Union members have lost a battle for collective bargaining rights at a Norwegian IT company. Eighty workers had gone on strike in protest against the decision of their employer, Atea, to refuse approval for a collective agreement. The company argued that a small number of union members should not be able to negotiate a deal which would be forced on other workers. The dispute was referred by the Ministry of Labour to the National Wages Board which ruled in favour of Atea.
On 29 April 2013, a group of 80 Norwegian workers began a strike in a dispute with their employer, the IT company Atea. The workers were all members of the Electricians’ and IT Workers’ Union (EL&IT), a trade union affiliated to the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO).
The strikers were demanding the right to negotiate a collective agreement for their workplace. Atea refused, arguing that the union did not have sufficient representativity at the company. It also said its labour conditions set out in their work contracts, especially the pension schemes, were more favourable than those in the union’s other collective agreements.
The dispute began as a result of a merger between Atea and another company employing workers with an allegiance to the EL&IT union. During the merger-negotiations, all parties agreed to a protocol that addressed wages and working conditions.
EL&IT then wanted this protocol to be regarded as a collective agreement, but it was finally decided that this would not happen. Union representatives argued that workers transferred from the merged company should be covered by the same collective agreement they had enjoyed at their old workplace. When Atea refused, the 80 workers concerned went on strike.
On 7 May 2013, EL&IT mobilised another 460 workers from other companies who also came out on strike in support of the Atea workers. They were followed by 600 more. Because these strikers were mainly from the energy sector, the Minister of Labour, Anniken Huitfeldt, stepped in. She argued that the strike was detrimental to the national interest and, as a result, asked the government to put a proposal for compulsory arbitration before the Norwegian parliament. The strike was halted and the parties were obliged to take their cases to National Wages Board (Rikslønnsnemda).
The National Wages Board is a permanent arbitration body of five members, two of whom represent employers and employees. Typically, the board deals with issues relating to reforms of existing collective agreements. Only once before, in 1976, was the board called upon to decide whether or not a collective agreement should be in force at a workplace. The outcome was awaited with interest because of the potential implications for similar cases in the future.
When a labour dispute is brought to the National Wages Board, both parties are obliged by parliament to accept a peace clause. In the Atea case, it meant the striking employees had to go back to work and that neither side could enforce any type of work stoppage.
In the board proceedings (in Norwegian, 668 KB PDF), Atea argued that the demand for a collective agreement for Atea workers was unreasonable. It said the union lacked representativity in the workplace and a collective agreement imposed by a small minority of organised workers would break article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (121 MB PDF). This guarantees the right to organise, and, implicitly, the right to not be organised.
While forced recruitment to the union was not an issue, the employer argued that article 11 would be breached if non-union members had to adhere to the various policies and labour arrangements in a collective agreement.
The union said their case was supported by precedent, arguing that courts had already ruled that the right of a group of workers to claim the protection of collective regulation should be a more pronounced right than that of employers to position themselves outside a bargaining system.
The board ruled in favout of Atea, and the opinion of the board's neutral members was that the union did not have sufficient legitimacy and lacked representativity at the workplace.
The union representative on the board was unhappy with the verdict. He argued that the board had not offered an adequate solution to the dispute, and that all claims for collective agreements within the Norwegian system should be considered legitimate.
Collective agreements are the norm in Norway, even in private sector companies and cases like these are rare in Norway. Where companies are members of employer organisations, a request for a collective agreement will usually follow well-established rules.
It means conflicts like this only occur when an employer, such as Atea, is not a member of an employers’ organisation. Even then, the conflict will seldom result in work stoppages. On average, cases like this occur only once or twice a year.
Magnus Mühlbradt, Fafo