Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1975)

1. The Committee notes the Government's report and the enclosed comments of the Trades Union Congress (TUC). In the main, the information contained in the Government's report deals with various aspects of its training policy, such as the introduction of a national record of achievement system and training for work for the unemployed with a view to their return to employment. The Committee observes that the above measures concern the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), to which the United Kingdom is also a party, rather than Convention No. 140 which is intended specifically to promote the grant of paid educational leave defined as "leave granted to a worker for educational purposes for a specified period during working hours, with adequate financial entitlements" (Article 1 of the Convention).

2. The TUC submits that the 1989 Employment Act restricts the grant of leave for trade union education which is now limited to those matters for which a union is recognized for collective bargaining. Noting that such leave is granted only to trade union officials, the Committee recalls that paid educational leave for the purpose of trade union education provided for in Article 2(c) of the Convention should, under Article 3(b), contribute "to the competent and active participation of workers and their representatives in the light of the undertaking and of the community".

3. The TUC observes more generally that there is no statutory entitlement to paid educational leave. In this connection it considers that the contracts of employment of young people should stipulate a right to education and training. Furthermore, there is very little paid educational leave negotiated collectively and it tends to be available to white-collar or professional employees. According to the Committee, such a situation should draw attention to the purpose of "training at any level" attributed to paid educational leave by Article 2(b) of the Convention.

4. In its reply to the TUC's comments, the Government states that it does not regard statutory entitlements in this area as appropriate and that its policy is to meet the provisions of the Convention by encouraging motivation and choice, not statutory imposition. It points out in this context that, under Article 2 of the Convention, the methods by which the promoting of the granting of paid educational leave is implemented should be "appropriate to national conditions and practice". The Committee must none the less draw the Government's attention to the fundamental obligation, which is also laid down in Article 2, to formulate and apply a policy for this purpose. As it pointed out in its General Survey of 1991, such a policy presupposes that the public authorities have decided upon a specific course of action that necessarily involves authorities and bodies for a certain length of time (paragraph 327), even if the Convention allows a large measure of flexibility in the formulation and application of the policy (paragraph 328).

5. The Committee hopes that the Government's next report will contain additional information demonstrating that it is effectively formulating and applying, in association with all the concerned bodies referred to in Article 6 of the Convention, a policy for the promotion of paid educational leave for the purposes set out in Articles 2 and 3 and which meets the requirements, in particular, of the provisions of Articles 1 and 11.