Webmaster – Page 11 – ILO Former Officials

The additional 310 staff cleared for this next stage will bring the total number of staff who have completed the medical and HRD clearance to return to the office to around 830 people, with a maximum of 700 (56% of the total ILO staff at HQ) permitted to be in the building at any one time. This limit has been determined after a thorough assessment of safety and health measures, and in particular the need to ensure 2 metre physical distancing in all places.
Staff who have not been cleared for RTO will continue to telework, and staff on rotational arrangements will rotate between telework and presence at the office.
UNICEF staff who will move to the ILO building will follow the same approach as the ILO.

HQ office arrival time tool

In order to coordinate arrival times and use of the HQ Cafeteria, all staff will be asked to indicate their preferred arrival and break times using a dedicated online arrival time tool.
This tool is being introduced as an additional safety measure to optimise physical distancing arrangements during peak periods. The anonymous tool will help to limit the number of staff who arrive or have lunch at the same time.
To facilitate the staggered arrival to and departure from office premises , core working hours have been suspended. However, all staff are expected to work a normal weekly schedule of 8 hours per day, or 40 hours per week, regardless of their arrival time.

18 August 2020

The Office drops off the radar / Michel Voirin

Category : Message68

It is often through the press that retired staff who live outside Geneva get their news about the Office. So it was that on 20 March 2020, readers of Le Monde newspaper were able to read of an “International Labour Organization study” (the International Labour Office was not mentioned) on the consequences of the coronavirus for employment in the world. But it was when they saw the DG yet again being described as the Director General of the Organization that their eyebrows, like mine, must have shot up. It was certainly not the first time this formulation had cropped up in print, even if it is still quite a recent one. At first I thought the journalist must have made a mistake, but a survey of The Guardian online revealed the practice to be widespread, no doubt merely reflecting press releases emanating from the ILO media centre. Outside observers can also learn, again from the media, that the change doesn’t only apply to the DG: the heads of the Office’s administrative units, when their work is alluded to, will also refer to themselves as belonging to “the Organization”.

The fact that retirees are detached from the Office and its leadership enables them to reflect via the pages of Message on the reasons, rationale and scope of this new usage. Is it about making the Director General’s title conform to those of the executive heads of the other specialized agencies of the UN family? Or seeking to bolster the DG through reference to the Organization? Whether we like it or not, the unfortunate by-product of such a change is the obscuring of the Office. It amounts to downplaying the identity conferred on it by the founders of the Organization. For, over and above the emblematic title of the Director General, it is the very specific nature of the Office that is at issue. The shift ultimately relegates the institution – whose lofty reputation was established under the impetus and at the instigation of Albert Thomas, with his expertise universally recognized as an essential benchmark – to the rank of mere secretariat. Could it be, then, that I spent most of my career in a phantom institution? It is true that the Office is ceding ground, and operations, to the OECD, which is a matter for its members. But for my part, having retired in 1990, I can only bear witness to the period I knew.

Let us be clear: the designation “Director General of the International Labour Organization” is devoid of any foundation, because the corresponding position does not exist. The perpetuation of this new title would even be contrary to the ILO Constitution which, it should be recalled, provides in its Article 2 that the Organization shall consist of a General Conference, a Governing Body and the International Labour Office controlled by the Governing Body, and in Article 8 that the Director General shall be appointed by the Governing Body.

Nothing, of course, would prohibit amending the Constitution. I am not aware that any such procedure, which could take quite some time, has been initiated. I doubt even that the Governing Body might be inclined to place on the Conference agenda a draft amendment that would be tantamount to diminishing its own prerogatives. The reform would in fact imply the Director General no longer being appointed by the Governing Body but rather by the Conference, as in the other specialized agencies. If that were the case, moreover, a candidate from an international workers’ confederation would be less likely to be nominated in future because, as everyone knows, workers’ and employers’ representatives carry less weight in the Conference than in the Governing Body in comparison with those of Governments, given the difference in the distribution of seats between the groups.

Has anyone assessed the ramifications of changing the title of the Director General, followed by those of the branches of the Office? There is reason to doubt it, and to think the process was indeed unencumbered by questions of legality, or rather constitutionality. Since the Office is the only permanent component of the Organization, it’s true that many come to believe it embodies the Organization. But explanation is not justification, and a change in the Director General’s nomenclature cannot be based on confusion. In the absence of an amendment to the Constitution itself, which no one seems to have envisaged, such a change of title can only be praxis, with nothing definitive about it, although habits do take hold. Internally, although some staff members may be aware of the inconsistency of the new designation, they have understandably not ventured to admit that the emperor has no clothes; nor may later generations of active staff and even retirees – who are arguably not all aware of the Office’s own standing and reputation, or the capital that this represents – appreciate that this recent practice is leading to the disappearance of the Office from the international scene by being, as it were, removed from the radar. It cannot be stressed enough, however, that the existence and specificity of the International Labour Office, like tripartism, are so distinctive that they should not be obscured, but championed.

26 July 2020

How the International Labour Office came to Geneva ? / Pierre Sayour

Category : Message68

“How the International Labour Office came to Geneva ?” first appeared in issue 48, Oct. 2019, of Passé Simple, a monthly journal of Swiss history and archaeology, under the title “Le Bureau international du Travail ancre la vocation internationale de Genève” :

http://www.passesimple.ch/anciens_num.php.

We publish it by kind permission of the journal.

In 2019, the International Labour Office (ILO) celebrated its 100th anniversary. The organization has been a feature of the Geneva landscape since 1920. After the First World War, the population of the canton was no more than 200,000. Why is the ILO based in Geneva and not in a major capital city like Paris, London or Brussels? The decision was a highly significant one because it forced the League of Nations, precursor of the United Nations, to take up residence in Geneva too.

The Treaty of Versailles – 1919

In 1919, following the First World War, the Allies and the defeated powers came together at the Paris Conference to draw up peace treaties. The discussions led to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919. At this conference, the Commission on International Labour Legislation drafted Part XIII of the Treaty, establishing the International Labour Organization. The commission comprised delegates from several countries. Particularly active and influential were those from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of them accompanied by representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Treaty of Versailles brought the Organization into being, with the International Labour Office as its secretariat and the International Labour Conference as its supreme body. The Treaty specifies that “the International Labour Office shall be established at the seat of the League of Nations as part of the organisation of the League” and that it “shall be under the control of a Governing Body”. The document also stipulates that the Organization will be tripartite, with representatives of governments and trade union and employers’ organizations included in its governance structures, and that “the first meeting of the Conference shall take place in October, 1919”.

Since the end of the nineteenth century, many institutions and individuals had focused on working conditions (working hours, factory safety, conditions of miners, seafarers, women, children, etc.). After the Great War, with its 18.5 million victims, and the Russian Revolution of 1917, discussions among the victorious powers could no longer ignore social issues. They knew there can be no lasting peace without social justice.

Albert Thomas

The first International Labour Conference was held in Washington in November 1919. In January 1920, the Governing Body elected Albert Thomas to be its Director. Thomas was French, a Socialist MP and former Minister of Munitions during the Great War. With his forceful personality, he breathed life into the new organization. The small team that moved into a private residence in London already included two future directors of the Office, Harold Butler (1883–1951) and Edward Phelan (1888–1967). They also played a leading role during this First Session of the Conference and had both been members of the United Kingdom delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. During this period, ILO officials had to move around in order to service meetings, whether in Washington, Paris or London.

Albert Thomas wished to put an end to this constant travelling by the Office. In the spring of 1920, according to his future chief of staff Marius Viple (1891–1949), “he had decided to make a stand to get it finally established in Geneva, cost what it might”. Albert Thomas gave his own analysis of the situation:

“It will not be easy, for the Secretary-General of the League of Nations and his political collaborators are against Geneva. So is the League Executive Council; and the Allied Supreme Council is in charge of the entire movement. I have the Peace Treaty on my side, because it is stated there (article 7) that the headquarters of the League of Nations shall be at Geneva, but it also provides that the League Council may at any time decide to set it up elsewhere. President Wilson is no longer there to defend the city of his choice. And it is now clear that the United States will not take part in the League, although they did so much to further its establishment. It is now the definite desire of the Governments that Brussels should be the headquarters instead of Geneva, because Brussels is nearer to London and Paris, and the British and French Cabinets have every intention to seize this opportunity to take charge of the international organizations now coming into being. This is what I am determined to avoid at all costs. The time has come for me to denounce all these intrigues publicly.”

The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that the ILO should be based in the same place as the League of Nations. Albert Thomas proposed to the League that the ILO’s headquarters be moved from London to Geneva, but Sir Eric Drummond, the League’s first Secretary General, opposed this option. Albert Thomas then forcefully defended his choice before the Governing Body: “It may well be asked whether this change of headquarters is likely to antagonize a number of powers which had interpreted the choice of Geneva as evidence of complete impartiality. We quite firmly state that we cannot sacrifice the future of the ILO or indeed its life to the hesitations and schemes of the League Secretariat and the Executive Council.”

In March 1920 at its Third Session, in London, the Governing Body approved a budget of £41,500 for the transfer of the Office to Geneva, and on 16 May 1920, the Swiss Confederation voted in favour of accession to the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the League and its Secretary General still preferred a different city for its headquarters, namely Brussels. The Peace Treaty stipulated that the first assembly of the League was to be convened by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. On 16 July 1920, he sent Drummond a telegram: “At the request of the Council of the League of Nations that I summon a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, I have the honor, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to summon the Assembly of the League to convene in the city of Geneva, the seat of the League, on the 15th day of November, 1920, at 11 o’clock.” Thus Geneva’s leading role as a city destined to host numerous international organizations and agencies asserted itself. Albert Thomas gave impetus to the process and in this way, the ILO also affirmed its independence in its relations with the League of Nations.

It is also true that both the creation in 1863 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva and its substantial development during the First World War paved the way.

So it was that in July 1920, the Office moved to the La Châtelaine building in Geneva, today occupied by the ICRC and at that time home to the Thudicum boarding school, named after the family that founded it. When this building became too small, a new one was constructed in 1926 on the shores of Lake Geneva. During the Second World War, under the direction of John Winant, part of the staff had to leave Geneva in May 1940 for security reasons, moving to premises at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Under the terms of the Constitution, the Office could not legally leave Geneva and had to remain in the same city as the League of Nations. During the war it therefore adopted the name of ILO Working Centre while maintaining its relations with numerous countries. Edward Phelan became the fourth Director General of the Office in 1941.

By the 1960s, the Office comprised more than 2,000 staff, meaning the building on Rue de Lausanne was now quite cramped. The only option was to rent new premises, in Grand-Saconnex. In 1969, the Office began construction of the building it has occupied since 1973. Thirteen storeys high and 200 metres in length, it is in the shape of a diverging, concave lens. Designed by E. Beaudoin (France), P.L. Nervi (Italy) and A. Camenzind (Switzerland), the architecture remains highly original even today, its modernity reaffirmed by the recent renovations, while the location affords staff members a magnificent view of Geneva and its surroundings.

Sources

“The strange and wonderful early years of the ILO” by Marius Viple, in Message, No. 65, 2019.

“Le Bureau international du Travail à Genève a cinquante ans”, by Henri Villy, in Union, 1970.

“How the ILO led the League to Geneva” by Yvan Elsmark, in Lettre aux anciens fonctionnaires (ILO Staff Union Former Officials Section), No. 26 (Dec. 1999).

Minutes of the Third Session of the ILO Governing Body (March 1920).

13 July 2020

Covid-19 – Update from the Staff Union – 8 July 2020

Category : Archives

At headquarters, this week of July sees the start of phase 3 of the return to office and the building is finally coming back to life. After some discordance last week, the modalities of this phase 3 have been the subject of certain clarifications by the administration, at the request of the Staff Union. According to the latter, the key words for a successful phased return are: clarity, transparency and fairness. If, at your level, these three criteria are not being met, then take action: ask questions, ask to see the updated lists of who is supposed to return, and according to which criteria, as it seems that a communication deficit persists. And, most importantly, if you discover on the day you return to the ILO that the person with whom you are sharing an office is also present (which should not be the case as 2 or more people sharing an office is subject to a mandatory weekly rotation), then exercise your right of withdrawal.

An uncertain future for the Turin centre that requires our solidarity

You may not know it yet: the training centre in Turin is in turmoil. Its income is based mainly on training and a contribution from the Italian Government. Today the income is drying up and the Centre is looking for solutions to survive.

The Centre has therefore had to start reinventing itself by offering new products and services adapted to the situation and by looking for alternative sources of funding. A better employability of the Centre could be envisaged by the ILO itself, and we know that the administration is working on it. Nevertheless, a new business model must be accompanied by strong and reliable social dialogue to cope with the difficult situation. The staff must be involved in this new strategy.

This is why the ILO Staff Union joins the Staff Union of the Turin Centre under the banner “One ILO” to accompany and support them in all future dealings with their administration, and calls on our ILO administration to do its utmost to save the Centre and all its staff, who have gone through many hardships during this period.

UNDT decision

The decision of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) concerning the complaint of our UN colleagues on the Geneva post adjustment was made public on 30 June 2020. The complaint was dismissed (see the judgment here).

This is bad news as it now firmly puts the future of the UN common system at risk and has repercussions on the entire UN salary system worldwide. The Noblemaire and Flemming principles are in serious danger. Your Union must analyse this judgement in detail, and rapidly contact all the associations and unions and staff federations of the common system to discuss and decide on the next strategy. But it is clear that the future will not be bright, and strong struggles are to be expected.

The Staff Union also expects the administration to provide information and/or communicate its position on this matter as soon as possible.

15 June 2020

Communication from the Bureau of the ILO former officials of June 15, 2020

Category : Archives

Dear fellow members of the Section of Former ILO Officials,

Several months of the coronavirus pandemic have greatly changed the lifestyle of the majority of us. If the virus is in decline in many countries it is unfortunately not yet the case everywhere and the risk of a resurgence of the disease exists despite the efforts that we are all making in respecting the instructions of our governments.

As you may be aware, ILO officials in all offices around the world are mainly teleworking from home and access to ILO offices is very limited; this is certainly the case in Geneva. The Director General’s Notice IGDS No. 567 of 28 May 2020 provides for a “gradual, progressive and staggered” return to the offices.

Executive members of the Bureau of the Section of Former Officials have not been able to physically access their ILO office since mid-March. However, we can still access emails in our email box (anciens@ilo.org), access the ILO intranet and continue to update our website, which is hosted by a company outside the ILO.

You can therefore continue to contact us by email and post as necessary, the latter being transmitted to us via a colleague of the Section. You can also visit our website (http://www.anciens-bit-ilo.org) where we post information that you may find useful.

During this period, we received several admissions to the Section and have also noted that the deaths reported to us by the administration are fortunately no higher than those of the same period last year. Please continue to stay healthy!

The Bureau of Former ILO Officials expects to resume its normal activities eventually, and in the meantime remains at your service, in case of need, during this period of restriction.

The Bureau members send you their greetings and very best wishes.

9 June 2020

Covid-19 – Back to the Office – Phase 1

Category : Archives

22 March 2020

Coronavirus crisis : Message from the Executive Secretary

Category : Archives

Dear retired colleagues.

Above all, I wish you good health in this difficult time that we are all going through.

As you may know, ILO staff in Geneva are now teleworking from home. Although access to the ILO building in Geneva is no longer possible for us retirees, members of the Bureau of the Section of Former ILO Officials continue to communicate via the Internet and telephone networks.

I would advise you to regularly consult the SHIF and the Pension Fund websites, which provide regular updated information. You can enter both sites via ours (www.anciens-bit-ilo.org). The SHIF notes (attached) indicate in particular that retirees can continue to send their reimbursement requests by post.

The Union’s Centennial meeting on May 14 in the afternoon will probably be postponed to the fourth quarter of this year, and the reception offered by the Director General scheduled for the same evening has been cancelled.

If necessary you can email us at anciens@ilo.org as we regularly check the messages received.

Dear colleagues, it is important at this difficult time that we all stand together in solidarity and observe the recommendations of our Public Authorities.

Yours sincerely,

François Kientzler
Executive Secretary
Section of Former ILO Officials

SHIF documents :

21 January 2020

Death of Mr. Venkataraman Narasimhan / Message from the SG

Category : Archives

Dear Kamala and dear family and friends of Nari,

I would like to say a few words to you as Executive Secretary of the Section of Former Officials of the International Labour Office.

First of all, on behalf of ILO retirees, but also on behalf of the ILO Staff Union Committee, our condolences to Nari’s wife and family.

Dear Nari, you left us very quickly although we had seen your health decline. But despite your fatigue you remained resolutely faithful to your commitments to the end.

Indeed, your engagement with the Section of Former ILO Officials lasted 23 years; you reminded me of this again when I last visited you on Friday December 13th at the hospital.

Nari began his career at the ILO in 1969 in the Purchasing and Supply Department; he remained in this unit until his retirement in 1996.

You have certainly loyal activist in your commitments; you have been treasurer of our Section during all these years. Previously you were also the treasurer of the Union Committee for many years, having been a member of the union since 1969. You regularly renewed your candidacy for the Bureau of the Section of Former ILO Officials and you were re-elected just a few days ago for the period 2020-2021.

ILO retirees will very much regret your absence because you have embodied the continuity and loyalty of militant commitment and we must all follow your example. I also know that your commitments have been many.

I would especially like to thank Nari’s wife who accompanied him during all these years. She came with him regularly when he was travelling for meetings and I often had the opportunity to share lunch with them.

Dear friends, we have just lost a good colleague and friend. But his memory will remain strongly imprinted in our hearts.

I will finish with the words that a colleague here present sent to me when I announced the death of Nari. The most precious thing you can give to your family, friends and colleagues is “your time”. Nari gave his time freely to his colleagues and to the associations to which he belonged.

Thank you Nari for everything you have done for us.

François Kientzler
Secretary-General of the ILO Former Officials Section

27 November 2019

The strange and wonderful early years of the ILO / Marius Viple

Category : Centenary - Testimonials

It was in the month of June 1920 that the International Labour Organization took the decision to set up its headquarters at Geneva. I would like to tell you briefly in what circumstances and how this first great battle of the headquarters was waged and won which led to the establishment, once and for all, of the independence and autonomy which the ILO has always claimed for itself and which from then onwards was never again seriously questioned by anyone.

Despite his urgent request,¹ l had not yet joined Albert Thomas in London in April or May 1920.² He was spending a few days in Paris and had just returned from a lively session at the Chamber of Deputies – for besides being Director of the ILO he was a socialist Deputy, the respected leader of a great party, and he took his task very seriously. During dinner that night, he informed me that he had had enough of seeing the ILO move from Paris to Washington, from Washington to Paris, then from Paris to London and soon to Genoa, that he had decided to make a stand to get it finally established in Geneva, cost what it might.

“It will not be easy,” he told me, “for the Secretary-General of the League of Nations and his political collaborators are against Geneva. So is the League Executive Council; and the Allied Supreme Council is in charge of the entire movement. I have the Peace Treaty on my side, because it is stated there (article 7) that the headquarters of the League of Nations shall be at Geneva, but it also provides that the League Council may at any time decide to set it up elsewhere. President Wilson is no longer there to defend the city of his choice. And it is now clear that the United States will not take part in the League, although they did so much to further its establishment. It is now the definite desire of the Governments that Brussels should be the headquarters instead of Geneva, because Brussels is nearer to London and Paris, and the British and French Cabinets have every intention to seize this opportunity to take charge of the international organizations now coming into being. This is what I am determined to avoid at all costs. The time has come for me to denounce all these intrigues publicly, but I would ask you first of all to go to Geneva tomorrow and to let me know on your return whether the Thudichum Schoo³ which, I am told, might be rented to us, could be utilized as the headquarters of the ILO.”⁴

This is how I came to Geneva for the first time; and 48 hours later I reported to my friend that, in my opinion, the Thudichum School would provide suitable accommodation for the ILO.⁵

Then, without delay and without respite, an unforgettable diplomatic battle was waged. With incredible daring, which struck the international circles speechless, Albert Thomas unhesitatingly opposed the two countries that were undoubtedly nearest to his heart – England and France – and then openly resisted the new plans of the League Council and the Entente Governments. In an official document addressed to the Governing Body, but distributed to the Press, he wrote:

“It may well be asked whether this change of headquarters is likely to antagonize a number of powers which had interpreted the choice of Geneva as evidence of complete impartiality. We quite firmly state that we cannot sacrifice the future of the ILO or indeed its life to the hesitations and schemes of the League Secretariat and the Executive Council.”⁶

Timidly, with great misgivings, the majority of the Governing Body followed its Director.⁷ Geneva was chosen and on 11 June the Secretariat of the League was informed of this decision. A few days later, a number of officials who had remained in London took up their working quarters at the Ecole Thudichum.⁸

Early in July, further members of the improvised team, headed by the Director, who had just attended the International Maritime Labour Conference at Genoa (15 June to 10 July), reached Cornavin train station and were received by the famous ushers clad in yellow and red and greeted by the city and Cantonal authorities, who expressed their profound gratitude to Albert Thomas.⁹

The League Secretariat and its Council reacted strongly and their ill humour persisted. Treaties of cooperation already concluded between the two growing international organizations were denounced. In the autumn of the same year, however, the first League Assembly, which it had been planned to hold at Brussels, was finally convened at Geneva;¹⁰ and this is where the League Secretariat took up its residence, provisionally at first, then definitively. By its bold policy, conceived and carried out by one politician who possessed political means and relations second to none, the ILO had dragged them all with it. In addition, he had shown that the International Labour Organization would not hesitate to keep its own counsel.¹¹ Its avowed independence and its much-needed autonomy date from the first battle that was waged and won. They were of great assistance to the Organization in every phase of international life, especially in the course of the tragic days of the summer of 1940, when on its own authority it decided to leave Europe for America. This vital decision enabled it to survive the War.¹²

First ILO Headquarters in Geneva, 1920-1926

The rest you know. The Thudichum Institute soon became insufficient. Its small students’ rooms, formerly occupied by a few students from the Balkans, were overflowing with life and overcrowded with collaborators recruited without competition all appointed by direct choice, and who turned out to be excellent officials, working night and day with passion for an ideal that meant a great deal to them. Wooden huts were gradually added to the main building.

This cramped temporary installation, the Bohemian quarters, as Albert Thomas called them, did nothing to convey the impression to all and sundry that the international organizations meant business and had come to stay. Plans were drawn up, discreet propaganda was made among friendly governments, credits were voted, and the present ILO Palace built.¹³

Only those who lived through that atmosphere of creation can remember what it was like. Press campaigns were started, some Parliaments approached, but the initiative of the Director of the ILO was considered too bold and it was denounced. Then the storm broke. In the midst of the building operations, the Governing Body, by a majority vote, decided to suppress one of the floors planned to meet all the needs of the Organization. This measure was technically unjustifiable, but it was a deliberate political gesture, as was proved later, when to replace the floor in question two wings had to be added, the building having become too small; but in this way, it lost the architectural character intended for it.

The storm did not abate. A majority decision was taken in the Governing Body whereby none of the posts previously provided to keep pace with the normal development of the establishment was to be filled. All the credits applied for were rejected.¹⁴ The following year our budget, which amounted to some 6 million francs, was suddenly cut down by 1 million, which led to the dismissal of a large number of able and devoted officials.

In addition to these drastic financial measures, intended to call a halt to any new initiative on the part of the Director, there was a resounding political attack by the French Government, which denied the power of the ILO in the matter of agricultural labour. The matter was brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice at The Hague.¹⁵ Without authorization of the Governing Body, Albert Thomas, although a Frenchman, a former Minister, and a former member of the War

Through these storms, the authority of the ILO was finally established outside. But it must be admitted that most of the Governments had envisaged it merely as a modest documentation directorate, and as a service for the implementation of the articles of the Peace Treaty, which could very well find its place among the other directorates of the League Secretariat-General; while the workers had always dreamed of making it into the powerful and efficacious universal organization which it gradually became. At that time, to obtain an annual budget increase of 50,000 francs was regarded by us as a major victory. Yet it was during these years of struggle that the Organization’s most constructive work was done. Almost every year, every Government of Europe was visited, then South America, North America, and the Far East.¹⁶ In most cases, as a result of such visits, Ministries of Labour were set up where they did not yet exist. And the experts who accompanied us prepared the first draft social insurance legislation for a large number of countries, Albert Thomas having stimulated the interest of the Governments in social legislation. Many Conventions, of the utmost importance, were adopted at our Conferences and then ratified by the Parliaments.¹⁷

In addition to political conflicts, there arose in the organization of the Office’s services difficulties of language, of comprehension, of methods of work, and daily misunderstandings. All the problems that beset a new international administration arose at the same time. But gradually this new international personnel, recruited in more than 35 countries, learned to think and to work in common to improvise its own rules, methods and traditions.

The fears of the Governments abated, the workers’ confidence increased, until it became strong and unshakeable. And while the League was still feeling its way, our experience stood out as the most single success.

No bitterness remained as a result of this harsh period of constructive fighting. It may just be recalled from this somewhat melancholy phrase of our first Director, which figures in one of his Geneva speeches:

“Those who build must know that they will be hurt. They must be able to resist attack. Like the citizens of Jerusalem, they must work on the ramparts with their sword girded to their loins.”

To build with one hand, to fight and defend oneself with the other, this was the keynote of the strange but wonderful early years of our ILO.

¹It seems more likely that the “urgent request” was on the part of Viple himself. In a document dated 21 February 1920 (file CAT 4/33/2), Thomas wrote that he had “promised Viple to see how he could be used by the ILO, subject to the financial possibilities given him by the Governing Body”. Viple was appointed on 14 May, retroactively from 8 May 1920. His appointment as press officer was probably linked with the decision to move the headquarters from London to Geneva, thus being unable to continue using the joined service with the League of Nations. William Martin had been brought in by the League to organize a press service, which the ILO shared in London.^.

²There are two possible dates for the meeting, either when Albert Thomas was in Paris from about 6 to 18 April or during his brief stay during the first days of May, when he was on his way to Germany.

³The Thudichum School (owned by the family of that name) was the building also known as La Châtelaine. It is now the headquarters of the ICRC.

⁴Viple has somewhat exaggerated his own role in the installation of the ILO in Geneva. Already in February 1920 the Deputy Director, Harold Butler, had visited Geneva and made detailed recommendations (file G. 6/8). Dr. Parodi of the League of Nations was charged to negotiate the rental of the Thudichum building on behalf of the ILO and an option was formally submitted on 6 March, subsequently accepted on l7 March 1920 (file G.6). A minute dated 17 March probably prepared for the discussion at the March Session of the Governing Body states: “Mr. Butler and I (Albert Thomas) visited the town (Geneva) and considered that Mr. Thudichum’s school was admirably suited to the needs of the Office”(file 9.6). On 22 March, the Governing Body authorized Albert Thomas “to be empowered to complete arrangements for the establishment of the ILO in Geneva”(minutes of the GB, 3^rd Session, 1920, p. 8). As a result, Butler could on 29 March telegraph: “Bail signed by Director”(file G.6).

⁵As there are no records on file regarding Viple’s visit and its objectives, one can only speculate why Albert Thomas thought it important to send him to Geneva, considering that the decision on renting the Thudichum building had already been taken. A 48-hour return trip Paris-Geneva would have left little time for Viple to carry out any detailed inspection or negotiations. Has Viple dramatized the event? It is possible that he went to Geneva from 8 to 13 May, which would explain why his appointment was retroactive.

⁶ 4^th Session of the Governing body, June 1920.

⁷ The decision was taken by the Governing Body on 8 June 1920.

⁸The London staff was first to arrive, and the Office in Geneva was opened on 7 July 1920 (file G. 6/7). The staff from the 2^nd International (Maritime) Labour Conference in Genoa (15 June to l0 July 1920) arrived by a special train on 14 July 1920. Viple is mistaken with regard to the dates.

⁹ Albert Thomas arrived in Geneva on 14 July 1920.

¹⁰ The First Assembly of the League of Nations opened in Geneva on l5 November 1920 (see also footnote 1 above).

¹¹2e Edward Phelan wrote in his book, Yes and Albert Thomas (second printing, New York,1949), p.242: “Albert Thomas saw this clearly. He realized that the International Labour Organization must develop as it were a personality of its own.”

¹²As Wilfred Jenks later wrote (The ILO in wartime, Ottawa, 1969): “The ILO could survive collapse of the League because, paradoxically, its autonomy from the League gave it a vitality which remained unimpaired by the paralyses of the League.”

¹³The foundation stone was laid on 21 October 1923 and the building occupied on 6 June 1926.

¹⁴This relates to the 1923 budget.

¹⁵ 1922. Phelan in his book (op. cit., pp. 137-la2) gives a vivid description of this important event.

¹⁶ As Phelan wrote (op. cit., p. 178), “The full story of Albert Thomas’ missions would make a book in itself. Each presented its own problems and few were without some incident worth recording.”

¹⁷ By 1930, there were 30 Conventions and 39 Recommendations; 408 Conventions had been ratified by the member States.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Author Archives: Webmaster

News