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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), attached to the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Registered dockworkers. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government and the LO’s observations concerning the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 December 2016 in Case No. HR-2016-2554-P, Holship Norge AS v. Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF), on the implementation of the Convention, particularly as regards priority of engagement for registered dockworkers. The Committee recalls that, in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the priority of engagement clause for dockworkers registered with the Administration Office of the Port of Drammen, contained in a collective agreement, constituted an unlawful restriction on the appellant enterprise’s freedom of establishment under Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). It observed that the principle of priority of engagement was originally established to improve the situation of dockworkers, and the priority of engagement clause is anchored in Article 3 of the Convention. It also referred to Article 2 of the Convention, observing that the purpose of the instrument was to establish regular employment and payment conditions for dockworkers. However, in reaching its conclusions, the Court held that these considerations could be fulfilled by means other than granting priority of engagement for loading and unloading work to one group of workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the parties to the case, considering the need for changes to the way dock work was organized and possible changes to the collective agreements, had engaged in dialogue. The Committee recalls the LO’s reference to the consistent case law of the national courts, which had previously upheld the validity of the priority of engagement clause. The LO also noted the tendency to no longer apply the priority of engagement clause in some ports where it was previously applied. According to the LO, loading and unloading operations were carried out by employees of the enterprises located in these ports, by workers these enterprises employed temporarily, and by the ships’ crew, at the expense of registered dockworkers, which was incompatible with Norway’s obligations under the Convention.

The Committee notes that, following the Supreme Court’s decision, the parties to the invalidated framework agreement negotiated and signed a collective agreement for ports and terminals in September 2017. It notes the Government’s indication that, despite the removal of priority of engagement from the new collective agreement, the social partners have agreed to give preference to workers on permanent, full-time contracts in jobs involving loading and unloading. The Government draws attention to clause 1 of the collective agreement, which indicates that work at the terminal will be carried out primarily by terminal employees, and mainly on the basis of full-time open-ended contracts. The Government also emphasizes that clause 16 of the collective agreement addresses the issue of temporary work by manual workers and employed workers by providing that “the parties agree that it is important to strive to make the sector attractive and reliable and that the employed workers must benefit from decent wages and working conditions. The parties are determined to prevent ‘social dumping’ and to ensure that challenges posed by the international labour market are resolved in an acceptable manner”. The Government therefore considers that its obligations under the Convention are fulfilled under this new framework. It indicates that dockworkers are guaranteed permanent employment and safe working conditions, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, through legislation, together with collective agreements between the main social partners, ensuring their employment in full-time positions in ports and terminals.

The Committee also notes that, according to the LO, national practice may exclude certain workers from the definition of dockworkers, in particular workers from enterprises operating outside the framework of the collective agreement or who have no connection with the parties to the collective agreement. The LO also states that the collective agreement for ports and terminals now covers all full-time employees, temporary workers and casual workers employed by port operators, and loading and unloading offices in some ports. Under this new agreement, no register of workers deemed to be dockworkers has been established, as required by Article 3 of the Convention. The LO therefore considers that the Government is not applying this Article of the Convention and calls on the Government to comply with the long-standing request from the NFT and the Norwegian United Federation of Trade Unions to establish a register of dockworkers.

The Committee considers it useful to recall that the registration of dockworkers, under Article 3 of the Convention, originally responded to the need to ensure the permanent availability of qualified personnel for an occupation requiring versatility and training in modern cargo-handling techniques. In turn, membership for the workers concerned required them to be offered sufficient guarantees of employment and income. This balance could only be achieved by establishing registers of workers in order to implement a means of regularization of employment and stabilization of income, or to distribute the labour force in the ports. The Committee has always taken the view that the registration of dockworkers is merely an alternative to an ideal situation in which dockworkers benefit from or are guaranteed permanent employment. The Committee also recalled that the effectiveness of a means of regularization of employment in ports depends on a number of factors, such as the number of cargo-handling enterprises, the size and layout of the port and the diversity of cargo handled. Modern ports generally have a pool of workers benefiting from regular or even permanent employment, as well as a reserve pool of temporary or casual workers. Thus, the Dock Work Recommendation, 1973 (No. 145), provides for the possibility of separate registers for those in more or less regular employment and those in a reserve pool (paragraph 14) (see General Survey on Dock Work, 2002, paragraphs 112 and following). Lastly, the Committee recalls that the Convention and the Recommendation do not require any particular forms of register, as the form may be determined by national law or practice, depending on local circumstances (see General Survey, paragraph 120).

In the light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the effects of the implementation of the collective agreement for ports and terminals in the Port of Drammen, in particular its effects on the employment of the permanent dockworkers associated with the port Administration Office and the reserve pool of workers identified in the previous framework agreement, and possibly in other major ports in the country. The Committee also invites the Government to report on any measures taken by the competent authorities or any initiatives taken by the parties to the collective agreement for ports and terminals concerning the establishment of a register of dockworkers, as requested by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO). Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the LO’s observations concerning the exclusion of a category of workers from the definition of dockworkers under the Convention, thereby placing them outside its coverage.

Application of the Convention in practice.The Committee requests the Government to provide a general appreciation in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, including, for instance, relevant extracts from reports, particulars of the numbers of dockworkers in the country, possibly disaggregated by type of contract (open-ended, temporary and casual) and of variations in their numbers over time.

The Committee noted information supplied by the following State in an answer to a direct request: Australia.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises (NHO) and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Registered dockworkers. In its 2015 comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that there were several cases pending in Norwegian courts on various aspects of the collective agreements through which the Convention is implemented in the country, whose outcome might affect the manner in which the number of dockworkers is determined. The Government added that, once the pending cases were resolved, it might then be appropriate to engage in a dialogue with the social partners with the intent of finding a method of determining the number of dockworkers that would be acceptable to both parties, and would enable the Government to provide the Committee with comprehensive information on the implementation of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide copies of relevant court decisions and information on the manner in which the Convention is applied. The Government recalls in its report that the Convention’s requirements are implemented through collective agreements between the NHO and the LO. It adds that the Supreme Court of Norway took under consideration a case involving one such collective agreement. The Committee notes the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 December 2016 in Case No. HR-2016-2554-P, Holship Norge AS v. Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF), a copy of which was communicated with the Government’s report. The Committee notes that the LO intervened in the appeal as a third-party intervener for the benefit of the NTF, and the NHO and the Norwegian Business Association intervened as third-party interveners on behalf of the appellant, Holship. The Supreme Court examined the issue of the lawfulness of a notified boycott against Holship, a Danish enterprise, by the NTF, to prevent Holship employees from loading and unloading ships landing at the Port of Drammen. The boycott was intended to force Holship to enter into a collective agreement with the NTF (the Framework Agreement) containing a priority of engagement clause, which would reserve loading and unloading work for dockworkers associated with the Administration Office of the Port of Drammen. According to the Framework Agreement, administration office stevedores handle loading and unloading operations for all port users in the Port of Drammen. The Administration Office has six permanent stevedores, however, additional personnel may be hired when needed, and there are between 50 and 90 additional workers associated with the Administration Office. The Supreme Court concluded that the dockworkers’ priority of engagement constitutes an unlawful restriction on Holship’s freedom of establishment under Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement). The Supreme Court observed that the principle of priority of engagement was originally established to improve the situation of dockworkers, and the priority of engagement clause is anchored in Article 3 of Convention No. 137. The Court also referred to Article 2 of the Convention, observing that the purpose of the Convention seemed to be establishing orderly working and payment conditions for dockworkers. In reaching its conclusions, the Court held that these considerations could be fulfilled by means other than granting priority of engagement for loading and unloading work to one group of workers. In its observations, the LO indicates that the Norwegian courts have handed down several judgments ruling on the validity of the priority of engagement clause reserving loading and unloading for registered dockworkers in private docks and dock facilities. As a consequence, the priority of engagement clause is not being applied in some ports where it was previously applied. The loading and unloading in these ports has been taken over by employees of the enterprises located in these ports, by workers these enterprises employ temporarily, and by the ships’ crew, at the expense of registered dockworkers. The LO is of the view that the practice in these ports is incompatible with Norway’s obligations under the Convention. In its observations, the NHO indicates that there have been questions raised about who is responsible for the implementation of the Convention in Norway, affirming that this is the sole responsibility of the Norwegian State. The NHO further indicates that the Convention is not incorporated by law or regulation in Norway. Referring to its May 2014 observations, the NHO reiterates that the Norwegian understanding of dock work has been incorrectly restricted to loading and unloading operations and considers that measures should be taken to ensure that the Convention is given proper coverage in Norway. The Government points out that the parties to the case are engaged in dialogue following the Court’s decision, considering the need for changes to the way dock work is organized and possible changes to the collective agreements. The Government is awaiting the result of these negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the issues raised by the social partners, as well as on the outcome of the dialogue process, including any changes to the manner in which dock work is organized in the country.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide a general appreciation in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, including for instance extracts from reports, particulars of the numbers of dockworkers and of variations in their numbers over time.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Registered dockworkers. In reply to the previous observations from the NHO on the manner in which “registered dockworkers” were counted, the Government indicates in its report that there are several cases pending in Norwegian courts on various aspects of the collective agreements implementing the Convention, which may also affect the way the number of dockworkers are determined. The Government adds that, once litigations are settled, it may then be appropriate to engage in a dialogue with the social partners with the intent of finding ways to determine the number of dockworkers that are acceptable to both parties, and give comprehensive information on the implementation of the Convention. The NHO is of the view that the Convention does neither facilitate nor require the establishment of a monopoly of dockworkers. In this regard, the NHO refers to the direct request adopted in 1997 concerning Swedish ports, in which the Committee recalled that the purpose of maintaining registers, as required by both Article 3 of the Convention 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. Referring to two Labour Court decisions in which it was decided that collective agreements in the port sector do not apply to private ports, the LO is of the view that these decisions are difficult to reconcile with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the court decisions referred to in its report as soon as they become available and to continue to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, 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 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO), received in May 2014, indicating that preference rights in Article 3 of the Convention were not intended to establish or facilitate a monopoly arrangement for performing dock work for a single operator or company. The NHO adds that the manner in which registered dockworkers have been counted is not correct as only the loading and unloading workers affiliated with the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Federation and Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) have been defined as “registered dockworkers”. The Committee invites the Government to provide any comments that it deems appropriate on the observations made by the NHO.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in October 2012, which includes indications of the number of registered dockworkers provided by the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union. The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority indicates that it cannot see that the European Union’s work on a new port directive has a direct impact on health and safety related to harbour work. The Committee notes that the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) once again expresses its concern that the new European Union directive might have a negative impact on the collective agreements with regard to loading and unloading of ships. Furthermore, the Transport Workers’ Union indicates that it expresses concern after this year’s national bargaining round as the employers’ organizations did not accept Convention No. 137. The Committee invites the Government to provide information with respect to the issues raised by the social partners. Please also continue to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, including for instance extracts from reports and particulars of the numbers of dockworkers and of variations in their numbers during the period covered by the next report (Part V of the report form).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending May 2007, which includes indications of the number of registered dockworkers and data provided by the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union. The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) once again expresses its concern at the European Union’s work on a new port directive and its possible impact on the collective agreements with regard to loading and unloading of ships. The LO stresses that Norway’s obligation under Convention No. 137 must be maintained. As it requested in the past, the Committee invites the Government to comment on these issues and on the results achieved at the tripartite level with regard to improving the efficiency of work in ports. It would welcome continuing to receive information on the practical effect given to the Convention, including extracts from the reports of the authorities responsible for the application of laws and regulations, and available information on the number of dockworkers on the registers maintained, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and the variations in these numbers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) and of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Norway (LO) forwarded by the Government to the Office in March 2003 in relation to the Government’s report received in October 2002.

NHO indicates that, with regard to the safety provisions of the Working Environment Act, it is the ship forwarding agent, harbour user or others who purchase loading and unloading services who are vested with the responsibility of employer in respect of workers engaged in loading and unloading for the duration of the assignment in question.

In its observation, LO indicates that the arrangements under collective agreements have historically been sufficient to comply with the intentions underpinning the Convention. There has, however, never been an established official register of dockworkers as determined by Article 3 of the Convention. LO considers that the latitude existing in the implementation of the Convention has not previously been a significant problem, but today the system of collective agreements regarding dock work, to which the Norwegian Federation of Transport Workers (NTF) and the LO are parties, is under a tremendous pressure and the absence of official registers for dockworkers is becoming a problem.

The LO also refers to a decision of 22 January 2002 by the Permanent Dispute Solving Tribunal concerning the oil base just outside the major port of Stavanger according to which the oil base at Tananger has not changed its character to become an ordinary port and which therefore denied the claim by LO for a collective agreement under the framework agreement on a fixed wage system for dockworkers. The LO indicates that, as a consequence of that decision, the stevedoring office of the port of Stavanger has contemplated liquidation of the office. The main cargo-handlers are moving their operations from the public ports in the area to the oil base at Tananger. The stevedoring operations are performed by the employees of a private company and not by dockworkers from the stevedoring office.

Furthermore, LO indicates that the Government considers that the scope of the Convention is limited to dock work in public ports and does not cover private ports. The LO has provided copies of communications exchanged with the Department of Municipal and Regional Affairs in November 1998 and January 1999.

Finally, LO fears that the proposed European Union directive on market access to port services will also challenge the application by Norway of the Convention.

Taking into account the matters raised in the above observations, the Committee would appreciate receiving the Government’s comments on these issues. It also recalls that, in its 2002 direct request, the Committee invited the Government to supply general information on the practical effect given to the Convention, including for example extracts from the reports of the authorities responsible for the application of laws and regulations, and available information on the numbers of dockworkers on the registers maintained, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and the variations in these numbers (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2004.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its direct request of 1998. It takes note of the information on the different procedures for registering dockworkers according to the nature and size of the country’s ports. It invites the Government to continue to supply general information on the practical effect given to the Convention, including for example extracts from the reports of the authorities responsible for the application of laws and regulations, and available information on the numbers of dockworkers on the registers maintained, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and the variations in these numbers (Part V of the report form).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's last report and the observations provided by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association, the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) and the Confederation of Trade Unions in Norway (LO). The Government is asked to comment, where it considers it appropriate, on the observations provided by these representative organizations. It is also asked to provide in its next report detailed information on the following points:

Points III and V of the report form. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide general information on the practical application of the Convention, for example, by providing copies of extracts from reports produced by the authorities responsible for applying the laws and regulations, as well as any available information on the number of dockworkers on the registers maintained in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention and any variation in their number.

Point IV. Although not referred to in the Government's report, the Committee has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement of Sola Havn AS and Stavanger Havnelager AS vs. Norwegian Union of Transport Workers delivered on 5 March 1997, which is of relevance to the application of the Convention and trusts that the Government will provide any other relevant information requested on this point.