By summer 2004, most social partner organisations and public regulatory bodies had submitted their responses to proposals for changes to Norway's framework of employment law, issued in February by a public committee. There are significant divisions between employers' organisations and trade unions in important areas, in particular on the issues of working time and fixed-term employment.
In February 2004, a public committee considering the reform of working environment and employment legislation put forward its proposals for change(NO0403102F). By the end of June 2004, most relevant social partner organisations and public regulatory bodies had submitted their responses to the recommendations. The committee's attempt to create a uniform, simpler and all embracing legislative framework in this field has proven controversial and, although there is agreement on many issues, there are also significant divisions between the social partners in important areas. The two most contentious issues have been the proposed softening of regulations on temporary (fixed-term) employment and the possibility of extending the maximum permitted daily working time by means of agreement between an employer and an individual employee. Many of the recommendations made in the committee's proposal are seen by the trade unions as a threat to the rights and employment security of ordinary employees, a view supported by the Labour Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet).
Background
The committee was set up in August 2001 with representation from all the major social partner organisations, relevant government ministries and public regulatory bodies (NO0210103F). Its mandate was wide-ranging, involving a broad appraisal of the existing legal framework, primarily the Act relating to Worker Protection and the Working Environment (Arbeidsmiljøloven, AML), but also other legislation. The AML was adopted in 1977 and is the central legislative framework for health, the environment and safety at work, as well as regulating matters such as terms and termination of employment, working time and protection against unfair dismissal. Following a change in government in autumn 2001, the new centre-right minority coalition administration extended the committee’s mandate to include an examination of rules relating to employment protection and temporary employment (NO0210103F).
The committee carried out its task surrounded by controversy. Early on in its work, the government put forward a proposal for changes to the legal framework entailing a relaxation of overtime regulations. Parliament approved the new rules in spring 2003, against the wishes of the trade unions (NO0304103F). In autumn 2003, the government made another proposal, allowing increased use of temporary (fixed-term) employment, which induced the trade unions to leave the committee in protest (NO0310103F). This proposal was later withdrawn as part of the government’s state budget compromise in 2003 (NO0312101N).
Media speculation indicated significant disagreement within the committee itself during this period, which was confirmed by social partner comments immediately after the release of the committee’s report. On many of the more important issues (notably working time flexibility and temporary employment) the committee was divided between a majority consisting of employers' organisations and government ministries, and a minority made up of trade unions and regulatory agencies. The most recent round of consultation suggests that the parties are still far apart on these issues.
Threatening employment security?
Trade union opposition to the committee’s recommendations is unanimous. The proposed revised legislation is seen as a threat to the employment security of employees, according to the Confederation of Vocational Unions (Yrkesorganisasjonenes Sentralforbund, YS), the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) and the Confederation of Higher Education Unions (Utdanningsgruppenes Hovedorganisasjon, UHO). If approved, the new legislation will create a more 'brutal' working life undermining the rights of workers in important areas, it is claimed. Although LO reluctantly accepts that the proposal regarding temporary (fixed-term) employment is better than the one withdrawn by the government in 2003, it nevertheless opposes any tampering with existing rules. Moreover, the unions fear that the proposed alterations to working time legislation will undermine the significance of collective agreements, and thus diminish the influence of trade unions, opening the way for company-based working time arrangements that may threaten the health and well-being of individual employees. Thus all the recommendations taken together serve to weaken the protective nature of the present AML legislation, the unions argue. This is evident, it is claimed, in the proposed new 'object clause' of the revised Act, in which the emphasis is no longer on the protection of the employee alone, but also protection of the interest of companies and society at large.
The Labour Inspection Authority, the public watchdog in work environment matters, goes a long way in supporting the arguments of the trade unions. The Authority fears that proposed company-based agreements on work beyond ordinary working hours, coupled with increased scope for overtime and annualisation of hours, may lead to a high concentration of working hours over longer periods, threatening the health and well-being of employees. It is also critical about the proposed relaxation of rules on fixed-term employment, arguing that this will undermine employment protection. Moreover, based on its own regulatory experience, the Authority argues that fixed-term employees are less likely to report health and safety problems in companies, and thus make labour inspection work more difficult.
The Public Employment Service (Aetat) states that a relaxation of fixed-term employment regulations will ease the entry of unemployed people into the labour market, along with groups facing difficulties in gaining access to the labour market, such as young people and people with disabilities.
Gender bias?
The trade unions and the regulatory bodies are also critical of what is regarded as the gender-biased nature of the committee recommendations. The Gender Equality Ombud (Likestillingsombudet) and the Centre for Gender Equality (Likestillingssentret) argue that a softening of the rules regulating fixed-term employment will affect women the most since such employment is particularly prevalent in female-dominated occupations. The changes will only serve to make the situation of women in the labour market even more vulnerable, it is claimed. These bodies further argue that alterations to working time legislation and a relaxation of overtime rules will only help to sustain traditional gender patterns, since men are more likely to work longer hours than women. On a more general note, they also argue that the committee’s proposal suffers from a lack of an 'overarching equality perspective', which should have been part of the committee’s mandate at the outset. As it is, the proposed new legislation may contribute to a more gender-segregated labour market, it is claimed. This is a view also held by the Work Research Institute (Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet, AFI).
Legislation adapted to contemporary working life?
Whereas the trade unions and state regulatory bodies are opposed, the employers' organisations on the whole welcome the recommendations of the committee's majority report, although arguing that in some areas it does not go far enough. At a general level, employers argue that the proposals provide a good starting point for the adaptation of work environment legislation to the needs of contemporary working life, and will beyond doubt have a significant impact on the employment situation in Norwegian industry. Both the Federation of Norwegian Commercial and Service Enterprises (Handels- og Servicenæringens Hovedorganisasjon, HSH) and the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon, NHO) argue, however, that the recommendations do not go far enough and do not fully address companies’ need for flexibility in contemporary working life.
On the issue of fixed-term employment, NHO argues that the proposal to allow employers to employ workers for a fixed term of up to six months, with no further justification needed, is insufficient. It would rather see the term increased to 12 months. The flexibility provided by the proposed opportunity to enter into company-level agreements on extended working time is regarded by NHO as a significant step forward. However, HSH opposes the committee’s proposal to give employees the right to compensation for increased working hours in one period in the form of time off work in other periods (ie annualised hours).
Commentary
The consultations on the committee's proposals prove that, although there is consensus among the social partners in some areas, they are still miles apart in other, and maybe more important, areas. The process has revealed the difficulties faced by the government in fostering broad support for a piece of legislation to replace the existing 1977 Act relating to Worker Protection and the Working Environment. Thus, although there is a consensus about the need to revise the existing legal framework, there is little consensus about what measures to be taken. The trade unions have pledged that they will direct every effort at preventing some of the recommendations being adopted and thus, in order to maintain some degree of labour market harmony in the coming months, the government will have to tread carefully. It will not be easy to find an acceptable balance between the interests of the trade unions and of the employers on issues such temporary employment and working time. It thus remains to be seem what shape a possible new law relating to work environment will take. The government aims to have the new legislation in force in spring 2005.
The debate surrounding work environment issues will not be the only source of conflict in the months to come, because the committee’s work has also spurred further changes in other parts of labour law. Its proposal to integrate parts of the Act relating to Civil Servants into the new work environment legislation, will necessitate further changes to the former Act. A government White Paper on the issue is currently subject to consultation with the social partners, and has already been met by heavy criticism from the trade unions in the state sector. In particular two proposals have been criticised: abolishing severance pay during unemployment whilst waiting for a new job; and changes to appointment procedures in the state sector that will deprive the trade unions of a say in such appointments. The deadline for submission of responses to this White Paper from the relevant organisations is 1 November 2004. ( Håvard Lismoen, FAFO Institute of Applied Social Sciences)