favored invalidation. The Conference rejected the Employer position. With respect to the Hungarian Employer and Worker delegates, the Conference approved-after an unsuccessful effort of the Hungarian Government to withdraw their credentials-the majority report of the Employer and Worker members of the Credentials Committee to not seat the Hungarian Employer and Worker delegates. As in past years the Employer group declined to appoint bloc Employers to committees and once more the Selection Committee assigned the bloc representation, over their objection, deputy membership. 13. The credentials of the entire Hungarian delegation were rejected in 1958. There was no challenge of the bloc Employers but they were not given seats on the committees. Proposals for deputy membership were not satisfactory to bloc members and they voted to reject the proposal. 14. In 1959, the free Employers again refused to nominate employers from the Bloc countries for committee seats but this year a new procedure was employed to resolve the issue. In the March 1959 Session of the Governing Body, a proposition was adopted, over the vote of the Employer Group and the United States Government, which provided that any delegate to the Conference, aggrieved at having been excluded from participating as a voting member of a Conference Committee, could make an appeal to a Panel of three jurists, independent of and outside the Conference, who would decide whether he might properly be seated as a voting member of the committee. But no more than two delegates could thus be added to any one committee. This proposition had resulted from an extended study of possible means of resolving this type of conflict which had taken many days of debate in the Conference during the years 1954 to 1958, and had seriously interfered with the technical work of the Conference. The 1959 Session of the Conference amended Article 9(d) of the Standing Orders, by a vote of 137 to 112 with 12 abstentions, over the opposition of the free Employers, the United States Government and a number of other gov. ernments, to establish the procedures that had been approved by the Governing Body. Following the refusal of the Employers to nominate members of the Bloc countries for committee seats, the issue was dealt with by the new Appeals Board which added eleven communist Employers to the various committees, whereupon the free Employers withdrew from participation in the work of the committees. The credentials of the entire Hungarian delegation were again rejected by the Conference in 1959. 15. In 1960 due to internal problems of the Workers' group no objection was raised concerning the credentials of the Hungarian Workers' delegate. With respect to challenges of the Government and Employer members the Conference decided that "no decision" should be made until the political issue had been resolved in the United Nations. The Appeals Board seated ten communist Employers on the technical committees, again over the protest of the Employers. However, the group, except for the United States and Malayan members, decided to remain and carry on the technical work of the committees. 16. In 1961-62 the Conference followed the "no decision" practice on the challenge of the Hungarian credentials. The Appeals Board seated a number of the Communist Representatives over the protest of the Employers each year. In 1962 an Employer objection that the Cuban Employer had not been selected in the atmosphere of freedom required by the ILO Constitution was sustained by the Employer and Worker members of the Credentials Committee but their report failed to receive the essential two-thirds vote in plenary. 17. In 1963 the Hungarian credentials were not challenged. The Appeals Board seated eight Communist Employers over the protest of the Employers. An objection from the WFTU concerning the credentials of the South African Workers' Delegation was sustained by the Worker Member of the Credentials Committee and sustained by a Conference vote of 135 to 3 with 57 abstentions. Thirty-seven of the abstentions were by Employer Delegates. 18. The present situation is that through successive amendments of the Standing Orders precedents and procedures have been established for the resolution by the Conference of the series of questions that arise concerning the appointment of Employer and Worker representatives from the Communist countries; they have equal validity and application in regard to countries having varying stages of nationalized industries and varying degrees of control over the independence of Workers' and Employers' organizations. This process has weakened the autonomy of Employer and Worker groups in the Conference to the extent that there are limited appeal rights from their decisions rejecting applications for committee assignments thereby diluting somewhat their voting strength in the committees. While neither the free Employers nor the free Workers are satisfied with this status, their failure, or inability due to internal problems, to present unified opposition has permitted this situation to develop and favors its continuance particularly in the light of world politics. Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, sir. This statement covers the period from 1923 to the present time. You will note from paragraph 2 of this exhibit that the first inroads on the autonomy of the workers and employers groups took place in 1926, when governments, supported by the employers, amended the standing orders over the opposition of the workers to provide that any adviser authorized by his delegate could attend committee meetings and participate fully, except for voting. This was not adequate and the next year the standing orders were amended to empower the Selection Committee to seat a delegate not nominated by his group on a committee and to enlarge the committee accordingly. The workers voted against the amendment but the employers and governments carried, by a record vote of 77 to 28. There followed a period from 1934 to 1937 when the issue with respect to Communist employers was raised but not finally resolved because the U.S.S.R. did not attend the Conference in 1938, or for several years thereafter. The history of this issue is then traced in the exhibit through the period when the device of deputy membership was used, paragraph 8, the appeals procedure, paragraph 14, and on down, to the present situation. I do not anticipate, Mr. Chairman, that this issue will be resolved until such time as the employers and workers groups of the Conference are able to present a united position. At that time, governments can contribute support necessary for adoption of such agreed upon position. Now, in conjunction with the question of how the United States voted over the years in relation to the employers and workers, we have also prepared two lists, one covering the conventions adopted by the Conference since the United States became a member in 1934, the other covering recommendations. These lists, which are submitted for the record, show how the Government, worker, and employer delegates of the United States voted and the relationship to the Conference vote, as a whole. Mr. FASCELL. Both of these lists we will put in the record at this point. The first is a record of votes on conventions and recommendations, dated August 1963, is that correct? Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. And the other is the one entitled "Procedure for Development of Positions on Technical Questions for". Mr. WEAVER. This will follow later. Both are attached Mr. FASCELL. That is it right there? Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. Mr. LAWYER. There are two parts. Mr. FASCELL. There are two parts to this one insert? (The document referred to is as follows:) RECORD VOTES ON CONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since 1934 when the United States joined the ILO, 119 conventions and 119 recommendations have been adopted. An analysis of the record votes in these instances shows the U.S. delegation voted as follows: Further details of the voting on conventions and recommendations including the total Conference vote are contained in the annexed pages. However, the above analysis does not truly reflect the voting at the Conference as comparatively few votes are record votes. There are hundreds of nonrecord votes in the committees and additional votes in the plenary sessions of the Conference which are not recorded. These votes in the committee determine what provisions go into the document finally presented to the Conference for adoption by the single record vote. The government, worker, and employer representatives working in the committee may have been in full agreement on many or even all of the basic issues concerning the provisions of the instrument drafted. But on the record vote in the plenary session the employer representative may have voted against the instrument solely because of its form, i.e., the fact that it was presented as a convention rather than a recommendation or the vote may have been influenced on the wishes of the particular group. ILO conventions since U.S. entry into the Organization in 1934 with vote of the Conference and that of the U.S. delegation |