Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 353, Mars 2009

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 274. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2008 session [see 349th Report, paras 288–290]. On that occasion, the Committee noted with deep regret that, in spite of its recommendation for a negotiated solution to be found in the near future with regard to the statutory amendment of collective agreement clauses on compulsory early retirement, the Government had declared its categorical intention not to take any further action in this respect. In this regard, the Committee once again strongly urged the Government to pursue in a meaningful manner negotiations with the social partners concerned so as to determine a solution acceptable to all concerned, particularly as regards the application of those agreements which may still be in force and which are not in conformity with the statutory retirement age and to keep it informed of all the steps taken in this respect.
2. 275. In a communication dated 10 March 2008, the complainants state that the legislated mandatory retirement age, which came into force by virtue of the amended Swedish Employment Protection Act (LAS) of May 2001, has affected collective bargaining because it does not contain any provisions regarding a compulsory retirement age other than 67. According to the complainants, most collective agreements, covering almost the entire private and public sectors, have come to abide by the Government’s reasoning. In reality, the social partners have not had much choice, as they otherwise would run the risk of a court finding the collective agreement retirement provisions to be void.
3. 276. Furthermore, the complainants state that there are still some collective agreements that contain provisions establishing a different compulsory retirement age; for example, the retirement age for blue-collar workers in the paper and forest industries and the wood processing industry is set at 65. The complainants indicate that the Government’s reluctance to remedy the situation had led to unacceptable legal uncertainties for the trade union, employers and employees. They conclude that the Government’s intervention has come to limit the scope of collective bargaining and undermined the trust in the collective bargaining system.
4. 277. In communications dated 10 April 2008 and 24 February 2009, the Government states that it does not wish to make any further comments in addition to those expressed in earlier communications to the ILO regarding this case.
5. 278. The Committee notes with deep regret that, in spite of its recommendation for a negotiated solution to be found in the near future with regard to the statutory amendment of collective agreement clauses on compulsory early retirement, the Government has not provided any further information on efforts made in this respect. The Committee recalls that at its first examination of the case, it had concluded that a legislatively imposed measure such as the amendment challenged in the present case, which had been imposed against the will of all social partners, amounted to reversing unilaterally a system accepted by the social partners and substantially restricted the scope of bargaining.
6. 279. Emphasizing the importance it attaches to the promotion of dialogue and consultations on matters of mutual interest between the public authorities and the most representative occupational organizations of the sector involved [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1067], the Committee once again strongly urges the Government to pursue in a meaningful manner negotiations with the social partners so as to determine a solution acceptable to all concerned, particularly as regards the application of those agreements which may still be in force and which are not in conformity with the statutory retirement age. The Committee requests to be kept informed of all steps taken in this respect.