EU Court has given some judgements recently regarding a country's rights to claim certain rules for employers regarding salary systems, and Labour Unions rights to act against employers.
LAVAL (VÄXHOLM CASE)
18. of November 2007 the socalled Växholm case was judged in EU Court.
In short terms the case is about a Latvian entreprise, Laval un Partneri Ltd., that was doing construction work at a school in Växholm in Sweden with their latvian workforce through their subsidiary L&P Baltic Bygg AB.
They negotiated with "Svenska Byggnadsarbejtareforbundet" (Swedisg Labour Union) regarding salaries and a possible Wage Agreement, but there was no agreement made between the parties.
The 2. of November 2004 "Svenska Byggnadsarbejtareforbundet" made a collective act of force against all Laval construction sites in Sweden by a blocade. After a while Laval had to give up their activities, and Baltic Bygg AB went into bancruptcy.
Laval then sued "Svenska Byggnadsarbejtareforbundet" and more.
The judgement that now came from EU Court says that Swedish Labourunions can not use action forms that is legally stated in their wage agreements, to force wage agreements on new companies.
There are many different opinions around this judgement, as it is clear that EU Court do not accept that foreign companies has to follow Swedish tarif for projects in Sweden.
It will also be very interesting to see what kind of inflict this judgement will have in Norway, especially related to "Lov om Almenngjøring", "Tariffnemda's" statements, what actions will be taken regaring trustees right to "insight", etc.
Some even says this is the beginning to the end of the socalled "Scandinavian model".
In Sweden and Denmark the judgement has already had some practical consequenses, as in Norway the debate is going, while it is quiet in the public room.
Link to the EU Court own press release is here.
Link to the judgement itself is here.
Later, there has been several cases in this cathegory:
RÜFFERT:
In April 2008 the EU Court statet that it is not legal to demand that public contracts only can be given to companies that have "committed to pay the minimum wage agreement salary in force at place for project.."
Link to the EU Court own press release is here.
Link to the judgement itself is here
VIKING LINE:
In December 2008 the EU Court for the first time in clear words stated that the right to work conflicts are sorting under EU Court.
This judgement states that an employer who are attacked with work conflict, can raise a case for a national court and claim the conflict illegal - by reference to EU tractate article 43, regarding right to free establishment.
LUXEMBOURG
Luxembourg has a number of national regulations for visiting service companies to prevent "social dumping". Among others, there is claim of automatic raise of minimum salary, wage agreements and salaries for temporary employment.
EU Commission opinion was that these national regulations were illegal according to EU Directive and the rules of the Tractate regulations for services.
EF Court gave Commision total uphold and found the regulations illegal.(Luxembourg-judgement, 19. juni 2008.)
Link to the EU Court own press release is here.
Link to the judgement itself is here.
LAVAL (VÄXHOLM CASE)
18. of November 2007 the socalled Växholm case was judged in EU Court.
In short terms the case is about a Latvian entreprise, Laval un Partneri Ltd., that was doing construction work at a school in Växholm in Sweden with their latvian workforce through their subsidiary L&P Baltic Bygg AB.
They negotiated with "Svenska Byggnadsarbejtareforbundet" (Swedisg Labour Union) regarding salaries and a possible Wage Agreement, but there was no agreement made between the parties.
The 2. of November 2004 "Svenska Byggnadsarbejtareforbundet" made a collective act of force against all Laval construction sites in Sweden by a blocade. After a while Laval had to give up their activities, and Baltic Bygg AB went into bancruptcy.
Laval then sued "Svenska Byggnadsarbejtareforbundet" and more.
The judgement that now came from EU Court says that Swedish Labourunions can not use action forms that is legally stated in their wage agreements, to force wage agreements on new companies.
There are many different opinions around this judgement, as it is clear that EU Court do not accept that foreign companies has to follow Swedish tarif for projects in Sweden.
It will also be very interesting to see what kind of inflict this judgement will have in Norway, especially related to "Lov om Almenngjøring", "Tariffnemda's" statements, what actions will be taken regaring trustees right to "insight", etc.
Some even says this is the beginning to the end of the socalled "Scandinavian model".
In Sweden and Denmark the judgement has already had some practical consequenses, as in Norway the debate is going, while it is quiet in the public room.
Link to the EU Court own press release is here.
Link to the judgement itself is here.
Later, there has been several cases in this cathegory:
RÜFFERT:
In April 2008 the EU Court statet that it is not legal to demand that public contracts only can be given to companies that have "committed to pay the minimum wage agreement salary in force at place for project.."
Link to the EU Court own press release is here.
Link to the judgement itself is here
VIKING LINE:
In December 2008 the EU Court for the first time in clear words stated that the right to work conflicts are sorting under EU Court.
This judgement states that an employer who are attacked with work conflict, can raise a case for a national court and claim the conflict illegal - by reference to EU tractate article 43, regarding right to free establishment.
LUXEMBOURG
Luxembourg has a number of national regulations for visiting service companies to prevent "social dumping". Among others, there is claim of automatic raise of minimum salary, wage agreements and salaries for temporary employment.
EU Commission opinion was that these national regulations were illegal according to EU Directive and the rules of the Tractate regulations for services.
EF Court gave Commision total uphold and found the regulations illegal.(Luxembourg-judgement, 19. juni 2008.)
Link to the EU Court own press release is here.
Link to the judgement itself is here.