10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202
In 2017, ILO issued recommendation no. 2015 on employment and decent work for peace and resilience, which is an international labour standard of particular relevance and importance for managing the labour market in times of crisis, and especially so in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. A body of generally applicable international labour standards provides social protection to workers during the pandemic and applies to the challenges to the labour market in such times. The Report describes the labour policy of ILO and international labour standards in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as ILO’s concrete response to the present crisis. Finally, the Report presents a reminder that ILS and social protection in the future must be able to handle social risks resulting from biological vulnerabilities on part of workers and the importance of the principle of universality in social protection.
application/pdf
1561-8048
11202
1
en
Niklas Selberg
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Crisis
The ILO Response to Covid-19: ILO and International Labour Standards in Times of a Pandemic
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
13
Miscellaneous
2020-07-20
2020-06-23
2020-07-20
2020-09-15
161-185
ILLeJ
Niklas Selberg
2020/07/20
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202
161
Lund University
1561-8048
1
Crisis
en
185
The ILO Response to Covid-19: ILO and International Labour Standards in Times of a Pandemic
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/11202/11364
13
The ILO Response to Covid-19: ILO and international labour                        Italian Labour Law e-Journal
standards in times of a pandemic                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
Niklas Selberg                                                                                 ISSN 1561-8048
niklas.selberg@jur.lu.se                                        https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202




          The ILO Response to Covid-19: ILO and
    international labour standards in times of a pandemic
                                            Niklas Selberg


1. Introduction: Employment and Decent Work for Resilience in the Age of Covid-19. 2.
Recommendation No. 205 on Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience:
Historical Trajectory and Contemporary Standing. 3. Covid-19 as a ‘Disaster’: on the
Applicability of R205. 4. Resilience in the Age of Covid-19: on the Labour Policy of R205.
4.1 The Concept of Resilience as Benchmark for Labour Market Policy. 4.2 Realising
Resilience: Guiding Principles and Strategic Approaches. 4.3 Immediate Response. 4.4.
Response and Recovery. 4.5 Long Term Preparedness and Crises Prevention. 4.6 Scope
Ratione Personae: Universalism Proper for Migrants. 5. The ILO Strategy and Action Plan
to give Effect to R205. 6. International Labour Standards as Applicable during Emergencies
following a Pandemic. 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 A Right to Health Care and to Social Security
during a Pandemic. 6.3 Safety and Health, Serious Dangers to Health, and Personal
Protective Equipment at Work. 6.4 Covid-19 as an Occupational Disease. 6.5 Social
Distancing and the Regulation of Home Work. 6.6. Employment Protection and being Sick
from Covid-19. 6.7 Working Time, Partial Loss of Work and Temporary Suspension of
Work. 6.8 Protection of Wages and Levels of Wages. 6.9 Redundancy because of Decrease
in Demand for Labour; Structural Changes to the Labour Market after Covid-19. 6.10
Insolvency on part of the Employer. 7. International Labour Standards and Immediate Crisis
Response. 8. International Labour Standards for Nursing Personnel during a Pandemic. 9.
The Global Social Partners Responding to the Covid-19 Pandemic. 10. ILO Responding to
the Covid-19 Pandemic. 11. Concluding Remarks: ILO and ILS during and after the Covid-
19 Pandemic and the following Economic and Financial Crisis.





  Ragnar Söderberg-post doc at the Faculty of Law, Lund University, Sweden. This article has been submitted
to a double-blind peer review process.
Niklas Selberg                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                              Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous




                                                   Abstract

    In 2017, ILO issued recommendation no. 2015 on employment and decent work for peace and
    resilience, which is an international labour standard of particular relevance and importance for
    managing the labour market in times of crisis, and especially so in the wake of the Covid-19
    pandemic. A body of generally applicable international labour standards provides social
    protection to workers during the pandemic and applies to the challenges to the labour market in
    such times. The Article describes the labour policy of ILO and international labour standards in
    relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as ILO’s concrete response to the present crisis.
    Finally, the Article presents a reminder that ILS and social protection in the future must be able
    to handle social risks resulting from biological vulnerabilities on part of workers and the
    importance of the principle of universality in social protection.

    Keywords: International Labour Organisation; Covid-19; International labour standards; R205;
    Crisis.



1. Introduction: Employment and Decent Work for Resilience in the Age of Covid-19.

   The International Labour Organization1, born 1919 in the aftermath of the First World
War, and survivor of the Second World War, is no stranger to responding to crises. Well
before the present pandemic, in 2017, an international labour standard particularly aimed at
handling the labour market aspects of crises and disasters was decided; i.e. the
Recommendation no. 205 on employment and decent work for peace and resilience2. The
2017 standard replaces and supersedes a 1944 recommendation on employment in the
transition from war to peace, relevant to the period just after the end of World War II3. Until
very recently, ILO Recommendation no. 205 of 2017 was quite peripheral to international
labour law/rights, but the current pandemic has swiftly put this international standard front
and centre of the body of international labour regulation.
   While citizens of the world note with concern how major institutions of international co-
operation – UN, EU and EMU, WHO, IMF, NATO etc. – seem to lose some of their
relevance at a time when they are needed the most, we should not forget that the ILO already
has a standard on the books for crisis prevention and building resilience in relation to crisis.
When we start asking the important questions on how the labour market should be organized
in a post-Covid-19 future, we have reason to carefully consult the pre-existing ILO


1 On the ILO, see; Hughes, S., Haworth N., The International Labour Organisation. Coming in from the cold,
Routledge, London, 2010; Rodgers, G., et al. (eds.) The ILO and the Quest for Social Justice, 1919-2009,
International Labour Office, 2009; Maupin, F., The Future of the International Labour Organization in the Global
Economy, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2013.
2 R205 – Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017.
3 R71 – Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                       162
Niklas Selberg                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous


framework, not only to make sure that national laws are in accordance with international
obligations, but also for more general inspiration for labour policy and regulation.
   The aim of this Article is thus to present the role of the ILO in handling the Covid-19
pandemic4. To fulfil this aim the Article will cover three issues: A) the particular labour
standard for crisis response (R205) (Sections 2–4) and its implementation (Section 5), B)
international labour standards as they apply in a pandemic (Section 6) and as they apply
particularly for workers engaged in crises and emergency management (Section 7), e.g. health
care workers (Section 8). Besides describing the regulatory framework5 put forward by the
ILO, the Article will C) relate the concrete organisational actions and responses on part of
the ILO and its constituents in relation to the current pandemic (Section 9–10). A summary
and a brief discussion on the role of the ILO and labour law in the post-Covid-19 labour
market finalises the Article (Section 11).



2. Recommendation No. 205 on Employment and Decent Work for Peace and
Resilience: Historical Trajectory and Contemporary Standing.

    The international labour standard on employment and decent work for peace and
resilience was adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 2017. It was
supported by a vast majority of the ILO constituents: 378 votes in favour, five votes against
and eight abstentions6. The process towards the adoption of R205 was launched by a decision
at the 2016 International Labour Conference, followed by the ILO’s usual two-year standard
setting procedure with tri-partite consultations7. As of today, ILO lists 72 submissions to the
competent authority in relation to R2058.
    While both the 2017 instrument and the 1944 instrument 9 rely on the same mandate
concerning labour and employment, the differences in scope illustrate the broader agenda of
the present-day ILO. The 1944 recommendation on transition from war to peace proscribes
a principled approach to handling problems particularly topical to the beginning of the end
of the World War II, such as the demobilisation of the armed forces and of assimilated
services and the repatriation of prisoners of war, persons who have been deported, and
national programmes for industrial demobilisation and reconversion.

4 This implies that the ILO response to internal and/or international conflicts is not covered in the present
Article.
5 Due to space restrictions the Article will not cover sectoral standards for migrant workers, domestic

workers and seafarers.
6 ILO, International Labour Conference, Provisional Record 17, 106th Session, Geneva, June 2017, 42.
7 On the standard setting procedure, see Valticos N., Fifty Years of Standard-Setting Activities by the International

Labour Organisation, in International Labour Review, Vol. 100, 1969, 201–237, Wisskirchen A., The Standard-setting
and Monitoring Activity of the ILO: Legal Questions and Practical Experience, in International Labour Review, Vol. 144,
No. 3, 2005, 253–289.
8 ILO Website;

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13300:13628052510154::::P13300_INSTRUMENT_SORT:
1 . Last visited 07-05-20.
9 R71 – Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                        163
Niklas Selberg                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous


   The focus of the 1944 recommendation is the prospective implications for the supply and
demand of labour in an economy that is transitioning from war to peace. Governments are
asked to “formulate a national industrial demobilisation and reconversion programme to
facilitate the rapid and orderly conversion of the economy from wartime to peacetime
requirements”, with “a view to attaining full employment with the least possible delay” (R71,
p. 9.1). It is stipulated that states revise upward “the school-leaving age and the age for
admission to employment (R71, p. 30.1) and that the “redistribution of women workers in
the economy should be organised on the principle of complete equality of opportunity for
men and women on the basis of their individual merit, skill and experience (R71, p. 36).
Francis Maupin has raised doubts as to the relevance of this instrument in the context of the
aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis10.
   The 2017 international labour standard on the role of employment in crisis management
and the building of resilience is, like its 1944 predecessor, in the legal form of a
recommendation. While there are many similarities between recommendations and
conventions, one crucial difference is that measures put forward in recommendations “do
not become obligatory on ratification but rather constitute mere reference standards on
which countries are encouraged to base their labour policies, legislation and practice”11. From
the perspective of member states recommendations give rise to effects quite similar to those
of conventions, most importantly to bring them before the competent national authority for
legislation or other action, inform the Director-General of the ILO of measures taken to that
end and report to the Director-General on the position of the national law and practice
regarding matters covered by the recommendation. It follows from the constitution of the
ILO that the national adoption of recommendations does not give rise to any other
obligations12.




3. Covid-19 as a ‘Disaster’: on the Applicability of R205.

   The specific ILS on measures to generate employment and decent work for the purposes
of prevention, recovery and resilience is applicable in the event of a ‘disaster’ (R205, p. 1).
Does, then, the Covid-19 pandemic render R205 applicable? The International Labour
Office noted during the standard setting process that “health related crises” are covered by
the “category of ‘disasters’ arising from biological hazards”13.
   The recommendation defines – in correspondence with definitions stemming from the
International Law Commission as well as working groups and agencies within the United


10 Maupin F., (n. 2) 108.
11 Servais J-M., International Labour Law, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2020, Sect. 191.
12 Ibid. Sect. 195.
13 International Labour Office, Report V (2A), Employment and decent work for peace and resilience.

Revision of the Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944 (no. 71), International
Labour Conference, 106th Session, 2017, 13.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                            164
Niklas Selberg                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous


Nations system – ‘disaster’ in terms of “a serious disruption of the functioning of a
community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of
exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human,
material, economic and environmental losses and impacts” (R205, p. 2.a). The travaux
préparatoires quote definitions of hazard which include not only loss of life, but also injury and
other health impacts, together with social and economic disruption. Hazards can be of
biological origin14.
   In sum; the Covid-19 pandemic is a disaster in the meaning of R205. The
recommendation is thus applicable to the present situation and a relevant source for national
labour market policy response to the pandemic.
   Following the adoption of R205 the crisis response regime of ILS is two-fold: R205 relates
immediately to the actual events – disaster and conflict – that leads to a state of crisis, while
the general body of ILS relates also to economic and financial crises that possibly will be the
result of a crisis.



4. Resilience in the Age of Covid-19: on the Labour Policy of R205.

4.1 The Concept of Resilience as Benchmark for Labour Market Policy.

   The ultimate purpose of R205 is to counter disasters and create ‘resilience’, which is
defined – in line with definitions in the UN system – as “the ability of a system, community
or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and
recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the
preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk
management” (R205, p. 2.b).
   International labour standards acknowledge that discrimination might arise from, or be
exacerbated by, disasters. R205 thus proscribes that member states, when they take measures
to prevent crises, enable recovery and build resilience, should “respect, promote and realize
equality of opportunity and treatment for women and men” while taking into account the
relevant international labour standards15 (R205, p. 15.a). Furthermore, R205 assumes that
child labour and forced or compulsory labour might be exacerbated in times of disaster, and
therefore reiterates the international labour standards16 that combat these practices (R205,
p. 16, 17).

14 International Labour Office, Report V n. (1), Employment and decent work for peace and resilience.
Revision of the Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944 (no. 71), International
Labour Conference, 106th Session, 2017, 10. International Labour Office, Ibidem, 15.
15 C100 – Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951, R90 – Equal Remuneration Recommendation 1951, C111

– Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958, R111 – Discrimination (Employment
and Occupation) Recommendation, 1958.
16 C138 – Minimum Age Convention, 1973, R146 – Minimum Age Recommendation, 1973, C182 – Worst

Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999, R190 – Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999,




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                            165
Niklas Selberg                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous


   States’ preparations for and responses to crisis situations should be based on strengthened
international cooperation within bilateral and multilateral arrangements within the UN
system and “other regional or international mechanisms of coordinated response” (R205,
p. 42). States “should make full use of existing arrangements and established institutions and
mechanisms and strengthen them, as appropriate” (R205, p. 42, cf p. 43–48). In relation to
the Covid-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization clearly represents an important form
for international cooperation that, following R205, should be utilised and strengthened.



4.2 Realising Resilience: Guiding Principles and Strategic Approaches.

   R205 defines a set of guiding principles which states should take into account when
responding to and preventing crises (R205, p. 7). The most prominent principle to adhere to
concerns the responsibility to promote, in terms known from e.g. the Employment
promotion and protection against unemployment convention 17 , “full, productive, freely
chosen employment and decent work” as a means to “preventing crises, enabling recovery
and building resilience” (R205, p. 7.a). In times of crisis states are to “respect, promote and
realize the fundamental principles and rights at work, other human rights and other relevant
international labour standards” (R205, p. 7.b). Furthermore, states should “pay special
attention to population groups and individuals who have been made particularly vulnerable
by the crisis” (R205, p. 7.h).
   In addition to reiterating the importance of social dialogue (R205, p. 7.k) R205 highlights,
also for times of crisis, “the need for a just transition towards an environmentally sustainable
economy as a means for sustainable economic growth and social progress” (R205, p. 7.j cf
p. 8.c).
   Besides laying down the above stated guiding principles, R205 suggests that states “adopt
a multi-track approach implementing coherent and comprehensive strategies” for
“preventing crises, enabling recovery and building resilience” (R205, p. 8), and that they
respond to a “need for simultaneous actions over consecutive periods”18. Primarily, states
should stabilize “livelihoods and income through immediate social protection and
employment measures” (R205, p. 8.a). R205 emphasizes the role of the labour market parties;
not only should states promote social dialogue and collective bargaining (R205, p. 8.i), but
states should consult with, and encourage the “active participation of employers’ and
workers’ organizations in planning, implementing and monitoring measures for recovery and
resilience” (R205, p. 8.d).




C29 – Forced Labour Convention, 1930, P29 Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930,
C105 – Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957, R203 – Forced Labour (Supplementary Measures)
Recommendation, 2014.
17 C168 – Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988.
18 International Labour Office, Report V (2A), Employment and decent work for peace and resilience.

Revision of the Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944 (no. 71), International
Labour Conference, 106th Session, 2017, 27.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                            166
Niklas Selberg                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous


4.3 Immediate Response.

    States’ crisis response in the immediate aftermath of a disaster should include i.a. “an
urgent response to satisfy basic needs and provide services, including social protection,
support to livelihoods, immediate employment measures and income-generation
opportunities for population groups and individuals who have been made particularly
vulnerable by the crisis” (R205, p. 9.b). Working conditions should be safe and decent, also
in the immediate aftermath of a disaster (R205, p. 9.d).
    States should “as quickly as possible” “seek to ensure basic income security”, “develop,
restore or enhance comprehensive social security schemes and other social protection
mechanisms” and “seek to ensure effective access to essential health care and other basic
social services” (R205, p. 21).



4.4 Response and Recovery.

   Implementing “a comprehensive and sustainable employment strategy to promote full,
productive, freely chosen employment and decent work” in line with the international labour
standard on employment policy19 is understood to be key for enabling recovery from and
building resilience to crises (R205, p. 10).
   Furthermore, states should implement “employment-intensive investment strategies and
programmes, including public employment programmes” (R205, p. 11.a) and support the
public sector (R205, p. 11.g).
   Recovering from a crisis represents an opportunity to facilitate not only “a just transition
towards an environmentally sustainable economy”, but also “respecting, promoting and
realizing the fundamental principles and rights at work of those in the informal economy and
encouraging the transition of workers and economic units in the informal economy to the
formal economy”, all in line with the specific international labour standard 20 (R205,
p. 11.e, f).
   Disadvantaged and marginalized groups and those that have been made particularly
vulnerable by the crisis should be targeted by specific active labour market policies (R205,
p. 12).
   Recovering from a crisis also implies reviewing, establishing, re-establishing or reinforcing
labour legislation, labour inspection and the system of collective bargaining and collective
agreements in line with the applicable international labour standards21 (R205, p. 23.a, c). The
goal is to not only “recognize the vital role of employers’ and workers’ organizations in crisis
response” (R205, p. 25), but also to “create an enabling environment for the establishment,
restoration or strengthening of employers’ and workers’ organizations” (R205, p. 24).


19 C122 – Employment Policy Convention, 1964.
20 R204 – Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy Recommendation, 2015.
21 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, 1998, C81 – Labour

Inspection Convention, 1947, C98 – Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949, C181 –
Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                             167
Niklas Selberg                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous


4.5 Long Term Preparedness and Crises Prevention.

   Measures to build resilience should be developed in consultation with employers’ and
workers’ organizations and other stakeholders and contain an “identification of risks and
evaluation of threats to and vulnerabilities of human, physical, economic, environmental,
institutional and social capital at local, national and regional levels” (R205, p. 41.a).
Furthermore, states should engage in “risk management, including contingency planning,
early warning, risk reduction and emergency response preparedness” (R205, p. 41.b). These
plans for prevention and mitigation of adverse effects should include “business continuity
management in both the public and private sector” (R205, p. 41.c).
   In relation to crisis prevention the Employment Policy Convention of 1964 implies that
states shall, as a major goal, pursue an active policy to promote “full, productive and freely
chosen employment” ensuring i.a. that “there is work for all who are available for and seeking
work” (C122, art. 1)22.
   The long term prevention of crises assumes that “the provision of education is not
disrupted” for all children (R205, p. 18) and that workers have access to a “vocational
guidance programme that assesses and responds to emerging skills needs for recovery and
reconstruction” (R205, p. 19).
   Social protection floors, in line with the particular international labour standard 23 ,
represent important aspects in not only preventing crises but also building resilience (R205,
p. 22).



4.6 Scope Ratione Personae: Universalism Proper for Migrants.

   In times of crisis universality in social protection is particularly emphasized.
   R205 is premised on a robust commitment to universality in social protection: States
should, when they take “measures for promoting peace, preventing crises, enabling recovery
and building resilience […] ensure that the human rights of all migrants and members of
their families staying in a country affected by a crisis are respected on a basis of equality with
those of national populations, taking into account relevant national provisions, as well as
relevant international labour standards and other international instruments and documents,
as applicable“ (R205, p. 15.i; cf also art. 26 and art. 27 for specific rules).
   During the standard setting process the term “lawfully” was deliberately taken out from
the text of the recommendation with the explicit intention to create universal coverage and
include all migrants irrespective of their migration status24. In the travaux préparatoires the



22 C122 – Employment Policy Convention, 1964.
23 R202 – Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012.
24 International Labour Office, Report V (1), Employment and decent work for peace and resilience. Revision

of the Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944 (no. 71), International Labour
Conference, 106th Session, 2017, 18. Cf International Labour Office, Report V (2A), Employment and decent




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                               168
Niklas Selberg                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous


Office is reminding constituents that “limiting assistance to prevent loss of life only to those
who are lawfully staying in the territory of a State goes against international law, including
the right to life, which is a jus cogens”25.
    R205 is thus ‘more’ universal than R202 on social protection floors, even though the latter
instrument claims to be built upon the principle of “universality of protection, based on
social solidarity” (R202, p. 3.a). The actual coverage of R202 is, however paradoxically, not
universal: social security guarantees should be provided to “at least all residents and children,
as defined in national laws and regulations”, i.e. explicitly only to persons legally residing in
the country, in effect excluding adult irregular migrants26.
    The truly universal approach to coverage of R205 is particularly relevant in the case of a
crisis following a pandemic. The undocumented population is of course vulnerable – more
vulnerable – to the Covid-19. Furthermore, the fate of residents and ‘legal’ migrants is
dependent on the fate of the undocumented population. Including the undocumented
population in social protection schemes is a policy marked by solidarity. At the same time, it
is within the immediate self-interest of residents and ‘legal’ migrants that undocumented
migrants receive social protection and health care, so that they do not contribute to the
further spreading of the coronavirus.



5. The ILO Strategy and Action Plan to give Effect to R205.

    When adopting R205, the International Labour Conference also decided on a resolution
in which governments, employers and workers were invited to “give full effect” to the new
labour standard27. The resolution requests that the ILO develops “a strategy and action plan
for promoting and supporting the implementation” of R205 through “awareness-raising
initiatives, promotional materials and appropriate technical assistance to constituents in
giving effect to the policies and measures” of R20528.
    The follow-up strategy drawn up by the Governing Body later in 2017 firstly invites
constituents to translate R205 into “local, national and regional strategies and measures” and
secondly devises a strategy consisting of “four complementary and mutually reinforcing
components”29:



work for peace and resilience. Revision of the Employment (Transition from War to Peace)
Recommendation, 1944 (no. 71), International Labour Conference, 106th Session, 2017, 42.
25 International Labour Office, Report V (1), Employment and decent work for peace and resilience. Revision

of the Employment (Transition from War to Peace) Recommendation, 1944 (no. 71), International Labour
Conference, 106th Session, 2017, 18.
26 Dijkhoff T., Principles for National Social Protection Floors, in Dijkhoof T., Mpedi, L. G. (eds.) Recommendation on

Social Protection Floors. Basic Principles for Innovative Solutions, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2018, 13–40,
26 ff.
27 ILO, International Labour Conference, Provisional Record 13-1 (rev.), 106th Session, Geneva, June 2017,

17.
28 Ibid., 17.
29 ILO, International Labour Office, Governing Body, 331st Session, Geneva, 26 October – 9 November

2017 (GB.331/INS/4/2).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                        169
Niklas Selberg                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous


    1. Awareness raising and advocacy: R205 is to be introduced in briefings, training and
     knowledge-sharing events and a systematic campaign on global and national level that
     highlights how R205 can be put into effect in different contexts is developed.
    2. Policy advice, technical cooperation and capacity development on both national and
     regional/global scale. On a country level ILO is to support constituents in countries
     affected by conflict and/or disaster, primarily targeting countries affected by protracted
     situations of fragility.
    3. Knowledge development and dissemination: developing new research and tools on
     key policy areas, analysing “intervention models, policy combinations, technical guidance
     and implementation modalities that leverage employment and decent work tools to
     positively impact peace- and resilience-building”, collecting data and conducting impact
     assessments.
    4. International cooperation and partnerships: bringing R205 “to the attention of
     relevant international and regional organizations and to promote cooperation and
     partnerships with these organizations with the aim of coordinating policies and
     initiatives” as responses to crises.
    At the time of adoption in 2017 of the implementation strategy, nobody could have
known that only a couple of years later the nations of the world would be in dire need of
crisis management. Presently the ILO is involved in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic
along the lines of the strategy (see below Sections 9 and 10).


6. International Labour Standards as Applicable during Emergencies following a
Pandemic.

6.1 Introduction.

    It is explicitly stated in R205 that its provisions apply to “all workers and jobseekers” as
well as to all employers affected by crisis following disasters (R205, p. 4).
    Very few of the instruments that comprise the body of international labour standards
indicate that their respective application is suspended in the event of a disaster and assuming
crisis. Thus, the international labour standards system applies, with few exceptions, to the
labour market during calamities, such as the current Covid-19 pandemic (cf Section 7).
    Importantly, as a result of the acute challenges that arise from working during a pandemic
and the strains on the labour market during such times, a plethora of generally applicable
international labour standards become particularly relevant for the protection of workers’
rights.
    The following section will provide a brief overview of ILS as they relate to workers and
workplaces in times of a pandemic.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                       170
Niklas Selberg                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                        Section: Miscellaneous


6.2 A Right to Health Care and to Social Security during a Pandemic.

   Health care and possibilities for subsistence during illness are naturally highly topical
issues in times of a pandemic.
   Access to medical care and sickness benefits have been regulated in ILS since early 19th
century. According to the ILS of 1969 states are to ensure that i.a. workers (cf C130, art. 2–
5) enjoy a right to curative medical care (C130, art. 8), such as general practitioner care,
specialist care and hospitalisation (C130, art. 13-14)30. The size of the cost of the care for the
person covered shall not be allowed to cause him or her hardship, and must not “prejudice
the effectiveness of medical and social protection” (C130, art. 17).
   Health care should, according to the 2002 recommendation, meet “the criteria of
availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality”, while basic income security should cover
both sickness and unemployment (R202, p. 5.a, c). Finally, states are urged to consider that
“persons in need of health care should not face hardship and an increased risk of poverty
due to the financial consequences of accessing essential health care” (R202, p. 8).
   States are to ensure i.a. workers (C130, art. 19–20) sickness benefits (C130, art. 18) in the
form of periodical payments (C130, art. 21) amounting to at least about 60 % of the previous
earnings (C130, art. 22–24).
   The recently (2002) adopted ILS consider social security systems as “automatic social and
economic stabilizers” which, particularly in times of crisis, “help stimulate aggregate
demand” (preamble), and favour universal social protection of an adequate standard (R202,
p. 3)31. States are to establish basic social security guarantees which ensures that “all in need
have access to essential health care and to basic income security” (R202, p. 4)32.
   The 1969 recommendation on medical care and sickness benefits proscribes that a person
who suffers a loss of earnings because of absence from work because she “is isolated for the
purpose of a quarantine” should be granted a cash benefit (R 134, p. 8)33.
   A worker who is off from work to care for a dependent child who is ill have the right to
social security (R165, p. 28)34.




30 C130 – Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969. Cf C102 – Social Security (Minimum
Standards) Convention, 1952, parts II and III.
31 R202 – Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012.
32 Furthermore, states who have made the right to medical care conditioned to occupational activity, “shall

endeavour to ensure […] the provision of medical care to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and to
their dependants”, C168 – Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention,
1988, art. 23.
33 R134 – Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Recommendation, 1969.
34 R165 – Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                171
Niklas Selberg                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous


6.3 Safety and Health, Serious Dangers to Health, and Personal Protective
Equipment at Work.

    A contagious disease presents particular challenges to workers, employers and workplaces
in relation to health and safety at work.
    The occupational safety and health convention demands that states implement “a
coherent national policy on occupational safety, occupational health and the working
environment” with the aim of preventing “accidents and injury arising out of, linked with or
occurring in the course of work, by minimizing, so far as reasonably practicable, the causes
of hazards inherent in the working environment” (C155, art. 4)35. States should, according to
the accompanying recommendation, take measures in the fields of “design, manufacture,
supply, use, maintenance and testing of personal protective equipment and protective
clothing” as well “sanitary installations, washing facilities, facilities for changing and storing
clothes, supply of drinking water, and any other welfare facilities connected with
occupational safety and health” (R164, p. 3.n, o)36.
    The national policy demanded by the occupational safety and health convention implies
placing obligations on both employer and employee.
    Essentially, the employer bears the responsibility of securing a safe and healthy workplace:
employers are “to ensure that, so far is reasonably practicable, the workplaces, machinery,
equipment and processes under their control are safe and without risk to health” (C155,
art. 16.1). Furthermore, employers are “to ensure that, so far is reasonably practicable, the
chemical, physical and biological substances and agents under their control are without risk
to health when the appropriate measures of protection are taken” (C155, art. 16.2). Finally;
“Occupational safety and health measures shall not involve any expenditure for the workers”
(C155, art. 21). Workers are to be informed in an adequate and appropriate manner of health
hazards involved in their work37.
    Personal protective equipment is included in the employer’s responsibility: “Employers
shall be required to provide, where necessary, adequate protective clothing and protective
equipment to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, risk of accidents or of adverse
effects on health” (C155, art. 16.3). The recommendation accompanying the occupational
health and safety convention defines this in terms of an obligation “to provide, without any
cost to the worker, adequate personal protective clothing and equipment which are
reasonably necessary when hazards cannot be otherwise prevented or controlled” (R164,
p. 10.e)38.
    Workers’ primary responsibility in relation to realizing the goal of safe workplaces is to
respect safety measures put forward by the employer: workers shall “in the course of
performing their work, co-operate in the fulfilment by their employer of the obligations
placed upon him” (R164, p. 19.1). Thus, while it is an obligation on part of the employer to


35 C155 – Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981.
36 R164 – Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 1981.
37 C161 – Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985, art. 13, R171 – Occupational Health Services

Recommendation, 1985, p. 22.1.
38 R164 – Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 1981.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                              172
Niklas Selberg                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous


provide personal protective equipment, it is an obligation on part of the worker to actually
use this equipment at work. The recommendation states that workers are to “take reasonable
care for their own safety and that of other persons who may be affected by their acts or
omissions at work”, “comply with instructions given for their own safety and health and
those of others and with safety and health procedures” and “use safety devices and protective
equipment correctly and do not render them inoperative” (R164, p. 16.a, b, c).
    Acute dangerous situations are of particular concern to the occupational health and safety
convention. Workers are to report “to his [sic] immediate supervisor any situation which he
has reasonable justification to believe presents an imminent and serious danger to his life or
health”, and “until the employer has taken remedial action, if necessary, the employer cannot
require workers to return to a work situation where there is continuing imminent and serious
danger to life or health” (C155, art. 19.f). Furthermore, “A worker who has removed himself
from a work situation which he has reasonable justification to believe presents an imminent
and serious danger to his life or health shall be protected from undue consequences” (C155,
art. 13). Thus, depending on the degree of danger, e.g. exposure to Covid-19, in the actual
instance, a worker might have a right to leave situations at work, which could be particularly
relevant in times of a pandemic.



6.4 Covid-19 as an Occupational Disease.

    What if a worker catches Covid-19 at work and becomes ill? Benefits in the occasion of
injury at work has been subject to regulation in ILS since the beginning of the 19th century.
A disease caused by a biological agent at work, “where a direct link is established scientifically,
or determined by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, between the
exposure to these biological agents arising from work activities and the disease(s) contracted
by the worker”, represents an occupational disease (R194, Annex p. 1.3.9)39.
    In case a worker suffers an employment injury in the form of an occupational disease he
or she is entitled to benefits (C121, art. 6, art. 8). In respect to a morbid condition, the worker
has a right to medical care and in respect to injuries that incapacitates the worker, he or she
is entitled to cash benefits (C121, art. 9)40.




39 R194 – List of Occupational Diseases Recommendation, 2002, Revised 2010. The 1980 version of the list
of occupational diseases was phrased “Infectious or parasitic diseases contracted in an occupation where
there is a particular risk of contamination” and “Health or laboratory work” was enumerated as work
involving exposure to risk; see C121 – Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended
in 1980], 1964.
40 C121 – Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980], 1964. Cf C102 Social

Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952, part VI.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                             173
Niklas Selberg                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                 Section: Miscellaneous


6.5 Social Distancing and the Regulation of Home Work.

   Since an important government response to the Covid-19 pandemic is the policy of social
distancing, i.e. in effect demand that people do not leave their homes, working from home
might become more prevalent in the future. For some tasks that are possible to perform
from home, employers might be inclined to shift into home work for parts of the labour
force. The ILS regarding home work becomes relevant 41 . However, presently, no ILS
specifically on tele-work exists.
   States are to implement “a national policy on home work aimed at improving the situation
of homeworkers” (C177, art. 3). The basic principle of the regulation of home work is
equality of treatment between homeworkers and other workers, while still “taking into
account the special characteristics of home work” (C177, art. 4.1). Importantly, the
employer’s responsibility for safety and healthy workplaces (see above) is in effect also for
home work, while “taking account of its special characteristics” (C177, art. 7). The
recommendation accompanying the home work convention, proscribes that employers
should be required to “ensure that machinery, tools or other equipment provided to
homeworkers are equipped with appropriate safety devices and take reasonable steps to
ensure that they are properly maintained” (R184, p. 20.b)42.
   Should the particular ILS for home work not be applicable to a particular worker working
from home, the generally applicable labour standard on safety and health at work applies –
under which the employer is responsible for safety and health at work (see above).



6.6 Employment Protection and being Sick from Covid-19.

   In the course of a pandemic many people will become ill and many people will have ill
relatives, making it harder for workers to perform their work as agreed. Employers’ might
thus want to terminate employment relationships because of reasons pertaining to the
workers on an individual basis.
   The convention on termination of employment stipulates that “valid reason” is necessary
in order for termination of the employment of a worker, and that “Temporary absence from
work because of illness or injury” or the “filing of a complaint […] against an employer
involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative
authorities” shall not constitute valid reasons for termination (C158, art. 4–6)43.
   Staying home from work while being sick with the coronavirus, or putting forward a
complaint, for example that the employer does not comply with health and safety regulations,
shall not lead to termination of employment.


41 C177 – Home Work Convention, 1996.
42 R184 – Home Work Recommendation, 1996.
43 C158 – Termination of Employment Convention, 1982. Cf R166 – Termination of Employment

Recommendation, 1982, p. 6(2).




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                         174
Niklas Selberg                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                 Section: Miscellaneous


   A worker has the right to leave of absence from work in order to care for a dependent
child who have taken ill, e.g. from the novel coronavirus (R165, p. 23)44.



6.7 Working Time, Partial Loss of Work and Temporary Suspension of Work.

    Changing patterns of consumption in the course of the pandemic and lockdowns, for
example, might lead to a decrease in employers’ demand for labour, prompting the employer
to initially look for solutions to this problem, short of termination.
    The starting point is that termination for “reasons of an economic, technological,
structural or similar nature” (C158, art. 13) should be averted and minimised (R166, p. 21)45.
Furthermore, in case “a temporary reduction of normal hours of work would be likely to
avert or minimise” terminations, “consideration should be given to partial compensation for
loss of wages for the normal hours not worked, financed by methods appropriate under
national law and practice” (R166, p. 22).
    As part of a policy “to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment” (C168,
art. 7) states are to cover both the contingency of “loss of earnings due to partial
unemployment” in the wake of “a temporary reduction in the normal or statutory hours of
work” and “suspension of reduction of earnings due to a temporary suspension of work,
without any break in the employment relationship for reasons of, in particular, an economic,
technological, structural or similar nature” (C168, art. 10, cf art. 14, art. 15)46.



6.8 Protection of Wages and Levels of Wages.

    Financial troubles on part of the employer are of course very common during the
Covid-19 crisis. According to ILS, the employer cannot, in the absence of national law,
unilaterally transfer these troubles to the employees in the form of reductions of salaries.
    Deduction from wages shall, according to the wage protection convention, be permitted
only under conditions, and to the extent, prescribed by national law (C95, art. 8.1)47.
    Furthermore, the minimum wage fixing convention demands that states establish a system
of minimum wages with “the force of law” that “shall not be subject to abatement” (C131,
art. 1, art. 2)48.




44 R165 – Workers with Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981.
45 R166 – Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982.
46 C168 – Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988. Cf C102 –

Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952, part IV.
47 C95 – Protection of Wages Convention, 1949.
48 C131 – Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                         175
Niklas Selberg                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                 Section: Miscellaneous


6.9 Redundancy because of Decrease in Demand for Labour; Structural Changes to
the Labour Market after Covid-19.

    Societies plagued by widespread illness due to a pandemic, including counter measures
consisting of a quarantine, naturally implies decreased demands for many kinds of goods and
services on part of workers/citizens, and a decreased demand for labour on part of
enterprises. Employers might be pressured to ending employment relationships for reasons
not immediately pertaining to the individual workers. ILS do not prevent the employer from
terminating contracts of employment in cases of redundancy.
    However, “When the employer contemplates terminations for reasons of an economic,
technological, structural or similar nature” he or she shall in good time provide the workers’
representatives with relevant information on reasons for termination, numbers and
categories of workers affected and consult “on measures to be taken to avert or minimise
the terminations and measures to mitigate the adverse effects of any terminations” (C158,
art. 13)49. The employer must also notify the competent national authority of the scope of
the terminations (C158, art. 14).
    States are furthermore to establish “special programmes to promote additional job
opportunities and employment assistance and to encourage freely chosen and productive
employment” for a number of categories of workers, e.g. “workers affected by structural
change” (C168, art. 8) 50 . States should introduce into their general employment policy
measures which “facilitate adjustment to structural change at the global, sectoral and
enterprise levels and the re-employment of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of
structural and technological changes” (R169, p. 10[a])51.
    ILS assume that workers should be protected from “financial or other hardships” in the
wake of unemployment because of structural change to the labour market, e.g. in the form of
“long-term and substantial change taking the form of shifts in demand” (R122, p. 13 cf p. 8,
p. 10)52. One suggestion concerning method of application of employment policy in this
regard is “public works or other public investment including the expansion or the setting up
of public undertakings” (R122, Annex, p. 7.2.b).
    It follows, then, that while employers are allowed to terminate employment contracts in
situations of redundancy, states should be prepared to handle restructuring of the labour
market, e.g. sectors and professions disappearing and new ones coming into existence, in the
wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and government countermeasures in the forms of
lockdowns.




49 Also in R166 – Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982, p. 19-20.
50 C168 – Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988.
51 R169 – Employment Policy (Supplementary Provisions) Recommendation, 1984.
52 R122 – Employment Policy Recommendation, 1964.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                         176
Niklas Selberg                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                              Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous


6.10 Insolvency on part of the Employer.

    The financial hardship for the company might worsen and develop into insolvency. In
case the employer becomes insolvent and proceedings, in accordance with national laws, are
opened relating to the “employer’s assets with a view to the collective reimbursement of its
creditors” (C173, art. 1.1) a specific set of protective rules become applicable53. Workers’
claims in the event of insolvency on part of the employer are to be protected by either a
privileged status “so that they are paid out of the assets of the insolvent employer before
non-privileged creditors can be paid their share” (art. 5) or through a guarantee institution
(C173, art. 9). If workers are made into privileged creditors, no less than three months’ pay,
holiday pay and severance pay shall be covered (C173, art. 6). The guarantee institution shall
cover no less than two months’ pay, holiday pay and severance pay (C173, art. 12).


7. International Labour Standards and Immediate Crisis Response.

    To a certain small degree, ILS contain particular rules for emergencies. The aim of this
type of regulation is, in some instances, to explicitly state that a set of standards applies, and
in some instances to explicitly state that a set of standards does not apply.
    In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, workers engaged in rescue and rehabilitation
activities have the right to “safe and decent working conditions, including the provision of
personal protective equipment and medical assistance” (R205, p. 9.d).
    Furthermore, the standards laid down in R205 on fundamental principles and rights at
work, and the right to safe and healthy working conditions are, following explicit reference,
applicable “to workers engaged in crisis response, including in the immediate response”, as
well as to persons volunteering in crisis response (R205, p. 5 cf p. 4).
    National emergencies, calamities, force majeure and abnormal pressure at work allow for
a temporary exception to the normal hours of work (R116, p. 14)54.
    Even though forced or compulsory labour – i.e. “all work or service which is exacted from
any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered
himself voluntarily” – is punishable as a penal offence, an important exception prevails (C29,
art. 2)55. Outside the definition56 of forced or compulsory labour is “any work or service
exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened
calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases,
invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would


53 C173 – Protection of Workers’ Claims (Employer’s Insolvency) Convention, 1992. A 1949 convention
proscribes that workers shall be treated as privileged creditors in case of bankruptcy on part of the employer.
C95 – Protection of Wages Convention, 1949, art. 11.
54 R116 – Reduction of Hours of Work Recommendation, 1962.
55 C29 – Forced Labour Convention, 1930.
56 Cf, for Europe, Stoyanova V., Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered. Conceptual Limits and States’ Positive

Obligations in European Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                      177
Niklas Selberg                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous


endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population” (C29,
art. 2.2.d). While this rule undeniably is on the books of ILS, the scope for invoking the rule
particularly applicable to emergencies, and exact work from someone without his or her
consent is minuscule57.


8. International Labour Standards for Nursing Personnel during a Pandemic.

    In times of a pandemic such as the Covid-19 nurses of course become a crucial category
of workers. The ILO assumes a sectoral approach to the regulation of nursing personnel in
the 1977 convention no. 149 and recommendation no. 157 on the matter58. Presently 41
states have ratified this convention59.
    The 1977 convention assumes that “special conditions in which nursing is carried out
make it desirable to supplement” the generally applicable body of labour standards “by
standards specific to nursing personnel, designed to enable them to enjoy a status
corresponding to their role in the field of health and acceptable to them” (C149, preamble).
    Member states “shall adopt and apply […] a policy concerning nursing services and
nursing personnel designed […] to provide the quantity and quality of nursing care necessary
for attaining the highest possible level of health for the population” (C149, art. 2.1). In this
way the convention caters to the needs of the general population, besides also regulating the
working conditions for nurses.
    In relation to a number of working conditions, e.g. working hours and different forms of
leave, nursing personnel “shall enjoy conditions at least equivalent to those of other workers
in the country concerned” (C149, art. 6).
    While equal status between nursing staff and other sectors of the labour market certainly
is the starting point, the recommendation accompanying the convention, explicitly allows for
exceptions. For example; while normal daily hours of work should not exceed eight hours
(R157, p. 33.1), temporary exceptions are allowed; “only in case of special emergency” (R157,
p. 33.3).
    A specific provision in the recommendation suggests a more favourable position for
nursing staff than other categories of workers: nursing personnel “who work in particularly
arduous and unpleasant conditions should benefit from a reduction of working hours and/or
an increase in rest periods, without any decrease in total remuneration” (R157, p. 40).
    While nursing personnel “should have sufficient notice of working schedules to enable
them to organise their personal and family life accordingly”, exceptions to these schedules
should be “authorised only in case of special emergency” (R157, p. 35).



57 This, in effect, exception to the main rule of prohibition was regrettably not updated during the 2014
standard setting process regarding forced labour; cf P29 – Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 [2014].
58 C149 – Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977, R157 – Nursing Personnel Recommendation, 1977.
59 ILO Website;

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312294 .
Last visited 07-05-20.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                              178
Niklas Selberg                                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous


    The nursing personnel recommendation stipulates that the employment relationship must
be maintained, and income security provided for, while nurses are absent from work by
reason of illness or injury (R157, p. 41.1). Furthermore; the sick leave entitlement system
should distinguish between service-incurred illness and injury, “cases in which the person
concerned is not incapacitated for work but absence from work is necessary to protect the
health of others” and “cases of illness or injury unrelated to work” (R157, p. 41.2).
    Member states shall also “endeavour to improve existing laws and regulations on
occupational health and safety by adapting them to the special nature of nursing work and
of the environment in which it is carried out” (C149, art. 7). Work clothing and “other
supplies required by the employer or necessary for the performance of the work should be
provided by the employer” at no cost for nurses (R157, p. 29).
    General rules on safety and health at the workplace (see above) applies also to nurses.
The nursing personnel recommendation furthermore proscribes that states “should
endeavour to adapt laws and regulations on occupational health and safety to the special
nature of nursing work and of the environment in which it is carried out, and to increase the
protection afforded by them” (R157, p. 44, cf p. 45–48).
    Risks and particularly dangerous situations for nurses are covered by both the general and
the sectoral regulation of safety and health at work, in sum creating a partially contradictory
normative approach. The reason for this is that nurses’ work in a pandemic (and often
otherwise, during normal circumstances) is very often inherently dangerous. On the one
hand; the generally applicable regulation (i.e. the convention) on safety and health at work
provides workers with a right to remove herself, without risking negative consequences on
part of the employer, from a “work situation where there is continuing imminent and serious
danger to life or health” (C155, art. 19.f, art. 13). On the national level the right to leave
dangerous work is understood to be influenced by the nature of work, so that this right is
not entirely present in case the work is inherently dangerous. According to the general survey
of 2009 a worker’s right to remove herself from inherently dangerous work actually is
applicable “if the understood risk of serious harm has materially increased in a given
situation” explained in terms of “the risk of harm has become significantly more likely”60.
On the other hand, the nursing personnel recommendation demands extra protection for
nurses compared to other workers (R157, p. 44); i.e. that “All possible steps should be taken
to ensure that nursing personnel are not exposed to special risks” and that “Where exposure
to special risks is unavoidable, measures should be taken to minimize it” (R157, p. 49.1). The
nursing personnel recommendation demands “Measures such as the provision and use of
protective clothing, immunization, shorter hours, more frequent rest breaks, temporary
removal from the risk or longer annual holidays […] in respect to nursing personnel regularly
assigned to duties involving special risks so as to reduce their exposure to these risks” (R157,
p. 49.2).

60As quoted in ILO Normes, ILO Standards and COVID-19 (coronavirus) FAQ, 29 May 2020 – version 2.1;
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--
normes/documents/genericdocument/wcms_739937.pdf . Last visited 09-06-20. Cf, for Sweden (and in
Swedish), Andersson P., Lagom krav på arbetsmiljön. Om förelägganden och förbud och arbetsmiljöansvarets gränser, jure
förlag, 2019, 68, 182.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                       179
Niklas Selberg                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous


   In sum: The generally applicable main rule (lex generalis and lex superior) of a right of
workers to cease particularly dangerous work, as balanced by the principle that the nature of
work must be taken into account, is also counterbalanced by the sectoral regulation of nurses’
work (lex specialis and lex inferior; non-binding) that demands that extra attention is given to
special risks present particularly in nursing.
   It seems that under the surface level of these standards a conflict plays out between health
care workers’ interest in acceptable working conditions and patients’ need of care, which
must be handled and balanced by national legislators and authorities.
    The actual scope of nurses’ right to cease dangerous work thus seem to some extent
unclear. Nurses must, in light of this uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the standard,
themselves decide whether to refuse a particular task on the grounds of it being overly
dangerous for their health.



9. The Global Social Partners Responding to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

    The social partners on the global level – International Organisation of Employers (IOE)
and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – have issued a joint statement
explicating how they view their position and actions in relations to the labour market in times
of the Covid-19 pandemic 61 . IOE and ITUC’s first priority is to focus on international
cooperation in the multilateral international system, and point to the ILO and the World
Health Organization (WHO) as being “at the heart of the international guidance to manage
this pandemic and identify short, medium and long-term sustainable solutions for
individuals, communities, nations and regions”.
    IOE and ITUC call on the international financial institutions to “support focused,
efficient and impact-proven measures to economies in need to address the health, economic,
employment and social impact of the pandemic for workers in all sectors of the economy
including the self-employed and non-permanent, casual and informal workers, and all of
business, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs)”.
    The global social partners particularly emphasize five areas as important and call for action
in relation to each one. 1) “Business continuity, income security and solidarity” are
understood as key to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus and protect lives and
livelihoods. 2) “in the strongest terms” it is stressed that social dialogue and the social
partners must play an important role in responding to the pandemic; on company and
national level, as well as both in the short and the long term. IOE and ITUC argue that “Joint
responsibility is needed for dialogue to foster stability.” 3) “Policy coordination and
coherence” is essential. Public health policy “must take into consideration the need for
protecting employment and income through strengthening social protection measures”, and


61https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/20200323_joint_ioe-ituc_statement_on_covid-19.pdf . Last visited
09-06-20.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                            180
Niklas Selberg                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous


the ILO must play a key role in this project. 4) “Strong and functioning health systems are
key to combatting a pandemic” and must have all possible resources. 5) Critical elements for
a response to the pandemic can be found in the 2019 ILO Centenary Declaration for the
Future of Work62.
   At the same time as the global social partners IOE and ITUC have jointly formulated the
above position in relation to Covid-19, the two sides of industry are at the same time also
putting out its own specific message reflecting the position and role usually pertaining to the
respective collective interest.
   Trade unionist Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of ITUC highlights the need for a new
social contract and the importance of social dialogue, while continuing:
   “The antidote to this crisis is in the solidarity that is the lifeblood of trade unions,
throughout history and today. All countries must work together to overcome the initial
COVID-19 waves and to prepare for the future. Planning for and investing in a more equal
world where we can build jobs on a living planet is the only pathway. Trade unions will fight
for just that”63.
   ITUC seems to be of the view that the usual trade union policies developed during normal
circumstances are particularly important also in a time of pandemic.
   The employers’ organization IOE has not presented a general policy statement reflecting
their overarching suggestions for either immediate or long-term response to Covid-19.
Instead, IOE are issuing quite concrete advice to companies, reflecting the usual employer
organization policy, e.g. on the understanding of resources and restrictions normally
applicable to employers;
   “Make sure you know the rules and assure you take maximum advantage of them. It has
become clear that governments will resort to any measures to underpin social stability
through a continuation of income for the population and to protect jobs. […] cutting off pay
and benefits to large numbers of the population would undermine isolation policies and
cause social unrest. […] Be careful that payment procedures you establish do not set
precedents that are not sustainable or that will be hard to change. Right now, governments
are less concerned with economics than with lives and essential services. Likewise, if
companies are to restart quickly after the crisis then some kind of relationship needs to be
maintained with employees. It is just as clear that companies who continue to pay large
numbers of people without work and without substantial assistance will go under”64.
   ILO officials seem to understand the current pandemic as a game changer for the world
of work, implying that the idea cannot be to return to the state of affairs before the pandemic.
ILO Director-General Guy Ryder is quoted stating;



62 ILO website;
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_
711674.pdf . Last visited 09-06-20.
63 https://www.ilo.org/actrav/media-center/news/WCMS_743439/lang--en/index.htm . Last visited

13-05-20.
64 https://www.ioe-

emp.org/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=146627&token=dbce8eb97c52827206ab1b83f15da0d501170b7
a . Last visited 13-05-20.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                       181
Niklas Selberg                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous


    “Now is the time to look more closely at this new normal, and start on the task of making
it a better normal, not so much for those who already have much, but for those who so
obviously have too little. This pandemic has laid bare in the cruelest way, the extraordinary
precariousness and injustices of our world of work. It is the decimation of livelihoods in the
informal economy […] It is the gaping holes in the social protection systems of even the
richest countries, which have left millions in situations of deprivation. […] And it is the
unchecked dynamic of growing inequality which means that if, in medical terms, the virus
does not discriminate between its victims in its social and economic impact, it discriminates
brutally against the poorest and the powerless”65.
    While the labour market parties have been able to identify common standpoints as
response to the Covid-19 crisis, the pre-existing positions of the organisations have not been
entirely abandoned. Trade unionists emphasise that during a pandemic the normal trade
union policy is even more important to effectuate. Employers’ organisations demand that
extra-ordinary social protection measures implemented to the labour market during the
pandemic must not be made permanent. ILO argues that the regulation of the labour market
must not return to the state it was in before the crisis; the old normal is not an option for
the future.




10. ILO Responding to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

   The concrete organisational response of the ILO to the Covid-19 pandemic consists of a
number of measures.
   From the beginning of the global spread of the pandemic ILO has been monitoring and
assessing the situation and the impact of Covid-19 on the world of work. ILO has been
collating different kinds of data and information with the purpose of providing a sound basis
for developing relevant policy options66.
   The ILO is issuing a number of policy briefs relating to the Covid-19 crisis; e.g. on
general/framework policy issues 67 , the ‘informal’ economy 68 , protection of migrant




65 https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_743326/lang--en/index.htm . Last
visited 13-05-20.
66 https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-and-responses/WCMS_745963/lang--

en/index.htm . Last visited 09-06-20.
67 https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-and-responses/WCMS_739047/lang--

en/index.htm . Last visited 09-06-20.
68

https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@travail/documents/briefingnote/w
cms_743623.pdf . Last visited 09-06-20.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                        182
Niklas Selberg                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                              Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous


workers69, maritime labour issues70, youth unemployment71 and studies on the application of
ILS72.
   The task team for Jobs for Peace and Resilience within the ILO have developed a set of
key recommendations particularly relevant to responding to the Covid-19 crisis in fragile
contexts73.
   Furthermore, the ILO is developing practical guidance for a safe and healthy return to
work as lockdown measures are being rolled back74.
   As the pandemic develops, ILO will adjust its actions accordingly.




11. Concluding Remarks: ILO and ILS during and after the Covid-19 Pandemic and
the following Economic and Financial Crisis.

    The general thrust of the ILS drafted particularly for crisis prevention and management
(R205) is to adapt labour protection to the acute crisis situation without lowering the levels
of protection. The overarching principle in ILS and ILO policy is that labour protection
should not be suspended in a time of crisis and that labour standards play an important role
in all stages of crisis prevention and management. Generally speaking, ILS do not as such
allow for responding to crises by implementing a more or less permanent state of exception
as regards protection levels or standard setting procedures75.
    The labour market framework applicable in times of crises, e.g. pandemics, comprises of
the body of generally applicable ILS together with the ILS particularly aimed at responding
to crises and particular ILS for nursing personnel and workers engaged in crisis response.
The important role of trade unions and employers’ organisations in crisis management is
particularly emphasised in R205. Thus, states cannot invoke crises as an excuse in and of
itself to shift the placement of risks for social costs away from the state and employer onto
the worker. The idea underlying ILS is quite simply that a crisis following a disaster does not
provide neither states nor employers/firms with an opportunity to stray from the high-
productivity route to competitive success and to start competing on the basis of low pay and


69 https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/publications/WCMS_743268/lang--en/index.htm .
Last visited 09-06-20.
70 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--

normes/documents/briefingnote/wcms_741024.pdf . Last visited 09-06-20.
71 https://www.ilo.org/emppolicy/pubs/WCMS_746031/lang--en/index.htm . Last visited 10-06-20.
72 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---

normes/documents/genericdocument/wcms_739937.pdf . Last visited 09-06-20.
73 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---

ed_emp/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_742182.pdf . Last visited 09-06-20.
74 https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-

library/publications/WCMS_745549/lang--en/index.htm . Last visited 09-06-20.
75 On the theoretical point; cf Rodgers L., Theorising Labour Law in the State of Exception: Political and Judicial

Responses to Crises, in Blackham A., Kullmann M., Zbyszewska A. (eds.) Theorising Labour Law in a Changing
World. Towards Inclusive Labour Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2019, 37–53.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                      183
Niklas Selberg                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous


worsening working condition. In the wake of a crisis, destructive competition is to be avoided
through the use of basic levels of labour protection76. From an ILS perspective the response
to a crisis following a natural disaster or pandemic is quite similar to the response of a crisis
following a financial meltdown: the collective of workers is perceived as being not guilty of
creating the crisis, and must accordingly be protected from bearing the sole responsibility for
the occurring social costs.
    ILO has been instrumental in proving the centrality of human work and production for
societies to function. Accordingly, ILO has shouldered the task of safe-guarding workers
during the pandemic.
    It has been suggested that pandemics – similar to the present one – will become more
frequent in the future. Labour law regulators should therefore intensify their efforts to
develop ways and means for handling the particular social risk that arises from widespread
disease and pandemics. Most importantly in this respect, a pandemic represents in and by
itself a forceful argumentation in favour of social protection that is universal in its coverage.
Writing in 2013 about ‘new social risks’ Bernd Schulte emphasises:
    “Pandemics […] do not respect borders, and therefore all regions of the world will need
to have a similar level of preparedness to ensure that public health effects are minimized,
and that impact on society and the economy is reduced as far as possible. Public health
information from surveillance and monitoring needs to be shared effectively between
countries and regions to ensure an equal level of knowledge, so that pandemics can be
effectively managed. As public health measures taken in one country can have an impact on
citizens from another country, they need to be evidence-based, proportionate, and effective,
as well as ensuring a high level of health protection”77.
    The crisis in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic goes to the very roots of labour
regulation, while speaking to the need for expansion of social protection beyond the scope
of the present labour law. The historical mandate of the ILO is to guarantee that workers are
treated humanely and to secure that labour is not treated merely as a commodity, and this is
effectuated through the introduction and operation of a legal category or persona for certain
human labour – worker/employee etc. – that embeds the working human body in a legal
system for social protection78. A pandemic, however, invokes the human need for protection,
rather than the worker/employee construct. In other words, social protection must be
offered to workers also in their capacity as humans, not just employees. The social risks
workers encounter during a pandemic do not solely or primarily come into existence as
results of social inequalities and weak bargaining power on their part. The risks inherent to
the coronavirus pandemic are biological and grossly exacerbated by social inequalities.
Furthermore, in order to be most relevant, social protection must be distributed along the


76 Cf Deakin S., Wilkinson F., Labour Law and Economic Theory: A reappraisal, in Collins H., Davies P., Rideout
R. (eds.) Legal Regulation of the Employment Relation, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2000, 29–
62.
77 Schulte B., New Social Risks: Introduction, in Becker U., Pennings F., Dijkhoff T. (eds.) International Standard-

Setting and Innovations in Social Security, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2013, 207–214, 211.
78 Cf Supiot A., The Tasks Ahead of the ILO at its Centenary, in International Labour Review, Vol. 159, Iss. 1, 2020,

117–136, Supiot A., The Spirit of Philadelphia. Social Justice vs. The Total Market, Verso, London, 2012.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                                        184
Niklas Selberg                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 13 (2020)
                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous


principle of need, and not along the lines of citizenship/migration status or predominantly
based on contributions paid by the individual.
   ILS and labour protection play important roles here: from protecting humans in their
capacity as workers, while at the same time protecting workers in their capacity of humans.
R205 is an important step in realising this expanded vision for ILS and labour law, as it is
firmly rooted in universality as overarching guiding principle.




                                               Bibliography


Andersson P., Lagom krav på arbetsmiljön. Om förelägganden och förbud och arbetsmiljöansvarets
gränser, jure förlag, 2019.
Deakin S., Wilkinson F., Labour Law and Economic Theory: A reappraisal, in Collins, H., Davies
P., Rideout, R. (eds.) Legal Regulation of the Employment Relation, Kluwer Law International, 2000.
Dijkhoff T., Principles for National Social Protection Floors, in Dijkhoof T., Mpedi L. G. (eds.)
Recommendation on Social Protection Floors. Basic Principles for Innovative Solutions, Wolters Kluwer,
Alphen aan den Rijn, 2018, 13;
Hughes S., Haworth N., The International Labour Organisation. Coming in from the cold, Routledge,
London, 2010;
Maupin F., The Future of the International Labour Organization in the Global Economy, Hart
Publishing, Oxford, 2013;
Rodgers L., Theorising Labour Law in the State of Exception: Political and Judicial Responses to Crises,
in Blackham A., Kullmann M., Zbyszewska A. (eds.) Theorising Labour Law in a Changing World.
Towards Inclusive Labour Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2019;
Rodgers G., et al. (eds.) The ILO and the Quest for Social Justice, 1919-2009, International Labour
Office, 2009;
Schulte B., New Social Risks: Introduction, in Becker, U., Pennings, F. & Dijkhoff, T. (eds.)
International Standard-Setting and Innovations in Social Security, Kluwer Law International, Alphen
aan den Rijn, 2013, 207;
Servais J-M., International Labour Law, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2020
Stoyanova V., Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered. Conceptual Limits and States’ Positive
Obligations in European Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017;
Supiot A., The Tasks Ahead of the ILO at its Centenary, in International Labour Review, Vol. 159,
1, 2020;
Supiot A., The Spirit of Philadelphia. Social Justice vs. The Total Market, Verso, London, 2012;
Valticos N., Fifty Years of Standard-Setting Activities by the International Labour Organisation, in
International Labour Review, Vol. 100, 1969;
Wisskirchen A., The Standard-setting and Monitoring Activity of the ILO: Legal Questions and Practical
Experience, in International Labour Review, Vol. 144, No. 3, 2005.




Copyright © 2020 Niklas Selberg. This article is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/11202                                                             185
