LABOUR AT GENEVA

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 58, 12 March 1929, Page 11

LABOUR AT GENEVA

EIGHT HOURS QUESTION

WASHINGTON CONVENTION

BRITISH ATTITUDE

British Official Wirelew.

(Received 12th March, 11 a.m.)

RUGBY, 11th March.

The governing body of the International Labour Office opened its 43rd session at Geneva this morning. For the first time these Labour Ministers were present: Sir Arthur Steel-Mait-land (Great Britain), M. Loucheur (France), and Herr Wissell (Germany). The main subject of discussion was the Washington Eight Hours Convention. Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, in referring to the British attitude, said that Great Britain had always favoured the principles, of the Convention, but he pointed out that it contained a number of important points that deserved clarification and reconsideration. He proceeded to deal with these points in detail. ..' • . . '•"

Great Britain's industries, he said, with very few exceptions, already conformed in actual practice with the principles of .the Washington Convention, but he would explain why Great Britain hesitated to ratify the Convention and 1 why he asked for a revision of the Convention. Ambiguity in international law might have' a very different effect from the ambiguity in an international convention. If there were ambiguity in an international convention, it was open to each nation that ratified it to interpret it as it thought right. It became clear to all who had studied the text of the Washington Convention deeply that there were important points which deserved reconsideration owing to tho general uncertainty of their interpretation. What, for example, he said, was actual interpretation to be put upon the phrase 'hours of working'? How was intermittent work to be defined? What exactly were the Unfits of overtime as applied to railway workers. Articles 1 and 2,' tho whole object of which was the regulation of the houi-3 of work, never told them what the hours of work were: Another question somewhat allied to. this was what did Convention mean by tho word "week"? Was Sunday excluded or did it mean tho ordinary calendar week of seveu days? The further provisions governing the distribution of tho 48-hour .normal working week appeared unnecessarily restrictive. Should it be permissible to distribute these normal working hours, provided they did not exceed 48 hours in a week over five or even four dayst ' Having dealt with various other points; the British Minister said that if they had amended the Convention in a manner in which the difficulties he had mentioned were satisfactorily settled ho would recommend his Government to ratify it, and he was sure they would consent. - . ■