It was an eventful day yesterday, where many spin doctors were put to active work.
According to Akademikerne and Unio, they received full support from the National Wage Negotiation Board. The cheers could almost be heard through the press releases (which were likely written before the ruling).
The fact is that Akademikerne retained the agreement as such, but they lost their understanding of the agreement. The National Wage Negotiation Board clearly states in the ruling that the collective agreement does not give any right to distribute all salary funds locally. This was a central demand from Akademikerne.
The board writes about this that “…distribution between local and central supplements will still be subject to annual negotiations.”
Dissenting Opinion
The fact that the state received full support on this point is emphasized by the fact that a member of the board, the managing director of Akademikerne Stat, dissented on this point in the ruling. Furthermore, almost to clarify that the agreement cannot be understood in such a way that all salary funds can be distributed locally, the board chose to reduce the local salary pool. The salary pool that is to be distributed locally was set lower than what the state had requested in the case, so in that sense, the state received more than it had asked for. On this point, member Kari Tønnessen Nordli from Akademikerne also dissented.
Akademikerne further claims on its website that “The board gives no injunctions or guidelines that the parties must follow in the next main collective bargaining.” It was NRK that first reported (before the ruling was public) that the board gave Akademikerne and UNIO a deadline until 2026 to agree on similar collective agreements in the state.
In the ruling (page 84), the majority of the board begins by stating that it understands the state’s view that there should be an agreement in the state. Then the board states “…that such a change to the main collective agreement, as demanded by the state, should find its clarification and solution through negotiations between the parties. The neutral members of the National Wage Negotiation Board have therefore concluded that the current main collective agreement between Akademikerne and the state will be extended until April 30, 2026, but will not exclude the possibility that another solution may become necessary if negotiations do not lead to results.”
When compared to what the board says in LO-Stat’s ruling, that a common agreement for LO-Stat and YS is a necessary contribution to the development of achieving similar collective agreements in the state, there is no doubt about which direction the board will head next. It is therefore accurately summarized by LO’s Deputy Leader Sissel Skoghaug when she says:
– The majority in the National Wage Negotiation Board is clear that the overarching goal must be to reach similar agreements, effectively setting a deadline for the parties until the 2026 negotiations to achieve this.
EFTA Court – More Spin
There was also spin regarding the EFTA Court. Some managed to mislead certain newspapers/media into believing that it came as a surprise that the EFTA Court “sent the ball back to” Oslo District Court. This has been clear all along. It is also clearly stated in the decision (paragraphs 33 and 34) that there is a division of functions between the EFTA Court and national courts, and that it is the national court that ultimately must interpret national rules and determine whether the rules comply with the EEA or not.
This is nothing new. It is entirely in line with the EEA agreement, and it has always been this way. If anything, the EFTA Court is clearer about this distribution of tasks than in previous statements, which is positive. Everyone knows that very few journalists read judgments from the EFTA Court, so most journalists are easily misled.
There was also an impression conveyed in the media that the statement from the EFTA Court is unclear. It is not. On the contrary, the EFTA Court is very clear when it concluded the following: A restriction under EEA Agreement Article 31 in circumstances like in the main case can, in principle, be justified by compelling general reasons particularly related to the protection of posted workers, health and safety requirements at the workplace, or the need to ensure a well-functioning labor market and prevent abuse. It is up to the requesting court to identify which purposes the measures in the main case actually pursue.
Almost the Worst Possible Outcome
In other words, the EFTA Court is saying here that Norway can have restrictions on the use of posting when this is well justified - and as the EFTA Court says (paragraph 121), for example, is not only determined by administrative convenience considerations. It is entirely up to national courts to assess that.
For staffing companies, the EFTA Court’s decision is almost the worst possible outcome. Even though the companies, and their lawyers, will of course keep the case alive moving forward, everyone sees which direction this case is now taking.
The hope for staffing companies now is probably for another change in government and that a FrP/Høyre government will come to their aid by liberalizing access to hiring in and out of labor. The possibility of that is now significantly greater than that staffing companies can prevail in the courts.
How does the EFTA Court’s decision influence future labor agreements and union negotiations in the EEA?
Interview: Navigating Labor Agreements and the EFTA Court’s Role
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have a special guest, Dr. Ingrid Jensen, an expert in labor relations and collective bargaining. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Jensen.
Dr. Ingrid Jensen (IJ): Thank you for having me! It’s great to be here.
TNE: Let’s dive into the recent ruling from the National Wage Negotiation Board. How significant is it that Akademikerne had their central demand about distributing salary funds locally rejected?
IJ: It’s quite significant. Akademikerne’s insistence on a local distribution of salary funds was a critical demand. The board’s ruling essentially emphasizes that such distributions still rely on annual negotiations. This means that Akademikerne won’t have the unilateral discretion they sought in managing salary allocations.
TNE: You mentioned that the board also reduced the local salary pool. What implications does this have for future negotiations?
IJ: The board’s decision to lower the local salary pool not only reinforces the state’s position but also sends a clear message that there are boundaries to salary negotiations. This sets a precedent whereby future negotiations may continue to face constraints. It also potentially creates more tension between the parties as Akademikerne may feel they have been sidelined.
TNE: In your opinion, how does the dissenting opinion from the board members play into this dynamic?
IJ: It indicates that there’s internal disagreement within the board about the interpretation of these agreements. The dissent from members like Kari Tønnessen Nordli suggests that there are differing views on what the rights and responsibilities of the parties should be. This could lead to more complex negotiations in the future, as dissenting opinions often spark discussions and debates about the interpretation of collective agreements.
TNE: The ruling indicates a deadline until 2026 for similar collective agreements. How does that impact the bargaining power of Akademikerne and other unions involved?
IJ: The extension until 2026 definitely shapes the landscape for negotiation. It provides a timeline that can either serve as a motivation for unions to reach a consensus or create a stalemate. Unions might feel the pressure to align better with each other, especially with the board indicating that a common agreement is essential for future progress. It’s a double-edged sword—both an opportunity and a challenge.
TNE: Now, let’s pivot to the EFTA Court’s role in this matter. It seems there was a bit of confusion in the media about their recent decision. Can you clarify the significance of the EFTA Court sending the matter back to the Oslo District Court?
IJ: Absolutely! The EFTA Court clarifying its function and emphasizing the role of national courts is crucial. This is rooted in the EEA agreement, where national courts interpret the laws in context. Misunderstandings conveyed in the media may lead to misinterpretations about the nature of legal processes. This highlights the importance of sound reporting and understanding of legal frameworks among journalists.
TNE: Given these complexities, what do you believe will be the main focus for both the unions and the state leading up to the 2026 negotiations?
IJ: The main focus is likely to revolve around achieving unity among the unions and negotiating fair terms for the collective agreements. The unions will need to address their strategies to ensure they can present a strong, united front, while the state will want to maintain control over salary distributions within the framework set by the board. Building consensus will be pivotal.
TNE: Fascinating insights, Dr. Jensen. Thank you for unpacking these complex issues in labor relations and collective bargaining with us today.
IJ: Thank you for having me! It’s crucial to keep discussing these topics as they evolve.
TNE: And thank you to our readers for tuning in. Stay informed, and we’ll continue bringing you updates on this developing story!