Local hires at embassies present challenging legal issues throughout the world. The host nation, the embassies and the employee find themselves faced with concern that differ markedly from domestic employment matters, or even private-sector international ones. With trade unions entering the play, additional scenarios present themselves. Such is the constellation of parties in the recently-concluded International Labor Organization (ILO) matter of the British Embassy in Washington, DC.

The Embassy had been bargaining with the Association of United States Engaged Staff (AUSES) about the terms and conditions of employment for the locally engaged staff for almost 50 years. The dispute started in December 2004 when the staff chose the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees (IFPTE) as their bargaining representative. The Embassy allegedly refused to negotiate with the AUSES/IFPTE and unilaterally implemented changes in employment terms and conditions. The complainants argued the Embassy violated the ILO conventions No. 87 on the Freedom of Association, and 98 on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining. The Embassy maintained it did not violate Convention 87, allowed the union to reach out to staff and provided facilities for meetings. The Embassy said it had no obligation under Convention 98 to collectively bargain with staff since the Convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee on Freedom of Association acknowledged the Embassy allowed the union to promote itself, but agreed with the complainants that local staff cannot be considered engaged in the administration of the State, as they do not make diplomatic policies. The report also noted that a public servants' union represents the diplomatic staff in the United Kingdom.

The Committee held there was no reason to grant lesser collective bargaining rights to locally engaged staff than those enjoyed by UK engaged employees. As a result, the Committee recommended the British government encourage the Embassy to negotiate with the AUSES/IFPTE union regarding terms of employment for locally engaged staff's employment. The report was adopted by the ILO and made final on March 30, 2007.

Financial Times also reported on the dispute on April 13, 2007. For further reference, the Committee's report has been summarized in a BNA article on April 19, 2007 as well. -- Basak Candar, Legal Assistant,Berliner, Corcoran &amp Rowe, LLP, Washington.