## Facts

- A workers’ organization (UFCW) filed a complaint to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) against the United States.
- The complaint challenged U.S. labor-law limits on physical access to employees by nonemployee union organizers, as reflected in *Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB*.
- UFCW alleged that the access rules favored employers’ property rights over workers’ ability to receive union information, organize, and bargain collectively.
- The United States was an ILO member but had not ratified ILO Conventions Nos. 87 (Freedom of Association) and 98 (Collective Bargaining) at the time.
- The CFA proceeded under its mandate to examine alleged freedom-of-association violations regardless of treaty ratification.
- The United States submitted observations asserting that domestic law balances associational rights and property rights by permitting exclusion of nonemployees unless employees lack reasonable alternative means of communication.
- The CFA issued its conclusions and recommendations in Report No. 284 (1992), Case No. 1523, for transmission to the ILO Governing Body.

## Issues

1. Whether national rules generally denying nonemployee union organizers physical access to private workplaces, absent employee “inaccessibility,” are compatible with ILO freedom-of-association and collective-bargaining principles.
2. Whether a “reasonable alternative means of communication” standard sufficiently protects workers’ ability to receive union information and organize in practice.

## Decision

- The CFA accepted the complaint for examination notwithstanding U.S. non-ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
- The CFA treated effective communication between unions and workers as necessary to meaningful exercise of organizing rights.
- The CFA recognized that property interests may be considered but indicated they cannot be applied so restrictively that organizing rights become ineffective.
- The CFA called for review and/or practical assurances that U.S. law and its application provide workers realistic opportunities to receive union information and contact union representatives, including where off-site alternatives are not workable.
- The CFA sought further information or monitoring-oriented follow-up on how the access framework operates in practice.

## Legal Principles

- The CFA may examine alleged freedom-of-association violations in any ILO member state, even if the state has not ratified the relevant conventions.
- Freedom of association must be effective in practice; formal recognition is insufficient if implementation creates substantial barriers to organizing.
- States should prevent interference with organizing rights by public authorities or private actors and maintain conditions permitting union activity.
- Restrictions grounded in property rights must be proportionate and must leave workers practical, timely channels to receive union information and communicate with unions.
- Legal standards that hinge on “alternative means” must be applied so that exceptions are not construed so narrowly that unions are effectively unable to reach workers.

## Conclusion

The CFA reviewed U.S. limits on nonemployee organizers’ workplace access under freedom-of-association principles, accepted that property rights may be weighed, and emphasized that the governing test must function in practice to ensure workers can receive union information and organize; it accordingly urged assurance or review so the access regime does not defeat organizing rights.


Int’l Lab. Org., Comm. on Freedom of Ass’n, Case No. 1523, Rep. No. 284 (1992)