Dock Work Convention, 1973 (No. 137) - Sweden (Ratification: 1974)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s brief report, which refers to its previous reports, as well as to its report on the application of the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152). The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, including extracts from reports, particulars of the numbers of registered dockworkers (Article 3 of the Convention) and of variations in their numbers during the period covered by the next report. It also requests the Government to indicate whether courts of law or other tribunals have rendered decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention and, if so, to supply copies of such decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report received in December 2002, which contains indications on the provisions adopted in order to improve the safety of work in ports. It asks the Government to provide information on the effect given to Article 3 of the Convention (establishment and maintenance of registers for all occupational categories of dockworkers) and to supply, as requested in Part V of the report form, information on the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, extracts of reports, particulars of the numbers of dockworkers on the registers and of variations in such numbers during the period covered by the report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. The Committee notes the Government's report. It also notes the communication from the Swedish Trade Union Confederation.

2. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report on the discussions held within the ILO Committee set up under Convention No. 144 on the possibility of denouncing the Convention, following a request from the Swedish Employers' Confederation (SAF). The SAF asserts that there is a monopoly of stevedoring activities in Swedish ports resulting, among other things, from the ratification of the Convention. It alleges that the monopoly situation hinders the development of new cargo-handling methods and impairs competitive capacity in the sector. Furthermore, it alleges that the Government does not give effect to the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention which requires that registers of dockworkers be established and maintained in accordance with the Article. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation, for its part, contends that provisions of the Convention do not create or maintain a stevedoring monopoly in ports. At the end of the discussions, the ILO Committee decided that the Convention did not imply introduction or maintenance of a monopoly. It decided that the Convention did not impede the establishment of more than one stevedore contractor in every port. Nor did it prevent an enterprise with another principle activity from carrying on connected activities in the ports. The ILO Committee resolved not to recommend that Sweden avail itself of the opportunity for repudiation of the Convention.

3. In its communication addressed to the ILO in November 1997, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation states that the Convention is one of the pillars of stevedoring activities in Swedish ports which are renowned for their efficiency. To try and alter such a positive situation would, in the Confederation's view, be a mistake in political and industrial terms.

4. The Committee appreciates the information supplied in the Government's report on the discussions that took place. Noting that the Government supplies no express comments on the observations of the Swedish Dockworkers' Union referred to in its previous direct request, the Committee asks the Government to make such comments as it considers appropriate on the observations made by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. Furthermore, noting that government and employers' representatives of the ILO Committee consider that the keeping of registers of dockworkers by the unions or the stevedoring companies cannot be regarded as giving effect to Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that the purpose of maintaining registers, as required by both this Article and Recommendation No. 145, is the regularization and stabilization of the employment and income of dockworkers, regardless of the authority or authorities responsible for maintaining them, since this is determined by national law or practice. Therefore, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the effect given to Article 3 of the Convention and Recommendation No. 145 above-mentioned and to supply, as requested in point V of the report form, information on the practical application of the Convention, including for instance extracts of reports, particulars of the numbers of dockworkers on the registers and of variations in such numbers during the period covered by the report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending 30 June 1992.

Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes, in particular, the Government's statement to the effect that dock workers employed on an indefinite-term basis who are registered by the stevedoring companies concerned have priority for all work provided by these companies, and that registered fixed-term dock workers also have priority for employment and are obliged to keep themselves available. The Committee also notes from the Government's report that the Swedish Dock Workers' Union made observations concerning the application of this Article, which, according to the Union, is sometimes flouted. The Union states that in such cases the work is done by other categories than registered dock workers. The Committee therefore would be grateful if the Government would refer to these observations in its next report, making such comments as it considers appropriate. Please also supply information on practical application of the Convention, including for instance extracts from reports, particulars of the numbers of dock workers on the registers and of variations in their numbers during the period covered by the report, as requested by point V of the report form.