FICSA CIRCULAR
Statement by the Representative of the Federation of International Civil Federation of International Civil Servants' Associations (FICSA) to the 96th Session of the Internations Labour Conference (Geneva, 14 June 2007)
CHRISTOPHER BAILEY, FICSA
Mr. President,
Distinguished Delegates,
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you very much for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Federation of International Civil Servants' Associations (FICSA). My name is Christopher Bailey. I work in the Knowledge Management Department at World Health Organization and am presently the FICSA Regional Representative for Europe. Long before I started work at the UN, I have been a member of two trade unions from other professions. Today, I am an international civil servant, a manager and an elected staff representative. My job is among other things, to help under-resourced health clinics set up information systems that allow communities to treat and care for their families and neighbours to improve their lives and their well-being. I say this, because although I am representing a federation of UN staff associations and unions, I am also an individual hired to do a job that I am passionate about and one that I have a few specialized skills in that might be of use to others. I would imagine, and I would hope, that everyone in this room could describe themselves similarly. What is unique about UN organizations and specialized agencies is that we share this same "self selection" factor. We are here because we want to help and our skills have been recognized as a potential contribution. It is a great honour and it is a rare privilege, I know that in this audience, I am preaching to the converted. In fact, in thinking about this speech, we decided not to give the standard script outlining key issues and demands, but rather, to try to dig a little deeper as to why we are in this room today. When I look around at all of you, and I think about the work you are doing, and your colleagues who are not here, and your predecessors who have for decades strived for recognition of basic labour rights at great risk and personal sacrifice and at times in extremely difficult circumstances, I am humbled. UN civil servants do not often face the traditional "labour issues" that came out of the manufacturing era. We are a "service industry", even if that service is international civil service. But one thing we have never taken for granted from the inception of the UN system was the basic set of human rights of UN staff to speak freely, to assemble freely, and to benefit from a working justice system. These had to be won by individual staff members of the UN over the years. These people did not face some of the hardships that many people in this room have faced, but we have struggled in other ways to ensure that the rights of international civil servants are recognized by the international organizations. We have had some victories, victories that have been inspired by you, your colleagues and predecessors. And I would like to express our appreciation to the ILO for the example it has set.
We have benefited by your struggles, from the principle of the eight-hour workday to prohibition of child labour on down the line. However, you may be interested to know a few of the victories that you have inspired over the decades. Although a staff committee was established at the ILO as early as 1928, and at the UN secretariat in 1947, and even with the ILO conventions 87 and 98 covering freedom of association, the right to organi2e and the right to collective bargaining, in practice staff associations and unions in the UN have been allowed to practice these and other rights only to varying and limited degrees based on the level of toleration of individual administrations. Establishing these fundamental human rights as rights that UN workers share, had to be earned, and has been documented through the rich history of ILO cases and the work of FICSA.
For instance, in 1961 Van der Ploeg, ILO Judgment No. 54, a staff association officer from UNESCO won a judgment after he was fired for participation in staff association duties. In 1965, in Di Giuliomaria, ILO Judgement No. 87, an FAO staff member won a judgement for being dismissed after making statements that the administration deemed insubordinate and false. In 1988, de Padirac, ILO Judgement No. 911, UNESCO administration was taken to task for their policy of "approving" communications of their staff association in the interest of "accuracy". This was deemed censorship by the Tribunal. Or in WHO, the Gran Olsen Judgment No. 1806 in which an employee was asked to resign as a member of the Staff Council if they were to be considered for a position in the HR unit, helping guarantee both the right of association and the independence of the Staff Association. And the list goes on... Still, today, there are examples of colleagues whose contracts are terminated because they spoke out on behalf of staff rights, or because they were officers of a staff association or union. And there are few protections for whistleblowers, or against harassment, in some of our organizations.
But the point is, little by little, person by person, case by case, the basic human rights of assembly, of speech, of due process, have had to be won and re-won within the UN itself and can never be taken for granted. Today, individuals at the UN, staff and managers, find themselves in a labyrinthine system of self administered justice, of ombudsmen, and review panels and appeals boards, a system which more often does not meet out justice, but rather prolongs by years indecision until the participants leave the organization or give up. How many of us in the UN have experienced or know some one, both staff and managers, whose health and career and effectiveness have been diminished as justice delayed slowly and silently becomes justice denied?
To this end, FICSA supports the changes adopted by the UN General Assembly to reform the administration of justice at the UN and would urge other organizations to reform their internal procedures to include mediation and other forms of conflict prevention, but also to provide legal advice to staff members who are involved in administrative conflict. We also recognize that the UN plan is expensive. Setting up an independent justice system for the UN system will cost tens of millions of dollars, and it is unrealistic to expect that we will see the benefits of this any time soon. What can be done now to ease the suffering of those caught in a justice system that is dysfunctional and often paralysed? We have suggested that the very nature of the UN paradoxically is a source of this problem. And yet, the source cause I believe goes deeper. H.L. Menken once said that "the only thing worse than an ineffective bureaucracy is an effective bureaucracy". In other words, an independent UN justice system will be a necessary and hard won step, but by itself will not change the hierarchical vertical culture of UN organizations. In the end, what is bad staff/management relations but a lack of understanding of all parties of the value and respect of the individual and our reliance on one another? In South Africa, they have a concept called Ubuntu, which some have credited with saving that nation in its transition away from apartheid from falling into civil conflict. Simply put, Ubuntu is recognizing that what diminishes one of us, diminishes us all, and what ennobles one of us ennobles us all. Does this sound familiar? A similar philosophy is behind other ways we have of organizing ourselves, from trade unions, to open software development, to communities of practice. If we at the UN remind ourselves of why we are here, and why we believe that by giving our talents in the service of others will benefit others as well as ourselves, as part of a dynamic living global community, but then apply that notion to how we work within the UN and how we organize that work. How different would administrative structures look from how it has been for sixty years? Is now the time to consider a radical rethinking of how the UN is structured and behaves? If not now, when? A thought to consider.
Thank you very much for your time, but most importantly, thank you for your work. We deeply appreciate you and are in your debt.
