Trade unions win EU equal pay battle

THE rights of trade unions to take industrial action against the use of cheap labour from Eastern European nations were bolstered by recommendations issued at the European Court of Justice yesterday.

The court has found that trade unions should be allowed to compel companies from other member states to comply with local wage agreements.

The court’s advocate general also found unions could take action against vessels hiring cheaper workers from another country.

The court yesterday gave legal opinions in two cases.

In the first case, Swedish builders in November 2004 picketed a school being built by a Latvian company employing Latvian workers who were being paid less than the rate agreed collectively between unions and the social partners in Sweden. As a result, work was halted and the company, Laval, filed for bankruptcy.

The Swedish government and the European Commission came out in favour of the Swedish workers, although Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy backed the Latvian company.

Laval took the case to the Swedish courts, which asked the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to rule on whether the workers’ action was compatible with EU legislation. Yesterday’s opinion from the court’s advocate general said EU law allowed strikes and industrial action to protect workers and prevent social dumping, provided it was proportionate and was not in fact protectionism.

The opinion was welcomed by Labour MEP, Proinsias De Rossa.

“This is a major political victory for workers all across Europe — against the under-cutting of agreed going rates and standards and against the exploitation of foreign workers. It is also a victory for fair competition,” he said.

In the second case, The Viking Line in 2003 wanted to reflag its Finnish vessel, the Rosella, in Estonia where it could employ sailors at a fifth of the Finnish rates.

The International Transport Workers Federation, which campaigns against this kind of reflagging and insists companies should apply the conditions of the company’s home country, instructed its Estonian trade union affiliate not to co-operate.

Viking appealed the issue to the British courts where the federation is located.

The advocate general said unions could take action against vessels hiring cheaper workers from another country, but once the company owning the vessel has relocated such action would be illegal. The federation could not instruct unions to take such action as each union must be free to decide for themselves.

The two opinions are not binding on the court, which will issue a full judgment in several months. However, in 80% of cases, the advocate general’s opinion is upheld.