Foreword

When the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico negotiated the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation in 1993, they were aware of the unprecedented and innovative nature of what they were undertaking. Nothing of the kind had been attempted previously in the labor area. They decided to build into the Agreement a review process: four years after the coming into force of the NAALC, the Council of Ministers would review its "operation and effectiveness" as part of the Council's responsibility to "oversee the implementation and develop recommendations on the further elaboration of this Agreement" (Article 10). The Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994, and the "four year review" was begun in 1997. The results of this process were discussed at the Ministerial Council Meeting in October 1998 in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The process and conclusions of that review form a major part of this Annual Report.

The NAALC set a new international standard for labor law enforcement. The previous model for dealing with labor matters at the international level had focused on setting international norms for the content of labor standards (the Conventions of the International Labor Organization). The North American approach took content as given in domestic labor laws and concentrated on defining international norms for their enforcement. This was its central innovation. These norms or standards of enforcement are contained in the six "Obligations" of the Agreement and relate to such matters as: government enforcement action, rights of private action, and procedural guarantees.

The three countries made a major commitment to open government by opening their enforcement practices to review by the other Parties and by inviting the public to communicate their concerns about labor law enforcement in the territory of the other Parties to their own government in a formal process. Such public communications have been prominent in 1998 and have raised many important issues for labor law, as are described briefly in this and previous Annual Reports.

The public communication process is noteworthy in itself. It begins with a substantial fact-finding and research effort by sponsors of a public communication, often labor unions or nongovernmental organizations. The communications can take the form of substantial descriptions and analysis of aspects of labor law and focus on the way the law is implemented. Following the receipt of a public communication, the National Administrative Office, each according to its own rules, evaluates the communication and frequently engages in further research and fact finding, as well as consultation with the other Parties. The result, if a communication is accepted, is the release of a public report providing further analysis and information on the issue in question. A public hearing or other forum may well have been involved by this point as well. Often there has been substantial press attention and sometimes academic commentary.

If a government decides to request Ministerial Consultations with another as a result of the above review of a public communication (this has occurred in about half the cases so far), yet more work and attention are devoted to the questions that have been raised. Follow-up action plans resulting from Ministerial Consultations have included meetings and reviews to address specific circumstances, as well as public and academic forums and additional directed research.

These matters are often problematic from one perspective or another. The governments of North America deserve credit for their commitment to democracy and public accountability, as well as to international good will and cooperation, in having participated in good faith and openness in reviews that focus on governments' own responsibilities. The impact of these processes of review, exposure and debate is not necessarily immediate, but is becoming visible in areas that can be related, either directly or indirectly, to the public communication process. It is working.

John S. McKennirey
Executive Director