In June 1999, Denmark's Supreme Court rejected claims that it should be illegal to conclude closed-shop agreements. This ruling was even clearer on the right to sign such agreements than the Court's judgment in a similar case earlier in 1999.
In a ruling issued on 8 June 1999, the Supreme Court (Højesteret) rejected the argument that it should be illegal for trade unions and employers' organisations to conclude closed-shop agreements. Under such agreements, in order to be able to work at a certain workplace, an employee has to be a member of the trade union with which the employer has concluded the closed-shop agreement. The ruling came in case against the Danish Cooperative Society (Foreningen af Danske Brugser, FDB), brought by Denmark's Free Trade Union (Danmarks Frie Fagforening, DFF) on grounds of alleged violation of the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by operating a closed-shop agreement. In its ruling, the Supreme Court clearly rejected the idea that such a violation had occurred.
The case related to the dismissal of an employee who, a few days after starting employment at a cooperative, complained that he had been enrolled in the General Workers' Union (Specialarbejderforbundet, SiD) against his will. In the closed-shop agreement between FDB and SiD, it was clear that the person in question had to be a member of SiD. Consequently, this was also written in the employment contract which the employee had previously signed.
SiD is very satisfied with the ruling. Its secretary, Torben Bach, stated that he was pleased that the free law of contract has been maintained, and that the Supreme Court was clear in its exposition, determining that it is possible to make agreements within the labour market without the interference of a third party. The decision is even clearer on the right to conclude closed-shop agreements - as set out in the Danish Act on Freedom of Association - than the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case in May 1999 (DK9905123F).
In a press statement, DFF calls the ruling "pathetic", and states that the Supreme Court should assume a considerably more independent position in matters of the understanding of fundamental rights which develop over the course of time. DFF believes that an independent Supreme Court would be able to predict how cases of principle would in the future be determined by theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. DFF questions the justification of Supreme Court in not "daring" to apply fundamental rights in labour market matters. DFF plans to take the case to the ECHR, making it the first Danish case of principle of this kind to go to Strasbourg.
The political spokesperson for the Liberal Party, Ulla Tørnæs, wants a statutory prohibition against closed-shop agreements in the private sector. She finds it problematic that the Supreme Court will not use Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which concerns freedom of association and the right to organise, to prohibit such agreements. As a result, she stated that if the government will not do so, the opposition will introduce a bill to prohibit private sector closed-shop agreements.
Pay and working conditions on the Danish labour market are regulated by voluntary agreements between the social partner, a principle emphasised as the most important part of the "Danish model" of industrial relations. Therefore, it can be questioned whether a bill to ban closed-shop agreements would be well received by the social partners, or if it would instead be perceived as misplaced interference from the state.