Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 411, Juin 2025

Cas no 3450 (Norvège) - Date de la plainte: 17-OCT. -23 - Clos

Allegations: The complainants allege prohibition on the right to strike and the use of compulsory arbitration to settle a collective labour dispute

1. 470. The complaint is contained in communications dated 17 October and 23 November 2023, and 27 May and 21 October 2024 from the Union of Education Norway (UEN). By a communication dated 19 October 2023, Education International supported the complaint. By communications dated 18 October, 1 November, 27 November and 4 December 2023, the Confederation of Unions for Professionals (Unio), the Norwegian Union of School Employees – Skolenes Landsforbund (SL), the Federation of Norwegian Professional Associations (Akademikerne) and the Norwegian Association of Graduate Teachers – Norsk Lektorlag (NL), respectively, associated themselves with the complaint.
2. 471. The Government of Norway sent its observations in communications dated 13 May 2024 and 9 January 2025.
3. 472. Norway has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 473. In its communications dated 17 October and 23 November 2023, and 27 May and 21 October 2024, the UEN explains that it is Norway’s largest union in the education sector and with more than 190,000 members, it is the second largest trade union in the country. The UEN represents teachers in early childhood, primary and secondary education, in training, and in higher education. It also has members working within the Educational and Psychological Counselling Service, at special needs education centres, in the adult education sector and in administration. The UEN has more than 90,000 members within the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) collective wage agreement area. In this respect, the UEN explains that the KS is the country’s largest public employer organization that negotiates wages and working conditions for over 450,000 employees (20 per cent of the workforce in Norway) on behalf of all Norwegian municipalities and counties, except for the municipality of Oslo.
2. 474. The UEN indicates that it negotiates collective wage agreements through Unio and explains in this regard that, pursuant to the Basic Agreement, the right to negotiate is given to four national trade union confederations, namely Unio, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), the Confederation of Vocational Unions (YS) and Akademikerne. Even though it is a confederation of trade unions that negotiates with the employers’ association, it is the individual union (for example the UEN in Unio) that is a party to the collective agreement with the KS and thus has the right to take industrial action. The KS enters into identical Basic Collective Agreements with affiliates of all four national confederations.
3. 475. According to the UEN, as well as the EI, Unio, SL, Akademikerne and NL, which supported the complaint, the dispute that led to the strike in question concerned a new Basic Collective Agreement for the 1 May 2022–30 April 2024 period, as well as wage adjustments after the 2022 wage settlement and 2023 wage adjustments. The UEN indicates that the underlying rationale behind the decision to initiate the strike was tied to two issues that had been plaguing the education sector: (1) conspicuous and persistent wage disparity within the education sector, commonly referred to as a “wage-lag”, which had been the source of mounting discontent among educators, who were of the opinion that their remuneration had not kept pace with the increasing demands and responsibilities of their profession; and (2) an acute shortage of educators. In light of these intertwined challenges, the decision to strike was perceived as a necessary and concerted effort to draw attention to these issues and to advocate for their resolution in order to safeguard the quality and continuity of education.
4. 476. The UEN explains that after a breakdown in negotiations with the KS, the four national confederations filed a notice of strike with effect from 3 May 2022. Pursuant to the provisions of the Labour Disputes Act, the National Mediator issued a ban on work stoppages on 29 April 2022 and summoned the parties to compulsory mediation. During the mediation, the confederations reached a solution in accordance with the mediator’s proposal. The negotiated solution was sent to a preliminary vote with a deadline of 22 June at 12 p.m. The negotiated solution was dismissed by all education unions (the UEN, the SL and the NL), but not by other affiliates of the four confederations. The SL was the first union to go on strike, calling its three members to strike on 8 June 2022. The UEN initiated the announced strike on 20 June 2022 (three days before the start of the summer break) by calling 45 members to strike and limiting the action to one school. The NL called 30 members to strike on 15 August 2022. The first significant call to strike, involving 1,322 UEN members, took place on 22 August 2022. The largest call to strike took place on 13 September 2022 and involved 2,914 UEN members. By the time the Government intervened on 27 September 2022, about 8,500 union members in total were called to strike, 8,300 of whom were members of the UEN.
5. 477. The UEN provides information on the prior arrangements and exemptions from strike as set out in the Basic Agreement. According to its section 5-1-2, the top management of an enterprise, including the head of personnel, shall not be involved in a strike. Furthermore, before resorting to industrial action in the context of labour disputes, the parties commit to negotiate as soon as possible the exemption of individuals or groups whose exclusion is necessary to avoid undue harm to the interest of the public. If no agreement is reached through negotiations, the elected employees’ representatives shall bring the matter before their respective employees’ organizations, which, with binding effect on their members, will determine whether, and in which cases, individuals/groups should be excluded from the proposed action. This clause imposes a duty on the parties to discuss with each other which employee groups should be excluded from the strike, providing the parties an opportunity to discuss and agree, prior to the start of the industrial actions, on the list of exempted employees with a view to ensuring that the interests of both parties directly involved in a dispute, as well as affected third parties are adequately safeguarded. The Basic Agreement affords employers the opportunity to “apply for exemptions for named employees who have been included in a strike and who, due to threat to life and health or other vital considerations, must be present or reintegrated into work”. According to the UEN, in general, it approves such requests very liberally and generously, with more than 90 per cent of the requests granted.
6. 478. The UEN indicates that it took various measures to minimize and mitigate the possible adverse effects the strike could have had on pupils. Prior to each call to strike, the local strike offices received directives to conduct impact assessments in close collaboration with the central strike office. The aim was to protect vulnerable pupils, including those with special needs who were receiving special needs education, from significant disruption to their learning process. The following categories of teachers were completely exempted from the strike: (1) early childhood education teachers; (2) first grade teachers; (3) teachers responsible for pupils with special needs education; and (4) teachers responsible for prison educational programmes. In addition, and as indicated above, the employer could apply for dispensation for particular teachers if they considered that individual pupils were particularly affected by the strike.
7. 479. The UEN indicates that on the basis of reports received from the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion summoned the parties to a meeting at the Minister’s office on Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 7 p.m. After concluding that there was no immediate possibility of resolving the dispute, the Minister informed the parties that the Government would impose compulsory arbitration. According to the UEN, the negotiation or determination of a minimum service in lieu of an outright ban on industrial action through the imposition of compulsory arbitration was not included in the Government’s considerations. At the request of the Minister, three teachers’ unions agreed to resume work. The UEN explains that while the obligation to end the strike comes into effect when there is a formal legislative decision to that effect, it is usual practice to follow the Minister’s request when informed that the Government would intervene by imposing compulsory arbitration. Referring to “concerns over the grave societal consequences”, in particular “for the educational offering to children and youth, their psychosocial environment, and their mental health”, the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion advised that a proposal for compulsory arbitration would be submitted to Parliament. The UEN points out that while there are always “societal consequences” in the case of a strike in the education sector, this does not make it an essential service in the strict sense of the term.
8. 480. In accordance with the standard legislative procedures, the proposed Act was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour and Social Affairs for consideration. The Committee recommended that the Act be passed as proposed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion. However, some members of the Committee opposed the recommendation, stating that the legislation was insufficiently substantiated by facts and that it was in violation of Norway’s obligations under the ILO Conventions. Nevertheless, by Legislative Resolution No. 8 (2022–2023) of 1 December 2022, the Storting (Parliament) decided that the National Wages Board (NWB) should settle the dispute. The Act was sanctioned by the Cabinet on 16 December 2022 and entered into force immediately.
9. 481. The UEN explains that Norway has no general legislation limiting the right to strike, nor any general legislation on the use of compulsory arbitration. Interventions in an impending or current labour dispute must therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis through the regular procedure for legislative enactments according to the Constitution. When a law on compulsory arbitration is enacted, the NWB is the institution that is given the authority and mandate to resolve the dispute. The NWB is a permanent board arbitrating collective labour disputes and disputes that are referred to it by the Storting. The functioning of the NWB is regulated by the National Wages Board Act (No. 10) of 27 January 2012. The NWB decisions have the status of a collective agreement. The NWB follows its own established practice and principles. One such principle is the principle of deferred payment. If the parties come to an agreement voluntarily, meaning without compulsory arbitration, the retroactive payment of the general wage supplement is granted from the date of expiry of the former collective wage agreements or from whatever date the parties agree upon. However, if the conflict is resolved through compulsory arbitration, retroactive payment of the general wage supplement is granted only from the date the work is resumed after the strike or, in some cases, from the date of the NWB decision. This is a financial incentive to discourage strikes; it also encourages employer representatives to avoid negotiation. In the present case, the NWB upheld the National Mediator’s proposal and none of the employees’ claims were successful. The retroactive payment of general supplements was granted from the day the work resumed, that is on 27 September 2022.
10. 482. The UEN alleges that the interference through compulsory arbitration in a legal strike in the education sector was unjustified and in breach of the principles of freedom of association as laid down in Conventions ratified by Norway (Convention Nos 87, 98, 151 and 154). The education sector is not an essential service, and the strike in question did not pose a clear and imminent threat to the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The UEN further claims that, in any case, minimum services could have been established in full consultation with the social partners instead of prohibiting industrial action and imposing compulsory arbitration. According to the UEN, the lack of a discussion on whether compulsory arbitration in this case was in compliance with international Conventions indicates the lack of awareness of and respect for the safeguards and limits that the ILO Conventions impose on States regarding workers’ right to strike. At the same time, the Government clearly stated that they were not able to obtain a complete overview of the specific consequences of the strike for individual pupils. In its report of 21 September 2022, the Ministry of Education and Research stated that the reduction of activity in schools had a negative impact on the cooperation between various services responsible for the well-being of the children, but that the magnitude of this impact was unclear. According to the UEN, several members of the Standing Committee on Labour and Social Affairs also pointed out that the Government’s justification for its decision to impose compulsory arbitration was vague and poorly documented. The UEN believes that the decision to impose compulsory arbitration was premature and made without adequate knowledge and it thus constituted a violation of the right to strike. The UEN points out that the consequences of strikes on pupils’ learning opportunities do not in themselves justify the restrictions imposed on teachers’ right to strike.
11. 483. As for special needs pupils, the UEN underlines that special education is generally provided though a predetermined number of hours/classes, on the basis of individual administrative decisions. This allows schools to be flexible when organizing and providing this type of education to their pupils, which means that such classes could have been carried out after the strike and throughout the remainder of the school year. Moreover, special needs education was one of the areas that the UEN attempted to shield during the strike through exemptions and dispensations. The UEN points out that it was known to the Government that while all employers had the right to request exemptions for teachers who provided special needs education, there were many who did not apply for such exemptions.
12. 484. The UEN indicates that while Norway has been previously criticized by the ILO for not imposing minimum services instead of compulsory arbitration (Cases Nos 2484, 2545 and 3038), the Government did not carry out any genuine discussions in this regard. Instead, the Government considered that, based on the reports from Ministry of Education and Research dated 20 September 2022, compulsory arbitration should be imposed. The reports emphasized that the strike had a negative impact on vulnerable children and that this impact increased as the strike progressed and that it would be “especially challenging, as there is a scarcity of competent professionals”. The UEN points out, however, that the shortage of competent professionals is not a consequence of a particular strike, but rather an ongoing challenge. The failure to address the shortage of education professionals is the responsibility of the Government, and not of the teachers themselves. Restricting the right to strike on the grounds of a lack of sufficient professionals is irrelevant, disproportionate, unreasonable, and unsuitable. Rights and freedoms should not be curtailed because of decisions made by governments regarding resources. The Government did not explore remedying the shortage of professionals, heightened during the strike, by considering minimum services instead of stopping the strike and resorting to compulsory arbitration. Minimum services would have allowed the utilization of limited resources, that is, the professional expertise for children with special needs, while at the same time safeguarding the right to strike.
13. 485. The UEN points out that while the Government states that the strike had been ongoing for more than 100 days at the time of the intervention, the strike formally started on 20 June, only a few days before the start of the summer holidays in Norwegian schools, which last until mid-August (17 August 2022). In reality, the pupils were affected for, at most, 30 days. Moreover, initially it was mainly high school students who were affected by the strike, and with one exception, it was not until 5 September 2022 that the middle school teachers started participating in the strike. Furthermore, teachers of pupils in first grade and pupils with special needs did not participate in the strike in order to protect these groups of students. At the time of the Government’s intervention, around 72,000 pupils were affected by the strike and, while this is a significant number, it constitutes around 9 per cent of pupils in Norwegian schools. Only 4 per cent of pupils were affected by the strike for four or more weeks. The UEN emphasizes, however, that the mere fact that a significant number of pupils were involved, should not automatically lead to the imposition by the Government of compulsory arbitration.
14. 486. The UEN further indicates that in support of the intervention, the Government referred to the fact that the strike occurred in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The UEN questions the legal relevance of this fact and explains that contrary to the situation during the pandemic, during the 2022 strike, children had access to schools as well as numerous other platforms where they could meet; in other words, during the strike, there were no restrictions imposed on pupils themselves. In the UEN’s opinion, the Government’s argument regarding the lack of a safe environment for the children during the strike is thus misleading.
15. 487. The UEN informs of the ongoing work in Norway to minimize the use of compulsory arbitration. A multipartite working group was established at the initiative of the Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion to explore the possibilities for reducing the need for compulsory arbitration. The group had a relatively broad mandate and considered whether there should be more extensive use of prior arrangements between the parties regarding which groups and/or individuals should be exempted from strike to avoid undue harm to third parties. Such arrangements are already in place in many collective agreements. The background for the report was the previous encouragements by the Committee to assess possible alternatives in order to decrease the use of compulsory arbitration in Norway. With the exception of its chairperson, the working group was composed of representatives from various labour and employers’ organizations. Representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion participated in the discussions. The working group was thus composed of parties with different approaches and interests when it comes to collective bargaining and the question of compulsory arbitration. While some of the working group’s members were perfectly content with the status quo, others had been vocal regarding the current system’s major issues. The working group’s composition was thus unfortunately bound to present challenges for coming up with suggestions and solutions. The working group issued its report in May 2024. While its work was welcomed by all interested parties, including the UEN, the composition of the group had a bearing on its outcome. The report contained no suggestions for changes or actions to take regarding the current system. While the working group discussed some alternatives, including the possibility for introducing minimum services, it concluded that:
    • Although the system has challenges and room for improvement, the working group believes that considerable caution must be exercised in making major changes that could shift the balance of power between otherwise equal parties. The working group points out that the Norwegian system consists of various interconnected and interrelated rules. Even small changes or the introduction of new individual elements could therefore have an impact on the entire system, including affecting the balance of power between the social partners and contributing to more labour disputes. These considerations have guided the working group’s assessments and recommendations.
16. 488. While the working group’s report acknowledges that Norway has been criticized by the Committee for not considering the possibility of establishing minimum services as an alternative to compulsory arbitration, the working group concluded that it did not recommend a system with minimum services. The working group briefly discussed the possibility of establishing independent bodies for the assessment of minimum services both on a general basis and also solely within the public sector but refrained from suggesting the establishment of the latter, arguing that such a change might have an impact on the balance between the parties. The UEN indicates that in light of the report and the lack of any constructive conclusion therein, the Government appears to be content with the status quo and has no intention of making any alterations to the existing system.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 489. In its communications dated 13 May 2024 and 9 January 2025, the Government explains that the labour conflict in question arose during the revision of the main collective agreements in the municipal sector, established between the KS, representing the employers, and the LO Municipality, Unio and Akademikerne, and their affiliates, representing the employees. After the negotiations broke down on 29 April 2022, the National Mediator issued a temporary work stoppage ban and summoned the parties to mediation. The mediation was conducted on 2 and 21–24 May 2022 during which the confederations reached a solution in accordance with the mediator’s proposal. The negotiated solution was sent for a preliminary vote to the affiliated trade unions with a deadline of 22 June 2022. The proposal was accepted by all trade unions, except for the three education unions – the UEN, SL and NL.
2. 490. The Government indicates that the three trade unions – the UEN, SL and NL – went on strike in June 2022 by calling out a limited number of members. Following the commencement of the school year and throughout the autumn, the strikes escalated. As of 27 September 2022, the strikes involved a total of 8,538 members of the unions, of which 8,343 were members of the UEN. At that point, the UEN announced further call-outs, with 277 members as of 28 September 2022 and 123 members as of 3 October 2022. The Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion summoned the parties to a meeting on 27 September 2022. The parties informed the Minister that they saw no immediate possibility of reaching a consensus that would settle the disputes and prevent further escalation of the industrial actions. Considering this, the Minister informed the parties that the Government had no other choice than to intervene and propose that the disputes be solved by the NWB compulsory arbitration.
3. 491. The Government indicates that during the strike, the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion maintained continuous communication with the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, and the Ministry of Children and Families in order to assess the consequences of the strike action. Reports detailing the consequences of the strike were provided by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI) to the Ministry and revealed that the strike had significant consequences for the affected pupils, and that these consequences became increasingly severe as the strike persisted. On 21 September 2022, the Ministry of Education reported that the strike had serious consequences for a number of children and young people’s access to education. The Ministry emphasized that the strike affected children and young individuals who had already experienced disruption of schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlighted that pupils in vulnerable situations were particularly affected. The Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion also received numerous reports from various sources regarding the impact of the strike on the health of children and teenagers. These concerns were raised by the Children’s Ombudsperson, by affected parents and pupils, and by medical practitioners working in the affected municipalities. In light of the above, the Ministry of Health and Care Services was requested to gather further information on how the strikes impacted the mental health of children and youth. In its report dated 22 September 2022, the FHI pointed out that there were many aspects of the strike action that could not be compared to the situation of school closures during the pandemic. Unlike during the pandemic, the pupils affected by the strike had little or no contact with their teachers, potentially putting already struggling and vulnerable young persons at risk of going unnoticed. The FHI also stated that older children and teenagers affected by the strike were likely to be more isolated without parental supervision compared to during the pandemic, when working from home was more prevalent. Furthermore, they noted that children and teenagers who had difficulties during the pandemic and had not resumed schooling after the holidays, lacked regular support over a considerable period. On 26 September 2022, the Ministry of Health and Care Services reported that several county governors noted an increased demand for various health services for children and teenagers. The Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion also received a number of reports expressing serious concerns from several health institutions regarding the health of individual pupils. The reports of concern pertained to patients whose health conditions had worsened as a result of the strike, and included instances of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and emotional disturbances such as depression and anxiety.
4. 492. The Government points out that the right to receive basic education is enshrined in the Norwegian Constitution and that it was a serious matter that a number of children and teenagers were not having their constitutionally protected rights fulfilled for an extended period of time. Several pupils with special needs were not receiving the services to which they were entitled. Around 72,000 pupils had been affected by the strike, many of them having been deprived of any schooling since the start of the academic year. If the planned escalation of the strike were to occur, the number of affected pupils would have further increased.
5. 493. The Government indicates that as of 27 September 2022, the strike had been ongoing for over 100 days, and the conflict between the parties appeared to have gone into deadlock. Based on the reports received, the Government assessed that the conflicts had reached a critical point where the consequences for children and teenagers required intervention. The assessment was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the serious consequences for the pupils’ educational opportunities, psychosocial environment and mental health, and took into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
6. 494. The Government indicates that in Norway, there are long traditions for collective bargaining. The right to organize and the right to conduct collective bargaining are recognized as fundamental principles in law and are supported by the legislation with procedural rules and institutions for resolving disputes. There are no legal restrictions as to who can form and join trade unions, and there is no interference from the authorities concerning the constitution and rules of trade unions and their activities. The right to industrial action is a precondition for, and thus a part of the right to, free collective bargaining. No prohibition of strikes or lockouts exists, except for senior civil servants and military personnel. These groups nevertheless enjoy the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. A basic tenet in the Norwegian system is that the social partners are responsible for wage negotiations and industrial peace. Along with this responsibility comes an expectation that labour disputes are handled in a responsible manner. The social partners have several instruments at their disposal to reduce the likelihood of a labour dispute endangering life, health or vital public interests, in particular through the selection of striking workers and utilizing pre-agreements and exemptions during the conflict. An inherent consequence of the social partners’ responsibility for collective bargaining and labour disputes, is that the authorities do not interfere in how they use these various measures. The authorities do not have the power to order the parties to put in place pre agreement or exemption or other measures to compensate for the effects of industrial actions. To balance the wide, unrestricted freedom of organization and collective bargaining, which includes the right to industrial action, there is a broad consensus that the Government has the ultimate responsibility for preventing labour conflict from causing serious damage. The threshold for the Government intervening in a labour dispute is high, and a labour dispute will only be halted if it is endangering life, health or vital public interest. Should the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion find that a conflict has such damaging effects, the Government submits a bill to Parliament proposing the strike or lockout be forbidden, and for the conflict to be solved by the NWB.
7. 495. The Government explains that the NWB is an independent arbitration body appointed pursuant to the National Wage Board Act. In each case, the NWB is composed of nine members, of whom five are appointed by the Government for a period of three years. Three of those five members are neutral (independent of the Government and its social partners). The two remaining members represent the interests of employees and employers, respectively. These two members of the NWB, however, have more of an advisory function and have no right to vote. The parties in the individual dispute each nominate two members of the NWB. Only one of the members from each party, and the three neutral members are entitled to vote. The decision of the NWB has the same effect as a collective agreement reached between the parties.
8. 496. The Government indicates that it intervened to end the strike in question only after the parties had bargained collectively for an extended period of time, went through compulsory mediation and had been on strike for over 100 days. At all times up to the final decision of the NWB, the disputing parties had the opportunity to reach an agreement without interference.
9. 497. The Government points out that it puts significant effort into being in compliance with its obligation under the ILO Conventions and that an intervention will always be evaluated against the applicable Conventions, as was done in this particular case. It further indicates that international instruments constitute a legal framework, which must be interpreted within the national context. ILO Member States have a certain margin of discretion, and the assessment of the consequences of a labour dispute must be concrete and based on the circumstances of each case. A State acknowledging the right to industrial action must accept the inconvenience or even damaging consequences entailed by such action. However, there must exist some limits as to the costs the society should have to bear. The Government argues that the decision to intervene to stop the strike must be considered in light of the fact that it occurred in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected pupils’ access to education, community and the safe environment that the school represents. Additionally, the fact that several fundamental rights laid down in various international Conventions had to be balanced against each other made the assessment particularly complex and challenging. Just as the right to strike is constitutionally protected in Norway, so too is the right to basic education, which is also enshrined in numerous international Conventions ratified by Norway. Recognizing that the education sector is not usually regarded as essential in the strict sense of the term, the Government contends that in this particular case, it had become essential due to the strike’s long duration, extensive scope, and the fact that it occurred in the aftermath of a two-year pandemic. The Government recognizes that long-term consequences related to education are not solely sufficient to justify intervention. However, this does not mean that this type of consequence cannot be included in an assessment of an intervention. The Government refrained from intervening until reports showed that the strike had seriously impacted the pupils’ psychosocial environment and mental health. Restrictions in educational offering and lack of a normal everyday school life hit vulnerable pupils and pupils with special needs particularly hard. The gravity of the situation did not leave the Government with any other choice but to terminate the strike. In the Government´s view it would have been irresponsible to let the strike continue.
10. 498. The Government acknowledges that the UEN was willing to grant exemptions from the strike to minimize its harmful effects for vulnerable pupils and pupils with special needs, and that compensatory actions were taken. Nevertheless, according to the reports, the strike had serious consequences on this category of students. The Government points out that the responsibility for the implementation of a labour conflict lies with the social partners, and that the authorities cannot oblige the parties to require or grant exemptions or implement other compensatory measures. The Government maintains its view that the fact that minimum services were not imposed does not constitute a breach of the Conventions.
11. 499. The Government argues that the case at hand differs from Case No. 2803 (Canada) and Case No. 1448 (Norway). Unlike in the present case, the strike in Case No. 2803 did not involve pupils in primary and secondary education, but rather university students. In the Government’s view, the significant role that the school plays in the lives of children and teenagers implies that the threshold for when this service can be considered essential, due to a prolonged and extensive strike, must be somewhat lower than at the university level. In comparison with the strike in the present case, which lasted over 100 days and involved 8,343 employees in the educational sector, the strike in Case No. 1448 involved 300 employees and lasted for two weeks at the time of interference.
12. 500. The Government indicates that there is a broad consensus between political parties and the social partners regarding the system of governmental intervention in industrial actions. It is a common view that the system of intervention by the Government and reference to compulsory arbitration (when adopted by Parliament) is an integral part of the Norwegian labour market model. The Government’s intervention in the form of imposing minimum services would constitute a significant deviation from the existing system of collective bargaining. In the Government’s view, such a radical change presupposes a broad consensus among the social partners. The Government has on several occasions raised the issue of the use of compulsory arbitration in dialogue with the social partners, including possible ways of reducing the need for intervention by the Government. In 2001, a committee consisting of leaders of the main trade unions and employers’ organizations and a number of experts was mandated to assess whether the Norwegian negotiation system and the institutional framework in private and public sectors was functioning well. The committee thoroughly assessed possible measures to reduce the need for using arbitration, and the possibility of introducing a system of minimum services. The assessment was not followed up by any specific proposal as the social partners and experts were satisfied with the status quo.
13. 501. The Government recalls that the Committee encouraged it to discuss these issues with the social partners (Case No. 3147). In March 2023, the Government established a working group with the social partners to discuss the current compulsory wage arbitration system. The group consisted of representatives of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations – the LO, Unio, Akademikerne and the YS, and the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), KS, Spekter and Virke. As 90 per cent of trade unions in Norway are affiliated with one of the above-mentioned main confederations, the vast majority of trade unions were thus represented in the working group and had the opportunity to share their views through their representatives. This also applies to the UEN, which is affiliated to Unio. The primary objective of this working group was to generate suggestions on how to reduce the recourse to compulsory arbitration.
14. 502. The working group concluded its work in May 2024, producing a comprehensive report. The Government points out that the working group emphasized that a core element of the national system is that the social partners are given full responsibility for wage setting and industrial peace. The group highlighted the significance of pre-agreements and exemptions as essential tools at the disposal of the parties in labour disputes. They pointed out that these mechanisms reflect a balance of power between workers and employers. Further, the group stated that any alterations by the authorities to the established framework risked disrupting this balance and could lead to unintended repercussions to the entire system. Hence, the group concluded that the social partners themselves must determine whether to establish a system of minimum services, including the consideration of utilizing pre-agreements and/or exemptions. The working group assessed: (a) the possibility of introducing an obligation to negotiate minimum services before the start of a labour dispute; (b) the possibility of establishing a board which the parties in a labour dispute may ask to determine the necessary minimum service during a labour dispute; and (c) the introduction of legal rules on minimum service in the public sector. However, none of these alternatives were considered desirable. The working group found it “challenging to devise measures that safeguard the autonomy of the parties without risking imbalance in the power dynamics between the bargaining parties”. Furthermore, it considered that “the current system functions effectively overall”. Nevertheless, all members of the working group committed to engage in further dialogue regarding the utilization of available mechanisms, particularly pre-agreements and exemptions. Beyond this however, the group did not recommend pursuing any of the measures it discussed. The Government indicates that in the assessment of the possibility of establishing a board that can determine minimum services, the working group referred to previous complaints against Norway where the Committee advocated for such arrangements. It concluded:
    • In the working group’s view, the introduction of a board that will give advice or make decisions on minimum services would imply a marked departure from the established system where the parties initiating an industrial action are also responsible for the initiation and implementation of the dispute. The working group expresses considerable scepticism towards the establishment of an institute which deprives the collective bargaining parties of control over issues that may have a decisive impact on the course of the dispute. Such an approach is claimed to involve a structural change which may have implications for how labour disputes are handled by the parties. It is also difficult to imagine how a board can have enough knowledge to decide what staffing is necessary in the individual dispute.
15. 503. The Government acknowledges that, as pointed out by the UEN, the working group was composed of parties with different approaches and interests. As a result, on some issues the group was unable to reach unanimous conclusions. On such matters, the minority expressed their own views. On the matter of minimum services there was, however, no disagreement between the parties. The group concluded unanimously that the Government’s involvement in the establishment of minimum services was undesirable. The Government disagrees with the UEN assertion that the working group only discussed the possibility of establishing independent bodies for assessment of minimum services, and that the possibility of implementing minimum services through ad hoc legislation was not assessed. According to the Government, the working group discussed statutory rules on minimum services and ad hoc legislation was one approach that was briefly discussed. The Government points out that the parties were encouraged to suggest topics for discussion early in the process, including on alternative arrangements for setting up minimum services. The parties showed little interest in discussing such arrangements and did not propose any discussion topics related to this matter. The consistent feedback from the working group was that the Government should be very cautious about making any changes, as this could impact the entire system and shift the balance of power between the parties. The working group also emphasized that solutions that work well in other countries might not be compatible with the Norwegian system. In light of this, the group expressed the need for more information and further analysis:
    • Although the system generally works well, there is always room for improvement. The working group believes that considerations should be made as to whether a research project should be initiated … . The project should obtain more knowledge about schemes, including dispute resolution mechanisms, in other countries, for example. The detailed content of this project should be determined together with the labour market stakeholders.
16. 504. In line with this recommendation, the Government initiated a research project on various negotiation systems, conflict resolution mechanisms and forms of industrial action in the Nordic countries. The social partners were informed of this in a meeting of the Council on Labour and Pension Policy on 3 September 2024 and were encouraged to provide feedback. The Government indicates that it will continue the dialogue on minimum services with its social partners once the information requested by the working group is available.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 505. The Committee notes that the complainants in this case – the UEN, EI, Unio, SL, Akademikerne and NL – allege that the Government imposed compulsory arbitration to end a strike in the education sector. The Committee understands the course of events that led to compulsory arbitration as follows. The dispute arose during the negotiation of a wage settlement and a collective agreement for the 2022–2024 period between the KS and four national trade union confederations – Unio (of which the UEN is a member), the LO, YS and Akademikerne. After a breakdown in negotiations, the four national confederations filed a notice of strike with effect from 3 May 2022. Pursuant to the provisions of the Labour Disputes Act, the National Mediator issued a ban on work stoppage on 29 April 2022 and summoned the parties for compulsory mediation. During the mediation, the parties reached a solution in accordance with the mediator’s proposal. The negotiated solution was sent to the trade union confederations’ affiliates for a vote. While accepted by some unions, it was dismissed by the education unions (the UEN, SL and NL). The SL went on strike first by calling three members to strike on 8 June 2022. The UEN initiated the strike on 20 June 2022 (three days before the start of the summer break) by calling 45 members. The NL called its 30 members on strike on 15 August 2022. The first significant call-out to strike involving 1,322 UEN members occurred on 22 August 2022; it was followed by a larger call-out on 13 September 2022 and involved 2,914 UEN members. By the time the Government intervened on 27 September 2022, about 8,500 trade union members were on strike. After concluding that there was no possibility of finding a solution, the Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion informed the parties that the Government would submit a proposal for compulsory arbitration to Parliament. At the request of the Minister, all three teachers’ unions agreed to resume work. On 1 December 2022, the Parliament adopted a resolution referring the dispute to the NWB, which then dealt with the dispute in question. The Committee notes that the complainants and the Government appear to agree on the facts as relayed above.
2. 506. The Committee notes that while the complainants and the Government agree that the education sector is not an essential service in the strict sense of the term, the Government considers, however, that there comes a time when the consequences of a strike become so serious that they warrant its intervention. The Government indicates that in the present case, the duration of the strike (over 100 days), the number of students affected (over 72,000) and the grave consequences of the strike on students’ mental health and their right to education, as considered against the background of previous disruptions of schooling due to the COVID-19 pandemic, justified the Government’s intervention by imposing compulsory arbitration to end the strike. The Government also points to the grave effects the strike had on pupils with special education needs. In this regard, the Government refers to the reports detailing the consequence of the strike provided by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the FHI and the Children’s Ombudsperson. These institutions reported that the strike affected children and young individuals who had already experienced disruption of schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted that pupils in vulnerable situations were particularly affected. The reports also raised mental health concerns in light of the fact that children and teenagers affected by the strike were likely to be more isolated, and noted an increased demand for various health services for children and teenagers arising from reported instances of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and emotional disturbances such as depression and anxiety.
3. 507. The Committee notes that the complainants disagree with the Government’s assessment and consider that the Government once again failed to give effect to the previous and repeated recommendations the Committee made in similar cases concerning Norway to negotiate a minimum service with the parties concerned. In this respect, the Committee notes the complainants’ main arguments are as follows. With regard to the Government’s indication that the strike lasted for over 100 days, the complainants point out that the strike began in June, just a few days prior to the summer break, which lasted until mid-August, and effectively ended on 27 September 2022. While 72,000 students is a significant number, it represents only 9 per cent of middle school and high school students; moreover, only 4 per cent of students were affected by the strike for four or more weeks. The complainants further emphasize that the mere fact that a significant number of students were involved should not automatically lead to the banning of strikes. The complainants further consider that the Government should not have taken into consideration the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic when it decided to impose compulsory arbitration. With regard to the Government’s indication that the declining mental health of students was also considered in its decision to intervene, the complainants indicate that teachers do not have professional responsibility for students’ health and that it was for the Government to ensure that measures involving responsible professionals were taken to avoid any such negative effects. With regard to pupils with special education needs, the UEN indicates that as the teaching for such students is tailored to their needs and thus more flexible, there would not have been any loss in their education by the end of the year and that in any case, it took measures to exempt special education teachers from the strike action in order to shield such students from the effects of the strike. Furthermore, the UEN indicates that it took safeguarding measures by exempting from the strike early childhood and first grade teachers and was ready to take further measures to exempt more teaching personnel from striking, but there were no requests to that effect. The Committee notes that the Government does not dispute that the UEN implemented the safeguarding measures as described.
4. 508. At the outset, the Committee recalls that in the past, it has dealt on multiple occasions with cases concerning compulsory arbitration in Norway imposed in non-essential sectors through legislative intervention in the collective bargaining process thereby ending strike action [see Case No. 1255 (234th Report), Case No. 1389 (251st Report), Case No. 1576 (279th Report), Case No. 2545 (349th Report), Case No. 3038 (372nd Report) and Case No. 3147 (378th Report)]. This case is not different as the Government recognizes that it imposed compulsory arbitration in the education sector which, it agrees, is not an essential service. While the Committee is sensitive to the arguments outlined above provided by the Government to justify its decision to refer the dispute to compulsory arbitration in the present case, the Committee wishes to recall that minimum services may be established in the education sector, in full consultation with the social partners, in cases of strikes of long duration [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 898]. Furthermore, the possible long-term consequences of strikes in the teaching sector do not justify their prohibition [see Compilation, para. 846]. The Committee further recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute and a strike is acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or if the strike in question may be restricted, even banned, i.e. in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see Compilation, para. 816]. The Committee considers that it is difficult to reconcile arbitration imposed by the authorities at their own initiative with the right to strike and the principle of the voluntary nature of negotiation [see Compilation, para. 819]. The Committee notes the efforts indicated by the UEN to restrict the impact of the strike, which, while acknowledged by the Government, were considered insufficient.
5. 509. The Committee notes the Government’s emphasis on the fact that the Norwegian system of collective bargaining recognizes the right of the social partners to industrial action. The Committee therefore welcomes the efforts undertaken to establish a tripartite working group, at the initiative of the Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion, to explore the possibilities of reducing the recourse to compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that the social partners were included in its composition and that the tripartite working group had before it the Committee’s previous cases concerning compulsory arbitration in Norway. The Committee notes, however, that the tripartite working group concluded that the possibility of the Government’s involvement in the establishment of minimum services was not desirable and also expressed a doubt regarding the possibility of establishing an independent body to deal with the question of minimum services. Satisfied overall with the functioning of the existing collective bargaining system, the tripartite working group did not recommend any changes to it. The Committee understands, however, that the tripartite working group considered that while generally, the system worked well, there was room for improvement and requested further research and information regarding various negotiation systems, conflict resolution mechanisms and forms of industrial action in the Nordic countries. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that on 3 September 2024, it encouraged the social partners to provide their feedback towards this research. The Committee further notes the Government’s expressed commitment to continue the dialogue with the social partners and to resume discussion on minimum services once the results of the research are available.
6. 510. In light of the above, the Committee regrets that the issue of the use of compulsory arbitration by the Government to end a legitimate strike and impose the terms of collective agreement has arisen in the country on various occasions as attested by the previous complaints. The Committee urges the Government to continue to consult with the social partners regarding appropriate means of resolving strikes, including reducing recourse to compulsory arbitration. The Committee trusts that the research initiated by the Government will be concluded expeditiously and will inform consultations with the social partners in a manner so as to contribute to effective resolution of this long-standing issue.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 511. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that the issue of the use of compulsory arbitration by the Government to end a legitimate strike and impose the terms of a collective agreement has arisen in the country on various occasions as attested by the previous complaints. The Committee urges the Government to continue to consult with the social partners regarding appropriate means of resolving strikes, including reducing recourse to compulsory arbitration. The Committee trusts that the research initiated by the Government will be concluded expeditiously and will inform consultations with the social partners in a manner so as to contribute to effective resolution of this long-standing issue.
   • (b) The Committee considers that this case is closed and does not call for further examination.