Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Community Action on Strike Law?

  • Chapter
Common Market Law Review

  • 94 Accesses

Abstract

The first Social Action Programme1 of the European Community did not envisage any action in the field of the law on industrial disputes. Since this first stage of a fully-fledged Community social policy was largely completed by the end of 1976 and the Commission is under an outstanding obligation to propose a series of measures for the next stage, it might be useful to question whether a second social action programme should not provide for action on strike law. That is the theme of this article.

This article is the winning entry for the Sijthoff Award 1978 for a European Law Essay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bulletin of the E.C., Supplement 2/74.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Syndicats et sociétés multinationales, La documentation française (1975), p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Pankert, “Some legal problems of workers’ international solidarity”, (1977–1978) International Labour Review, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See K. W. Wedderburn, “Multi-national Enterprise and National Law”, (1972) Industrial Law Journal, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hoge Raad 15 January 1960, NJ 1960, nr. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Demokratie und Recht (1973), p. 416 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Camellia Tanker Ltd. S.A. v. International Transport Workers Federation [1976] LCR. 274 (CA.).

    Google Scholar 

  8. See R. Birk, “Zur Haftung einer internationalen Gewerkschaftsvereinigung für Arbeitskampfmassnahmen nationaler Mitgliedgewerkschaften”, (1975) Arbeit und Recht, 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Hanseatic Ship Management Ltd. v. International Transport Workers Federation [1974] LCR. 112 (N.I.R.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  10. AP Nr. 20 zu Art. 9 GG (Arbeitskampf).

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Stewart, “Some Major Issues for European Unions”, in: Trade Unions in Europe (Epping 1974) p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Lyon-Caen, Droit Social international et européen (Paris, 1976) p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Pankert, op. cit. note 3, 67.

    Google Scholar 

  14. La documentation française, op. cit. note 2 at 96.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See E. Piehl, Multinationale Konzerne und Internationale Gewerkschaftsbewegung (Frankfurt 1974) pp. 153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See notes 36 and 37 of this article.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See note 36 below.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Dutch newspaper Trouw of October 20, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See the speech of the ETUC Secretary-General Staedelin at the symposium on the European Social Charter and European Social Policy in Strasbourg, Dec. 7, 1977. 15 million workers took part in industrial action on April 6, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See E. Piehl, Multinationale Konzerne und Internationale Gewerkschaftsbewegung (Frankfurt 1974) note 13, p. 178–186/191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See R. Miotto, Les syndicats multinationaux, (Istituto per 1’Economia Europea, Rome 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  22. See W. Gitter, “Probleme des Arbeitskampfes in supranationaler, internationaler und international-privatrechtlicher Sicht”, in: Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht, 1971, 130.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See A. Lyon-Caen, “La grève en droit international privé”, (1977) Revue critique de droit international privé, 292.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Two company law directives have been adopted. See Dir. 68/151, J.O. 1968, L 65/8 (disclosure company documents); Dir. 77/91, O.J. 1977, L 26/1 (formation of public companies etc.). Five more have been proposed. See: proposal for a 3rd dir. (national mergers) J.O. 1970, C 89/20; proposal for a 4th dir. (financial documents) Bull. of the EC Suppl. 7/71, J.O. 1972, C 7; proposal for a 5th dir. (structure of ltd. companies) Bull. of the EC Suppl. 10/72, and see also Bull. of the EC Suppl. 8/75 (Green Book); proposal for a 6th dir. (control of accounts) Bull. of the EC Suppl. 8/72; proposal for a 7th dir. (publicity and information) Bull. of the EC Suppl. 9/76. For the proposal for a Statute for European Companies, see Bull. of the EC Suppl. 4/75. See also the proposal for a regulation concerning a European Cooperation Grouping, O.J. 1974, C 14. Further, a Treaty concerning the mutual recognition of companies and legal persons was signed on Feb. 29, 1968, and a further treaty on international mergers was sent to the institutions and the Member State governments in Dec. 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Levinson, International Trade Unionism (London 1972), p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Bulletin of the E.C. 10/1972, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See G. Lyon-Caen, “Négociation et convention collective au niveau européen” (1973) R.T.D.E., 592.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wedderburn, op. cit. note 4, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See F. Gamillscheg, Internationales Arbeitsrecht, (Berlin, Tübingen, 1959), p. 365.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. See Section 30 (6) of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  31. In such cases it is the judge of the mother country who might be faced with the effect of the participation of an Auslandmonteur in a strike abroad. For these situations, Gitter believes that the law that governs the contract of employment should be decisive (W. Gitter, op. cit. note 20, p. 148). In proposing that solution Gitter might have borne in mind the ordinary situation in which the contract of employment of the Auslandmonteur is governed by the law of the country where the company has its seat and where the judge resides. The French Court of Appeal however in the case of Soc. Montalev v. Giacomel, 1969 (C.d.C. Soc, Oct. 8, 1969) was confronted with the exceptional situation that the contract of employment of the French Auslandmonteurs who participated in a strike in the United States was explicitly governed by the law of the country where they did their Auslandmontage. Nevertheless the French Court of Appeal applied French law as to the consequences of a strike for the individual employment relationship.

    Google Scholar 

  32. J.O. 1968, L 257/1.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Case 48/75, Judgment of Oct. 28, 1975, (1975) E.C.R. 1219.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See E.P. doc. 261/73; Suppl. Bull. of the EC, no. 8/73.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Annex to the O.J. of 1974, Debates of the European Parliament, Thursday, 12 December 1974, p. 228–230.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See Document EP 424/76.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See O.J. 1977, No. C 214/18 of 7.9.1977.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stewart, op. cit. note 9, p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See text published in (1976) Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 431.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See John Ridell, “The ICFTU and the Multinationals” (1976) Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 341.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Pankert, op. cit. note 3, p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. P. Dubois, “Multinational Enterprises and collective bargaining at international level”, 12 C.M.L. Rev. 1975, 147.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See E. Piehl, Multinationale Konzerne und Internationale Gewerkschaftsbewegung (Frankfurt 1974) note 13, p. 211–212.

    Google Scholar 

  44. H. L. Bakels, “Quo vadis, Societas Multinationalis”, (1977) Nederlands Juristenblad, 244.

    Google Scholar 

  45. A. Lyon-Caen, op. cit. note 23, at 292–294, 299.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Pankert, op. cit. note 3, at 74.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Council of Europe, AS/Coll/Charter 3-E, p. 2 (Strasbourg, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Case 29/69, Stauder v. City of Ulm, (1969) E.C.R. 419; Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, (1970) E.C.R. 1125; Case 4/73, Nold KG v. Commission, (1974) E.C.R. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Bull. of the E.C. no. 3/77, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, série A 1976, Vol. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  51. The Dutch ratification is after long delays near at hand: see Ratification Bill, Tweede Kamerstukken nr. 8606, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Cf. O. Kahn-Freund, “The European Social Charter”, in: European Law and the individual, (Ed.) F. Jacobs, (N. Holland, 1976) p. 197–198.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See Preambule to the French Constitution of 1946, referred to in the French Constitution of 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Article 40 of the Italian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Bull. of the E.C., Suppl. 5/76, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See p. 137–139 above.

    Google Scholar 

  57. W. Däubler, Der Streik im öffentlichen Dienst (Tübingen, 1971) p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  58. W. Däubler/H. Hegge, Koalitionsfreiheit (Baden-Baden, 1976) p. 113

    Google Scholar 

  59. W. Däubler, Das Arbeitsrecht, (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1976) p. 132–133.

    Google Scholar 

  60. J. P. Dubois, op. cit. note 42, at 152.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gitter, op. cit. note 22, at 130–131.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 8/75 p. 24–25 Criticised also on this point by W. Däubler in: “The Employee Participation Directive— A realistic Utopia?”, 14 C.M.L. Rev. 1977, 480–482.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See also Gitter, op. cit. note 22, at 130.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wedderburn, op. cit. note 4, at 19.

    Google Scholar 

  65. In Italy the Rubinacci Bill was shipwrecked in the ’fifties; in Belgium successive bills devised by Troclet and Major failed in the ’sixties; in the Netherlands, the Polak Bill met the same fate in the ‘seventies.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See for a recent example the decision of the House of Lords in American Cynamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C. 396 and the controversy about the principles laid down in this decision.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Gitter, op. cit. note 22, at 130.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See Art. 25 of the European Social Charter.

    Google Scholar 

  69. See the Conclusions I, II, III and IV of the Committee of Experts.

    Google Scholar 

  70. According to the fundamental principles of the “ordre public social” this reception should be a minimum, not prejudicing national strike law that is more favourable to workers and unions; Cf. Art. 32 of the European Social Charter.

    Google Scholar 

  71. The German administration for instance differs with the Committee of Experts on the legality of wild-cat strikes, the right to strike for civil servants, etc.; see O. Kahn-Freund, op. cit. note 52, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  72. See Ass. Cons. Rapp. Voogd, Doc. 3276 rev. s. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  73. In Germany the Bundesarbeitsgericht did not take a definite stand on solidarity action in its leading judgement on this issue of Dec. 20, 1973, AP Nr. 34 zu Art. 9 GG (Arbeitskampf).

    Google Scholar 

  74. In the Netherlands the very restrictive Hoge Raad judgment of 1960 (NJ 1960, nr. 84) as to strikes in general and as to sympathy strikes in particular, is outdated and therefore the actual legal situation is still undecided.

    Google Scholar 

  75. In the United Kingdom under the pre-1970 trade union law there was a controversy between the views of Lord Denning M.R. and Lord Pearce as to the question whether the immunities of industrial disputes also applied to industrial action against third employers (see J. T. Stratford & Son Ltd. v. Lindley 1965 A.C. 269, H.L. (e). In the abovementioned Camellia case (see note 7) the Court of Appeal cautiously avoided an utterance on this point of law under the present Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See the comparable rule in British strike law, that “there is a trade dispute for the purpose if this Act even though it relates to matters occuring outside Great Britain”, section 29 (3) of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See Pankert, op. cit. note 3, at 71.

    Google Scholar 

  78. See A. Lyon-Caen, op. cit. note 23, at 294.

    Google Scholar 

  79. See Gitter, op. cit. note 22, at 148–149.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See B. Knapp and W. Zöllner, “La protection des travailleurs des sociétés membres du groupe”, in Le droit international privé des groupes de sociétés (Schweitzerische Beiträge zum Europarecht, Genève, 1973) p. 184, 238, 219.

    Google Scholar 

  81. See O. Kahn-Freund and W. Zöllner in the study mentioned in note 79, at p. 202–203, p. 219. Also J. M. van der Linden—Spelregels bij arbeidsconflicten (Scheveningen, 1976) p. 44–46.

    Google Scholar 

  82. BAG vom 20–12–1963, AP Nr. 34 zu Art. 9 GG (Arbeitskampf).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Corte di Cassazione, 1963, no. 2036; see Pankert, op. cit. note 3 at p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Tweede Kamerstukken 10.110/10.111, series nr. 7, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Corte Costituzionale, 28–12–1962, Nr. 123, see P. A. Varesi, Diritti dei Lavoratori (Milano 1976) p. 250/257.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See Gitter, op. cit. note 22, at 150; see M. Coester—“Drittbezogene Arbeitskampfmassnahmen in den USA, Frankreich und der Bundesrepubliek”, (1976) Recht der Arbeit, 292.

    Google Scholar 

  87. The Amendment was made in 1974 to section 29 (3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, mentioned in note 75. It was inserted against the wishes of the Labour Government and was repealed by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See Art. 124–26, Code du Travail.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See Dutch Staatscourant, August 4, 1972, no. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See G. Druesne, “La réserve d’ordre public de l’article 48 du Traité de Rome”, (1976) R.T.D.E., 232, 240–241.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See p. 144–147 above.

    Google Scholar 

  92. A. Lyon-Caen, op. cit. note 23, at 298.

    Google Scholar 

  93. See p. 139–141 above.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Text published in (1976) Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 280–299.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See also A. Lyon-Caen, op. cit. note 23, at 279 and W. Zöllner, in the study mentioned in note 39, at p. 219.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See Piehl, op. cit. note 15, p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Katholieke Hogeschool, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Antoine Jacobs (Lecturer in Labour Law)

Authors
  1. Antoine Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Paul J. G. Kapteyn Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Kenneth R. Simmonds Jan A. Winter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1978 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jacobs, A. (1978). Towards Community Action on Strike Law?. In: Kapteyn, P.J.G., Ehlermann, CD., Simmonds, K.R., Winter, J.A. (eds) Common Market Law Review. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3273-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3273-0_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-015-2068-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-3273-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation