Equitable bargaining
Employees must be brought increasingly within the scope of general terms and conditions of employment
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.
Objectives
- The universally binding character of a collective agreement should be defined more clearly. It will be necessary to reconsider the basis and definition of universally binding character over the electoral period. 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.
- It is also important to protect the rights of employees working for businesses that do not belong to an employers’ federation. The agreement covering the most 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 a 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 the employer party to the agreement cannot terminate the universal applicability of a collective agreement by voluntary liquidation or by ceasing its bargaining function.
- The right of employee associations to negotiate collective agreements must be enshrined in law.
Grounds
The universally binding character of a collective agreement should be redefined in a way that accommodates the organising rate of employees. This factor currently has only a contributory impact on the overall consideration. The rights of employees working for businesses that do not belong to an employers’ federation must be improved by acknowledging the collective agreement that covers the largest number of employees as universally binding. There should be no minimum percentage threshold for recognising universally binding character.
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.
Objectives
- The framework for local collective bargaining – such as the scope of bargaining and the parties involved – must continue to be determined by collective agreements. This will ensure fair and equitable local collective bargaining.
- Exemptions from labour legislation that weaken the status of employees may only be agreed through national collective bargaining. This current principle is justified because it allows for the negotiating position of the parties.
- Legislation must specify the principle that the industrial peace obligation depends on the level of bargaining, meaning that industrial peace arises for the location where matters are agreed.
- The employer is the stronger party in bargaining and conflict situations. A stronger employer’s duty to negotiate must be introduced in local bargaining. Equitable bargaining arrangements must be ensured by limiting the employer’s priority of interpretation. This is one way to ensure that employers do not abuse their stronger position.
Grounds
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, which 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 that improves the position of employees would be a format whereby the employee would enjoy priority of interpretation in respect of an eligible local agreement 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.
Employees will enjoy the protection of a shop steward and trade union at the workplace
The right of employees to organise and elect their own representatives is guaranteed in international treaties.
Objectives
- 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.
Grounds
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 right to industrial action must be secured
The rights of employees to engage in industrial action must not be curtailed by legislation or precautionary measures.
Objectives
- Precautionary measures must be reduced by amending distraint legislation. It should not be possible to use precautionary measures for industrial action. This will 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 position. It must at least be maintained at the current level, meaning that such measures as political demonstrations or sympathy strikes must not be restricted.
Grounds
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 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.