Opinion|Reader’s opinion
The law should be clarified so that labor market disputes could no longer be artificially imposed as a burden on district courts.
Last It has been repeated over the years that the state should not interfere in negotiations and disputes between social partners. This emphasizes the freedom of agreement between social partners, the so-called tariff autonomy.
Even the courts are part of the state power. In particular, for disputes concerning collective agreements, there is a special labor court with exclusive jurisdiction over interpretations, disputes and penalties for infringements of existing collective agreements. It mainly only settles disputes between organizations in its own special way. Industrial disputes are dealt with by the Labor Court only in cases where the collective agreement between the parties is in force.
There have been increasing attempts to bring industrial disputes outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, such as legal non-contractual industrial action, political repression, and strikes and blockades, to be brought before the ordinary courts, primarily the district courts.
The aim is to obtain a temporary precautionary measure by which the district court can ban an industrial action under the threat of a fine of millions of euros. District courts are being used as intermediaries to break up industrial action.
Temporary precautionary measures, such as confiscation and an enhanced injunction, were originally intended to safeguard the creditor’s position. They prevent the debtor from losing his assets even before the actual credit proceedings. Under section 7: 3 of the trial, a precautionary measure may be ordered if the applicant is likely to have a right against the defendant that is enforceable under the foreclosure. The right to seek precautionary measures must be clear and justified. However, it can be imposed in summary form, that is to say, without actually examining the case, since the dispute itself will eventually be admissible in court.
If the applicant’s action in the proceedings is dismissed, the penalty payment will also be revoked. At that point, the industrial action situation is often over and legal coercion has been thwarted by prolonging the dispute.
The use of precautionary measures is ill-suited to dealing with labor market disputes. It can be used to prevent a legitimate industrial action on vague grounds. The state intervenes radically in disputes between the social partners in favor of the employer. Organizations are unable to pay millions of euros in fines, so even a legal strike will fail. In district courts, the case is decided by a single judge, whose impartiality and knowledge of labor market practice are being tested.
About me it seems that it is not always clear what the applicant’s enforceable right is and on what law it is based. Also, the main rule, the constitutional freedom of industrial action, sometimes seems to be forgotten when restrictions are sought without a legal justification. Fundamental and human rights may be restricted only by law enacted by Parliament.
In my opinion, the law should be clarified so that labor market disputes could no longer be artificially imposed as a burden on district courts.
Kalevi Hölttä
Doctor of Laws, Docent of Labor Law, Helsinki
Reader opinions are speeches written by HS readers, selected and delivered by HS’s editorial staff. You can leave a comment or read the principles of writing at www.hs.fi/kirjtamielipidekirjoitus/.
#Reader #opinion #Attempts #prevent #industrial #action #vague #grounds