Industrial action and disputes in Austria

In legal terms, no clear principles are laid down for assessing the lawfulness and consequences of disputes, and there is no Supreme Court case law on the subject. The legitimacy of strikes as a form of industrial action (Kampfmittel) by employees is to be inferred from, not least, the legal provisions that ensure the impartiality of the state. Nevertheless, this legitimacy applies only to strikes perceived as action taken collectively (Gesamtaktion) by employees. In general, this includes any form of adversarial confrontation over pay or other terms and conditions of employment between individual employers or employer organisations, on the one hand, and trade unions or groups of employees, on the other. Forms of industrial action used in such disputes include strikes, lockouts and boycotts. In the case of strike action, a distinction is made in legal theory between an economic strike (wirtschaftlicher Streik), a political strike (politischer Streik), an unofficial strike (wilder Streik), a selective strike (Schwerpunktstreik), a token strike used as a warning (Warnstreik) and a partial strike (Teilstreik). In the case of lockouts, a distinction is made between an offensive lockout initiating a dispute (Angriffsaussperrung) and a defensive lockout in response to a strike (Abwehraussperrung). However, it should be noted that, because so few industrial disputes occur in Austria, even the expert approach is essentially theoretical.

Between 2011 and 2014, minor strikes occurred (of which the biggest occurred in 2011), while from 2015 to 2017 there were no strikes (as was also the case between 2005 and 2010). Since 2018, strikes have occurred annually. The largest took place in 2018, with 37,923 participating employees and 71,468 hours lost. In 2021, 5,032 people were involved in strikes, contributing to the 11,368 hours lost due to industrial action.

Industrial action developments, 2011–2021

Sources : WKÖ, 2023; ÖGB, undated

Collective dispute resolution mechanisms

At company level, within the framework of its co-determination rights in social matters, the works council must participate in the regulation of all social matters within the establishment; for some matters, the council possesses a right to ‘parity’ – that is, co-decision-making with employers – and for others it can call on a mediation and arbitration board (Schlichtungsstelle) if agreement cannot be reached with the employer. This board, composed of equal numbers of representatives from both sides of industry, with a judge providing neutral oversight, is set up by the competent labour and social security court. The board is tasked with establishing an agreement between the parties on the matter in question and, if unsuccessful, deciding on the case itself.

Individual dispute resolution mechanisms

In Austria, individual labour law and employment disputes fall under the purview of ordinary courts. Compared with these specific jurisdictional mechanisms, alternative dispute resolution methods are not a prominent feature of the country’s legal system for individual dispute resolution. To a certain extent, this may be due to the country’s markedly ‘corporatist’ industrial relations structure. In the case of an individual labour/employment dispute, the employee concerned will – in particular if there is no works council in their company – normally contact either the relevant trade union (if they are a member) or the Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer, AK) (membership of which is compulsory for all private sector employees) to obtain information, advice and assistance in legal procedures. In most individual employment disputes, either the AK or the trade union tries to intervene (by contacting the employer) in order to bypass formal litigation before the courts.

Use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

No official data on the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (see the previous section) are available. The AK publishes an annual performance report, in which it reports on the number and types of consultations that it has conducted for its members, and on the finances it could reclaim for its members in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings.