|
79. While aware that, where the prohibition of dismissal (Article 8 para. 2) was concerned, the nature of the work could pose certain problems (particularly for domestic employees), the Committee nevertheless "considered that they were not sufficient to justify today discrimination directed against women workers in this category" .
3. Foreign working women in the light of the Appendix to the Charter 80. The Appendix to the Charter defines the protected persons as including foreigners "insofar as they are nationals of other Contracting Parties lawfully resident or working regularly within the territory of the Contracting Party concerned". Thus the protection of working women in the event of maternity must cover foreigners, as defined in the Appendix to the Charter, as it does the nationals of the state concerned. Whenever it seems that only the nationals of a state enjoy the protection required by the Charter, or that certain categories of foreign women do not have the same protection, the Committee puts questions with a view to finding out how foreign women who are nationals of Contracting Parties are protected, recalling the terms of the Appendix to the Charter. b. Requirement for legislation 81. It was at a very early stage that the Committee laid down this requirement in relation to Article 8 para. 1, in a general observation: "The Committee noted that by custom in certain countries women workers in practice enjoyed maternity leave. It nevertheless held that a right of such capital importance ought to be guaranteed by law. It was hence unable to accept the assertion that legislation is unnecessary when the customary rights in question are solidly based". 82. The Committee confirmed this when the first procedure relating to certain provisions which have not been accepted was carried out: in one state, maternity leave and the prohibition of the dismissal of working women during such leave were regulated by means of collective agreements. It noted that, in respect of maternity leave, there was a "need to remedy certain deficiencies in the current system by legislative means", and where the prohibition of dismissal was concerned, the Committee stated that "The points made by the Committee in connection with Article 8 para. 1 regarding the need to remedy deficiencies in the collective agreements by legislative means are, of course, equally valid here". The Committee also drew attention to the need for legislation in the following words: "Although in practice the question of a possible dismissal of a female civil servant in conditions which would contradict the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 8, seems irrelevant, the Committee had nevertheless to note that from a strictly legal viewpoint, no law or regulation seems to provide protection in that respect". 83. The Committee has also affirmed the need for explicit legislation, as some states argue that, under their Constitutions, lawfully ratified international treaties are part of their domestic law: "The Committee noted that there was no provision prohibiting the dismissal of women seafarers which was contrary to Article 8 para. 2 of the Charter, though the report contended that they had the protection of ILO Convention No. 103 (ratified in 1962), Article 28 para. 1 of the Constitution providing that lawfully ratified international treaties were incorporated into domestic law and prevailed over any legal provision contrary to them. The Committee noted, however, that after the ratification of ILO Convention No. 103, the [ .. ] authorities had adopted, in application of this Convention, new provisions which appear in Act 1483184, which provisions were extended by Presidential Decree in 1988 to include the public sector. As it had done in similar cases, the Committee asked that explicit provisions be introduced which secured to women seafarers the protection required by Article 8 para. 2".
|