Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2004, publiée 93ème session CIT (2005)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Norvège (Ratification: 1949)

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.