Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2006, publiée 96ème session CIT (2007)

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

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.