1 Space limitations prevent us from exploring related themes such as the effect of the strike on social security and the liabilities of strikers and strike organisers. Nor will we be concerned with the substantial aspects of strike regulation such as calling the strike, formal requirements for legal or official strikes, picketing, and modes of ending strikes. We are also aware of the special situation involving public sector employment. In Spain the public sector has several categories of worker: work of public or civil servants in the Public Administration; work of those who have a contract of employment in the Public Administration; and work of those who have a contract of employment in public enterprises or corporations. The first of these categories is governed by administrative law and labour law rules do not apply except for certain specific aspects such as health and safety and freedom of association. The other categories are governed by labour law but special rules apply on selection and placement of workers and on collective negotiation. Again, however, our space limitations prevent us from being able to explore these issues here.

2 See within the Spanish literature: Gomis, P L ‘El Espacio Social Europey su evolución de 1981 a 1989’, Politica social de la Comunidad Europea, vol 1, (Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, 1989) pp xxxiii ffGoogle Scholar; Robledo, M Colina, Martinez, J M Ramirez and Franco, T Sala Derecho Social Comunitario (Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 1995) pp 70 ff.Google Scholar Within the English literature see: (1991) 54 Modern Law Review which contains a special edition dedicated to European Social Law; B A Hepple European Social Dialogue–Alibi or Opportunity? (Institute of Employment Rights, London, 1993); Hugh Mosley ‘The Social Dimension of European Integration’, (1990) 129 Intenurtional Labour Review pp 147–163.

3 See, for example, Blanpain, R Labour Law and Industrial Relations of the European Communities (Deventer: Kluwer, 1991) p 197 ffGoogle Scholar; Hepple, B ‘European Labour Law: The European Communities’ in Blanpain, R (ed) Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in tndustrialised Market Economies, (Deventer: Kluwer, 1990) p 293.Google Scholar; Moreno, J M Galiana ‘El lento camino de gestaciún de la politica social cornunitaria: desde el Tratado de Roma a la curnbre de Maastricht’, (1993) 58 Revista Espaiiola de Derecho del Trabajo 189.Google Scholar

4 See del Rey Guanter, S ‘Principios y tendencias en el Derecho Social Comunitario’ in Various Authors Jornadas Sobre la Cornunidad Europea, (Universidad de Sevilla, 1994) pp 177 ffGoogle Scholar; F Pérez de 10s Cobos, El Derecho Social Comunitario en el Tratado de la Unión Europea (Madrid: Civitas 1994).

5 See Blanpain, R, Hepple, B, Sciarra, S and Weiss, M Derechos sociales fundament ales: propuestas para la Uniún Europea’ (1995) 74 Revista Española de Derecho de Trabajo 873 Google Scholar.

6 Among others, the Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994, concerning the constitution of enterprise committees and alternative information procedures and groups of companies in the community dimension. See generally, Lord Wedderburn 'The Social Charter in Britain-Labour Law and Labour Courts (1991) 54 Modern Law Review 1; B Hepple ‘The Future of Labour Law’ (1995) 24 Industrial Law Journal 303.

7 This attitude can be noted, for example, in the reports and documents surrounding the first Spanish Presidency in the Community. See Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Politica Social de la Comunidud Europea, Vol l(Madrid, 1989)Google Scholar.

8 Ibid, in the introductory chapter. See also M Alonso Olea Introducción al Derecho del Trabujo (Madrid: Civitas, 5th edn, 1994) pp 301 ff.

9 Cf Contracts of Employment Act 1963. For a discussion of their creation of contractual and obligations codes see J García Murcía ‘La ley de contrato de trabajo en Alemania: una tarea aún pendiente’, (1994) 65 Revista Española de Derecho del Trabajo.

10 For example, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and the Employment Rights Act 1996.

11 For example, the Employment Protection Act 1975.

12 For example, the Employment Act 1988.

13 In reality Roman law was based on a slave economy and had a limited idea of employer-employee relationships. Canon law had no ‘employment’ approaches at all, but was based on charismatic and hierarchic relations. Nevertheless, the reaction of each system–civil law and common law–to industrialisation may itself have been influenced by its Roman/Canon law mentality or its contractual approach. We are grateful to Professor John Bell, for this observation.

14 See Tomás, F y Valiente Manual de Historia del Derecho Español, (Madrid: Tecnos, 1986), esp pp 180, 465 and 599 ffGoogle Scholar.

15 The current law is that of 1995 which was approved by Real Decreto (Like the British Royal Assent) of 24 March 1995. For a history of the evolution of the Spanish labour law system see: A Martín Valverde ‘La formación del Derecho del Trabajo en España’ in Various Authors, La Legislación social en la historia de Esparia: de la revolucidn liberal a 1936, (Congreso de los Diputados, Madrid, 1987). See also López, M C Palomeque, Derecho del Trabajo e Ideologia (Madrid: Tecnos 5th edn, 1995).Google Scholar

16 See A Martín Valverde, above, n 15; A Martín Valverde ‘Las transformaciones del Derecho del Trabajo en España (1976–1984) y la Ley 32/1984 de Reforma del Estatuto de 10s Trabajadores’ in Various Authors, Comentarios a la nueva legislación laboral (Madrid: Tecnos, 1985). See also Olea, M Alonso and Baarnonde, M E Derecho del Trabajo (Universidad Complutense, Madrid, 1995 Google Scholar, and Valverde, A Martin, Rodríguez-Sañudo, F and Murcía, J García Derecho del Trabajo (Madrid: Tecnos, 1995).Google Scholar

17 See Ben-Israel, R ‘Introduction to Strikes and Lock-outs: a Comparative Perspective’, (1994) 29 Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 1.Google Scholar

18 Aaron, B ‘Methods of industrial action: courts, administrative agencies and legislatures’ in Aaron, B and Wedderburn, K W Industrial Conflict: A comparative Legal Survey, (London: Longman, 1972) pp 70 ffGoogle Scholar, Birk, R ‘The Law of Strikes and Lock-outs’ in Blanpain, R (ed), Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialised Market Economies, (Deventer: Kluwer, 1990) pp 265 ff.Google Scholar On the experience and the use of the strike and other action in industrial conflict in the different European systems see Edwards, P K and Hyman, R ‘Strikes and Industrial Conflict: Peace in Europe?’ in Hyman, Richard and Ferner, Anthony New Frontiers in European Industrial Relations, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994) pp 250 ff.Google Scholar

19 See article 13.

20 See R Blanpain Labour Law and Industrial Relations of the European Community, above n 3, pp 54 ff.

21 R Blanpain, B Hepple, S Sciarra and M Weiss, above n 5.

22 Valverde, A Martin ‘Regulación de la huelga, libertad de huelga y derecho de huelga’, in Various Authors, Sindicatosy relaciones colectivas de trabajo, (Colegio de Abogados, Murcia, 1978) p 98 ff.Google Scholar

23 Article 28. 2 of the Spanish Constitution recognises the right to strike of workers for the protection of their interests, adding that the law which regulates its exercise must establish the precise guarantees necessary to ensure the maintenance of essential services for the community. See A Martin Valverde ‘El derecho de huelga en la Constitución de 1978’ (1979) 121 Revista de Politica Social.

24 See in respect of the reactions to the Constitutional right: L E de la Villa Gil' Algunas reflexiones para la regulacidn legal de la huelga', in Various Authors, Esrudios de Derecho del Trabajo en memoria del Profesor G Bayón Chacón (Madrid: Tecnos, 1980) and C Palomeque López ‘Los dos debates politicos sobre la promulgación de una nueva ley de huelga y la estrategia diferenciada de los sindicatos’ (1992) 12 Relaciones Laborales. The latest proposal was made in 1993, see Perrote, I Garcia Elproyecto de ley orgdnica de huelga de 1993: la huelga en los servicios esenciales de la comunidad como telón de fondo (Universidad de Cantabria, 1993).Google Scholar

25 See Grau, A Baylos ‘Diez años de jurisprudencia constitucional: el derecho de huelga’ in Alarcón, M R Constituczón y Derecho del Trabajo (1981–1991), (Madrid: Marcial Pons 1992) pp 293 ff.Google Scholar

26 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 and Trade Disputes Act 1906. See Davies, P and Freedland, M Labour Legislation and Public Policy, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).Google Scholar

27 Lord Wedderburn, ‘The New Politics of Labour Law’ in McCarthy, WEJ, (ed) Trade Unions (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2nd edn, 1985) pp 495–532.Google Scholar

28 Decision of the Constitutional Court 11/1981 of 8 April. In the doctrine see Avilés, A Ojeda, Derecho Sindica (Madrid: Tecnos, 1995) pp 426 ffGoogle Scholar; López, C Palomeque Derecho Sindical Español (Madrid: Tecnos, 1994) pp 276 ff.Google Scholar

29 See Garcia-Perrote, I La huelga con ocupación de lugar de trabajo (Madrid: Akal, 1981).Google Scholar

30 Blasco, J García El derecho de huelga en España: calificación y efectos juridicos (Barcelona: Bosch, 1983) pp 50 ffGoogle Scholar; M E Casas Baamonde ‘Las huelgas atípicas en el ordenamiento español; (o huelgas marginadas del tipo del derecho, constitucional y legal, de huelga)’ (1985) 24 Revista Española de Derecho de Trabajo; F Durán López ‘Formas de realización de la huelga: referencia especial a la huelga ilegal y a los actos abusivos distintos de la huelga’ in Various Author, Estudios sobre la huelga (Madrid: Akal, 1992) pp 61 ff.

31 See decision of the Constitutional Court of 2 December 1982. See also Franco, T Sala and Montesinos, I Albiol Derecho Sindical (Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia 1994) p 482.Google Scholar

32 See eg, Prim, F J Matia ‘Negociación colectiva y derecho de huelga. Deber y pactos de paz’ in Various Authors, Problemas actuales de la negociación colectiva (Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, 1994) pp 75 ff.Google Scholar

33 Now s 235(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

34 See Ewing, KD The Right to Strike (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) p 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 See Coates v Modern Methods and Materials Ltd [1982] IRLR 318, CA, McCormick v Horsepower Ltd [1981LR 217, CA.

36 Per Lord Denning in Tramp Shipping Corporation v Greenwich Marine Inc [19751 ICR 261 at 266.

37 See Lord Wedderburn, ‘Law About Strikes’ in McCarthy, William (Ed), Legal Intervention in Industrial Relations: Gains and Losses, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992) p 147–208 esp p 148.Google Scholar On the distinction between the strike and other forms of industrial action see Kahn-Freund, O Labour and the Law (London: Stevens, 1972) p 226.Google Scholar

38 For example, in Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] ICR 19, a work to rule consisted in refusing to cooperate in the business of the employer, and was treated by the Court of Appeal as a breach of contract.

39 This classification comes from the classic work of Calamandrei, P ‘Sinificato costituzionale del diritto di sciopero’, Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 1954, I, 221 Google Scholar. In the Spanish literature see: Valverde, A Martín ‘Regulación de la huelga, libertad de huelga y derecho de huelga’ in Various Authors, Sindicatos y Relaciones Colectivas de Trabajo, (Colegio de Abogados, Murcia, 1978)Google Scholar; López, F Duriin Derecho de huelga y legalización del conflicto de clases (Universidad de Sevilla, 1978).Google Scholar In the English literature see Lord Wedderburn, ‘The Right to Strike: is there a European Standard?’ in Lord Wedderburn, Employment Rights in Britain and Europe (Lawrence and Wishart in Association with the Institute of Employment Rights, London, 1991) Chapter 10.

40 R Ben-Israel ‘Introduction to Strikes and Lock-outs: A Comparative Perspective’ above n 17, at pp 8–9.

41 See for example, the European Social Charter of 1961, article 6(4); The International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, article 8(1)(d); and the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of the European Union of 1989, article 13. Also the ILO Convention 87 provides for the right to strike according to the official interpretation of the ILO.

42 See TULR(C)A 1992, s 238(1) and (2) which allows the employer to dismiss selectively or to re-employ selectively after three months without redress.

43 See, for example, the decision of Lord Wright in Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed v Veitch [1942] AC 435 at 463, in which he stated that the right to strike is essential for collective bargaining.

44 For Hepple, this right was recognised as a social right more than as a legal right prior to the Conservative Government which after 1979 imposed serious limitations on the freedom to strike: Hepple, Bob ‘The United Kingdom’ in Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations Strikes and Lockouts in Industrialized Market Economies (Kluwer, 1994) 181 at 181–2.Google Scholar

45 Wedderburn, ‘Laws about Strikes’, above n 37 at 152.

46 Wedderburn ‘The Right to Strike: is there a European Standard?’, above note 39; Deakin, Simon and Morris, Gillian S. Labour Law (London: Butterworths, 1995) pp 754 ff.Google Scholar

47 R Ben-Israel, above n 17 at pp 6–8.

48 See Ojeda Avilés Derecho Sindical, above n 28, pp 462 ff; Palorneque Lépez Derecho Sindical Español, above n 28, pp 456 ff.

49 López, F Durán ‘Titualaridad y contenido del derecho de huelga’, Relaciones Laborales, 1993–1, 336 Google Scholar; Prim, F J Matia ‘Negociavión colectiva y derecho de huelga. Deber y pactos de paz’, in Various Authors, Problems actuales de la negociación colectiva, (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Madrid, 1994) 75 Google Scholar; and Argüelles, M A Castro ‘Titularidad y ejercicio del derecho de huelga’ (1994) 20 Reluciones Laborales, 9.Google Scholar

50 [1994] IRLR 4.

51 See for example, Deakin and Morris Labour Law, above n 46 at p 845.

52 Lord Wedderburn ‘Laws about Strikes’, above n 37, at p 160.

53 Lord Wedderburn ‘Labour Law and the Individual in Post-Industrial Societies’ in Lord Wedderburn, Max Rood, Gerard Lyon-Caen, Wolfgang Daubler, Paul van der Heijden (eds) Labour Law in the Post Industrial Era: Studies in Modern Law and Policy (Dartmouth, 1994) p 24.

54 See R Birk ‘The Law of Strikes and Lock-outs’ above n 18, pp 298 ff, and Lord Wedderburn ‘The Right to Strike: is there a European Standard?’ above n 39.

55 See M Rodriguez-Piñero ‘Efectos de la huelga en la relación individual de trabajo’, (1962) 50 Revista de Derecho del Trabajo; J Garcia Blasco El derecho de huelga en Esparia, above n 30, pp 155 ff.

56 See Ortega, R Hurtado ‘La suspensih del contrato de trabajo por el ejercicio del derecho de huelga’ in Various Authors, La suspensión del contrato de trabajo (Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid, 1995) pp 289 ff.Google Scholar

57 As Donovan LJ stated in Rookes v Barnard [1963] 1 QB 623 at 628. See also Simmons v Hoover [1977] ICR 61.

58 (1907) Law Times 98 at 101.

59 [1968] 2QB 710, at 728.

60 B Hepple, at p 188, argues however that a protest of a short duration, such as 3 few hours, would not normally he considered as a fundamental breach. In Simmons v Hoover Ltd [1977] ICR 61, Phillips J also suggested that not all strikes are necessarily fundamental breaches of contract.

61 The employer has a contractual right to dismiss the employee based on the fact that the strike is a fundamental breach: Simmons v Hoover Ltd [1977] ICR 61; and Wilkins v Cantrell [1978] IRLR 48.

62 National Coal Board v Galley [1958] WLR 16.

63 See J García Murcia ‘Efectos de la huelga sobre el contrato de trabajo. Análisis de jurisprudencia reciente’, (1995) 53 Derecho de Negocios; M Sampedro Corral ‘Las consecuencias jurídicas de la huelga: sus efectos y la responsabilidad derivada de su ejercicio’ Various Authors, Estudios sobre la huelga, above n 30 pp 117 ff.

64 See the decisions of the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) of 24 January 1994 (Aranzadi 370), 18 April 1994 (Aranzadi 3256), 11 October 1994 (Aranzadi 7765) and 29 September 1995 (Aranzadi 6923).

65 See the decision of the Supreme Court of 24 January 1994 (Aranzadi 370).

66 See the decision of the Supreme Court of 11 October 1994 (Aranzadi 7765). In general see R Hurtado Ortega 'La suspension del contrato de trabajo por el ejercicio del derecho de huelga, above n 56, pp 300 ff.

67 See decision of the Supreme Court of 1 October 1991 (Aranzadi 7190).

68 Normally the employee's written consent is required before the employer can deduct salary. This is however, not necessary in a strike situation: Employment Rights Act 1996, s 14(5).

69 Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] IRLR 190. See also Freedland, M R The Contract of Employment (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) pp 77–78.Google Scholar

70 Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue, above n 69.

71 [1987] IRLR 187. In this case the employee, Miles, refused to carry out wedding ceremonies on Saturday mornings and consequently lost his salary for Saturday mornings, amounting to a deduction of 3137s of his salary which corresponded to 3 hours out of the 37 in the working week.

72 The opinion of Lord Templeman in Miles v Wakefield, above n 71. In Wiluzynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989] IRLR 193, the Court declared that the employee had no right to be pay if he was not prepared to comply with the whole of his contract. See also Henthorn and Taylor v CEGB [1980] IRLR 361, and British Telecommunications Plc v Ticehurst (1992) Times, 18 March 1992.

73 [1986] IRLR 391.

74 For the debate on this concept and upon the cases of Sim v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough District Council and Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council see the comment by Gillian Morris (1987) 16 ILJ 185–188.

75 See Bond and Neads v CAV Ltd [1983] IRLR 360 in which the court held that the employer had permitted the breach by allowing the employee to work on a machine different to the machine on which he was obliged to work. The employer was then not able to take away the salary. See also Royle v Trafford Borough Council [1984] IRLR 184.

76 See Freedland, M R The Contract of Employment, above n 69, pp 135–136.Google Scholar On the other hand, Morris suggests that the courts will not be disposed to support such conceptual purity: (1987) 16 ILJ 185 at 188.

77 Royle v Trafford Borough Council, above n 75.

78 See J Cruz Villaldn ‘Primas antihuelga y primas de asistencia’, (1985) 147 Revista de Politica Social.

79 Decisions of the Supreme Court of 26 May 1992 (Aranzadi 3605) and of 22 January 1993 (Aranzadi 257).

80 Decisions of the Supreme Court of 10 December 1993 (Aranzadi 9949) and 27 December 1993 (Aranzadi 1994, 3225). See also R Hurtado Ortega ‘La suspensión del contrato de trabajo por ejercicio del derecho de huelga’, above n 56, pp 302 ff.

81 This happened in the Irish case of Deane v Wilson [1906] IR 405.

82 TULR(C)A 1992, s 180.

83 Decision of the Supreme Court of 10 December 1993 (A. 9949).

84 See Baena, P Charro El derecho a vacaciones en el ambito laboral (Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1993) pp 387 ff.Google Scholar

85 Unfair Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1985 (SI 1985/782) and Employment Rights Act 1996, s 92(3).

86 Section 216(2). However, under s 212(1) the period of absence from work in the case of a strike shall not be a relevent period for the purposes of calculating continuity of employment. This subsection refers to employees employed during the strike and dismissed during the strike. See also Bloomfieldv Springfield Hosiery Co Ltd [1972] All ER 609.

87 Section 140(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and Simmons v Hoover [1977] 1 All ER 775.

88 Eagland v British Telecommunications plc [19921 IRLR 323.

89 Morley v Heritage PIC [1993] IRLR 401.

90 Article 16. 2 DLRT. On the concepts of ‘services of maintenance and safety of the enterprise’ and ‘essential services for the community’ and the relevent rules in the Spanish system see E Gonzilez Bieda Derecho de huelga y servicios de rnantenimientoy seguridad en la empresa (Madrid: Civitas, 1992); and Grau, A Baylos Derecho de huelga y servicios esenciales (Madrid: Civitas, 1988).Google Scholar

91 García Blasco El derecho de huelga en España, above n 31, p 257 ff; J Rivero Lamas ‘Infracciones y sanciones laborales y regulación del derecho de huelga: criterios jurisprudenciales y proyectos de reforma’, (1993) 1 Actualidad Laboral.

92 Originally s 62 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This could stop the employees from gaining protection against the strike, including when they have committed unsafe or illegal acts. See Wilkins v Cantrell [1978] IRLR 483; cf Faust v Power Packing Casemakers Ltd [1983] IRLR 117. See also Carty, Hazel ‘The Employment Act 1990: Still Fighting the Industrial Cold War’ (1991) 20 ILJ 1 at 17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93 For determining who are the workers involved in the strike at the time of the dismissal see TULR(C)A 1992, s 238(3)(b). This definition excludes strikers who have returned to work before the dismissal. At times it is difficult to establish who is a relevent worker. See Lewis and Britton v E Mason & Sons Ltd [1994] IRLR 4.

94 Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 covers unfair dismissal situations. For a discussion of the problems of reemployment see Wynn-Evans, Charles ‘The Semantics of Re-engaging Dismissed Strikers’ (1992)21 ILJ 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95 See K D Ewing The Right to Strike, above n 34, p 44.

96 Section 237 of the TULR(C)A 1992. Originally an amendment to s 62 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 by s 9 of the Employment Act 1982. Discussed by K D Ewing in ‘Industrial Action: Another Step in the “Right” Direction’ (1992) 11 ILJ 209. Ewing suggests on p 210 that employers would not exploit these mechanisms, but see also Kenneth Miller and Charles Woolfson ‘Timex: Industrial Relations and the Use of the Law in the 1990s’ (1994) 23 ILJ 209.

97 See Miller and Woolfson, ibid. They argue that the use of legal strategies by the employers during a lock-out ultimately created negative results for negotiations with the union over salaries and conditions.

98 K D Ewing The Right to Strike, above n 34, p 46.

99 Powers to move and direct are recognised generally in article 20 ET and specifically in article 39 ET.

100 See the decision of the Constitutional Court 123/1992 of 28 September and decisions of the Supreme Court of 23 and 24 October 1989 (Aranzadi 7533 and 7422) and of 8 May of 1985 (Aranzadi 3752).

101 Article 6. 7 DLRT. See Bieda, E Gonziléz Derecho de huelga y servicios de mantenimiento y seguridad en la empresa (Madrid: Civitas, 1992).Google Scholar

102 Lord Wedderburn, The Worker and The Law (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 3rd edn, 1986) p 210.Google Scholar

103 Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 1976, SI 1976/715, reg 9(11).

104 Emergency Powers Act 1964, s 2. See also Fredman, Sandra and Moms, Gillian S The State as Employer: Labour Law in the Public Services (London: Mansell, 1989) pp 413 ff.Google Scholar

105 See Financial Times, 9 October 1996.

106 Rodriguez-Sañudo, F Interrupciones de la actividad de la empresa y derecho al salario, (Universidad de Sevilla, 1975) pp 104 ffGoogle Scholar, Gómez, A Santana El régimen jurídico de los trabajadores no huelgistas (Madrid: Civitas, 1993)Google Scholar.

107 Decision of the Supreme Court 20 July 1995 (Aranzadi 5360).

108 Henthorn and Taylor v Central Electricity Generating Board [1980] IRLR 361; Miles v Wakejield [1987] IRLR 193; Willuzynski v Tower Hamlets [1989] IRLR 259.

109 Chappellv Times Newspapers Ltd [1975] ICR 145.

110 Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 28–35.

111 However, it is not easy to sanction or remedy these breaches. Above all, the ILO does not provide effective sanctions for breach by member states, limiting them to reports and recommendations: see for example, the Report of the Committee of Experts of the ILO of 1992, examined by Damian Brown and Aileen McColgan in ‘UK Employment Law and the International Labour Organisation; The Spirit of Cooperation?’ (1992) 21 ILJ 265.