Con motivo del Congreso celebrado en Amsterdam, el Consejo Asesor se ha reunido para discutir ciertos puntos cruciales de esta organización informal, formada en su mayoría por Departamentos de Derecho del Trabajo de Universidades anglosajonas y bastantes europeas.
Los acuerdos principales a los que llegó son los siguientes:
1. Mantener la lengua inglesa como lengua de trabajo, excepto cuando los organizadores del Congreso sufraguen los gastos de la traducción simultánea. Se trata de no cargar con tasas excesivas a los congresistas.
2. Elecciones del comité de dirección y del presidente. Se acordó continuar con el mismo procedimiento seguido hasta ahora: elegir un comité ad-hoc para que proponga a siete miembros para el comité director, propuesta que debe ser ratificada por el Consejo Asesor. Después, los siete miembros elegirán entre ellos al presidente.
3. Lugar y fecha del próximo Congreso. Se propuso Montreal, y en concreto el Laboratorio de Investigación de Derecho del Trabajo de la McGill University, dirigido por Adelle Blackett, y celebrarlo en mayo de 2017, pero ante las críticas de que la fecha era mala por los exámenes y demás actividades de fin de curso en algunos países se acordó en el plenario del Congreso otro lugar y fecha, la Universidad de Toronto en 25-27 de junio de 2017, bajo la organización de Brian Langille.Se trata de evitar otros eventos cercanos en fechas, como el del Congreso de la Asociación Derecho y Sociedad en México, o la celebración del 150 Día de Canadá.
Respecto al comité ad-hoc para la elección del comité director, el actual presidente ha propuesto en un mensaje a los miembros del consejo asesor -del que IERI forma parte- los nombres de Deirdre McCann (Durham, UK), Kevin Banks (Queen’s, Canada), Nicola Smit (North-West, South Africa) y él mismo, pr lo que restaría la nominación de otros tres colegas para completar dicho comité ad-hoc.
…….
LLRN Advisory Committee
Summary of the meeting held on June 24, 2015 at the University of Amsterdam
1. Report on the current conference – and issues to consider for future conferences
A report was distributed in advance about the structure of the conference (the timeline; the call for papers; parallel panels; etc.) as well as data on the submissions and acceptance rate for the current conference.
• There was an agreement that we should proceed with the same general format.
• It was noted that some of the panels include participants from a single country, which is usually less interesting for an international audience. It was accordingly suggested to note in the call for papers that it is strongly recommended to include in proposed panels participants from different countries.
One of the attractions of the conference is the fact that it is organized by colleagues and for colleagues, without a professional organizing company, and held at a University and not a hotel. This allows us to keep the registration fees low (thus being accessible for younger scholars and those coming from less-rich countries) and also creates a nice academic atmosphere. The question was raised whether the conference is becoming too big to be able to maintain these features.
• It was agreed that for now we should try to continue with the same approach.
• It was noted that it would be legitimate for a host organization to set a maximum number of participants, depending on space limitations.
• It was also noted that we should continue to perform a competitive review of abstracts as a method of limiting to some extent the number of participants.
2. English as the working language
Our approach so far has been against simultaneous translation in conferences. The question was raised whether we should insist on English-only conferences, or allow a second language.
• There was some difference of opinions on this point. Some of the members of the advisory committee stressed the importance of communicating in one language as a crucial component of ensuring a high academic quality and also preventing the breaking of the participants into separate groups based on language. Others argued that allowing the host organization to include some panels in the local language, with simultaneous translation, will ensure more diversity and be more inclusive for people who cannot present their ideas easily in English.
• There was general agreement that if at all, the inclusion of a second language should only be allowed if the costs of simultaneous translation are borne by the host organization and not by the participants through high registration fees. The remaining disagreement was on whether this should be allowed only in very exceptional circumstances (such as a conference in Quebec, where language issues are extremely sensitive) or more generally. For now, there is no need for a conclusive decision on this matter.
A further question was whether we should include information on non-English content on the LLRN website (for example, information on events and publications in other languages).
• While it should be remembered that the website is intended to serve the global community and therefore should not burden the users with information only relevant for a small group in one specific country, it was noted in the meeting that we should not have a strict policy against non-English content.
3. Process of electing a new Steering Committee and Chair
It was proposed to continue with the same process we used last time: to choose an ad-hoc committee that will propose new members for the steering committee (7 members). The advisory committee will then be asked to approve the recommendation of the ad-hoc committee. The members of the new steering committee will then chose the Chair from among themselves.
• There was an agreement at the meeting to continue with the same process. A few colleagues have volunteered at the end of the meeting to join the ad-hoc committee.
The Chair raised the question of whether there should be a limit of two terms for this role.
• It was noted by some of the participants that while this may be a good rule in principle, we should not limit ourselves at this time, and allow a third term at least as an exception.
4. Venue of the next conference (2017)
It was reported that the Labour Law and Development Research Laboratory (LLDRL) from McGill University, headed by Adelle Blackett, has agreed in principle to host the next conference in Montreal, together with CRIMT. However, because of expected renovations at the law faculty during the summer of 2017, the proposal was to hold the conference in early May, and the question was raised whether this is a convenient time, or whether we should look for an alternative venue.
• Several colleagues have noted that early May is problematic given the teaching schedules in their countries. It was agreed that we will ask additional colleagues during the conference and make a decision afterwards.
5. Maintaining the informal structure?
The LLRN has an informal structure, with no fees, no budget, and no formal rules. The question was raised whether we should continue in the same way.
• Most of the participants at the meeting seemed to support the informal structure. At the same time, it was agreed that some guidelines (not too formal or binding) can be drafted to help ensure consistency and transparency – for example regarding the nomination of the Steering Committee and Chair.
6. Thanks
The Chair thanked the organizers of the current conference, who did a fantastic job, and also many others of have contributed to the success of the conference and the LLRN in general, including the members of the steering committee, the research centres that contributed funding or made other contributions, and colleagues who served on the committee to choose the LLRN Award recipients.