Article 22

Freedom of association

206. Since Norway’s fourth periodic report there have been two Supreme Court rulings that relate to freedom of association, the first one involving questions concerning the “positive” aspect of the right to organise, the second one relating to the “negative” aspect of the right to organise.

207. In a Supreme Court judgement of 16 >February 2001 (Norwegian Supreme Court Reports 2001 p. 248) the Court stated that an employer is not at liberty to offer jobs on the condition that the applicant does not join a trade union.

208. In a judgement of 9 November 2001 (Norwegian Supreme Court Reports 2001 p. 1413) in a case between Norwegian People’s Aid and a former mine clearance worker, the negative aspect of the right to organise was one of the issues. Norwegian People’s Aid is a humanitarian organisation under the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), and according to the standard employment contract of Norwegian People’s Aid, an employee had to be a member of a union affiliated with the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) in order to be employed by the organisation. The Supreme Court held that the right to organise has been recognised as a fundamental principle of Norwegian labour law, and that even though the principle of freedom to organise is not statutory, section 55A of the Working Environment Act is based on this principle. The Supreme Court concluded that Norwegian People’s Aid’s closed shop clause was unlawful.

209. It may be added that as a result of this Supreme Court judgement there are almost no closed shop clauses in collective agreements in Norway today. Such clauses used to be rather common in enterprises affiliated with the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and the co-operative movement, but most of them were abolished after the Confederation made a review of the question in 1999. After the Supreme Court judgement, the Confederation carried out a new review, which resulted in a unanimous decision in the organisation to abolish closed shop clauses in all agreements. The Confederation itself and the member unions may, however, still require affiliation with a Confederation union for particular positions under certain conditions, i.e. when trade union policy and trade union affiliation are considered to be important for the promotion of the goals of the organisation.

Industrial disputes legislation

210. Norway’s fourth periodic report refers to an Official Norwegian Report, NOU 1996: 14, that puts forward certain principles for a new Act relating to industrial disputes. The proposal met with considerable opposition in the public consultation round and was therefore set aside. A new committee appointed in 1999 with broad representation from the social partners undertook an analysis of the current bargaining system and framework for collective wage negotiations and industrial disputes. In its report, Official Norwegian Report, NOU 2001:14, the committee concluded that the present system was by and large satisfactory, but proposed some amendments to the legislation concerning mediation in connection with the revision of wage agreements.

211. Official Norwegian Report, NOU 2001:14 was circulated for comment to a broad range of institutions. Some of the proposals met with considerable opposition and were not followed up, as the Government considered it essential that amendments to the legislation concerning bargaining arrangements should have broad support from the social partners. Thus, only minor technical amendments were made in the Labour Disputes Act. The new amendments entered into force on 1 January 2003.