International Centre for Trade Union Rights

Negotiations —Norwegian styleAuthor(s): ALAN ATKINSONSource: International Union Rights, Vol. 7, No. 4, Struggling for a social wage: Focus on socialsecurity (2000), pp. 10-11Published by: International Centre for Trade Union RightsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41935878 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 02:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

International Centre for Trade Union Rights is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to International Union Rights.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:49:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OPINION □ SOCIAL SECURITY

Negotiations -

Norwegian style

The unions argue that workers

should be able to retire before they lose their health

certificates

ALAN ATKINSON is offshore senior safety delegate for Elf

Petroleum, Norway

THE developed in the

Norwegians North

it in Sea first

a in sensible

discovered the 1960s

way,

oil and

and

for have the

gas in the North Sea in the 1960s and have developed it in a sensible way, for the

future benefit of their country. A country that has seen other major industries, such as fishing and shipping, fall into decline. Norway is right to be proud of their offshore oil and gas industry and in many areas are world leaders, but this does not stop them from falling into bad habits when it comes to industrial relations.

As the offshore industry got started in Norway, so did the unions. Norwegians have traditionally been members of unions and their labour laws support and actively facilitate this, with everyone having the right to be represented, by who ever they wish. Nowadays offshore, unions are as pop- ular as they ever were, with three unions being the main players. They are, OFS (in Norwegian, Oljearbeidernes Fellessammenslutning and in English, the Norwegian Federation of Oil Workers), Lederne , which roughly translates to Leaders organisation, whose members include engineers, supervisors and management person- nel and NOPEF , the Norwegian Union for Oil and Petrochemical workers.

These three unions have a regular two yearly review of their main agreement with their employer organisation, NHO/OLF , and in June of this year the process started again. The unions put forward their proposals, but what was strange this year was that no salary increase was asked for, only a lowering of the pension age for the offshore workers. The unions wanted their members to be able to retire earlier.

The concept of retirement for workers in Europe, was first introduced by Prince Otto von Bismarck in the 1870s, when he decreed that Germans could stop working at 65 years and get a pension. This official pension age of 65 years still seems to be the norm in many countries, at least in Western Europe, except for Norway that is. Norwegians are expected to continue working until they are 67 years old, at which time they receive their state pension. Their pension age of 67 years is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, pension age in Europe. Some years ago, the unions representing offshore workers in Norway, managed to get agreement with their employer organisation for some offshore pensions, to be lowered to 65 years. It had taken over a hundred years, but the Norwegian unions had managed to reach the pension age set in Germany, by Prince Otto.

It was this agreement the unions wanted to re- negotiate, to lower the pension age to between 57 years and 62 years.

Loss of Offshore Health Certificate The offshore worker in Norway, similar to off-

shore workers elsewhere, must undergo a health examination on a regular basis and if they fail, they are not allowed to work offshore. As the off- shore worker gets older, the possibility of losing their Health Certificate becomes greater, as the years spent working on the offshore platforms take their toll.

For those not familiar with offshore platforms, consider something like an oil refinery, squeezed into a small space on several different levels, together with living space and helicopter landing area and you will realise that there are an awful lot of steps to contend with.

A study from 1993 estimated that between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of the offshore work- force would lose their Health Certificate before their normal pension age. Figures show that no- one retired from an offshore job at the normal pension age, from 1994 to 1998. Even the Nor- wegian Petroleum Directorate, the Norwegian Government's own department responsible for offshore safety, concluded this year that only two per cent of the workforce will reach their normal pension age. However, this figure is a little dis- torted, as some companies, all of them oil compa- nies who operate the offshore fields and inciden- tally, are members of the same employer organi- sation involved in the recent negotiations, have given their employees early pensions at between 57 and 60 years. These early pensions have all been in connection with down-manning scenar- ios, where the employers needed to reduce the workforce, rather than from a social or moral standpoint.

The unions were simply claiming that their members should be able to retire before they became so ill they lost their Health Certificate. So with these arguments and the reports to back-up their claims, the unions were disappointed when their employer's organisation, NHO/OLF , reject- ed their claim out of hand.

Strike action OFS and Lederne unions decided that a strike was necessary to emphasise their claim. Having given the necessary legal notice and warning of a strike, OFS and Lederne called-out on strike, some of their workers on 10 June. It was a delib- erate small-scale strike, affecting only three of the offshore platforms. Of nearly 6,000 members that could have been câlled-out on strike, OFS and Lederne asked less than 200 members to partici- pate, some of who continued to work offshore, in safety related tasks. Only 10 per cent of Nor- way's oil production was hit by the strike action, when Shell's Draugen oilfield was shut-down. Construction work on Statoil's Aasgaard B' plat- form and Norsk Hydro's Heimdal installation was also brought to a halt. Importantly for the unions

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 1 0 Volume 7 Issue 4 2000

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:49:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and their members, none of Norway's gas sup- plies to European countries were affected by the strike.

Forced arbitration OFS and Lederne had been careful in the amount of strike action initiated, as the Norwegian gov- ernment had used forced (compulsory) arbitra- tion, to end previous offshore strikes, when they considered that national interests were affected. The employer organisation's, answer to the strike, was to threaten to lockout all offshore workers in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea, starting at midnight on 23 June, less than two weeks after the small-scale strike had started. A lockout, if it had been followed through by the employers would have stopped all Norwegian oil and gas production, including gas supplies to sev- eral European countries. Before the lockout was implemented, the Norwegian government passed emergency legislation in their parliament in Oslo, ordering the offshore workers to return to work and accept the result of a forced arbitration.

Should either side of a dispute, employers or employees, refuse to accept an order of forced arbitration, they would have been financially liable for all loses. In the case of the Norwegian oil and gas industry, this would have been mil- lions, in whatever currency you want to use. Consequently, the strike was called off and the offshore workers returned to normal working.

From a situation of a small-scale strike, result- ing in 10 per cent of Norway's oil production (and hence 10 per cent of the oil revenue to the government) being lost, it was soon escalated by the employers to a point where the Norwegian government felt national interests were at stake. So the process of negotiations, strike, lockout and forced arbitration had come full circle, with the workforce being ordered back to work, with- out the right to continue striking. Anyone with a little inteligence, may be forgiven in thinking that the lockout had been deliberately introduced by the employers, knowing the government would bring in forced arbitration and end the strike.

History suggests that this is the case. This most recent forced arbitration, is the ninth time the Norwegian government have used their power to end an offshore dispute in the last 20 years or so. The cycle of negotiations between employers and unions, breaking down, resulting in a strike being called, followed by a lockout by the employers and ending with government interven- tion in the form of forced arbitration, is all too familiar in the Norwegian offshore sector.

OFS , over the years, has successfully com- plained to the ILO about Norway's mis-use of forced arbitration, arguing that Norwegian off- shore workers do not have the right to strike, but the Norwegian government seems to have ignored the rulings, preferring to continue to be used by the employers. Each time a lockout is proposed or started, the workforce is ordered back to work. For some strange reason, the employers are never ordered to end their lock- out. It looks like there is one rule for some and another rule for others.

The forced arbitration, where the government appointed arbitrator is presented with the case from both sides and then decides on the out- come, took place at the end of August. The result announced in September completely accepted the employers' point of view and so no progress has been made on the issue of the retirement age. The offshore workers in Norway will haveto wait

for a further two years, until the next round of pay negotiations, before they are able to raise the issue again. One small light at the end of the tun- nel is a request from the Social Security Depart- ment in Norway to meet with the unions to dis- cuss the issue. In the meantime, the Norwegian offshore workers will continue to have to give up work due to ill-health, before they are able to retire.

Page 1 1 Volume 7 Issue 4 2000 INTERNATIONAL union rights

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:49:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions