Railway strikes raise questions of legality

Late September 2004 saw a strike by over 200 train drivers at Estonian Railways over demands for pay increases, plus support action by drivers at another rail company. The strike ended after six days with a pay agreement, but the train drivers' action highlighted problems with Estonian legislation on strikes.

On 23 September 2004, about 220 train drivers at Estonian Railways (Eesti Raudtee) belonging to the Estonian Locomotive Workers’ Trade Union (Eesti Vedurimeeste Ametiühing) started a strike to support demands for pay increases and the regulation of overtime by their collective agreement (EE0410101N). The strike lasted for six days - though Estonian Railways stated that trains were still moving and there were no interruptions in the service - until the Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions (Eesti Ametiühingute Keskliit, EAKL) (EE0308101F) and the Estonian Employers’ Confederation (Eesti Tööandjate Keskliit, ETTK) (EE0310102F) intervened and proposed the establishment of a joint conciliation commission. On 28 September, the commission, consisting of representatives of employers, EAKL and the train drivers, held a lengthy meeting, at which an agreement was reached and it was decided to end the strike. On 29 September, the strike was ended and a collective agreement signed between the Estonian Locomotive Workers’ Trade Union and Estonian Railways. According to the agreement, the hourly wages of train drivers will be increased by 9%-15%, depending on the nature of their work. The collective agreement is valid for 15 months, from 1 November 2004 to 31 December 2005.

Outcomes of the strike

According to Estonian Railways, the collective agreement reached satisfies both parties. However, the gains made by the train drivers seem to be rather questionable. Initially, the engine-drivers demanded an 11% pay rise retrospectively from 1 April 2004 and regulation of overtime in the collective agreement for 2005, while management had initially offered a 9% pay rise. The strike won the drivers an average pay rise only one percentage point higher, which is less than they lost in wages while striking. The new collective agreement provides that with regard to issues it does not cover, the previous collective agreement (signed in April 2002) continues to apply, and this also means that the drivers are obliged to observe a peace obligation, preventing industrial action. In addition, it was agreed that before any future 'support strike' by the workers, the parties will have to negotiate on the duration and conditions of the action. Furthermore, the media have reported that, according to the agreement, the parties will cooperate in transforming the current system of two drivers on each train to a single-driver system. The trade union has thus arguably agreed to possible future redundancies in the company.

EAKL is of the opinion that the strike was a valuable experience and that the pay rise achieved is an important accomplishment. It argues that, through the strike, the train drivers improved their position for the next bargaining round.

Support action

On the first day of the strike, a picket was organised in front of the administrative building of Estonian Railways, attended by about 50 members of several trade unions. On the second day, the train drivers at another railway company, Edelaraudtee, launched a two-day support strike to back the demands of their counterparts in Estonian Railways. The Edelaraudtee drivers had wanted to organise a strike in April 2004 to support of their own demands for pay increases. The strike was cancelled, because it would have been unlawful as there was a valid collective agreement in force at the enterprise. After the action in September, Edelaraudtee stated that it had not been able to guarantee service for most of its passengers during the two-day support strike and claimed EEK 4 million from Locomotive Workers’ Trade Union for the damages the strike caused.

On the sixth day of the strike, about 60 workers belonging to the Federation of Estonian Railwaymen’s Trade Unions (Eesti Raudteelaste Ametiühing, ERAÜ) began a support strike. ERAÜ is a member of an inter-union joint strike pact signed in September 2003 (EE0310101N). While the other members of the pact did not join the strike, they declared solidarity with the train drivers. Though ERAÜ held a support strike, the third trade union in the railway sector, the Estonian Locomotive Workers’ Vocational Union (Eesti Vedurimeeste Kutseliit), did not join the action. This train drivers' union argued that it had a valid collective agreement with the employer, Elektriraudtee, until the end of 2005, and was thus obliged to maintain industrial peace.

Legality of the strikes

During the stoppage, the employers questioned the legality of the strike. ETTK claimed that railway workers are not entitled to strike, as under the terms of a government decree dating from 1991 Estonian Railways and Edelaraudtee are strategic enterprises whose employees have no right to strike. According to this decree, other strategic enterprises are Estonian Energy, Estonian Gas and enterprises in the road transport, water supply, sewerage, communication and major food industries. Both Estonian Railways and Edelaraudtee brought a case against the Locomotive Workers’ Trade Union to declare the September strikes unlawful. According to the agreement signed at the end of the dispute, Estonian Railways will withdraw its claim.

The public conciliator (EE0402102F) and EAKL are on the opinion that the 1991 decree is invalid, because it was adopted before the Estonian Constitution was. Therefore, they argue, instead of this decree, the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act (passed in 1993) should be applied. According to this Act, strikes are not permitted only by employees in government offices, other government bodies, municipal administrations, military forces, national defence organisations, courts, firefighting and rescue services.

The abovementioned viewpoints apply both to the Estonian Railways strike and the support strikes held by train drivers at Edelaraudtee.

The issue of support strikes in enterprises that have a valid collective agreement was also raised by the ETTK employers' confederation. ETTK claims that there are many shortcomings in the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act, which does not specify whether only a trade union that is a party in a collective labour dispute has a right to organise a support strike or also a trade union that is not a party in the conflict. In addition, the Act does not specify which employees can participate in a support strike. It is also not spelled out whether §13 of the Act also applies to support strikes - this paragraph stipulates obligatory conciliation preceding a strike and forbids strikes while a peace obligation applies.

ETTK believes that the current regulation of support strikes contradicts the Constitution, as it limits without cause the economic freedom of enterprises. A support strike limits an employer’s economic activity as a whole, it is argued, because such a strike is not meant to influence the decisions of the employer where it takes place and that employer thus does not have any legal possibility to avoid a support strike.

The public conciliator agrees that the conduct of support strikes is not regulated in enough detail, and therefore a working group is already examining a revision of the relevant legislation. However, it argues that the train drivers that participated in the support strike at Edelaraudtee acted legally as they merely supported the Locomotive Workers’ Trade Union and did not strike against their own employer. Nevertheless, Edelaraudtee has the right to bring a claim against the union if has suffered a loss because of the support strike.

Commentary

The support strikes held by train drivers employed by Edelaraudtee received even more attention in the media than the original strike by Estonian Locomotive Workers’ Trade Union members at Estonian Railways. The support strike highlighted weaknesses in Estonian legislation. According to Edelaraudtee, support strikes unlawful are unlawful if there is valid collective agreement that includes a peace clause, as at Edelaraudtee.

At present, the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act regulates the organisation of support strikes. All it says is that it is permitted to organise support strikes to support striking workers. The workers’ representative, trade union or confederation that has decided to organise a support strike decides on the duration of the action (though a support strike may not last longer than three days), and is obliged to inform the relevant employer, employers’ association or confederation and municipal administration about the planned support strike in writing at least three days in advance. This implies that even a trade union that is party to a collective agreement in force is allowed to strike.

Besides highlighting problems with the the legislation, the train drivers' strikes also indicated the increasing power and influence of trade unions in Estonia. This was the second major strike in a year, following action organised by the Estonian Employees’ Unions’ Confederation (Eesti Teenistujate Ametiliitude Keskorganisatsioon, TALO) in December 2003 to support teachers' wage demands (EE0312103F). (Raul Eamets and Kaia Philips, University of Tartu)