E Court rules in favour of Finnish unions against Viking

[woodie]

The European Court of Justice today ruled against the Finnish ferry company Viking Line which had tried to reflag its ferries in Estonia employing lower paid Estonian workers but which then found itself the subject of strike action by Finnish workers (surprise, surprise) and which then appealed to the ECJ on the grounds that the Finnish unions were infringing its EC right of establishment.

The ECJ found that the unions action was a limitation of the right of establishment under EU law but that this limitation was justified because it was in pursuit of a legitimate aim - the protection of workers.

This ruling and others like it might be remembered when we hear simplistic claims during the forthcoming referendum that the EU and the Lisbon Treaty is one big neo-liberal conspiracy (usually because it mentions the word market).

The EU's economic project is about removing unfair barriers to trade and ensuring fair competition but it's a distortion to think this means competition above all else, as this ruling shows.

ECJ statement - http://www.curia.europa.eu/en/actu/comm ... 0088en.pdf

[MacCoise]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7138870.stm

Different angle here from BBC. Most interesting part for me:

But it warned the unions that collective action would be illegal if it restricted the EU's freedom of establishment, which guarantees a company's right to carry out economic activity in other member states

[woodie]

And here, Right to strike is upheld in Viking Line - The Guardian

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22e607fa-a855 ... ck_check=1

What do you think yourself MacCoise? Or does the British Broadcasting Corporation speak for you?

[MacCoise]

And here, Right to strike is upheld in Viking Line - The Guardian

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22e607fa-a855 ... ck_check=1

What do you think yourself MacCoise? Or does the British Broadcasting Corporation speak for you?

I deal in facts Woodie. fact is the court ruled that the right to strike is now limited. Decision of the Court from your own original link :

COLLECTIVE ACTION SEEKING TO INDUCE A FOREIGN UNDERTAKING TO CONCLUDE A COLLECTIVE LABOUR AGREEMENT WITH A TRADE UNION AND LIABLE TO DETER IT FROM EXERCISING ITS FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT IS A RESTRICTION ON THAT FREEDOM


In other words, the right to strike has been ruled conditional.

[woodie]

And here, Right to strike is upheld in Viking Line - The Guardian

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22e607fa-a855 ... ck_check=1

What do you think yourself MacCoise? Or does the British Broadcasting Corporation speak for you?

I deal in facts Woodie. fact is the court ruled that the right to strike is now limited. Decision of the Court from your own original link :

COLLECTIVE ACTION SEEKING TO INDUCE A FOREIGN UNDERTAKING TO CONCLUDE A COLLECTIVE LABOUR AGREEMENT WITH A TRADE UNION AND LIABLE TO DETER IT FROM EXERCISING ITS FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT IS A RESTRICTION ON THAT FREEDOM


In other words, the right to strike has been ruled conditional.

And the very next line reads: 'Such a restriction may be justified on the basis of the protection of workers, provided that it is established that it is suitable for ensuring the achievement of the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.'

The current treaties, which SF now support following Adams' speech last weekend, states that the the EU can't legislate in the field of 'pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs.

What this week's ECJ ruling has clarified is to recognise even in the context of these exclusions and more importantly in the context of the right of establishment, the right to strike is 'a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law' .

The ruling therefore does not now make the right to strike conditional but instead recognises it as a fundamental right that can be used to restrict the right of establishment. That's the key development.

And, that's why it has been welcomed by those directly involved in this case, at huge cost to themselves, the International Transport Workers Federation, to which SIPTU and IMPACT are affiliated, and the ETUC, to which the ICTU is affiliated.

'ITF welcomes court assertion on the right to take collective action'
http://www.itfglobal.org/news-online/in ... etail/1705

ECJ judgement on Viking case recognises fundamental right to collective action as integral part of EU Community law - ETUC
http://www.etuc.org/a/4376

To be honest, I think the person who wrote the BBC piece missed the key point.

[MacCoise]

Woodie,

It is a complictaed case and thanks for bringing to my attention but you cant deny that the ruling sets limits (based on the freedom of establishment of businesses) on the right to strike. To claim it as a victory for workers is not very convincing.

[woodie]

Woodie,

It is a complictaed case and thanks for bringing to my attention but you cant deny that the ruling sets limits (based on the freedom of establishment of businesses) on the right to strike. To claim it as a victory for workers is not very convincing.

Yes it is a complicated case but in the context of a situation where as a result of the treaties negotiated by the Member States which specifically exclude any EU role over the right to strike and which clearly set down the right of establishment as one of the four freedoms, an ECJ ruling that recognises the right to strike as a fundamental right, above and beyond the EU treates, is a progressive development. This is acknowledged by the unions who've fought this issue for the past three years.

I suppose my essential point is that those who go around saying the EU is a neo-liberal conspiracy haven't engaged in any serious analysis.

Yes the EU promotes an internal market (thankfully) but to think there is no social side to it is deny reality. The question that now has to be asked is how is this balance affected by the Lisbon Treaty? I would argue it's very much in favour of the 'social'.

If I understand it correctly, the SF position now seems to be de facto support for the existing EU, but no further. But on the social side alone, how can SF oppose a treaty that includes a new binding clause that obliges all EU policies (e.g. competition, internal market, trade etc) to take into account the requirements of high levels of employment, adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.

Some on the No side are getting worked up over a mere 'undertaking' to improve military capabalities so as to be able to achieve all commitments (voluntarily and unanimously given and under the triple lock in Ireland's case!) to take part in peace-keeping and conflict prevention in accordance with UN principles, Yet they are completely ignoring this social requirement. To me it's not a credible position for anyone on the Left.

And that's not to even mention the new social values and objectives (e.g. a social market economy) which are clearly superior in the treaties to the market values and objectives, as well as the legally binding Charter.