Strikes in the public sector

Several strikes during the 1998 bargaining round in the Norwegian public sector were settled by compulsory arbitration in June. Trade unions claim that such third-party intervention undermines their right to strike and jeopardises the organisation of unions involved in a strike.

Mediation proposals that were put forward during the early hours of 28 May were recommended for acceptance by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) cartels in the state and local government sector (NO9806170F). Within the Norwegian Confederation of Vocational Unions (Yrkesorganisasjonenes Sentralforbund, YS), the cartel for the state sector also recommended the proposal; however, the local government sector cartel was split and two unions, for auxiliary nurses and marine engineers, took strike action. In the Federation of Norwegian Professional Associations (Akademikernes Fellesorganisasjon, AF), cartels in both the state and local government sectors took strike action. Mediation attempts in a third bargaining area, the municipality of Oslo, were delayed, but very soon it became apparent that the AF cartel was split, with nurses and two other health service unions still continuing with strike action. The other parties to the dispute recommended the proposal.

Those cartels that recommended the mediators' proposals pressed for clauses to be inserted into the agreement providing for the right to new negotiations if other groups were given better conditions over and above those set out in the proposals. Such clauses are common in public sector bargaining in Norway.

The bargaining structure in both the state and local government sector in Norway is complex. Union cartels from the three confederations - LO, YS and AF - bargain with three employers' organisations: the state, the Norwegian Association of Local Authorities (Kommunenes Sentralforbund, KS) and the municipality of Oslo. In addition, there are several independent unions. The parties strive for agreement on a single collective agreement for all three bargaining areas. Clauses in the agreement stating the right to new negotiations if other groups are given better conditions than set out in the mediators' proposals also limit the possibility of defection of employers or minority unions or cartels.

Government intervention

There were no signs of any contact between the striking groups and the employers during the period of the strikes, and no steps towards mediation were taken. All the strikes were selective and included only a small proportion of union members. When the strike among auxiliary nurses escalated to include almost half of the union members on 3 June 1998, the Norwegian Board of Health (Helsetilsynet) stated that the health and life of patients was threatened and the Government intervened with a proposal for compulsory arbitration. The strike was called off, and Parliament subsequently legislated to bring the arbitration proposals into effect.

The extent of the AF strikes was more limited, but on 9 June the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development, Ragnhild Queseth Haarstad, informed the parties that a proposal for compulsory arbitration was to be put forward. The proposal, recommended by the Government on 10 June, covered only three health service unions in the local government sector, and the remaining strikes continued. In addition, the health service unions continued their strikes because they disagreed both with the Government's conclusion that the health and well-being of patients was threatened and also with the form of intervention, which applied only to a selection of the AF unions on strike. The health service strikes continued until 12 June, when the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) gave approval for compulsory arbitration. The strikes among the 13 other AF unions in the local government sector ended on a voluntary basis.

On 15 June, a government proposition for compulsory arbitration was passed covering the AF strikes in the state sector. These strikes had brought to a halt all air flights in the southern part of Norway from 9 June. The strikers returned to work on 16 June.

The strike among marine engineers in the local government sector, and the strikes among health service unions in the municipal of Oslo, continued. A strike among LO-organised installers and service engineers in the Norwegian Telecommunication Company (TELENOR), was the last one to be brought to an end by compulsory arbitration. The company is a member of the Norwegian Association of Public Owned Enterprises (Norsk Arbeidsgiverforening for Virksomheter med Offentlig tilknytning, NAVO). The strike began on 13 June, and ended on 24 June. According to the Government, the strike threatened the health and safety of citizens because it could take too long to repair defective emergency telephone lines. Leaders of both the union and the state bargaining cartel in LO questioned this, referring to the practice of giving exemptions.

Commentary

Strikes are rare in Norway - on average there are 14 each year - but since most strikes occur at national level, they tend to involve a significant number of employees. Ad hoc state intervention with compulsory arbitration, transferring disputes to the National Wage Board, has always been an important governmental method for ending strikes in Norwegian collective bargaining. Such interventions have also been controversial, especially among those groups denied the right to strike. This was also the case in 1998.

The Supreme Court in Norway has ruled that strict interpretations of international conventions (especially ILO Conventions nos. [87](http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/public/50normes/ilolex/pdconv.pl?host=status01&textbase=iloeng&document=88&chapter=1&query=(C87), [98](http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/public/50normes/ilolex/pdconv.pl?host=status01&textbase=iloeng&document=99&chapter=1&query=(C98) and 154 are not binding on the use of compulsory arbitration in Norway (NO9704109N). Still, the current coalition Government has signalled a practice whereby health, life or other vital public interests must be threatened before any compulsory arbitration is used. The first proposal for compulsory arbitration (that for auxiliary nurses) seemed consistent with this position. As far as the second proposal is concerned, the nurses' union in particular questioned the judgments of both the Helsetilsynet and the Government.

In the third proposal for compulsory arbitration (the state sector), the grounds given by the government to invoke compulsory arbitration seem much more vague (cf Ot prp nr 81, 1997-8). Although the health of patients might have been threatened in the longer term, there was no need for immediate intervention.

The approval of compulsory arbitration in Parliament can take some time and the delay might be one reason for the seemingly early intervention in the third strike. It is common for those on strike to return to work when the Government indicates that it is going to invoke compulsory arbitration procedures. The fact that the second strike continued might well trigger a debate on what measures can be taken while proposals for compulsory arbitration are going through Parliament. (Kristine Nergaard, FAFO Institute for Applied Social Science)