ON THIS PAGE
Employees must be brought increasingly within the scope of collective agreements
Reinforcing and improving the collective bargaining system serves the interests of Finland as a whole. The quality of work life and a guaranteed minimum standard of working conditions will be based on labour law and on comprehensively applicable collective agreements. An effective system of bargaining and collective agreements protects employees and also maintains the competitive position of an industry from a business perspective.
Achieving the objective
- The universally binding character of collective agreements should be defined more clearly by reconsidering the basis and definition of universally binding character. The perspective must be the same as in all regulations governing the employer-employee relationship, with legislation and collective bargaining supporting the weaker negotiating position. The employee organising rate is currently only one factor in the overall general assessment of whether an agreement is considered universally binding.
- It is also important to protect the rights of employees working for businesses that do not belong to an employers’ federation. The agreement that covers a majority of employees should accordingly be regarded as a collective agreement that is universally binding, meaning that it applies to everyone working in a sector, without setting any minimum percentage threshold for universally binding character. The employee party to such an agreement must be a trade union that genuinely represents the employees.
- Universally binding character must remain in force for the entire duration of the agreement. This means that an employer party to an agreement could not terminate its universal applicability merely by going into voluntary liquidation or abandoning the negotiating table.
- The right of employee associations to negotiate collective agreements must be enshrined in law.
Why is this objective important?
Universally binding character must be strengthened, because the status of an employee is weaker than that of the employer. An effective system of bargaining and collective agreements protects employees and also maintains the competitive position of an industry from a business perspective.
The willingness of employers to organise in an employers’ federation and bargain working conditions collectively has deteriorated, and employers may directly affect the working conditions of employees through unilateral organising decisions. Legislation must accordingly give greater consideration to changes that occur during an agreement period. If an employers’ federation dissolves rendering an agreement no longer universally binding, for example, then a decision of the collective agreement extension committee may cease to apply during the agreement period, unexpectedly changing the terms and conditions of employment in the sector. This must be prevented in order to safeguard the rights of employees.
Local collective bargaining should be equitable
Collective agreements must continue to set the framework for local collective bargaining.
Achieving the objective
- The framework for local collective bargaining – such as the scope of bargaining and the parties involved – must be determined by collective agreements. This will ensure fair and equitable local collective bargaining. Collective agreements already provide a wealth of opportunities that are not all applied at workplaces. There are currently about 50 points of labour legislation that may be otherwise agreed in settlements reached between organisations of employers and employees.
- Exemptions from labour legislation that weaken the status of employees should only be agreed through national collective bargaining. This current principle is justified because it accommodates the differing status of the bargaining parties.
- Legislation must specify a principle linking the industrial peace obligation to the level of bargaining, so that industrial peace arises for the location where matters are agreed. Employees must also be able to apply pressure when bargaining local agreements.
- Employers are the stronger party in bargaining and conflict situations, and are also entitled to impose their own interpretation of the terms and conditions of employment until disputes are settled. Employers must accordingly be subject to a stronger duty to engage in local collective bargaining. Equitable bargaining arrangements must be ensured by limiting the employer’s prerogative of interpretation. This is one way to ensure that employers do not abuse their stronger position.
- One solution to improve the status of employees would be a format recognising a prerogative of interpretation for the employee where an eligible local agreement is based on a norm or regulation. A format of this kind is applied in Sweden, for example.
Why is this objective important?
While SAK is not opposed to local collective bargaining, it opposes making this an instrument for weakening working conditions. If local collective bargaining meant a potential deterioration in working conditions, then this would impair the position of employees, especially in sectors where there are few shop stewards, high employee turnover, and large numbers of immigrants and young adults at work. This is generally the case in the commercial sector, in real estate services, and in catering and other industries. Potential outcomes would include segregation in the world of work and more widespread in-work poverty.
SAK supports local collective bargaining, provided that it is genuine and equitable. Local agreements should be negotiated on behalf of employees by a shop steward who is well versed in matters of employment, as such representatives have the training and competence required to conclude legally valid agreements. Confidence and trust are the best foundation for increasing local collective bargaining. To promote local collective bargaining, the shop stewards who represent the workforce should have greater access to information and more training.
Local collective bargaining can be improved through collective agreements, Collective agreements already provide a wealth of opportunities that are not all applied at workplaces.
There are about 50 details of labour legislation that may be otherwise agreed in settlements reached between organisations of employers and employees. It is necessary to specify the permitted parties to such an agreement, as employees may be coerced into worsening their working conditions or they may have insufficient bargaining power to insist on their rights if the provision is broadened to include enterprise-specific agreements.
Employees must also be able to apply pressure when bargaining local agreements. The industrial peace obligation should be linked to the manner and scope of each agreement concluded.
If working conditions are agreed locally, then the employer’s priority of interpretation in an enterprise-specific or local agreement must be limited. Employers are entitled to interpret terms and conditions of employment from their own perspective until any disputes are settled. It may take years to settle the matter if the case is heard by a court. A solution must be found to this that reinforces the position of employees. One solution to improve the status of employees would be a format recognising a prerogative of interpretation for the employee where an eligible local agreement is based on a norm or regulation. A format of this kind is applied in Sweden, for example. While preparatory work should examine the details as a whole, the position of employees must ultimately be confirmed and the employer must have a stronger duty to negotiate with them.
The shop steward and trade union protect employees at workplaces
The right of employees to organise and elect their own representatives is guaranteed in international treaties.
Achieving the objective
- The Employment Contracts Act should be clarified to ensure that organised employees at all workplaces are entitled to elect the shop steward specified in a collective agreement.
- The status of shop stewards is currently based in part on collective agreements. Statutory codification of these rights is necessary, and will strengthen the status of shop stewards, who should be guaranteed adequate protection, access to information and other rights for the purpose of discharging their duties.
Why is this objective important?
The right of employees to organise and elect their own representatives is guaranteed in international treaties. As long as the employer’s right to direct and supervise work remains in its current form, only a shop steward belonging to a trade union can have real prospects of negotiating equitable agreements and defending the rights and interests of employees at work.
An increase in local collective bargaining also requires shop stewards to have greater access to information and more thorough knowledge and skills. Shop stewards must be guaranteed the conditions for serving as employee representatives.
Employers have challenged the election, status and competencies of shop stewards in many industries. It has been difficult to make improvements to shop steward agreements in recent years. Statutory codification of rights would give employees more equitable opportunities to access information and support in collective bargaining. The Finnish Supreme Court has ruled that an employer who does not belong to an employer’s federation must also recognise the status of a shop steward on pain of otherwise violating the freedom of association of employees.
The rights of employees to engage in industrial action must not be curtailed by legislation or precautionary measures
The rights of employees to engage in industrial action must not be curtailed by legislation or precautionary measures.
Achieving the objective
- Precautionary measures should be limited by amending distraint legislation. It should not be possible to use precautionary measures for industrial action. This would ensure that such measures are not misused for strikebreaking.
- The right to industrial action is the most important instrument that employees have for influencing their own status. This means that the right to such measures as political demonstrations or sympathy strikes must not be constrained.
Why is this objective important?
The right to take industrial action is an influencing instrument enshrined in international treaties whereby employees secure a bargaining position and protect themselves against unilateral dictation of working conditions. This right must be safeguarded.
Use of precautionary measures under the Code of Judicial Procedure always involves a risk of abuse. The provisions of section 3 of chapter 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure governing precautionary measures have been applied to matters of labour law in Finland. Like other types of precautionary measure, this provision was originally designed to protect debts. Particularly in relation to industrial action, its application in matters of labour law is highly problematic, not only with regard to the purpose of the provision, but also in terms of its potential consequences.
In cases of strike action, for example, a mere application for an interim injunction can bring about all of the legal effects that should actually be resolved in the principal proceedings. Insofar as an interim injunction is granted due to satisfying the risk condition to a sufficient degree and the court issues an injunction prohibiting a trade union from engaging in strike action, the injunction ruling meets the sole aim of the applicant in the main proceedings. There is then no longer any need for the main proceedings from the applicant’s point of view, but the fundamental right of employees to engage in industrial action is effectively denied. The sole condition for issuing an injunction is that the cause is found to be “probable”. This state of affairs is quite unacceptable, given that it is not even possible to make a genuine assessment of the alleged unlawful character of an industrial dispute in a summary procedure concerning precautionary measures.