Luxemburg, 11/01/2007 (Agence Europe) - After the Laval case (also called the “Vaxholm” case, C-341/05) (see EUROPE 9340), a second case highlighting the conflicts between EU social and economic policies has come before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The shipowner Viking Line (“Viking”) of Finland was prevented by action taken by Finnish trade unions from switching from the Finnish to the Estonian flag. Viking, in putting its arguments to the ECJ on Wednesday 10 January (C-438/05), says this is an infringement of freedom of establishment as provided for in the EC Treaty. This and the Laval case will be dealt with at the same time (but not linked), and their outcome is sure to have an impact on the future of trade unionism in the enlarged economic Europe.
In 2005, Viking tried to transfer its vessel “Rosella” to the Estonian flag, the avowed intention being to replace the Finnish crew with Estonian seamen, who would work under conditions deemed to be more attractive for the employer. This attempt was prevented by action from Finnish seamen, with support from other trade unions. Viking then took the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) and the Finnish Seamen's Union (FSU) to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in November 2005, a procedure made possible because the ITF headquarters is in London. Given the European dimension of the case, it was then taken to the ECJ.
As with Laval/Vaxholm, this case has brought support from trade unions all over Europe. John Monks, the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), clearly indicated, in a letter to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, that the possible repercussions of these cases “go far beyond the Swedish and Finnish social models and will affect labour relations everywhere in Europe”. Mr Monks says that, if the unions lost the Laval/Vaxholm and Viking cases, there would be a real risk that they come to oppose free movement, the single market, and perhaps the European project itself. Speaking to press on Tuesday, Mr Monks and Erland Olauson (deputy leader of the confederation of Swedish trade unions, LO, a party concerned in the Laval case), both reiterated that it was not a matter of excluding anyone from national labour markets. On the contrary, every EU worker was welcome, they stressed, but “under equal conditions”, that is to say, in line with the conventions already in place.
In Finland, as in Sweden, the levels of immigration from the new Member States do not present, in themselves, a cause for concern - from May 2004 until December 2005, Finland granted only 4,485 work permits to nationals from the eight new Eastern European Member States, and Sweden roughly double that number (according to the “Who's still afraid of EU enlargement” report from the European Citizen Action Service, September 2006). Scandinavian unions, then, are not fearful of an influx of workers. They are concerned, rather, about the threat to current collective agreements, the effectiveness of which depends on their exclusive rights.
The socio-political reasoning of this argument is, however, questioned by some, who point to the historic influence of trade unions in Scandinavia. Kent Brorsson, head of labour rights at the Confederation of Swedish Enterprises, says the LO is going a bit far when it claims to be defending the interests of immigrant workers against discrimination. In an interview in Tuesday's Financial Times, he says, “The power of the trade unions is at stake here. It is not about any concern for foreign workers”.
The Court of Justice will now study these cases. In both, the conclusions of the Advocates General will probably be presented in mid-2007, but no date has yet been set. (cd)