Defend Maternity Rights!
National Campaign to get ILO 103 Provisions (as
adopted in 1952 ) introduced into employment law and in defence of all ILO
conventions An International Women's Conference to Reclaim ILO Convention 103
and For the Defense of the Rights of Working Women was held last February in
Berlin, Germany, with the participation of trade unionists, working class women
and women's campaigning groups delegated from 70 countries.
The Conference launched an appeal to mobilise in
defence of the ILO Conventions protecting working women, particularly
Convention 89 banning night work for women in industry, as well as Convention
103 on maternity rights. The threat to these Conventions, which codify the most
progressive pieces of legislation protecting workers rights with the objective
to have them enforced in every country, is another link in the chain of attacks
unleashed against ILO norms and Conventions.
It is an undisputable fact that ILO conventions stand
as an obstacle to the deregulating process demanded by globalising institutions
. For instance, under pressure from the WTO, relayed in Europe by the European
Union, everything is being done in every country to do away with existing
provisions on maternity rights or to prevent such provisions from being
introduced. All over Europe, in France, Germany, Spain, the protection of
pregnant working women is under threat from European directives. In countries
where ILO Convention 103 on Maternity rights has been ratified, a new
Convention - N 183 - is being promoted in its place. At the 2001 annual session
of the ILO, under the pressure of employers and governments, ILO 103 was
revised. This revision introduced with the support of the representative of New
Labour government sitting in the governments group , resulted in the lifting of
the ban on the dismissal of pregnant women. Whereas Convention 103 clearly
banned the dismissal of pregnant women, Convention 183 makes it possible now.
We say no to the ratification of this new downgraded convention.
In the UK, the New Labour government has just
introduced a new Employment Bill which removes the right to maternity leave
from hundreds of thousands of working women. It does this by applying the
provisions of the Bill only to"employe", which it defines as someone who is
employed under a written contract. By creating this distinction between an
"employee" and a "worker", the Bill excludes anyone who does not have a written
contract or particulars of employment, such as casual workers, agency workers,
home workers and contract workers. Hundreds of thousands of women will be left
out of any entitlement to basic maternity rights recognised by international
labour conventions. This was clearly pointed out in the House of Commons second
reading debate : Tony Lloyd ( Manchester Central) The Bill is bevilled by a
split definition which defines someone as an employee but not a worker. Kevin
Hughes ( Doncaster North ) About 2,5 million workers who fall below the lower
earnings limit will be left out Ms Walley ( Stoke on Trent North ): I am
slightly disappointed , however, that the proposed regulations will apply to
the narrow definition of employee, rather than the broader category of worker
and I suuport the intervention made earlier by my hon. friend the Member for
Manchester, Central ( Mr Lloyd) on that issue......... it is the workers who do
not fall under the legislative definition of employees, such as casual workers,
agency workers, home workers and contrct workers, who are among the most
vulnerable members of our work force......these workers are a fast growing
category, but they have the least protection in terms of employment
rights.........key rights restricted to the narrow definition of employees
include the right to claim unfair dismissal, the right to claim a redundancy
payment and the right to take maternity leave .
It is wrong that some workers should be denied those
rights at work simply because of the category that they fall into. Where is the
progress, if millions of working women are excluded from basic maternity rights
? Can we really talk of "improvement" ? We think that in line with ILO
Convention 103 on Maternity Rights (adopted in 1952 ) - ALL working women
should be entitled to protection ; - Rights should apply to ALL working women
not just employees, that there should be no qualifying period for these rights.
Section 17 of the Employment Bill changes a motherös right to return to
work as previously set out in Section 79 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
stipulates that a returning mother will now be entitled to return from
maternity leave to Øa job of a prescribed kindÔ, which means it
will be subject to regulations to be introduced at the Secretary of
Stateös discretion. In practice, this would mean that a woman who takes
maternity leave from her permanent job could not be sure of returning after 26
weeks to that same job or one with similar pay terms and conditions.
What amounts to constructive dismissal under the
Employment Rights Act 1996 will now be made legally acceptable if this Bill
becomes law. It is not acceptable We think that in line with ILO Convention 103
on Maternity Rights (adopted in 1952 ) - ALL pregnant women should be protected
against any kind of dismissal including so called constructive dismissal This
why the undersigned propose to set up a national campaign for the introduction
of the provisions of ILO Convention 103 into employment law and in defence of
all ILO conventions against the current process of dowgrading revision . We
appeal on all trade unions, organisations and concerned workers to join the
campaign ILO 103 Provisions (as adopted in 1952 ) should be introduced into
employment law ! All working women should have the same maternity rights! No
dismissal of pregnant women or mothers returning from maternity leave! The UK
should comply with the provisions of ILO 103 on maternity pay!
First Endorser's (personal capacity) Sue Wicks,
University of Leeds, member of the Berlin Conference British follow up
Committee Siggi Kaup, Teacher Member of the ILC's Women Commission, Stefan
Cholewka, editor of the Link, publication of LP members to Reclaim the Party,
Rochdale CLP, Robin Rankin, T&GWU, Rochdale CLP, Mark Holinrake, T&GWU,
EC member,Rochdale CLP, Mick Coates, NATFHE, EC member Rochdale CLP, Mike
Cummins, EC member Rochdale CLP, Ben Rickman, Secretary Brent Trades Council,
Charlie Charalambus,Founding member of the British Campaign Against Child
Labour,Lewisham CLP,Helen Peters,Chair,University of North London NATFHE Branch
Young-Joo Ko, Researcher Manchester, UMIST,Terry Hoad,Hon Secretary, Oxford AUT
St Peter's College,Eva Frojmovic, Centre for Jewish Studies, University of
Leeds, Peter Glanville Sports Centre,University of York, Martha Worsching
AUT,Department of European Studies, Loughborough University,Helen
Tipping,Sheffield Hallam Unison,Rajmil Fischman , AUT Keele University Music
Department, Fred Fawbert,NATFHE exec members,Dept of Education and Social
Science,Univeristy of Central Lancashire,Dr Michael Loughlin, Manchester
Metropolitan University, Department of Humanities, Dr Rebecca Tunstall, Dept of
Social Policy LSE, Dr Harriet Evans, Reader in Asian Studies, Centre for the
Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, Lisa Dyson Organisation Mother
and Infant Research Unit, University of Leeds, Lambeth Teachers Association,
Dr. Nat M. Queen, AUT, University of Birmingham, Yvonne Barnes, University of
Leeds, Dr Peter Wilson, Lecturer in International Relations LSE, Dr. M.
Hintjens,Association of University Teachers,Universitry of Swansea.
Stefan Cholewka,Editor The LINK |
