The rules of different systems

Among the distinctive elements of labour law that reflect the political, socioeconomic, and legal differences among countries are variations in the relative importance of statutory regulation and collective agreements, the prevalence of national or industrial collective agreements as opposed to company or plant agreements, the importance in certain countries of arbitral awards, and the extent to which labour law has been affected by a country’s constitutional structure, especially with regard to judicial review of constitutionality of legislation and judicial interpretation of constitutional powers, limitations, and guarantees.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, the tradition has been to allow a maximum of initiative and freedom to employers’ and workers’ organizations in the regulation of their mutual relations and the determination of conditions of work. Most countries on the Continent, by contrast, have detailed legislative provisions on these matters.

In the United Kingdom, however, the reluctance to legislate is becoming less marked; there is now legislation concerning industrial training and discrimination in employment, formerly matters for collective agreement; and legislation concerning collective bargaining, safeguards against unfair dismissal, and certain trade union practices was enacted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In virtually all the developing countries the absence of an established tradition of collective bargaining and the importance of the part played by the state in economic development have placed a premium on legislative action.

The coverage and scope, term of validity, and legal effect of collective agreements vary widely. In Sweden there has been a practice of national negotiations covering the whole of industry; in the United Kingdom agreements generally cover an industry or occupation in the country as a whole or a particular industrial area; in the United States and in Japan the unit of negotiation is generally the company or plant. The contrast may be less significant in practice than in principle, since an important company or plant agreement tends to set an industry-wide pattern of negotiation (e.g., in the automobile industry of the United States); nevertheless, the difference is important.

In Australia and New Zealand conciliation and arbitration tribunals determine matters normally dealt with in other countries by legislation or collective agreement, such as wages, hours, and conditions of work. The example has had some influence on systems of arbitration courts established in developing countries, notably in Asia and East Africa, but there is no tendency for it to be widely imitated elsewhere except as a device for avoiding deadlocks in negotiation, especially in essential public services.

In the United States and Canada the development of labour law has been affected by questions of constitutionality, which not only influenced its ultimate form but also retarded its development. In the United States the constitutionality of workers’ compensation laws was much debated until it was favourably settled by the Supreme Court in 1917; child-labour and minimum-wage regulations were delayed by judicial decisions holding them to be outside federal competence and, in some cases, inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee against deprivation by the state of life, liberty, and property without due process of law (the guarantee here applying to the factory owner). The first attempt of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration to regulate hours and wages by codes of fair competition during the Great Depression was also held to be unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative power by Congress to the executive branch (see National Industrial Recovery Act). But thereafter the temper of judicial review changed, and the validity of federal legislation guaranteeing free collective bargaining in private industry, regulating wages and hours, and establishing social security was upheld. In Canada, a pioneer in establishing a labour department, restrictive judicial interpretations of the powers of the federal government had a similar effect, and only after World War II did federal-provincial cooperation afford a basis for achieving greater uniformity and more rapid progress.

Unifying tendencies

The range of possible solutions for similar problems often consists of variations of detail on a limited number of options, and certain common elements, often expressed in identical or almost identical texts, recur in the law of different countries. These elements derive partly from the legislation of other countries but increasingly from the influence on the law of the international standards evolved by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

From the beginnings of modern labour legislation in the early 19th century, the law of certain countries has been extensively used by other countries as a model. For example, British factory legislation was widely copied at an early date, and German social-insurance legislation provided a prototype from the time of Bismarck’s reforms. British legislation has continued to serve as a model for the basic legislation of many states that were formerly British dependencies and remains in force subject to modifications made since independence. Much of the French Labour Code became applicable through the 1952 Labour Code for Overseas Territories to the states that were formerly French dependencies and remains the basis of their labour law. The U.S. legislation of the period from the 1930s onward has been exported to Japan, the Philippines, Liberia, and other countries. The Mexican Labour Law of 1931, varied by elements derived primarily from European models, had considerable influence on the early development of labour law in a number of Latin American countries. Through quite another process, the labour law of the Soviet Union (until the country’s dissolution in 1991) reshaped without replacing some of the earlier elements in the labour law of the other socialist states. On the whole, however, the national influences of particular countries and legal systems are declining.

During the mid-20th century the standards evolved by the ILO became the leading external influence upon the labour law of many countries. They had a far-reaching impact in virtually all the advanced countries except the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union, where external influences were secondary. In much of the developing world they were of great importance even before independence, since much of the legislation sponsored there by the colonial powers was based on ILO standards.

The ILO, created in 1919 as an autonomous partner of the League of Nations and since 1946 a specialized agency associated with the United Nations, adopts international standards in the form of conventions and recommendations. Conventions when ratified become binding obligations of the member states ratifying them; recommendations are designed as guides for legislation, collective agreements, administrative measures, and so on. Elaborate follow-up arrangements, including examination of regular reports and commissions of inquiry into complaints, are provided to ensure that the obligations assumed are fulfilled. These standards, which already cover, in varying degrees of detail and at varied stages of development, virtually all of the more important branches of labour law, are constantly amplified and revised at the annual sessions of the International Labour Conference.

Unification, or, as the process is often called, harmonization, of labour law is one of the professed purposes of a number of regional organizations in different parts of the world, but only in the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the Organization of American States have tangible measures been taken, largely based on ILO standards. The more important instruments adopted are the European Social Charter, the European Social Security Code, the Social Security Regulations of the European Community, and the Central American Convention on Social Security for Migrant Workers. The Conferences of American and African Labour Ministers, sponsored by the Organization of American States and the African Union (formerly the Organization of African Unity), respectively, and the Conference of Asian Labour Ministers, which has developed without any comparable sponsorship, discuss matters of general policy and the coordination of action in the ILO rather than the formulation of specific standards. An Arab Labour Organization was created in 1970.