The Norwegian Labour Court declared a planned boycott of Technip Singapore by Industri Energi in breach of the labour peace obligation and in conflict with the collective agreement applicable for Technip Norge.

The case concerned whether a threatened boycott of a Group company was in conflict with the Basic Agreement (Hovedavtalen) between LO and NHO § 2-2 and the Labour Disputes Act (arbeidstvistloven) § 8.

Parties: The Plaintiff, Technip Norge AS, supported by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) vs. Defendant, Industri Energi (Norwegian trade union for workers in the industry and energy sectors), supported by the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions (LO).

Background: Technip Norge is a project based company within the oil service industry. The company is part of the Technip Group with group companies located in various countries. Technip Norge carry out assignments on the Norwegian continental shelf, a.o. by hiring skilled personnel from other Group companies. Technip Norge is bound by collective agreements with Industri Energi, incontrary to Technip Singapore.

Industri Energi has engaged in former disputes with Technip Norge, claiming that excisting collective agreements also should apply for subcontractors’ employees – without achieving the courts acceptance for this view. In a Labour Court ruling in 2013, it was also determined that a planned sympathy strike in this contex was in conflict with the Norwegian tariff regulations.

The case: In January 2015 Industri Energi filed a claim requesting Technip Singapore and Technip UK to sign collective agreements for their employees performing work on the Norwegian continental shelf. The claim was dismissed by Technip Singapore, and Industri Energi notified the implementation of a boycott against Technip Singapore.

Technip Norge and NHO argued that the boycott in reality was aimed at Technip Norge and thus in breach of the labour peace obligation. After failed negotiations the case was brought before the Labour Court in January 2016. The court majority found that the goal of the boycott was to place pressure on Technip Norge in order to impose tariff changes, and not to establish collective agreements in Singapore. The Labour Court therefore ruled in favour of Technip Norge/NHO that the boycott warning issued on 30 September 2015 was in breach with the Norwegian tariff obligations applicable to Industri Energi and Technip Norge AS.

Industri Energi’s response to the ruling is that they now have to look for other ways to enforce a collective agreement. The court verdict might not be the last chapter after all.