, the number of parts of the Convention accepted by UK and Netherlands
is apparent. Netherlands has made a conscious effort to also ratify and adopt subsequent
conventions in line with the Convention. However, UK has focused more on the discretion of
the country to make policies in compliance with the Convention. In other words, Netherlands
has given more importance to international standards and its compliance whereas, UK has
focused on its sovereign aspect and discretionary power and has sought to bend the
international standards to its domestic framework. Another glaring difference between the
policies of the two countries is that the Netherlands policies show a quality-based and broad
compliance with international standards whereas, UK policies show a welfare-based and
narrow approach to compliance with the Convention.
Nevertheless, both the countries have been systematic in carrying out valuations and
revisions to their policies with respect to the Convention. As the Convention is considered as
the most important of all the social security conventions, it becomes necessary for countries
to comply with the same in order to protect the social security rights of its working citizens.
Conclusively it can be said that the efforts of both Netherlands and UK are to be commended
and the requirement of revisions and evolution of laws to existing domestic policies of the
countries shows the growth of law and points in a direction that the countries are actively
working towards ensuring compliance with international labour law standards more
specifically, the Convention in the present context.
Page | 11
REFERENCES
1. THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, THE SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM

STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102), JUNE 28, 1952 (ENTRY INTO FORCE
APRIL 27, 1955).

2. ILO, Ratifications of C102- Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952
(No. 102), ILO, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?
p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312247.
3. ILO, Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards, INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR CONFERENCE, 106TH SESSION, GENEVA, 2017,
http://ilo.int/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/
4. ILO, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, 106TH SESSION, GENEVA,
2017, HTTPS://WWW.ILO.ORG/PUBLIC/LIBDOC/ILO/P/09661/09661(2017-106-1A).PDF.
5. Report V(B), INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, 35TH SESSION, GENEVA, 1952.
6. ILO, The State of Applications of the Provisions for Social Security of the
International Treaties on Social Rights Ratified by Netherlands, 2016,
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/
publication/wcms_498325.pdf.
7. THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION, INVALIDITY, OLD AGE AND
SURVIVORS’ BENEFITS CONVENTION, 1967 (NO. 128), 29 JUNE, 1967.

8. ILO, EMPLOYMENT INJURY BENEFITS CONVENTION, 1964 (NO. 121), ADOPTED 08
JULY, 1964.
9. ILO, MEDICAL CARE AND SICKNESS BENEFITS CONVENTION 1969 (NO. 130),
ADOPTED 25 JUNE, 1969.
Page | 12

Poorna Poovamma K.M - 18A086 - THE ILO SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102) - UNITED KINGDOM AND NETHERLANDS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poorna Poovamma K.M - 18A086 - THE ILO SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM STANDARDS) CONVENTION, 1952 (NO. 102) - UNITED KINGDOM AND NETHERLANDS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LABOUR LAW II- INTERNAL CONTINUOUS EVALUATION SUBMISSION

PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

GNLU Project* Details and Academic Integrity Form

Student Name: Poorna Poovamma K.M.

Registration No. and Semester: 18A086

Subject: Labour Law II

Faculty Member: Dr. Asha Verma

Faculty Member Assistant: N/A

Allocation Date: N/A

Title Registration Date: N/A

Reason for selection of title: N/A

Synopsis Filing Date: N/A

Final Version Filing Date: 29th May, 2022

Faculty’s pre-submission progress N/A

Extension of timeline requested and N/A

Viva-Voce/Group Discussion: N/A

Total duration: N/A

Faculty Member Signature

Academic Integrity Declaration

Student Signature & Date Poorna Poovamma K.M.

A. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention (1952) [“Convention”] is

B. ANALYSIS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONVENTION BY THE UK AND THE

b) Social Assistance versus Social Benefit

II. Author’s Analysis

III. Standards adopted by the Netherlands and its experience

b) Report of the CEACR in 103rd Session

IV. Author’s analysis

C. COMPARISON BETWEEN NETHERLANDS AND UK AND CONCLUSION

1. THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, THE SOCIAL SECURITY (MINIMUM

APRIL 27, 1955).

SURVIVORS’ BENEFITS CONVENTION, 1967 (NO. 128), 29 JUNE, 1967.

You might also like