Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Dock Work Convention, 1973 (No. 137) - Norway (Ratification: 1974)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) and of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Norway (LO) forwarded by the Government to the Office in March 2003 in relation to the Government’s report received in October 2002.

NHO indicates that, with regard to the safety provisions of the Working Environment Act, it is the ship forwarding agent, harbour user or others who purchase loading and unloading services who are vested with the responsibility of employer in respect of workers engaged in loading and unloading for the duration of the assignment in question.

In its observation, LO indicates that the arrangements under collective agreements have historically been sufficient to comply with the intentions underpinning the Convention. There has, however, never been an established official register of dockworkers as determined by Article 3 of the Convention. LO considers that the latitude existing in the implementation of the Convention has not previously been a significant problem, but today the system of collective agreements regarding dock work, to which the Norwegian Federation of Transport Workers (NTF) and the LO are parties, is under a tremendous pressure and the absence of official registers for dockworkers is becoming a problem.

The LO also refers to a decision of 22 January 2002 by the Permanent Dispute Solving Tribunal concerning the oil base just outside the major port of Stavanger according to which the oil base at Tananger has not changed its character to become an ordinary port and which therefore denied the claim by LO for a collective agreement under the framework agreement on a fixed wage system for dockworkers. The LO indicates that, as a consequence of that decision, the stevedoring office of the port of Stavanger has contemplated liquidation of the office. The main cargo-handlers are moving their operations from the public ports in the area to the oil base at Tananger. The stevedoring operations are performed by the employees of a private company and not by dockworkers from the stevedoring office.

Furthermore, LO indicates that the Government considers that the scope of the Convention is limited to dock work in public ports and does not cover private ports. The LO has provided copies of communications exchanged with the Department of Municipal and Regional Affairs in November 1998 and January 1999.

Finally, LO fears that the proposed European Union directive on market access to port services will also challenge the application by Norway of the Convention.

Taking into account the matters raised in the above observations, the Committee would appreciate receiving the Government’s comments on these issues. It also recalls that, in its 2002 direct request, the Committee invited the Government to supply general information on the practical effect given to the Convention, including for example extracts from the reports of the authorities responsible for the application of laws and regulations, and available information on the numbers of dockworkers on the registers maintained, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and the variations in these numbers (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2004.]