Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Norway (Ratification: 1949)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise dated 3 September 2010.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee had recalled that, over the years, it had referred to the need to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to the essential services in the strict sense of the term or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee had noted that the Government indicated in its report that governmental intervention in strikes can only take place if the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) adopts a law and that this does not happen with regard to any collective labour dispute at the discretion of the public authorities, but rather after a careful evaluation of the impact of a strike on the life, health or personal safety of the population. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to provide information on any decisions by the Parliament imposing compulsory arbitration.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that compulsory arbitration has been imposed in two conflicts during the period under review: the first intervention was made by Parliament Act No. 111 of 4 December 2009 to end a strike in the health sector concerning air ambulance pilots and the second intervention was made by Parliament Act No. 6 of 26 March 2010 to end a strike related to the establishment of a collective agreement in enterprises within health care, mainly nursing homes; and that both Acts were adopted after mediation procedures were conducted, without any result, and after the health surveillance authorities considered that the announced strikes would endanger the life and health of the population.

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

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that over the years, it has referred to the need to limit the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to the essential services in the strict sense of the term or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations that governmental intervention in strikes can only take place if the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) adopts a law and that this does not happen with regard to any collective labour dispute at the discretion of the public authorities, but rather after a careful evaluation of the impact of a strike on the life, health or personal safety of the population. The health surveillance authorities monitor the situation closely and only when it is reported from them that life and health is endangered, is a proposal of compulsory arbitration is put before Parliament. An exception from this has been the oil conflict which would cause a full stop in all Norwegian oil production which would have a devastating impact on volatile and already extremely high oil prices. As for the strike in the elevator service which ended through compulsory arbitration in 2006, the Government indicates that it had lasted for nearly six months and had given rise to safety concerns due to the lack of repairs and maintenance. The Government adds that in 2006, acts imposing compulsory arbitration have been adopted in conflicts in the insurance and financial services sector (Acts Nos 10 and 18 of 16 June 2006). Another intervention took place in the public sector involving the police, Food Safety Authority and Institute of Public Health. With regard to the issue of minimum services, the Government indicates that responsibility for minimum services agreements first of all rests with the conflicting parties which are responsible for the consequences of the industrial action. According to many basic agreements, industrial parties before a conflict breaks out enter into the agreements which are necessary to see to it that the conflict is handled and develops in a secure manner. The Government considers it to be the responsibility of the parties to handle these matters and this is done in most cases.

The Committee takes note of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2545 concerning the imposition of compulsory arbitration in 2006 in the insurance and financial services sectors which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (349th Report, paragraphs 1111–1156). It notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to avoid, in the future, enacting legislation which has the effect of bringing to an end all industrial action in a dispute, especially where it relates to a sector that cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term and take into account the possibility of a negotiated minimum service.

The Committee invites the Government once again to ensure that compulsory arbitration through legislative intervention is imposed only in cases where the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population is threatened or where the strike concerns public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, and requests the Government to continue to provide information on any decisions by Parliament imposing compulsory arbitration.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government report.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that compulsory arbitration will be limited to essential services or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to continue to furnish information on any use by Parliament of its power to impose compulsory arbitration. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations that governmental intervention in strikes can only take place if the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) adopts a law and that, during the reporting period, four separate acts imposing compulsory arbitration had been adopted because life and health or public interest could be endangered.

The Committee considers that the possibility of referring any collective labour disputes to compulsory arbitration at the discretion of the public authorities seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and formulate their programmes, and is therefore not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had drawn attention to the need to limit the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect to industrial action and the use of compulsory arbitration to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that the use of this authority during the reporting period appears to have been in respect of conflicts in the oil sector, the elevator services, and the health sector (air ambulance services). The Committee has recognized the health sector as an essential service. On the other hand, the Committee considers the elevator service and the oil sector as non-essential services in the strict sense of the term, but acknowledges that, at least as regards the oil sector, it can become essential if a strike affecting it exceeds a certain duration or extent.

According to the Committee, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 160).

The Committee recalls that over the years, it has referred to the need to limit the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action and the use of compulsory arbitration to the essential services in the strict sense of the term or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and requests the Government to keep it informed in future reports of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report and the comments of the Norwegian Oil Workers’ Federation (OFS) transmitted by the Government.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations that governmental intervention in strikes can only be by the adoption of law by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) and that during the reporting period, separate acts imposing compulsory arbitration had been adopted by the Storting on three occasions in respect of conflicts in the health sector on the basis of reports from the Norwegian Board of Health that the situation had become so serious that life and health could be endangered.

The Committee also takes note of the comments of the OFS that the State can, by passing an Act on compulsory arbitration, intervene and ban a lawful strike and that an employee participating in a strike that is otherwise lawful but so referred for compulsory arbitration would not be entitled to return to his or her job and risks being dismissed by the employer. The OFS also points out that where employees breach an order pursuant to such intervention to resume work immediately, they will be deemed to be taking part in an unlawful strike and would in such a case risk being dismissed.

The Committee considers that the possibility of reference of any collective labour disputes to compulsory arbitration at the discretion of the public authorities seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and formulate their programmes, and is therefore not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had therefore, in its previous comments, drawn attention to the need to limit the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action and the use of compulsory arbitration to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes with interest in this respect that the only recent use of this authority appears to have been in respect of conflicts in the health sector, which the Committee has recognized as an essential service.

As regards the concerns raised by the OFS, however, the Committee recalls that requisition of striking workers is to be avoided except where in particularly serious circumstances, essential services have to be maintained (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 163). The Committee also recalls that sanctions for strike action should be possible only when the prohibition in question is in conformity with the principles of the freedom of association and that such sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178).

The Committee recalls that over the years, it has referred to the need to limit the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action and the use of compulsory arbitration to the abovementioned cases and requests the Government to keep it informed in future reports of the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that compulsory arbitration will be limited to essential services or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the state. It further requests the Government to continue to furnish information on any use by Parliament of its power to impose compulsory arbitration.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had expressed the hope that any restrictions imposed on the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending their interests would be removed and that in particular, the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee had noted the information provided by the Independent Unions’ Forum (UFF) to the effect that specific proposals had been made by the tripartite national committee set up to review the system of collective bargaining and the settlement of industrial disputes, which the UFF considered to be contrary to the provisions of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest from the Government’s report its decision, in the absence of broad support from the social partners, not to follow the proposal to grant the mediator appointed under the Labour Dispute Act the power to order a linked ballot on a proposal for a settlement. It further notes with interest the Government’s decision to amend the regulations concerning linkage of ballots, which had remained dormant for 20 years, so that the mediator may only link ballots if the parties concerned give their consent. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

As concerns, more generally, the use of compulsory arbitration, the Committee once again recalls the need to limit the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action to essential services in the strict sense of the term or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It requests the Government, in the meantime, to take the necessary measures to ensure that any ad hoc legislative intervention in labour conflicts will be limited to the abovementioned cases and asks the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in a communication of the Independent Unions’ Forum (UFF) and the comments thereon made by the Government. It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had expressed the hope that any restrictions imposed on the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending their interests would be removed and that in particular, the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee had asked the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard. In particular, the Committee had asked the Government to provide a copy of the report of the national committee, consisting of all major workers’ and employers’ organizations, appointed by the Government to review the system of collective bargaining and the settlement of industrial disputes.

The Committee notes the comments made by the Independent Unions’ Forum (UFF) to the effect that specific proposals made by the national committee would bring the Labour Dispute Act into contradiction with ILO Conventions. These proposals concern the power of the mediator appointed under the Labour Disputes Act both to order a ballot on a proposal for a settlement and to link ballots so that the acceptance of a settlement proposal depends on the total voting in all the sectors concerned. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations made by the Government to the effect that it did not wish, as it would be premature, to comment on the proposals made by the national committee as its report was to be subjected to a broad consultation involving all the social partners, and that following these consultations, the Government would take a decision regarding its submission to Parliament.

The Committee further notes however the Government’s statement in its report concerning the application of Convention No. 98 that if the recommendation of the national committee whereby the mediator would be empowered to order an organization to hold a ballot over a proposal for a settlement was implemented, the provision of the Labour Dispute Act whereby the mediator can link ballots would be reactivated.

While duly noting that the Government has not yet taken a decision on the proposals of the national committee, the Committee wishes to recall that a proposal whereby the mediator can order a vote, and additionally link the ballots of the trade unions concerned, may lead a workers’ organization to be bound by a majority decision over a settlement proposal against their will thereby impairing their right under the Convention to formulate their programme and activities for the furtherance and the defence of their members’ interests, including the possibility of having recourse to industrial action. The Committee requests that the Government keeps it informed of any further developments and trusts that the Government will fully take into account the abovementioned concerns in any measure it will take.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the comments made by the Norwegian Oil Workers’ Federation (OFS) in 1999.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to bring the legislation into fuller conformity with the principles of freedom of association in relation to the right to strike and to limit any possibility of imposing legislative intervention to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the Labour Law Council was working on a proposal for a new labour disputes Act and expressed its hope that the Bill would be in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

In its latest report, the Government has indicated that, given that the Labour Law Council report met with heavy opposition, it has not found it appropriate to develop further the Council’s proposals. In 1999, the Government appointed a commission with representatives from all the major workers’ and employers’ organizations to review the system of collective bargaining and the settlement of industrial disputes. The workers’ organizations represent 89.5 per cent of the unionized workforce. Among the issues which the commission will look into is the Norwegian practice on ad hoc legislative intervention in labour conflicts. The commission will present a report on any proposals for changes to the system by the end of 2000.

Taking due note of this information, the Committee recalls the need to limit the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in respect of industrial action to essential services in the strict sense of the term or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It requests the Government, in the meantime, to take the necessary measures to ensure that any ad hoc legislative intervention in labour conflicts will be limited to the abovementioned cases and asks the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard and to provide a copy of the commission’s report as soon as it has been issued.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report, as well as the comments made by the Independent Unions' Forum (UFF).

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to remove the possibility of imposing legislative intervention in the right to strike in different sectors of the economy other than essential services in the strict sense of the term and, in particular in the oil industry which in no way can be considered to be an essential service in the strict sense of the term. It noted the Government's indication that the Labour Law Council was working on a proposal for a new Labour Disputes Act. The Committee expressed its hope that the Bill to be proposed would be in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association and would remove any restrictions imposed on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending their interests, without interference from the public authorities, through the use of compulsory arbitration.

The Committee had further noted comments from the Federation of Oil Workers' Trade Union (OFS) indicating that the suggestions made by the Labour Law Council entitled "principles for a new Labour Disputes Act" were in contradiction with the principles of the Convention and requested the Government to reply to these comments and to provide information on any further developments in respect of the proposals made by the Labour Law Council.

The Committee now notes the comments of the UFF which was founded in 1995 as a reaction to the proposals being developed by the Labour Law Council and represents approximately 45,000 members. In particular, the UFF indicates the strong opposition of numerous independent unions to these proposals.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that an outline of proposed changes was circulated around the country so that all organizations concerned would have the opportunity to comment. According to the Government, the hearing showed heavy opposition to the proposals from the Council. The Government adds that it is still too early to indicate the outcome of the proposal from the Labour Law Council and therefore too early to comment on any eventual incompatibility with the Convention.

Taking due note of the Government's indication that, in the current context, it is not possible to envisage how the Labour Law Council proposals might be further developed, the Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard. While acknowledging that, for a number of years, the Government has not proposed any legislative intervention in the exercise of industrial action, the Committee must however continue to recall the need to bring its legislation into fuller conformity with the principles of freedom of association in relation to the right to strike and to limit any possibility of imposing legislative intervention to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures envisaged in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations made by the Federation of Oil Workers' Trade Union (OFS) and the Confederation of Norwegian Business Industry.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee had commented upon the need to remove the restrictions imposed on the right to strike in the oil industry through the imposition of compulsory arbitration and noted the Government's indication that the Labour Law Council was working on a proposal for a new labour disputes Act. The Committee expressed its hope that the Bill to be proposed would be in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association and would remove any restrictions imposed on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending their interests, without interference from the public authorities, through the use of compulsory arbitration.

The Committee notes that, according to the OFS, the suggestions made by the Labour Council entitled "Principles for a new Labour Disputes Act" are in contradiction with the principles of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to reply to the comments made by the OFS in this regard and to provide information, in its next report, on any further developments in respect of the proposals made by the Labour Law Council.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

In its previous observation, the Committee had commented upon the need to remove the restrictions imposed on the right to strike in the oil industry, through the imposition of compulsory arbitration. In its latest report, the Government has indicated that the Labour Law Council is working on a proposal for a new labour disputes Act. The Government adds that, since this matter is complex, both technically and politically, the Council found it necessary to air its views among the parties concerned before it prepared a full text proposal. The Council therefore presented a report on the principles for a new Act on 21 June 1996. This report will be sent on a broad hearing so that all organizations concerned will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals. The Labour Law Council will then take the comments into consideration and prepare a proposal for a new labour disputes Act and the Government will decide on the proposals to be put forward in a Bill to the legislature.

The Committee notes this information and trusts that the Bill to be proposed will be in full conformity with the principles concerning the right to strike and will remove any restrictions imposed on this right through the use of compulsory arbitration. In this respect, the Committee notes from the Government's report that arbitration was not imposed in any of the disputes occurring this year. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the drafting and adoption of a new labour disputes Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's reports as well as the observations of the Federation of Offshore Workers' Trade Unions (FOWTU).

In its previous observation, the Committee's comments had concerned the need to remove the restrictions imposed on the right to strike by legislative means in the oil industry through the imposition of compulsory arbitration. The Committee had noted the Government's statement that the tripartite Labour Law Council, an advisory agency to the authorities in matters of labour legislation, was preparing a proposal for a new labour disputes act which would provide for a dispute settlement system along the lines suggested by the Committee.

The Government now indicates that the Labour Law Council will need more time to complete its work since the preparation of a report proposing a new labour disputes act was a complicated task as any basic changes needed to have the full support of the major workers' and employers' organizations. According to the Government, the Council had looked into various bargaining systems functioning in different European countries, and was trying to find a system which was consistent with national concerns and traditions. Based on the report of the Council and the comments received from the organizations concerned, the Government would then prepare and put forward a bill proposing a new labour disputes act.

The Committee trusts that the bill will take account of its previous comments concerning the restrictions or the prohibitions on the right to strike which are compatible with the principles of freedom of association, and encouraging the maintenance of a negotiated minimum service defined by workers and employers in the event of a labour dispute in the oil sector. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect which would bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to remove the restrictions imposed on the right to strike by legislative means in the oil industry through the imposition of compulsory arbitration, the Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that it would look favourably upon the maintenance of a minimum service defined by workers and employers in the event of a labour dispute in the oil sector, and that the Government has started to review possible modifications to the existing system along the lines suggested by the Committee. According to the Government, the Labour Law Council which is an advisory agency to the authorities in matters of labour legislation is now preparing a proposal for a new Labour Disputes Act. This Council whose members include representatives of the authorities, the mediation institution and the major workers' and employers' organizations, is considering all aspects of the collective bargaining system.

The Committee welcomes these measures and requests the Government to provide further information on developments in this respect so that its legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report and the comments of the Norwegian Trade Union Federation of Oil Workers (OFS) of 10 May 1991. It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1576 (279th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, adopted by the Governing Body at its 251st Session, November 1991) concerning the restrictions imposed on the right to strike by legislative means in the oil industry through the imposition of compulsory arbitration.

While noting the Government's statement in its report that the interference by the authorities in the right to strike in order to restrict or prohibit it is compatible with the Convention in the event that the strike is liable to cause considerable economic losses with a harmful effect on society or third parties and that the oil industry should, in this respect, be considered to be an essential service, the Committee recalls that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in essential services would become meaningless if the legislation defined essential services too broadly. The Committee has already indicated that the prohibition upon the right to strike should be confined to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in a situation of acute national crisis. Moreover, the Committee has considered it compatible with the Convention to maintain a minimum service, provided that it is restricted to operations that are strictly necessary to avoid endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population and provided that workers' organisations are, if they wish, able to participate in defining the minimum service along with the employers and public authorities.

The Committee of Experts, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, expresses doubts as to the compelling need to have had recourse to compulsory arbitration in the dispute in the oil industry and encourages the parties concerned, with the participation of the Government if necessary, to reach an agreement on the minimum services that would be strictly necessary in order not to compromise the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population during a labour dispute in the oil sector. As did the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts recommends that all the parties to the dispute give priority to collective bargaining as the means of determining employment conditions.

Noting that, according to the information contained in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government plans to examine possible modifications to the existing system, the Committee trusts that the Government will endeavour to take the necessary measures to bring national law and practice into conformity with the principles of the Convention and requests it to indicate any progress achieved in this respect in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information set out in the Government's report. The Committee also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1389 (251st Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 236th Session (May-June 1987)) and in Case No. 1448 (262nd Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 242nd Session (February-March 1989)).

Both of these cases involved complaints against legislative proscription of strike action in Norway. The Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association had to deal with very similar issues in Case No. 1099 (217th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 220th Session (May-June 1982)) and in Case No. 1255 (234th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 226th Session (May-June 1984)). In all four cases the Committee on Freedom of Association determined that the legislation in question was inconsistent with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee has always taken the view that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (General Survey, 1983, paragraph 200). Any substantial interference with this right may impair the capacity of trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members and to organise their activities (General Survey, 1983, paragraph 226).

The Committee has nevertheless recognised that the right to strike may be attenuated in certain circumstances. It has, for example, accepted that, subject to appropriate safeguards, strike action may be proscribed in relation to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority, or in relation to essential services in the sense of those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (General Survey, 1983, paragraph 214). It has also accepted that the right to strike may be suspended for a limited period in situations of acute national crisis (General Survey, 1983, paragraph 206).

In its report, the Government states that the right to strike is recognised in Norway as an integral part of the right to free collective bargaining. It also acknowledges that on occasion the exercise of this right must inevitably cause inconvenience to third parties and to society as a whole. The Government goes on to point out that the supervisory bodies of the ILO have recognised that in some circumstances such consequences are so serious in nature as to justify the imposition of restrictions on the right to strike. In Norway such restrictions are not embodied in any permanent legislative enactment. Instead, each individual dispute is assessed on its merits. If the Government, after a thorough evaluation of the consequences of a strike, finds that they are of such a nature as to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, then it submits a Bill to Parliament proposing that the matter be referred to the National Wages Board for final arbitration. When the Parliament is not sitting, section 17 of the Constitution permits the King to attain the same objective by means of an ordinance. Such ordinances can remain in force only until the Parliament next meets.

According to the Government there is a broad political consensus as to the appropriateness of this course. This is reflected in the fact that in the few cases where the Parliament has adopted such measures, it has done so by a large majority.

In its report, the Government indicates that this procedure has been utilised on seven occasions since 1982, four of them in the oil industry.

As regards the effects of disputes in the oil industry, the Government refers to information provided in relation to Cases Nos. 1255 and 1389. In the Government's view this information established that intervention was justified by reason of the widespread economic dislocation which would result from a prolonged dispute in the oil industry, and by reason of the safety problems which could be engendered, or exacerbated, by a protracted work stoppage.

In its report, the Government also provides detailed information relating to the circumstances which in its opinion justified legislative intervention in the public sector (1984 and 1986) and in the chemical industry (1985).

The Committee recognises that these disputes may have involved a substantial measure of social or economic dislocation. However, as the Government itself has acknowledged, such disruption is an inevitable incident of the exercise of the right to strike (see also General Survey, 1983, paragraph 199). The Committee reiterates that it is only where the dislocation constitutes a danger to the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in a situation of acute national crisis that the public interest justifies curtailment of the right to strike.

The Committee also reminds the Government that in both Cases Nos. 1255 and 1389 the Committee on Freedom of Association found that the legislative interventions in question were not consistent with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee can only endorse these findings, and again draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it has consistently stated that legislative interference with the right to strike is justified only in relation to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority and in relation to essential services stricto sensu.

In addition, these prohibitions may also seriously erode the efficacy of the entire collective bargaining system.

The Committee would point out, however, that conciliation and arbitration procedures are not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. They must, however, be designed to facilitate bargaining between the two sides. This in turn requires that it must be for the parties to decide whether or not they wish to refer any matters in dispute to binding arbitration. The discretionary powers assumed by the Government to introduce legislation which refers disputes for binding arbitration against the wishes of one or both of the parties is not consistent with this principle.

In the light of all of these considerations the Committee requests the Government not to have recourse to legislative intervention in relation to industrial disputes involving public servants who are not acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority, workers in the oil industry, and in other non-essential sectors.