Police trade union established

Following amendments to the relevant legislation, it became legal for Latvian police officers to establish and join trade unions from 1 January 2006. The Latvian United Police Trade Union (LAPA), which had been under preparation for some time, was officially founded a few days later. The impetus to create the union was provided largely by a long-running dispute over the benefits to which police officers are entitled .

The operation of the Latvian civil service is governed by the State Civil Service Law and a range of specific laws. The State Civil Service Law distinguishes between 'general' and 'specialised' civil servants (LV0409104F). The latter are those performing civil servant functions in the diplomatic and consular service, State Revenue Service (Valsts Ieņēmumu dienests, VID), State Police (Valsts Policija, VP), Security Police (Drošības Policija), Ministry of the Interior Liaison Centre and Information Centre, State Border Guard (Valsts Robežsardze), State Firefighting and Rescue Service (Valsts ugunsdzēsības un glābšanas dienests, VUGD), Prison Administration (Ieslodzījumu vietu pārvalde, IeVP) and State Forensic Expertise Bureau (Valsts tiesu ekspertīžu birojs).

The activities of these 'special' areas of the civil service are regulated by specific laws (the Police Law, Border Guard Law, the Law on State Revenue Service, Diplomatic and Consular Service Law, Fire Safety and Firefighting Law and Prison Administration Law). At the same time, those provisions of the State Civil Service Law that stipulate general rights and obligations for civil servants apply to specialised civil servants. As a result, a 'dual status' has developed for specialised civil servants. The system of specific civil service laws stipulates particular conditions for the specialised civil service areas, but does not state whether the remuneration principles and social benefits applicable to general civil servants do or do not apply to specialised civil servants. For example, the Police Law specifies a number of additional payments, such as supplements based on rank and length of service, subsistence payments, special benefits for working in dangerous conditions, and benefits to families in the case of death in service. An assumption has existed that the general civil service social benefits, including childbirth benefit and vacation allowances, do not apply to police officers and they have not normally been granted to them.

Moves to establish a police union

At the end of 2004, a number of police officers filed a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior claiming a violation of their social rights because they were being treated unfairly in respect of various social benefits (LV0510101N, LV0508102N, LV0505101N and LV0412101N). The officers considered that general civil service entitlements applied to them, at least with regard to childbirth benefit and vacation allowances. The issue received media and public attention, and it emerged that in 2004 a total of 82 specialised civil servants had referred complaints on unpaid benefits to the Ministry of Interior, while 57 had referred similar cases to the courts and in four cases the court had upheld their claims. The court decisions confirmed that there are contradictions in the law and that the officers' claims were substantiated.

At the time when police officers started filing complaints, the Police Law prohibited police officers from establishing trade unions or other representative organisations for the protection of their employee interests, and from striking or otherwise seeking to enforce their employment rights. Accepting that there was some justification to the police officers' claims and wishing to prevent further unrest, the government promised to consider allowing the establishment of a police trade union. Soon afterwards, parliament approved amendments to the Police Law that permitted police officers to form and join trade unions. The amendments entered into force on 1 January 2006.

At the end of 2004, the State Human Rights Bureau (Valsts cilvēktiesību birojs, VCB) had submitted a case to the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa), asking it to declare invalid the ban on joining trade unions stipulated by the Police Law. A Constitutional Court ruling would have allowed the establishment of a police trade union before 1 January 2006, but such a ruling was not issued.

In April 2005, to support police officers' claims, the Latvian Police Society (Latvijas Policistu biedrība, LPB), which was originally established in 1923, was re-formed. Before the Second World War, LPB had represented the professional interests of police officers. The renewed LPB had a different task - to establish a police trade union. The establishment of LPB maintained organisational momentum, and provided experience of union-like activity, until a proper trade union could be formed on 1 January 2006. LPB performed many of the functions of a trade union but did not have the right to represent employees in the system of social dialogue. It was planned that, after 1 January 2006, LPB would convert into a trade union. Initially about 3,000 police officers expressed their support for LPB, but no more than 500 actually joined.

Due to growing inflation and an increase in fuel prices, the financial situation also became strained in the firefighting and border guard services over 2004-5. Due to a lack of funds, firefighting services announced that they would substantially restrict rescue and technical assistance work, providing help only in situations when the health and lives of civilians were threatened. The police, firefighting and border guard services were in debt to fuel suppliers because the increase in fuel prices had not been included in the funding for these services.

Wages are low in all these services, at about EUR 335 per month in August 2005 (the average gross wage in the public sector was EUR 402). Due to the low wages, many specialised civil servants have resigned - notably over 330 police officers resigned during 2005.

A request by the specialised civil services to increase their funding in the state budget for 2005 was not granted. LPB organised a protest campaign, including a picket in Riga on 16 August 2005, the day the government was to decide on the amendments to the 2005 budget . Only employees on holiday participated in the picket, as it is an offence subject to administrative punishment for specialised civil servants to participate in campaigns during their working hours. The picket participants had three key demands:

• an increase in wages;

• the payment of childbirth benefits and vacation allowances to specialised civil servants. It was noted that the supreme judicial authority - the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) - had decided in a case brought by police officers that the latter are lawfully entitled to receive such benefits since the adoption of the relevant law (in 2001). This decision was final and had the force of law, but because the Ministry did not have funds, the benefits were not paid; and

• payment of other special benefits stipulated by law that had also not been paid due to a lack of funds.

Several hundred police officers from almost all regions of Latvia and all police units took part in the picket.

The new trade union

On 7 January 2006, the Latvian United Police Trade Union (Latvijas Apvienotā policistu arodbiedrība, LAPA) was established at a founding congress attended by 77 delegates from state and municipal police authorities. Delegates elected a president, vice-president and board. Six seats out of 13 on the board are intended for representatives of regional police units. At present, LPB is continuing to work alongside LAPA.

The creation of LAPA provides police officers with the right to participate in social dialogue, although it does not ensure full representation of police interests. The administration of the new union hopes to increase its membership to 90%-95% of all those employed in police units. It is planned that LPS members will automatically become LAPA members. There are almost 9,900 staff positions in the state police force (VP), of which nearly 800 are currently vacant.

The primary purpose of the new trade union is to conclude a collective agreement, and then to overhaul employment relations between police officers and employers. At present, police officers do not have employment contracts, and an objective for LAPA is thus to ensure that officers have employment contracts concluded with the VP.

As a result of its activities, LAPA hopes to stop police officers resigning from their positions to work for private security companies or to go abroad in search of jobs, and to create a situation in which professional and experienced police officers return to the service.

An extraordinary LAPA congress is scheduled for 11 February 2006 to discuss amendments to its charter and future activities.

Issues raised by creation of new union

A wide-ranging discussion started after the government had decided to give the green light to the formation of a police trade union. The financial aspects were particularly frequently discussed - if police officers are granted the social benefits applicable to general civil servants without losing their special social and security guarantees, police expenditure will increase. The state security aspect was also raised, mainly in relation to the right to organise strikes. Further problems could arise in terms of the compliance with the Labour Law (Latvia's main item of legislation regulating individual and collective relations at work - LV0405103F) of police work, as a number of legal norms, for example concerning regular and overtime working hours, are difficult to apply due to the specific character of police work.

The picket organised by the police officers in August 2005 triggered an extensive discussion on pay inequality at the VP. It was reported, for example, that the salaries of several high-ranking police officials exceeded EUR 2,560 per month, and that the administration received monthly bonuses from funds saved from the vacant staff positions.

The establishment of the police trade union in January 2006 has not yet generated any significant public discussion.

Social partners's views

The Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia (Latvijas Brīvo Arodbiedrību savienība, LBAS) did not directly participate in organising the earlier police picket, but it supported the police officers in their decision to establish LAPA and provided methodological assistance during the whole process of establishing the new union. The creation of new trade unions is important for LBAS, because its membership is decreasing year by year. The establishment of the police trade union is seen as clearly demonstrating that unions are important for protection of workers' rights and as helping to increase participation in the trade union movement.

The Latvian Employers’ Confederation (Latvijas Darba Devēju konfederācija, LDDK) has not participated openly in the debate over the issues raised by police officers or the creation of a union.

The Ministry of Interior expressed understanding about the police officers’ demands, but is hindered in addressing them by a lack of funds. Ministry officials differ in their views of the establishment of the police trade union. The current Minister of the Interior, Dzintars Jaundžeikars, has already met the head of LAPA. At the meeting, the Minister expressed readiness for constructive cooperation and announced that a Service Progress Law has been drafted for submission to parliament. This law will specify uniform provisions for the police and other services, seeking to ensure a professional and politically neutral status, and lay down procedures for appointments and dismissal, claims, social benefits, rights and other issues. The Minister’s wish is that police officers will receive all unpaid sums during 2006. The Minister also gave his views on pay increases, for example stating that the wages of employees in Ministry of the Interior services should not be lower than those in the professional armed forces.

On the basis of information about ineffective use of funding at the VP, the government asked the Ministry of the Interior and the VP to develop by 13 September 2005 concrete proposals for addressing wages and benefits, including the development of a pay increase plan for the police. However, such a scheme was not developed, and the police officers' demands were thus only partly satisfied, while the payment of benefits owed was only gradually implemented.

At the end of 2004, the issue of police pay caused serious disagreement within the government coalition. The People’s Party (Tautas partija, TP), the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība, ZZS) and the New Era party (Partija Jaunais Laiks, JL) maintained that the issue of Ministry of the Interior services pay should be solved only in 2006, while the Latvia First Party (Latvijas Pirmā partija, LPP) supported the efforts of its then Minister of the Interior, Ēriks Jēkabsons, to acquire additional funds for police salaries and for the payment of benefits declared to be owed by the courts and stipulated by law. The other coalition partners saw this stance as an attempt to destabilise the government.

Commentary

From the point of view of the social dialogue, the creation of the Latvian United Police Trade Union is an important development. Until now, police officers and similar groups could not protect their interests, which resulted in a neglectful attitude on the part of the employer - the state. A paradoxical situation was created in which the state did not comply with the law (in terms of paying the general and special benefits stipulated by the law) with regard to its own law-enforcement institutions. The low wages have reportedly resulted in corruption in the specialised civil services that have contacts with customers, especially the police and border guard. According to experts, such a situation was extremely dangerous.

The establishment of LAPA is also important with regard to the development of social partnership. The example of the police officers shows that organised actions lead to better results. However, founding the trade union was only the first step.

The government’s attitude indicates that the problems caused by disorganised industrial relations in the civil service have not been sufficiently evaluated at the national level. (Raita Karnite, Institute of Economics, Latvian Academy of Sciences)