Strike options to be bridled

Photo: Mihkel Maripuu

Trade unions, opposed to several curbs proposed, still agree with need to end confusion of current legislation.

Ministry of Social Affairs is preparing a draft bill specifying and, at times, limiting the right to strike. Trade unions, employers’ federation and ministry are in search for compromises.

Last night, strike rights topic was – for the first time – up in the government. Not to be decided, rather for discussion. On officials’ level, social ministry, trade unions and employers have met many times already. Today, another meeting is held between social minister Taavi Rõivas, trade unions chief Peep Peterson and employers’ confederation head Toomas Tamsar.

Political strike ban

So far, we are talking about a draft; a bill may be born within a couple of weeks, thereafter headed for the confirmations rounds; as predicted by Mr Rõivas, it would be signed at the beginning of next year, entering into force as of January 1^st, 2015. Of the overall ideology of the amendments if could be said that Estonia’s striking rights – quite broad and not definitely regulated – will be limited.

«For us, the most important topic would be the strikes unrelated to a definite employer’s activities,» says the employers’ spokesperson Toomas Tamsar. «If an employer has stuck to thins agreed by him, there should not be options to just up and strike.»

Here, things like political strikes and support strikes come into play. As an example of the latter, we may recall last year’s doctors’ strike, with Western Tallinn Central Hospital having a valid collective contract, managers and employees having no complaints against each other, but still a strike was launched – to support the rest of doctordom. From the hospital management’s point of view, the collective contract essentially lost its meaning – why have that, if obligation to refrain from striking is not ensured.

More generally, this could be theoretically applied to situations where bus drivers strike in support of teachers, miners for nurses. Or when the strikes are not aimed at working conditions at all, rather to support or oppose certain laws; or even to remove a minister from office.

Mr Rõivas says that the ministry aim at forbidding political strikes. The word «ban» is not directly used in the draft; the text is directed at specifying the notion of labour disputes: in the ministry’s interpretation, the signal would be sent that political strikes are not allowed.

Support strikes, however, would not be forbidden outright; even so, the advance notice date will be extended to five days (currently three). In addition to that, obligation to totally refrain from striking will be introduced as a notion, allowing for collective agreements whereby the parties agree to absolutely abstain from striking – under no conditions will strikes, lock-outs, warning strikes or support strikes allowed.  

The trend of all the changes is clearly towards curbing strike options.

Trade unions chief Peep Peterson says he will not contest the lengthened advance notice – even the Chancellor of Justice having said that three days is too short; here, all parties agree. However, trade unions differ when it comes to prohibiting political strikes and absolute obligation to refrain from striking i.e. absolute ban on strikes.

With political strikes, the interpretation of the concept itself is disputable. While striking against prime minister Andrus Ansip would be political – all agree – and things like that would better not be allowed; differences surface when it comes to disputes over certain laws: will that be a political issue or not.

For instance: trade unions used to strike against the new Employment Contracts Act. In Mr Peterson’s interpretation, that would be a part of debate of labour relations so a strike like that would not be political. The other side thinks the opposite, rather.

Mr Tamsar says a concrete company is neither guilty not party to a dispute over some law; therefore, the company should not suffer loss thereby. «The more so that we have a free state; there being ample opportunities to express political opinions and views – starting with pickets and ending with demonstration; no strike is needed,» says Mr Tamsar. Probably, Taavi Rõivas will favour Mr Tamsar’s view.

Absolute obligation to refrain from striking, however, is a total novelty. Employers desire it, trade unions are rather opposed. Peep Peterson hints that should a thing like this be introduced, certain conditions will still have to be written down to be able to withdraw from the agreement due to extraordinary circumstances.

A vital and divisive amendment in the collective agreements act would be representation and extension.

Namely, as pointed out by labour relations analyst Epp Kallaste, Estonia is having quite a unique situation where –to exaggerate slightly – five people come together, create a trade union, and agree minimum wages for all of Estonia.

Or, on the employers’ side: five school headmasters shall declare that «we, from now on, shall be Estonian Schools Association» and should we enter a collective agreement with teachers, it will extend to the other 500 schools of Estonia.

Spat about Public Conciliator

Mr Peterson admits that, In Estonia, the issue verily remains unregulated; still, he adds that such stuff does not exist in real life. He is not totally right, however – there was the instance, for example, where an international road transport association was stuck with a collective agreement, in the talks/signing of which they never participated.

Now, it is desired to have at least some conditions written down. Be it the requirement that a trade union shall cover minimum 50 per cent of the sector’s employees to obtain right of representation and to have the collective agreement entered by them extend to the entire sector.

Conditions vary, and strictness of lenience thereof is definitely to be disputed. They cannot be overly harsh, as then the current collective agreements will be endangered,» says Mr Peterson. By default, Mr Peterson then admits that trade unions, being rather small in membership, have currently been able to sign agreements which have automatically been extended to a far wider (and non-trade-unionist) body of employees.

Of course, more is to be disputed over. Like the minimum services issue; and how to treat areas where strikes are forbidden.

As the appointment of public conciliator. Currently, trade unions and employers are having to agree the person of Public Conciliator. Should that prove impossible, things get stuck – right now we are faced with the situation of not having Public Conciliator appointed, rather his substitute.

Pursuant to new plans, should agreement prove impossible until a definite deadline, the conciliator should be appointed by the minister. Trade unions do not like the idea, not trusting the political power – as they put it. Taavi Rõivas counters that, at some point in time, there will arise a left-wing government: will trust then appear?

To summarise: there will be no revolution. «We will not be doing anything extraordinary,» assures Taavi Rõivas. And, in many items, compromises have indeed been reached. While yesterday online media included hints of Peep Peterson threatening a strike, today, talking to Postimees, he repeatedly refutes that.

For him, this is the first big touchstone as trade union chief: evidently, he wants to avoid a dead and. The more so that, as he himself admits, the current strike law does not satisfy the unions, with many issues clearly unregulated.