Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1989, Publication: 76th ILC session (1989)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Japan (Ratification: 1965)

The Government has sent the following information:

The right to organise of fire defence personnel

In Japan, the tripartite committee (the Convention Subcommittee of the Round-Table Conference on Labour Problems), in which the most representative trade unions in Japan, SOHYO and DOMEI, were represented, deliberated on this question prior the ratification of the Convention, and, in 1958, it unanimously reached full agreement to confirm that "it is considered appropriate that the function of the fire defence personnel in Japan can be interpreted as being included in the category of the function of the police as referred to in the Convention, judging from their historical development and the existing legal system".

In addition, it was confirmed by the ILO prior to Japan's ratification of the Convention that the function of fire defence agencies in Japan should be assimilated to that of the police, since the Committee on Freedom of Association deliberated twice, in 1954 and in 1961, on this issue in connection with the trade union's allegations concerning the right to organise in cases Nos. 60 and 179, and on both occasions recommended to the Governing Body that it should decide that those allegations did not call for further examination on the ground that the services of fire defence agencies in Japan were included in "the police and certain services assimilated thereto" (paragraphs 33-36 of the 12th Report, and paragraph 94 of the 54th Report of the Committee).

On the basis of the tripartite consensus at the national level and the confirmation by the ILO with regard to the prohibition on organisation of personnel of fire defence agencies in Japan as mentioned above, Japan concluded that they are included in the police referred to in Article 9 of the Convention, and ratified the Convention in 1965. The Japanese Government, as the government of a State that ratified the Convention, has maintained this interpretation consistently and repeated the view that the prohibition on organisation of fire defence personnel in Japan does not constitute a violation of ILO Convention No. 87.

From these viewpoints, the Government considers that the treatment of the prohibition on organisation of fire defence personnel in Japan is a domestic issue and a matter to be determined by national laws and regulations on the basis of Article 9 of the Convention. Based on this understanding, the Government authorities concerned have been exchanging opinions on occasions with workers' organisations concerned, and the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Public Employees' Problems has also received opinions from fire defence personnel directly as well as the representatives of organisations concerned, including those of workers' organisations. (I-3-(1) of the "Reports on the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98" dated February 1985, (Reference material) (b) and (c) of I-2 of the "Observations of the Government of Japan regarding the comments of SOHYO, DOMEI and others on the application of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98" dated February 1986, (Reference material) (b) and (d) of I-2 of the "Observations of the Government of Japan regarding the comments of SOHYO and DOMEI on the application of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98" dated January 1987.)

Moreover, the Government is now in the course of hearing opinions from members of the volunteer fire corps (volunteers who perform calamity defence activities such as fire fighting, patrolling, etc. in co-operation with fire defence personnel; their total number is about 1,010,000). In the Process of hearing so far, the workers' organisations concerned have expressed the opinion that the right to organise should be given to fire defence personnel, but, on the other hand, the National Prefectural Governors Association, the Japan Association of City Mayors, the National Association of Headmen of Towns and Villages, the National Fire Brigade Chiefs Conference, and the Japan Fire Services Association expressed opposite opinions.

The Government has been examining this issue as a domestic matter. In future, the relevant public authorities will hold on occasions discussions with the appropriate workers' organisations, and the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Public Employees' Problems will hear opinions from members of volunteer fire corps. Furthermore taking account of the fact that in November this year a unified organisation will be formed comprising unions in the public sector and Rengo (the confederation of trade unions in the private sector which was formed in November 1987), the Government will onces again hear opinions from relevant workers' organisations at the completion of hearings at the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Public Employees' Problems.

In addition, a Government representative of Japan, firstly, took up the question of the right to organise of fire defence personnel. The reply of the Government to the observations by the Committee of Experts on this question had already been submitted in writing to the Office. He requested that the written reply and his remarks would be put in the record of the Committee. For reasons repeatedly made known to the present Committee, and stated in the above-mentioned reply, the Government considered that the prohibition of organisation of fire defence personnel did not constitute a violation of ILO Convention No. 87. This question had been examined as a domestic issue. The relevant government authorities had been discussing and exchanging opinions from time to time with workers' organisations. Direct opinions from fire defence personnel, as well as representatives of the relevant organisations concerned, including the workers' organisations, were heard at the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Public Employees' Problems. The Government was in the course of listening to members of volunteer fire corps who perform fire defence activities in close collaboration with fire defence personnel. From now on, too, the Government considering this to be a domestic matter, would continue, through the relevant authorities, to exchange opinions with relevant workers' organisations and also would hear opinions from members of the volunteer fire corps at the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Public Employees' Problems. Furthermore, taking into account the current evolution of circumstances that later this year in November there would be a unified labour organisation formed by the trade unions in the public sector as well as the private sector, the Government would once again listen to the relevant workers' organisations.

Secondly, as concerns the sanctions applied for having engaged in strikes, the report of the Committee of Experts referred to the prohibition of strikes by public employees in Japan and the sanctions applied to those who have violated the prohibition. The present Committee had restated its previous view. In Japan, national and local public employees were prohibited by law from engaging in strikes. The laws concerned had been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional. It was quite natural that a constitutional State applied sanctions to those who had violated the laws in an appropriate way in accordance with the laws. On this point, the Government was fully aware of the ILO's established view that the application of disproportionate sanctions did not favour the development of harmonious relations. The speaker stated that his Government would continue to deal in a proper manner with this question.

A Worker member of Japan stated that the question of the right to organise for Japanese fire-fighters had been the subject of discussion in the present Committee for many years. He recalled the opportunity given him to speak on this subject in this Committee in 1973. No progress had since been achieved at the national level, despite the repeated and consistent recommendations and the conclusions of this Committee to accord the right to organise to fire-fighters.

He expressed his disappointment with the written reply supplied by the Government. The so-called agreement between the Government and trade unions referred to in the first paragraph of the Government's written reply was a distortion. The Government representative introduced this agreement for the first time during the discussion in this Committee two years ago. This statement about an agreement was neither fair nor honest. The report of the Convention Subcommittee of the Round-Table Conference on Labour Problems was drafted and presented to the Minister of Labour by the Chairman of this subcommittee on his own behalf and without any sign that it was adopted by the subcommittee itself. In any event, the question of the fire-fighters was not the subject of major discussion in the subcommittee because it was not at issue.

The subcommittee was not an authoritative tripartite body, but it was an informal council only answerable to the Minister of Labour in which trade union representatives were a small minority. The said council worked on an ad hoc basis and existed only a short period before the ratification of Convention No. 87.

Furthermore, no action was taken on the said report and it was almost forgotten until the Government started to use it in this Committee. He expressed great doubt that such an agreement was ever reached, since it was 30 years ago, well before his time. He would not challenge it here, but preferred to present overriding facts which were indisputable. Firstly, such an agreement was never reported to the Parliament when ratification of Convention No. 87 was discussed only three or four years later. On the contrary, Parliament ratified Convention No. 87 in 1964 without any hesitation and established a statutory tripartite council for the purpose of securing conformity of the public service employment system with the Convention. A number of outstanding issues, including the right of fire-fighters to organise was specifically referred to this council. Official minutes and the report of the council published by the Government themselves showed clearly that the workers' representatives on the council unanimously insisted on the right to organise for the fire-fighters. This crystal clear fact ran squarely counter to what the Government stated in the written reply. The Government, however, did not change its position; therefore the council had to conclude its work without an agreement in this regard. That was the position in the late 1960s, ten years after the so-called agreement quoted by the Government.

There has been no agreement between the Government and the trade union even since. For this reason, the case had to be brought to the ILO for examination by the supervisory machinery. If there was any agreement with the Government, such course of action would have been redundant.

The Government presented another distorted picture by saying that the Committee on Freedom of Association admitted the position of the Government which assimilated the fire-fighters with the police. The case quoted on this point had no direct connection in this regard. It was a case brought by the Japanese postal workers' union concerning their freedom of association. That case was also concluded some 30 years ago when the question of the trade union rights of fire-fighters in Japan was not yet an issue.

The case of the fire-fighters became a hotly debated issue in the late 1960s and the fire-fighters themselves started to organise only in the early 1970s. The complaints directly related to this question were lodged with the ILO by the Municipal Workers' Union (JICHIRO) which tried to help fire-fighters in their efforts to organise. In 1974 the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association concluded the case by clearly stating that fire-fighters cannot be excluded from the scope of the Convention.

The Government representative in his statement underlined ongoing discussions in the Government on the national level. The Government, however, only invited organisations of their own unilateral choice. When the trade union representative went to see the authority concerned to ask for consultation with the union, these brief meetings and conversations counted as consultations in the reply.

Regrettably, there has been no partnership with trade unions in the exercises reported by the Government as "consultation" or "hearing". There has been no consultation even on the procedure adopted by the Government. Most of the so-called organisations invited by the Government for hearings are governmental or semi-governmental organisations, such as the Governors' Council and the Mayors' Council. An association directly engaged in organising fire-fighters has never been invited.

The Association of Fire-Fighters was formed in 1976 to represent the voice and aspirations of 130,000 full-time personnel, all of them public employees. This organisation was not recognised and has been prevented from having any access to the Government and their employer.

It requested that the right to organise be assured for fire-fighters, but emphasised that the right to strike was not being sought. Fire-fighters were fully aware of the heavy social responsibility in carrying out an essential service to the public, and would probably not hesitate to accept restrictions on the right to strike when the right to organise was granted.

The Workers' members stated that this case was a very serious one because it involved the violation of one of the most basic of all human rights Conventions and because of the excessive length of time which had elapsed without any action taken by the Government to comply with its obligation. This was an international obligation, not simply a domestic concern. The Workers' members wished to focus upon the issue raised in the Government's written reply concerning the Government's reliance on the confirmation, allegedly given by the Committee on Freedom of Association, of its position that fire-fighters should be considered as part of the police and thus excluded from the scope of Convention No. 87. In 1987 the Employers' members expressed concern in the present Committee that some of the facts concerning the conclusions made by the Committee on Freedom of Association were not quite clear. By way of explanation, the question of fire-fighting personnel was not an issue in the cases in 1950 and 1961 which were relied upon by the Government. The Government simply explained its custom and practice with regard to fire-fighting personnel in the context of the "Dreyer Commission" inquiry into the multiple problems involved in the public sector in Japan. Convention No. 87 had not been ratified at that time, and therefore no detailed information was provided concerning the right to organise for fire-fighting personnel. The Committee on Freedom of Association, therefore, merely noted the Government's statements.

In 1973, however, following Japan's ratification of Convention No. 87 in 1965, the Committee of Experts, after examining reports from Japan in response to its direct request for information on fire-fighting personnel, concluded that the fire services were not in fact formally assimilated with the police and determined that this category of workers had the right to organise pursuant to the guarantees of the Convention.

Moreover, in case No. 737 of its 139th report, published in 1974, the Committee on Freedom of Association stated in its conclusions concerning the right of firemen to organise: "In the earlier reports referred to by the Government, the Committee treated firemen within a more general context, considering allegations concerning the refusal of the right to organise in the public service. Subsequently, Japan ratified Convention No. 87 and a specific question of the fire service was examined by the Committee of Experts". The Committee then stated in its recommendations to the Governing Body "that firemen in Japan, although having special characteristics, are not members of the police or armed forces".

Firemen, therefore, were not considered among the category of workers which were excluded from the right to organise by virtue of Article 9 of the Convention. The Committee also rejected the Government's intention that granting firemen the right to organise would undermine the discipline necessary for their duties and lead to the outbreak of strikes, and emphasised that the right to organise and the right to strike were two entirely different matters. Accordingly, there was no contradiction between the supervisory bodies on this problem. In the earlier cases prior to ratification, the Committee on Freedom of Association based its conclusions on the information made available to it at that time. Subsequently, when more detailed information and reports were available, the conclusions of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association were not contradictory.

Even assuming there had been an agreement between the Government and the unions concerned and assuming that the ILO confirmed this position, the Government's position would still be invalid. Reservations or exceptions, whether by agreement between the Government and trade unions, or otherwise, to the terms of the application of Conventions, were not permissible.

The Workers' members stressed the extremely long period of time which has passed since the Government was requested by the Committee of Experts and the present Committee to observe the provisions of the Convention. No progress has been made in all this time.

The Workers' members emphasised that the real issue was whether Convention No. 87 permitted the Government to carve out an exception to the requirements of the Convention on the grounds that its fire-service personnel were really part of the police. The Committee of Experts had consistently rejected this contention ever since its first observation on the issue in 1973, and had expressed its hope that the Government would take appropriate measures to ensure the right to organise for personnel in this category.

As regards the right to strike in fire services, the Committee of Experts emphasised "that the right to organise does not necessarily imply the right to strike and that the fire-fighting services must be considered as an essential service in the strict sense of the term in which the right to strike may be subject to prohibition". The fire-fighters had informed this Committee on previous occasions that, involving as it does protection of life and limb, strikes in the fire service are not an option in their collective bargaining. The issue now is simply one of the right to organise. Consultation and negotiations were a separate and distinct problem following recognition.

There had never been disagreement by the large majority of this Committee's members of the legal conclusions asserted by the Committee of Experts concerning the lack of justification for the Government's continued denial of the right to organise for fire-fighters. The dialogue in this Committee had been one of continual entreaty to the Government to try to resolve this problem at home.

The Government had repeatedly assured this Committee that the problem would be resolved. In the light of the provisions of the Japanese Constitution guaranteeing unequivocally the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively, the Government could solve this issue on a national basis by simply recognising the paramount guarantees of its own Constitution and its supercession of any legislation that may exist to the contrary. But the Government's promises seemed to be empty and, in effect, a kind of smoke screen for the fire-fighters who were only seeking the recognition of their right to organise in protection of their interests, the freedom of association which the ILO safeguards as so sacred a trust as to embody it in its own Constitution.

It was a pity that the Government not only disavowed its solemn international obligations under Convention No. 87, as well as its obligations under its own Constitution, but that it also rejected the considered judgement of all 20 experts, 19 of whom have consistently disagreed with the Japanese Government in its evaluation of the requirements of Convention No. 87. These experts deliberated with objectivity, impartiality and independence of parochial concerns. If the Japanese Government did not accept their views it was obviously blind to all counsel and advice.

In 1984 the Workers' members had added to the conclusion on this same case that, if no improvements had been made by 1985, recourse should be had to other methods. Five more years had elapsed since that conclusion by this Committee. It was clear that in point of fact there had not only been no progress, but the situation had actually worsened. Two year ago the Government asserted in its written reply that it would maintain "firmly hereafter" its interpretation that fire-fighters were included in the police. The purpose of dialogue should be to reach a conclusion and resolution of a problem through an exchange of viewpoints. Dialogue was completely frustrated when one party no longer listened to the other.

The refusal of the Government to comply with its obligations under the Convention reached well beyond the parameters of this particular case involving 135,000 fire-fighting personnel. As every trade union leader instinctively knew, denial of freedom to organise has a negative impact on all social progress and paralyses the source from which workers' rights grow. Anything which endangered this principle imperilled everything done in this Committee. Finally, the Workers' members requested an impartial assessment of this case which would mete out the same measure of justice to the powerful industrial States as it would to the developing countries.

The Employers' members emphasised that this case raised two issues: the restrictions on the right to strike of public servants and the freedom of association of fire-fighters. During the general discussion, they had made clear that they could not accept certain conclusions of the Committee of Experts they considered excessive, in particular as regards the restrictions of the right to strike where it threatened life and health of the population. Far from challenging the right to strike and of lock-out, they merely wanted the exercise of that right submitted to reasonable restrictions. No member State could accept the restrictions proposed by the Committee of Experts which, indeed, were not respected in practice. The principle of proportionality was at stake here. Every country should protect its citizens even before their lives would be threatened; if one were to accept the Committee of Experts' notion, every country could be accused of violating Convention No. 87. Since under the general rules of international public law, the concepts and practice of each member State should be taken into account to interpret correctly the obligations of the States which have ratified a Convention. This general rule of law was explicitly enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Treaties. However, if no State recognised this limitation of the right to strike, no interpretation could be correct. Therefore, they expressed the hope that the Committee of Experts would reconsider its position on that issue, and they stated that they were ready to continue the discussions. Their intention was not to support restrictions of the right to organise or the freedom of association enjoyed by employees in essential services, but rather to propose reasonable limitations of the right to strike.

The problem of fire-fighters did not call for any other explanation since everybody knew their situation. The Employers members learned from the experience of the years 1950 and 1960, and during the last discussions in this Committee, they had examined the decisions taken in that field by the Committee on Freedom of Association. Initially, it had appeared possible to put the fire-fighters in the category of police members. The decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association had been, as usual, submitted to the Governing Body which approved it, as mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. It would be difficult to say to what extent these observations could be unanimously accepted by the Japanese. However, it was surprising that the Committee of Experts would not decide on this issue, but merely give its opinion, i.e. that fire-fighters should not be considered as members of the armed forces or the police. The Committee of Experts did not mention in its report if other decisions had been taken or if that decision had been expressed in different terms, and whether it was necessary to modify it now. Such an attitude was surprising considering the importance given to the co-operation between the Committee of Experts and this Committee. Therefore they wished to obtain an answer from the Committee of Experts on its earlier decisions. Referring to the Workers' members' statement, the Employers' members recalled that this was a question which should be carefully studied. Although they did not feel competent to decide on the problem, they remained convinced that the situation in Japan would strongly affect the interpretation of the case. Nobody would challenge the fact that Japan faced complex problems which would continue to raise discussions and different interpretations of the situation. They considered that the problem was far from settled in Japan since it was even more crucial in that country than elsewhere. The Committee of Experts shared that opinion and trusted that the parties would pursue their discussions and that the problem of the right to organise of fire-fighting personnel could find a solution at the national level. The Employers' members considered that this sentence had been carefully worded and they fully supported it.

The Workers' member from Liberia stated that this was not a borderline case but a very clear-cut one. Convention No. 87 was definitely applicable to the Japanese fire-fighters. The speaker asked two questions of the Government. Firstly, since workers were either protected under the industrial relations or the Civil Service legislation, with access to the corresponding adjudicating procedure, what was the situation in Japan? Secondly, If the workers here in question did not qualify to belong in the industrial trade unions, were they civil servants? He wanted answers to these questions because Convention No. 87 did not establish preconditions and gave workers without distinction whatsoever the right to join a labour organisation of their own choosing, without prior authorisation or permission. The speaker expressed his strong support to his Japanese colleagues.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom stated that he was getting worried about the interpretations given to Convention No. 87 by the Employers. For instance, the Employers' member of Sweden had declared that the Committee of Experts had exceeded their functions in a number of cases and now the Employers appeared to argue that the views of the Committee on Freedom of Association could override the views of the Committee of Experts. The speaker pointed out that when this issue was dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association in 1974, it went subsequently to the Committee of Experts who reiterated their view that fire fighters were not excluded from the provisions of Convention No. 87. This Committee was reaching the same dangerous position it had reached in the 1970s, when it considered cases concerning socialist countries, when the objectivity of the Committee of Experts was challenged. The difference now is that its impartiality is being challenged by advanced industrial countries. The validity of the work of this Committee was once again at issue. During the general debate, everybody had agreed on the impartiality and objectivity of the Committee of Experts, and rightly so because the whole work of this Committee rested upon their comments and observations. So this Committee should come back to the simple issue: if Japan wanted to pass an act of Parliament saying that from now on fire fighters were considered as being part of the police or armed forces, they should say so and this Committee would understand it. However, the Government kept on saying that it wanted an exception to the general rule in the country so as to count fire-fighters as part of the police, but the Committee of Experts told them this was not possible under the Convention. This Committee had been considering this case long enough. It seemed to be another case of a Western government asking for special exemptions concerning another part of the public service; the workers were getting a bit fed up with the way some Western governments dealt with Convention No. 87 and there would be less sympathy on the side of the workers when dealing with issues of more concern to the employers, if the workers could not get an understanding on something as vital as Convention No. 87 in so far as it applied to the public services.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands stated that there were three main questions: firstly, whether freedom of association meant the same in industrialised countries as in others; secondly, whether the right to organise in these countries should be discussed in the same manner as in other countries with different levels of economic, political and cultural development; and finally, whether violations should be dealt with on the same basis by this Committee by taking fully into account the observations of the Committee of Experts. The speaker expressed his uneasiness at the detached and reserved - if not totally negative - attitude of the Government. This was again a case with a long history in this Committee, probably the longest history of a case involving serious difficulties. As mentioned by the Committee of Experts over a number of years, the Government had handled this case in a rather satisfactory manner from a procedural point of view: it had duly responded to the comments made by Workers' representatives, supplied the ILO with full information, and kept close contact with the Office, both formally and informally. While very laudable, this should not divert this Committee's attention from the essential issue, namely compliance with the present Convention. Over the past few years this Committee had learned to live with governments which said that they disagreed with the Committee of Experts and with this Committee, and which stated they were sure that they were perfectly in line with the Convention and that the Committee of Experts were wrong. Faced with such a position in the past, in the face of repeated serious criticisms from the Workers' side, the Committee expressed its concern about such an attitude by mentioning it in a special paragraph. In 1987 the Committee came very close to mentioning the present case in a special paragraph; it did not do so but expressed once more hopes and concerns, to which the Government had reacted now by stating that whatever this Committee would say it would not change its policies. The speaker stated he was aware that Japan was a very special country, that the job of firemen was a very special one, and that this Convention certainly was a very special one: so this certainly was a very special case. Nevertheless, as in some other cases of a special nature, the Committee of Experts itself took that factor into account. The comments and observations made by the Committee of Experts over a number of years left no doubt that they did not consider it to be a marginal case, which might have revealed some difficulties with ILO Conventions. The speaker expressed the hope that this Committee would deal with the case accordingly.

The Workers' members considered that it was not necessary to recall the substance of this problem since the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the present Committee, on many occasions over the past 12 years, already had the opportunity to give their opinion on the necessity for the Government to re-examine this case so that progress could be made with a view to guaranteeing the fire-fighters the full enjoyment of the rights that the Convention would give them. Referring to the conclusions of this Committee at its 1987 Session, which expressed the hope that the Government would be in a position to announce concrete measures taken to guarantee to fire-fighters the full enjoyment of the rights established in this Convention, they expressed their disappointment. At the end of the general discussion, they hoped that the universality of standards, but also the objectivity, impartiality and independence of the experts, would be unanimously acknowledged in the present Committee. If the work and observations of the Committee of Experts on the cases of developing or industrialised countries were questioned, then all the discussions would be useless and the control mechanism would also be questioned. Consequently, the Workers' members trusted that the present discussion (which could seem rather long to some participants) would nevertheless lead to concrete results since it concerned an extremely important subject: the associational rights of public servants established by Conventions Nos. 87 and 151. The Workers' members had nothing to add on the two aspects of the problem, except that the Government appeared not to be facing the truth. The freedom of association of fire-fighters concerned more than 700,000 workers, which made it an important case. Where human dignity and workers' rights were at stake, there could not be small problems, even if that concerned only 13 workers, as in the British case. The Workers' members congratulated the Japanese workers for keeping their faith in the ILO and supported their efforts. They trusted that these Committees' conclusions would not contradict those of the previous years. Referring to the Japanese Government's answer that this was an "internal question" they replied that all the questions addressed by this Committee were "internal questions", but that the Government had ratified the Convention and was consequently committed to respect it. The discussions should, therefore, be continued until a solution could be found. Referring to the corrigendum mentioned in Point 4 of the written reply, where the Government declared that it had "consulted the fire-fighters' personnel, as well as the representative organisations", they noted that all reference to "union organisations" had been deleted, which preoccupied them.

It was not enough to be aware of measures to be taken, of the changes which were necessary and of union rights. To discuss the issues of strikes, negotiation and arbitration in case of labour disputes, it would be necessary to consult the representative union organisations, regroup the social partners and not to deal with each fire-fighter. They concluded by noting this was a serious case which did not progress and they asked whether the employers had a solution to propose.

The Government representative stated, firstly, that, contrary to the allegiations of the workers, cases Nos. 60 and 179 decided by the Committee on Freedom of Association indeed dealt with the right to organise of Japan's fire-fighters. Case No. 179 was lodged by the trade unions alleging that prohibition of the right to organise to fire-fighters in Japan fell upon the violation of freedom of association. With regard to this allegation, the Government sent the information to the ILO in January 1959, including the report of the Convention Subcommittee of the Round Table Conference on Labour Problems which concluded that "the function of the fire defence in Japan can be interpreted as being included in the category of the function of the police". The Freedom of Association Committee, having examined this allegation as well as the information supplied by the Government, concluded that fire defence agencies in Japan were included in "the police and certain services assimilated thereto". It was quite clear, the Government representative said, that the 54th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning case No. 179 had decided these allegations concerning fire-fighters in Japan did not call for further examinations. His Government ratified Convention No. 87 on the premise of these conclusions reiterated by the Committee on Freedom of Association, one of the authoritative and prestigious supervisory bodies in the ILO. Secondly, the Round Table Conference was an official tripartite body, set up by the Cabinet decision, to examine national laws with a view to ratifying ILO Conventions. It was not an informal council of the Labour Minister as the Japanese Workers' member insisted. Thirdly, with regard to the agreement reached by the Subcommittee of the Round Table Conference, the Government representative said that his Government, after this issue being taken up again by the ILO in 1972, repeatedly sent the copies of the said agreement to the ILO, i.e. in October 1972 in the annual report and in May 1973 in its reply to the Experts Committee's observation, contrary to the assertion by the Japanese Workers' member. The Government representative also mentioned the fact that the said agreement had been indeed reported to the Japanese parliament on the occasion of its deliberation regarding ratification of the Convention No. 87, for example, to Special Committee on ILO Convention No. 87 of the House of Representatives in July 1963 and to the Special Committee on ILO Convention No. 87 of the House of Councillors in May 1965 in response to the question sposed by members of the Socialist Party.

In reply to a question asked by the Liberian Workers' member, the Government representative stated that fire-fighters were covered by the Local public Service Law and, as such, had a right of recourse to the complaint procedure which was guaranteed to public employees, as well as before the courts, when a problem arose. The Government representative reiterated in conclusion that his Government would treat this problem as a domestic issue and that it remained determined to further its examination at the Inter-Ministerial Conference as well as to maintain a constructive dialogue with the labour organisations concerned through the relevant government authorities.

The Workers' members considered that the historical overview of the case proposed by the Government representative could not modify the opinion of the Committee of Experts and of the Committee of Freedom of Association. They wanted to know if, where the Government representative mentioned exchanges of opinion with the workers' organisations, he meant the competent organisations representing the public sector workers.

The Employer member for the United States stated that this case illustrated a point that the Employers had been stressing over the past two years, namely the stability and consistency of interpretation by the ILO supervisory bodies. When examining the substantive issue in this case, one would be addressing in part what was the basis for the ratification of this Convention by the Japanese Government; it seemed that one of the problems which concerned the Employers' group was that the Government relied in part on two earlier decisions made by the Freedom of Association Committee prior to the ratification of the Convention. As pointed out by the Workers' representative of the United States, there was an evolution in this interpretation such that, in 1969, the Committee of Experts analysed differently the fire-fighters' situation. However, this Committee was now addressing the issue in terms of the uniform and consistent application of Conventions.

The Worker member of Pakistan stated he was glad that ratification of a Convention did not absolve a country from bringing its legislation in conformity with the principles outlined in the Convention. In addition, the speaker declared that the fact of giving a worker the individual right to proceed before the courts did not replace the functions of trade unions because these have a wider scope. Therefore, the observations made by the Committee of Experts in their report fully deserved to be implemented in the respective countries, in consultation with the workers concerned.

The Committee took due note of the discussion which took place and in particular of the information provided by the Government delegate. The Committee recalled that for many years the Committee of Experts had made comments on certain differences between the national legislation and the Convention, in particular in connection with the right to organise of the fire-fighting staff. The Committee noted that internal discussions continued on this issue but that they had not led to concrete measures permitting progress toward the full application of the Convention. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the discussions with representative trade unions would be intensified and that they would soon lead to the recognition of the right to organise of these workers in conformity with the Convention.