New municipal trade union links future LO affiliation to dispute over members

In March 2003, it became known that a planned new Norwegian municipal sector trade union, which should come into being in June 2003 following the merger of the NKF and NHS unions, will most probably affiliate to the LO confederation. However, the new union will consider leaving LO if the confederation does not meet the former's demands to retain in membership the employees of municipal enterprises which are privatised or deregulated.

At the end of March 2003, there was increasing speculation in the media about the future relationship between a planned major new trade union in the municipal sector - to be established through a merger between the Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees (Norsk Kommuneforbund, NKF) and the Norwegian Association of Health and Social Care Personnel (Norsk Helse- og Sosialforbund, NHS) (NO0211106F) - and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO). The new union - which will be Norway's largest with some 280,000 members - will most probably become a member of LO at the time that it is established. NKF is currently an LO affiliate, while NHS is not affiliated to a confederation. However, leading representatives in both NKF and NHS argue that the relationship will be short-lived if LO fails to recognise the new union's right to unionise employees in liberalised/privatised municipal enterprises.

Background

There have been increasing tendencies in recent years toward deregulation, outsourcing and privatisation of municipal enterprises – first and foremost within sectors such as transport, repairs and cleaning, and electricity production (NO0202103F). On some occasions this has led to changes in employer affiliation, mainly by way of such enterprises joining the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon, NHO). These developments have led to internal friction within LO as to which union should have the right to unionise employees in such enterprises. NKF wants to retain these employees as members, while a number of other LO-affiliated unions argue that tradition (as well as present LO regulations) imply that such groups should be transferred to those unions organising similar groups in the private sector, and which are party to the relevant collective agreement.

Future LO membership debate

In March 2003, it came to public attention that the joint body bringing together NHS and NKF - consisting of their leaderships and other central union representatives – wants to see the new union become affiliated to LO from its foundation. The issue of LO membership will probably not be subject to broad discussion at the founding convention of the new union in June 2003. The joint body emphasises, however, that the central board of the new union should be authorised to take the organisation out of LO if its demands regarding maintenance of its membership and the right to unionise employees in autonomous public/privatised enterprises are not met.

The deputy leader of NHS, Kjellfrid Blakstad, claims that it is unreasonable that NKF (and the new union) should lose members in cases where enterprises change employers' organisation affiliation as a result of deregulation, competitive tendering and privatisation. Future membership in LO, according to Ms Blakstad, will be out of the question if rules to this effect are maintained in LO following its congress in 2003 (quoted in the Basis magazine in March 2003). The leader of NKF, Jan Davidsen, who is expected to become the leader of the new trade union, has not yet commented on Ms Blakstad's statement. However, the deputy leader of NKF, Gunhild Johansen, has stated in the media that the 'warning is real'.

The coming new union has also signalled its views through its proposed organisational rules. These state that it aims to organise employees 'in enterprises, foundations and companies in which there is municipal ownership' and 'enterprises that engage in tax- and duty-based services' (ie services commissioned by the municipalities). In other words, the new organisation aims to unionise groups over which there are at present significant disagreements within LO. LO is at present deliberating the issue of unionisation rights and bargaining relationships in publicly-owned enterprises that change their employers' organisation affiliation. The deputy leader of LO, Roar Flåthen, who is in charge of this deliberation process, has stated in a newspaper interview (in Dagens Næringsliv on 27 March 2003) that he believes that a solution will be found that will keep the new municipal trade union in LO .

Commentary

Over the years, there have been a number of both larger and smaller disputes within LO over the boundaries between affiliates' membership areas, and LO has developed procedures for the resolution of such disagreements. An internal body, the organisational committee, is authorised to make decisions in such disputes, in accordance with organisational boundaries drawn up within LO itself. As such, neither the new organisation in the municipal sector, nor other LO unions, may unilaterally decide on the type of employee groups they wish to unionise. The issue as to which union is to organise employees in privatised municipal enterprises has been debated at two previous LO conferences, without consensus being reached on the matter (NO9705110F, NO9807179N and NO0105132F). An important reason for this has been the increasing number of employees subject to such transfers, mainly as a result of growing privatisation/liberalisation of municipal activities, which has contributed to an intensification of internal power struggles and disputes over money within LO.

Another issue placed on the agenda by privatisation/liberalisation is which collective agreement should be applicable to the employees concerned. This issue, however, is settled regardless of which LO union unionises the employees concerned. In the Basic Agreement between LO and NHO (NO9808182N), there are procedural rules be followed in case of uncertainties or disagreement over which collective agreement is to be applied to a new company joining NHO. Disputes on this issue are settled by an arbitration committee (made up of LO, NHO and a neutral chair), whose decision is binding on LO and its members (as well as on the employer side). LO thus has limited powers in relation to the prevention of a transfer of public sector employees to another collective agreement in those cases where there is a relevant nationwide collective agreement in the private sector. As for the growth of private employers within traditional public service provision – such as in childcare, care of elderly people or schools, LO does not have private sector unions with the right to organise these groups. Thus increased privatisation in these areas will, according to the present rules, not pose significant problems as to the membership jurisdiction of unions. However, increasing number of private service providers in this area will confront the trade unions with the challenge of establishing new collective agreements that do not deviate significantly from equivalent agreements in the public sector.

The dispute as to which unions to be entitled to unionise particular employees in privatised or liberalised enterprises has so far been confined to the municipal sector. In the central state sector, liberalised companies have by and large joined the NAVO employers' organisation. NAVO has concluded agreements with the same unions previously party to state sector agreements (NO0206104N), which means that employees may maintain their membership in their original trade unions.

So far, few people believe that the new municipal trade union will actually leave LO. Statements from leading trade unionists in the new organisation nevertheless indicate that LO will be faced with significant internal tensions in future among its member unions with regard to organisational boundaries and membership jurisdiction. It is also evident that the new union, which will constitute a third of LO's total membership, will enjoy significant bargaining influence and powers within LO. Thus it seems clear that LO must, in the run up to its 2005 national conference, direct efforts towards achieving a compromise solution acceptable to all parties concerned. (Kristine Nergaard, FAFO Institute for Applied Social Science)