Employers Persist in Advocating for Social Dialogue to Define the Scope of the Right to Strike

While reaffirming their acknowledgment of the right to strike and expressing their commitment to ongoing dialogue, Employers at the ILO were deeply troubled by the institution's failure to employ social dialogue-based solutions for determining the scope and limits of this right.

In a recent session of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Governing Body (GB), Workers and some Governments voted to seek the intervention of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to decide whether the current non-tripartite ILO Experts' guidance can be deemed the sole legitimate ILO guidance on the right to strike.

Contrary to this, Employers and many Governments argued that the appropriate forum for resolving disagreements on the right to strike is the International Labour Conference. They proposed the adoption of an international standard, protocol, convention, or recommendation on the right to strike by the Conference, allowing the ILO's 748 tripartite delegates to collaboratively determine its scope and limits. This approach is viewed as the most inclusive and democratic means of addressing international discrepancies on the right to strike.

Due to a forced vote neglecting all attempts to reach a consensus, the matter is now referred to the ICJ. This move undermines the legitimacy and authority of the International Labour Conference, setting a precedent for external bodies to introduce interpretations and rules contrary to the drafters' intentions. This referral jeopardizes confidence in the predictability of obligations under ratified Conventions and, crucially, fails to address the right-to-strike regulatory gap within the ILO, a central concern in industrial relations.

Despite these developments, the global employer community is convinced that the only sustainable solution to this outstanding question is a social dialogue process at the International Labour Conference and will continue to advocate for this approach beyond the ICJ advisory opinion.