Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Denmark (Ratification: 1951)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and regrets that it did not discuss the issues previously raised by the Committee. In these circumstances, the Committee once again refers to the same issues.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made to ensure that all teachers, regardless of their classification as public servants, may exercise strike action without penalty. The Committee noted that the Government indicated in its report that, following a 2001 circular containing transitional arrangements, persons employed under a public servant status before 1 January 2001 are entitled to maintain this status, to a certain extent, even if they do not fall within the categories of employees who will, henceforth, be covered by the public servant status. Once the employees benefiting from the transitional arrangements have retired, public servants will be limited to those who are exercising authority in the name of the State, that is public employees who can be deprived of the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee requests once again the Government to continue to keep it informed of the steps that may be envisaged, so that teachers who have chosen to keep their status as public employees may have recourse to strike action without the risk of being sanctioned. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government could indicate how many teachers have chosen to retain their status of public servant and how many teachers exist overall in the workforce. It further requests the Government to provide a copy of the circular mentioned in its report and to specify the categories of employees considered to be exercising authority in the name of the State, and to whom the status of public servant will henceforth apply, along with the restrictions concerning strike action.

2. Further, in its previous comments and in light of Case No. 1971 last examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in 1999, the Committee noted that section 12 of the Conciliation Act might have a negative impact on the possibility of workers’ organizations to exercise the right to strike, in so far as they might be bound by a labour market decision to accept an overall draft settlement to which a collective agreement concerning their sector had been linked. The Committee deals with this question in its observation on the application of Convention No. 98.

3. Finally, in its previous comments, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government on the introduction of a new structure of collective negotiations and agreements in the financial sector which enables the social partners concerned to depart from the agreements negotiated at the central level and conclude an agreement applicable to the company. The Government indicated that there is no right to strike linked to the negotiations of the original company agreement and to its renewal. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the matter should be referred to mediation and arbitration; the exercise of the right to strike remains in respect of the renewal of the collective agreements negotiated at the central level. The Committee invites the Government to engage in discussions with the most representative organizations of workers and employers with a view to overcoming the existing limitations to the right to strike in the abovementioned context and to keep it informed in this respect.