Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Dock Work Convention, 1973 (No. 137) - Norway (Ratification: 1974)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises (NHO) and the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Registered dockworkers. In its 2015 comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that there were several cases pending in Norwegian courts on various aspects of the collective agreements through which the Convention is implemented in the country, whose outcome might affect the manner in which the number of dockworkers is determined. The Government added that, once the pending cases were resolved, it might then be appropriate to engage in a dialogue with the social partners with the intent of finding a method of determining the number of dockworkers that would be acceptable to both parties, and would enable the Government to provide the Committee with comprehensive information on the implementation of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide copies of relevant court decisions and information on the manner in which the Convention is applied. The Government recalls in its report that the Convention’s requirements are implemented through collective agreements between the NHO and the LO. It adds that the Supreme Court of Norway took under consideration a case involving one such collective agreement. The Committee notes the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 December 2016 in Case No. HR-2016-2554-P, Holship Norge AS v. Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF), a copy of which was communicated with the Government’s report. The Committee notes that the LO intervened in the appeal as a third-party intervener for the benefit of the NTF, and the NHO and the Norwegian Business Association intervened as third-party interveners on behalf of the appellant, Holship. The Supreme Court examined the issue of the lawfulness of a notified boycott against Holship, a Danish enterprise, by the NTF, to prevent Holship employees from loading and unloading ships landing at the Port of Drammen. The boycott was intended to force Holship to enter into a collective agreement with the NTF (the Framework Agreement) containing a priority of engagement clause, which would reserve loading and unloading work for dockworkers associated with the Administration Office of the Port of Drammen. According to the Framework Agreement, administration office stevedores handle loading and unloading operations for all port users in the Port of Drammen. The Administration Office has six permanent stevedores, however, additional personnel may be hired when needed, and there are between 50 and 90 additional workers associated with the Administration Office. The Supreme Court concluded that the dockworkers’ priority of engagement constitutes an unlawful restriction on Holship’s freedom of establishment under Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement). The Supreme Court observed that the principle of priority of engagement was originally established to improve the situation of dockworkers, and the priority of engagement clause is anchored in Article 3 of Convention No. 137. The Court also referred to Article 2 of the Convention, observing that the purpose of the Convention seemed to be establishing orderly working and payment conditions for dockworkers. In reaching its conclusions, the Court held that these considerations could be fulfilled by means other than granting priority of engagement for loading and unloading work to one group of workers. In its observations, the LO indicates that the Norwegian courts have handed down several judgments ruling on the validity of the priority of engagement clause reserving loading and unloading for registered dockworkers in private docks and dock facilities. As a consequence, the priority of engagement clause is not being applied in some ports where it was previously applied. The loading and unloading in these ports has been taken over by employees of the enterprises located in these ports, by workers these enterprises employ temporarily, and by the ships’ crew, at the expense of registered dockworkers. The LO is of the view that the practice in these ports is incompatible with Norway’s obligations under the Convention. In its observations, the NHO indicates that there have been questions raised about who is responsible for the implementation of the Convention in Norway, affirming that this is the sole responsibility of the Norwegian State. The NHO further indicates that the Convention is not incorporated by law or regulation in Norway. Referring to its May 2014 observations, the NHO reiterates that the Norwegian understanding of dock work has been incorrectly restricted to loading and unloading operations and considers that measures should be taken to ensure that the Convention is given proper coverage in Norway. The Government points out that the parties to the case are engaged in dialogue following the Court’s decision, considering the need for changes to the way dock work is organized and possible changes to the collective agreements. The Government is awaiting the result of these negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the issues raised by the social partners, as well as on the outcome of the dialogue process, including any changes to the manner in which dock work is organized in the country.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide a general appreciation in its next report on the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, including for instance extracts from reports, particulars of the numbers of dockworkers and of variations in their numbers over time.