Metal Workers' Union rethinks exceptional agreement

After an unlawful strike at Fix AB in July 1998, the Metal Workers' Union and the Association of Swedish Engineering Industries agreed that the chair of the union's company branch would resign from this position and refrain from acting as a trade unionist as long as he is employed by the company. However, this exceptional agreement, which is in fact void, will now be renegotiated.

After the conclusion of the 1998 central collective agreement between the Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (Sveriges Verkstadsindustrier, VI) and the Swedish Metal Workers' Union (Svenska Metallindustriarbetareförbundet, Metall) (SE9803177N), the workplace negotiations on the allocation of the agreed wage increases to individual workers started. These negotiations are always subject to a peace obligation. Nevertheless, shortly before the summer holidays, the workers of the engineering company Fix AB went on strike.

Where there is an unlawful strike in Sweden, the trade union representatives must not only refrain from taking part in it, they have to make efforts to persuade their colleagues to go back to work. They are not allowed to act as agents for the striking workers by putting forward their claims to the employer. If the union representatives do not dissociate themselves from the strike resolutely enough, the trade union is liable for damages. Irrespective of this, the striking workers are liable for individual damages.

The management of Fix AB felt that the chair of the company branch of Metall did not do what he could to bring the strike to an end. When officials from the employers' association and the central trade union came to help in settling the dispute, the employer insisted on the chair resigning as a trade union representative. On 2 July 1998, VI and Metall concluded a collective agreement with the following content:

• the wage increases were to be allocated according to the employer's proposal before the strike;

• the workers were to make up for lost working hours before the beginning of the summer holidays;

• the chair of the company branch of Metall undertook to resign from this position and to refrain from acting as a trade unionist as long as he is employed by Fix; and

• the company in its turn waived its claims for damages.

The third point is quite exceptional and created a sensation when it became known to the public. The chair, who himself had signed the agreement, started to regret his pledge. He now claims that he felt forced to do it, in order to save his colleagues from having to pay damages. The central trade union has declared that it was a mistake to conclude the agreement and that it is inconsistent with the statutes of Metall. A trade union representative can only be removed by the members who elected him or her. Consequently, Metall has invited VI to renegotiate. In fact, this part of the agreement is legally void. VI, however, believes that the local chair should stand by his word.