The rules on contractor negotiations in the Swedish Co-Determination Act give trade unions the ability to counter unscrupulous subcontractors.
Read this article in Swedish on Arbeidsliv i Norden
If the employer’s plans to engage a certain contractor can be expected to result in the breach of labour laws or collective agreements, the trade union can ultimately exercise its veto right. That is why companies with an ongoing need to use subcontractors usually agree with unions on lists of “approved” firms.
During negotiations over such a list at Kone AB, the Polish company Meron learned that it would not feature because IF Metall would exercise its veto unless the company signed a posting agreement.
Under protest, Meron signed and then sued IF Metall before the Labour Court (AD). The company argued that the threat of a veto amounted to pressure equivalent to industrial action, which constituted an unlawful obstacle to the free movement of services. Meron compared the situation to that in the Laval case (C-341/05).
However, the lawsuit appeared to suggest that the information about the veto declaration had come from Kone AB and not union representatives. And IF Metall denied that the union had threatened or decided to exercise its veto.
AD has now ruled on the case. Meron’s claim failed due to a lack of evidence. According to AD, nothing in the investigation indicates that IF Metall had either threatened or decided to exercise a veto.
Meron has therefore not proven that the union has taken any action constituting industrial action. As a result, AD also had no reason to examine whether a trade union veto really could constitute such an action.
