|
9
January 2008
These eagerly awaited
decisions by the European Court of Justice dashed expectation
and the outcome looks like a real set back for workers rights.
Hopes were fairly high
when the “Viking” decision was published on 11th
December. On the downside for us the ECJ recognised the shipping
line’s right to take action against the union in defence
of the EU treaty right for businesses of “establishment”,
or to operate anywhere in the EU. And the same principle would
be expected to apply to the other fundamental rights for businesses
– for freedom to provide services, to supply goods and
move individual labour and capital.
But this right for business
appeared to be balanced by a clear assertion of the fundamental
right to take industrial action by the Finnish Seamen’s
Union albeit as a last resort. The case was referred back
to the Court of Appeal to apply this declaration of EU law
to the circumstances of the case, but it looked like the union
would be able to exercise the fundamental right to take action
and stop Viking re-flagging the ship – the Rosella -
so they could pay wages at Estonian rates. It even seemed
the right to take collective action might be overarching to
the extent that the UK’s opt out of legal enforcement
of the EU Social Charter might not work.
A week later and all hopes
were dashed with the verdict in “Laval”. Put simply
the unions lost. The practical effect throughout the EU is
being considered, but the judgment might outlaw any industrial
action to prevent service providers from another member state
paying low wages and having poor terms and conditions, as
long as the wages and terms are above the bare minimum.
The United Campaign thinks
the ECJ decision was wrong. But their decisions cannot be
appealed. Their interpretation of EU directives – giving
business such free rein - is at odds with the ILO and other
international conventions on the right to strike and the right
to collective bargaining.
The Judges did not appear
to understand the industrial context of rights in Sweden.
The rights of collective labour in the EU have now been clarified.
They are extremely limited when compared to the rights of
capital, goods and services all of which take precedence over
collective rights if the Laval case judgment is allowed to
stand.
“Laval” will
also have repercussions in a number of member states without
statutory/universal minimum wages. In Sweden and Germany,
for example, they have not needed a minimum wage before now
as collective bargaining was a respected part of the countries
infrastructure. And in those states that have a minimum wage,
the decision is an encouragement to businesses across Europe
to drive down wages to the level of the minimum wage.
|
