On Wednesday 25 January 2006, about 500 pilots employed by the Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS) airline in Denmark went back to work at Kastrup Airport after three days of wildcat strikes. Almost simultaneously, the Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) decided that the strike actions were illegal according to Swedish law and ordered the striking pilots to return to work immediately. The pilots started their strike action on 23 January, causing the cancellation of about 1,000 flights from Copenhagen. The main reason for the actions, according to the Danish Pilots’ Trade Union (Dansk Pilotförening, DPF), was that the pilots opposed plans by SAS to transfer bargaining responsibility for pilots' collective agreements from group level to the respective national subsidiaries, in this case SAS Denmark (DK0602101N [1]). At the same time, in Norway, SAS-Braathens had to cancel numerous flights when a large number of pilots reported sick, allegedly as a form of indirect industrial action (NO0602101N [2]).[1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/danish-sas-pilots-in-wildcat-strike[2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/sickness-absence-among-sas-pilots-stops-flights
On 25 January 2006, the Swedish Labour Court ruled that wildcat strikes by pilots employed by the SAS airline in Denmark were unlawful, and ordered the pilots to return to work (collective agreements at SAS give the Swedish court jurisdiction in such cases). The pilots, who were protesting at SAS's plans to transfer bargaining responsibility for their collective agreements to its national subsidiaries, had decided to go back to work anyway.
On Wednesday 25 January 2006, about 500 pilots employed by the Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS) airline in Denmark went back to work at Kastrup Airport after three days of wildcat strikes. Almost simultaneously, the Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) decided that the strike actions were illegal according to Swedish law and ordered the striking pilots to return to work immediately. The pilots started their strike action on 23 January, causing the cancellation of about 1,000 flights from Copenhagen. The main reason for the actions, according to the Danish Pilots’ Trade Union (Dansk Pilotförening, DPF), was that the pilots opposed plans by SAS to transfer bargaining responsibility for pilots' collective agreements from group level to the respective national subsidiaries, in this case SAS Denmark (DK0602101N). At the same time, in Norway, SAS-Braathens had to cancel numerous flights when a large number of pilots reported sick, allegedly as a form of indirect industrial action (NO0602101N).
According to SAS Denmark, the pilots' wildcat actions cost the company about SEK 30 million a day.
SAS and the Swedish Air Transport Industry Employers’ Association (Flygarbetsgivarna) took to court three of the pilots’ unions with members employed at SAS: DPF in Denmark, the Swedish Pilots’ Union (Svensk Pilotförening, SPF) and the Norwegian Pilots’ Union (Norske SAS-flygeres Forening, NSF). They alleged unlawful conflict actions and requested an order to stop the actions immediately. According to the collective agreements within SAS, such conflicts should be handled in the Swedish Labour Court. The reason why the Swedish and Norwegian pilots’ unions were also addressed was that, according to the employer, some Swedish and Norwegian pilots stationed in Denmark also took part in the conflict. SAS also claimed that the strike actions caused great economic loss. The issue of a possibly abnormal high level of sickness absence among Norwegian pilots in January may be dealt with by other instances, nationally. In Sweden there were no conflict actions carried out by the pilots.
The Swedish Labour Court stated in its interim decision, issued on 25 January 2006 (Mål nr A 20/06), that there are valid collective agreements in force between SAS and the trade unions in the various countries. According to Swedish law, it is not allowed to take to conflict actions in the period of a valid agreement. Also, the court states, great economic damage was being caused by the actions, while there were also inconveniences for third parties, for example the passengers.
After the Swedish Labour Court's decision had been made public, the bargaining director of Flygarbetsgivarna, Jonas Bernunger stated that the unions in air transport had always been more willing to take to strike action than unions in other sectors. It appears that the trade unions involved may argue against this view (DK0602101N). The main hearing in the cases between SAS and the pilot’s unions will possibly be held later in 2006, also in Stockholm. SAS has demanded SEK 10,000 in damages from each pilot involved.
This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2006), Labour Court rules SAS pilots' strikes unlawful, article.
