* Nadesan Satyendra [Adviser, Sri Lanka Government Delegation to ILO], Text of Address to International Labour Conference, 64th Session, Geneva, Ninth Sitting, 14 June 1978
The occasion of the discussion on the Director-General's Report provides an opportunity for member nations of the International Labour Organisation not merely to discuss the achievements and shortcomings of the past but also to bring up for consideration and debate matters concerning the objectives that the ILO should follow and the direction that it should take in the years to come, and we welcome the emphasis that the Director-General has rightly placed in his Report on this positive and constructive aspect of our deliberations.
During the past several decades, the International Labour Conference has served the function of a necessary and useful clearinghouse—a clearing-house where different and differing viewpoints may be exchanged, synthesised, and finally crystallised in a form suitable for action. A clearing-house may sometimes give the impression or the appearance of being a talking shop but this is, I believe, an occupational hazard that all clearinghouses must face if they are to discharge their functions effectively.
You will, no doubt, recall that the Minister of Labour of my country, who leads the Sri Lanka delegation to this Conference, addressed all of us last week and made the point that in so far as the nations of the developing world are concerned, the most significant issue which arises on the Director-General's Report is the necessity to synthesise the compelling and urgent need for accelerated economic development with the need to safeguard human rights and maintain and evolve recognised international labour standards.
We believe that it is not without significance that the Director-General's Report, which deals with the many and varied activities of the ILO, should have set out, as its first two items the subject of human rights and international labour standards and the subject of world employment. These are two matters of critical and direct concern to the nations of the developing world and we see an identity in our objectives and in the priorities referred to in the Report of the Director-General.
It is, of course, not necessary for me to emphasise to a conference such as this that we live in a world that has become and is becoming increasingly interdependent and in this perspective, the interests of the industrialised and developed nations cannot any longer be compartmentalised and separated from that of the nations of the developing world. It is in the enlightened self-interest of all nations that they should take a world view of the problem of securing full employment and seek to structure the incidence of the employment relationship in the context of a development strategy committed to eradicate unemployment.
We have become increasingly aware of the inter-relatedness of the apparently different interests of the employee, the employer and the public at large. One man's increase in wages is another man's inflation— very often, it is the same man's inflation. The employment relationship is not something that concerns the employer and the employee alone. It has long ceased to be a matter of mere contract between the employer and his employee. It is a relationship in which the community at large has a stake and it is important that we should not be constrained and constricted in our approach and thinking by the traditional attitudes of the past—attitudes of agitation and confrontation which had their origin and their relevance in the context of an unregulated private sector and in the context of governments which were not elected by the free vote of the people.
Today, even apart from any extension of the principle of industrial democracy and the right to co-determination, the employment relationship has tended to become more dependent on proper motivation and co-operative endeavour. It is necessary that we should recognise and emphasise this growing common interest area of the employer, the employee and the public and I would venture to suggest that, in the context of a responsive and accountable working democracy, national development objectives as perceived and determined by a government elected by the free vote of its people must of necessity receive due weight and importance.
The employment relationship constitutes one of the major components of any meaningful development strategy and we believe that this is an area in which the ILO can play a useful role by helping to rethink some of the so-called axioms in respect of the employment relationship and by helping to restructure certain of its features in the context of the admitted importance of securing not only the interest of the employer and the employee but also the interest of the unemployed, the consumer and the public at large. A final and definitive answer may not always be possible, but in the attempt to seek such answers, we may achieve a greater understanding of some of the issues that are involved and arrive, at least, at some first approximations which can then form the base for future action.
The special problem that arises in relation to public-sector undertakings brings into focus certain issues, relating to this aspect of the matter. A public-sector employee, as a member of the public, is one of the ultimate owners of a public-sector undertaking. He may even have a direct stake in ownership by way of a unit trust device or a trust fund. The profits of a public-sector undertaking accrue to the benefit of the public at large and not to a private individual and the business of such an undertaking is directed to serve a recognised public need. Again, a public-sector undertaking is managed by a government which is elected by and accountable to the people and, unlike the case of a private employer, the government can be dislodged by the free vote of the citizens of the country. In addition, legislative provisions may enable employees to participate in management through elected employees' councils.
In a situation such as this, it is not difficult to perceive that the question as to who is the employer and who is the employee does not admit of an easy or facile answer. There is a blurring of the lines of demarcation that traditionally separate the employer from the employee and the employee from the State.
I have referred to the case of public-sector employees in order to emphasise the need to restructure some of our conventional thinking in respect of the employment relationship. Many developing nations are engaged today in the task of evolving suitable institutional devices through which workers may participate fully in the process of development. It is neither politically nor socially possible, nor for that matter desirable, for us to go through the same evolutionary process, in the same way and tread the same path as was trodden by many of today's industrialised nations during the 19th century. There is a need to recognise that the public sector has come to stay as an important part of the economy of many nations and that the relationship between a public-sector employee and the undertaking that he serves cannot be understood simply in terms of conventional attitudes which were appropriate to a private sector engaged in the task of making private profit.
It may well be that the tripartite structure of the ILO was conceived at a time when the public sector did not form a significant part of many economies of the world. We agree with the comment of the Director-General that tripartism is not an immutable doctrine or tradition and it is necessary and important that we should remind ourselves of this from time to time. Although there may be a need to strengthen tripartism in certain areas, it is also necessary that we should recognise that in many nations of the world, the State has ceased to be a mere umpire engaged in the task of securing the public interest in conflicts that may arise between employers and employees. The State has itself become an employer of substantial size and it has become the responsibility of the State to secure full employment for its people. We believe that within the framework of tripartism, the constitutional provisions of the ILO as well as its programme of work should secure due recognition of this changing context and that in particular, some thought may usefully be given to the question of enabling public-sector employers, as such, to participate cohesively and effectively in the activities of the International Labour Organisation.
The subject of development and the employment relationship, may well be rightly regarded as the central theme of the activities of the ILO in the coming years. To those of us who come from Sri Lanka, in the East, with its own rich tradition derived from the great religions of the world, development and progress have at no time been synonymous with a mere increase in the gross national product. The quality of life is perhaps something that is not capable of precise measurement but it is not without significance that in a recent international study on this matter, Sri Lanka was placed amongst the first ten or so nations of the world. It is then in this context and in the context of the need to preserve the faith of our people in the democratic processes, that the Government of Sri Lanka, under the leadership of its President, Mr. J. R. Jayawardene, is seeking to meet the challenge of eradicating unemployment and of securing a better life for its people. We recognise the importance of the role that the ILO can play in assisting us in this task.
_____________________________________________________
* Nadesan Satyendra [Adviser, Sri Lanka Government Delegation to ILO], Text of Address to International Labour Conference, 64th Session, Geneva, Ninth Sitting, 14 June 1978