No rise in number of working days lost to industrial disputes in 2006

According to figures published by Statistics Norway on 9 May 2007, the number of working days lost to industrial disputes in 2006 remained at the level witnessed during the period covered by the two previous main wage settlements in 2002 and 2004. The main conflicts in the 2006 settlement were related to wage matters, the question of gaining influence and control over occupational pension schemes, and the issue of company level bargaining.

New figures from Statistics Norway (Statistisk Sentralbyrå, SSB) show that just under 147,000 working days were lost as a result of industrial disputes in 2006 (see press release of 9 May 2007 147 000 tapte arbeidsdagar). The number of working days lost equalled the levels witnessed during the period covered by the two previous wage settlements in 2002 and 2004. As such, the 2006 settlement seems like an ordinary year with regard to industrial conflicts, at least when compared with previous years.

Matters for dispute

A total of 12 industrial disputes arose in connection with the 2006 bargaining round, comprising only those conflicts that lasted at least one day or more. All of the conflicts were legal, which is a distinguishing feature of Norwegian industrial relations, when compared with other countries such as Denmark, where illegal conflicts are more widespread. The annual report of the Norwegian State Mediator (Riksmeklingsmannens årsmelding (in Norwegian, 395Kb PDF)) shows that almost half of the conflicts in the 2006 settlement were related to wage issues, while the other half concerned the question of gaining influence and control over occupational pension schemes and the issue of company level bargaining. None of the conflicts resulted in solutions which would threaten the Norwegian model for coordinated wage formation.

Occupational pension scheme in financial sector

The pension issue was the subject of dispute in the financial sector negotiations (NO0606049I, NO0608029I). The Finance Sector Union (Finansforbundet) demanded greater influence and co-determination over the development of the sector’s occupational pension scheme. The employers’ response to the strike was to impose a passive lockout – that is, a lockout carried out in response to a trade union strike action, often grounded in the need to counter competitive imbalances. As a result of such a lockout, banks would have been closed in the entire country. The trade union followed up by calling an end to the strike before the lockout was instigated; this came in response to the government warning that it would propose to stop the conflict going any further by means of compulsory arbitration.

Decentralisation of wage formation in public sector

Decentralisation of wage formation was the main area of dispute in the conflict between employees affiliated to the Federation of Norwegian Professional Associations, Akademikerne, and the state (NO0606029I, NO0608029I). Increased decentralisation of wage formation has been an important demand of Akademikerne for a long time. However, the state has so far decided to keep relations undisturbed with the other main confederations in the state sector agreement area and does not wish to change the current centralised system of wage formation.

Despite the relatively modest strike action by Akademikerne when measured in terms of the number of participating workers, the government signalled early on in the conflict its intention to put forward a proposal for compulsory arbitration. The government’s decision was based on the fear that striking veterinaries would threaten the health of livestock, thereby threatening the health of the wider population.

Wage system in construction sector

The most significant industrial conflict in 2006, at least when measured by the number of working days lost, was the strike in the construction sector (NO0604019I). Negotiations between the Norwegian United Federation of Trade Unions (Fellesforbundet) and the Federation of Norwegian Construction Industries (Byggenæringens Landsforening, BNL) ended in strike action on 2 April 2006. One of the more controversial issues in this case was the introduction of a new wage system in some parts of the sector. Disagreement over the introduction of new provisions on social dumping was also a strike factor. Nonetheless, the dispute was short-lived: following two days of strike action, the parties met for a new round of mediation and agreed on a new proposal for a revised agreement.

Commentary

The industrial conflicts witnessed during the 2006 wage settlement negotiations seem to have further embedded the trend among employers to resort to lockout whenever the employee side takes strike action involving only a limited number of trade union members. Passive lockouts have apparently become established as a legitimate mechanism in industrial conflicts in Norwegian working life. Such lockouts have been brought into play in both bargaining rounds in 2004 and 2006, without generating marked opposition of the underlying principles.

If the lockout imposed by the employers is relatively wide-ranging in scope, the employee side may, however, view such a lockout differently. For instance, in the financial sector dispute the employee side was highly critical of the scale of the employers’ passive lockout; employee representatives argued that the lockout was not grounded in principles of competition, but was used to force a decision to impose compulsory arbitration, thereby ending the conflict.

Kristin Alsos, Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science