Estonia
The ITUC affiliate in Estonia is the Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions (EAKL).
Estonia ratified Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (1948) in 1994 and Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (1949) in 1994.
Legal
Freedom of association / Right to organise
Freedom of association
The right to freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution.
The right to freedom of association is regulated by law.
Anti-Union discrimination
The law prohibits anti-union discrimination.
Barriers to the establishment of organisations
- Other formalities or requirements which excessively delay or substantially impair the free establishment of organisations
- The Income Tax Act obliges trade unions to provide a list of all members, including their personal identity codes, unless their members object to that declaration and thereby forfeit the tax rebate on their union dues.
Right to collective bargaining
Right to collective bargaining
The right to collective bargaining is recognised by law.
Restrictions on the principle of free and voluntary bargaining
- Authorities’ or employers’ power to unilaterally annul, modify or extend content and scope of collective agreements
- By virtue of a 2012 amendment to the Collective Agreement Act, either party to the agreement may cancel a collective agreement that is otherwise valid for an indefinite period of time by notifying the other party thereof no less than six months in advance. However, the obligation arising from a collective agreement to refrain from calling a strike or a lock-out ends as of the submission of a notice concerning the cancellation of the collective agreement (art. 11, Collective Agreement Act).
Undermining of the recourse to collective bargaining and his effectiveness
- Absence of appropriate mechanisms to encourage and promote machinery for collective bargaining
- According to Statistics Estonia, in the second quarter of 2019 there were 667,700 employed persons in the country. The above-mentioned number of workers covered by collective agreements would thus represent 13.3 per cent of the total of employed workers in Estonia. The ILO Committee of Experts therefore requested the Government to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining mechanisms so as to increase the number of workers covered by collective agreements.
Right to strike
Right to strike
The right to strike is enshrined in the Constitution.
The right to strike is regulated by a Labour Code.
Barriers to lawful strike actions
- Excessively long prior notice / cooling-off period
- Organisers of a strike are required to notify the other party, the Public Conciliator and the local government of a planned strike in writing at least two weeks in advance. The notice shall set out the reasons, exact time of commencement and possible scope of the strike (art. 15, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act). Three days’ notice is required for warning strikes (which can only last for up to an hour), and five days’ notice is required for sympathy strikes (art. 18, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act).
Ban or limitations on certain types of strike actions
- Restrictions with respect to type of strike action (e.g. pickets, wild-cat, working to rule, sit-down, go-slow)
- It is prohibited to impede the performance of work by employees who do not participate in a strike (art. 20, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act). Warning strikes (for which three days’ notice is required) may not last longer than one hour. Sympathy strikes may not last longer than three days (article 18, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act).
Undue interference by authorities or employers during the course of a strike
- Authorities’ or employers’’’ power to unilaterally prohibit, limit, suspend or cease a strike action
- The commencement of a strike may be postponed, by one month by the Government of the Republic on the proposal of the Public Conciliator, or by two weeks by the city or county government on the proposal of the Public Conciliator. The Government of the Republic has the right to suspend a strike or a lock-out in the case of a natural disaster or catastrophe, in order to prevent the spread of an infectious disease or in a state of emergency (article 19 Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act).
- Authorities’ or employers’ power to prevent or end a strike by referring the dispute to arbitration
- Where negotiations between employers and trade unions fail to reach agreement, the parties must notify the Public Conciliator if the threat of disruption to work arises (art. 6, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act). The Public Conciliator then, establishes a program of conciliation proceedings. Parties are required to participate in conciliation proceedings, send their fully authorised representatives to participate in conciliation proceedings and submit documents necessary for the substantive resolution of the matter by the date specified by the Public Conciliator (art. 11, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act). The right of employees or associations or federations of employees to organise a strike to resolve a labour dispute arises only if there is no prohibition against disruption of work in force, if conciliation procedures prescribed in this Act have been conducted but no conciliation has been achieved, if an agreement is not complied with, or if a court judgment is not executed (art. 13, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act).
Undermining of the recourse to strike actions or their effectiveness
- Excessive civil or penal sanctions for workers and unions involved in non-authorised strike actions
- Resuming a strike (or lock-out) that has been declared unlawful or suspended, or commencing/resuming a strike that has been postponed before the specified time, is punishable by a fine of up to 200 fine units or detention. Organising such a strike (or lock-out) is punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units or detention (art. 23 Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act).
Limitations or ban on strikes in certain sectors
- Undue restrictions for “public servants”
- Strikes are prohibited in governmental authorities, other state bodies and local government, the Defence League, courts and rescue service agencies (art. 21, Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act). However, a note to article 21(1) states that this section is not applied to persons who are employed under an employment contract in an institution or organisation specified in that subsection, except for rescue workers employed under an employment contract in a rescue service agency and persons employed under an employment contract in the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Resources Agency, the Defence Forces or the Defence League.
- Discretionary determination or excessively long list of “essential services” in which the right to strike is prohibited or severely restricted
- Article 21(3) of the Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Act provides that “indispensible services and production” must be maintained in “enterprises and institutions which satisfy the primary needs of the population and economy”. Article 21(4) states that the Government will establish a list of such enterprises and institutions. No such list has been sighted.
In practice
In 2015, the Estonian Seamen’s Independent Union (EMSA) agreed in their collective agreement with AS Tallink Grupp and its subcontractors that the companies would pay an annual lump sum in the welfare fund for their workers’ benefits. While the agreement was applied until 2018, in 2019 the employer unilaterally announced that no payment would be made for 2019.
During meetings with the unions to resolve the issue, the employer made demands to access workers’ personal information regarding the welfare fund, which is in violation of the law protecting data. The employer also tried to give instructions to unions in managing the funds. The unions refused such blatant attempts at interfering in the management of the welfare funds.
While an agreement was found for 2020, EMSA still intends to bring a complaint before court against the AS Tallink Grupp in order to guarantee the implementation of the collective agreement. The Estonian Trade Union Confederation has expressed its concern at this clear violation of the collective agreement and this attempt at controlling trade union activities and accessing sensitive workers’ information.
The Independent Seamens’ Union of Estonia (EMSA) reported that in June 2018, during negotiations of the collective agreement, Mart Loik, member of the TS Laevad management board, organised a meeting with workers and proposed to conclude a collective agreement directly with them, bypassing EMSA. He offered the same benefits that the union demanded and that the management had so far refused to agree on in the collective bargaining negotiations.
The EMSA immediately asked for a public apology from TS Laevad, alleging the company made false salary level statements of its EMSA employees and implied that the EMSA made unreasonable requests, and “was interested only in its own members”. One EMSA demand is indeed a pay raise of €0.50 to €5 per hour, which is still two euros lower than the pay in other shipping companies with which the EMSA has collective agreements. According to EMSA, TS Laevad management also engaged in unethical behaviour in offering sweeteners to employees in order to induce them not to sign any collective agreement.
The union is considering taking Port of Tallinn (Tallinna Sadam) subsidiary TS Laevad to court, claiming misrepresentation, and prolonging its dispute with the company on collective agreement, though it says strikes are not inevitable.
In October 2015, Transiidikeskuse AS, a stevedoring company, terminated the contract of a worker right after he was elected as shop steward. The case was brought to the court which ruled on 29 June 2016 that the termination was wrongful. On the same day however his job was made redundant. On 30 October 2017, the court again declared that the grounds for his dismissal were not valid and therefore his termination was wrongful. The company did not reinstate him. Instead, the management barred him from entering the company’s premises while still paying him his wages. An application has been filed with the Labour Inspectorate to resolve the matter which was still pending at the time of writing. Transiidikeskuse AS still refuses to recognise the legally established trade union and rejects all attempts at negotiating a collective agreement.
The Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions reports that unions often encounter general problems in defending employee rights. These often relate to the legal processes: establishing discrimination in employment tribunals is a new phenomenon and there is little experience in handling such cases. It remains relatively easy to dismiss trade union activists in the work place as there is no obligation under the Employment Contract Act (ECA) to reinstate a fired trade union representative if it is not reasonable once both parties’ interests have been taken into account. Compensation is often reduced by courts or tribunals even though there is provision for it at a reasonable level in the ECA. Court procedures are slow and expensive, whilst claims for compensation in case of unlawful termination of an employment contract are subject to relatively high fees.
The Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions (EAKL) reports that anti-union behaviour is rife in the private sector. In some enterprises, workers are advised against forming trade unions, threatened with dismissal or a reduction in wages, or promised benefits if they do not join unions. “Yellow unions” are sometimes formed.
Law enforcement depends mostly on labour inspectorates, which rarely pursue cases of anti-union behaviour. A legal battle can be followed by a struggle to enforce the decision of a court or a labour dispute resolution committee. For example, when an unfairly dismissed shop steward was awarded reinstatement but was not allowed back to work, he had to contact the private bailiff, who demands a deposit of 50% of the monthly minimum wage.
It is estimated that between 20 and 25% of the workforce is covered by collective agreements. Both public and private employers tend to be reluctant to engage in collective bargaining and delay the process. The economic crisis made negotiations difficult, and even profitable companies demanded concessions or failed to honour agreements. For example, in May, shipping company Tallink stopped paying wage supplements provided for in the collective agreement, and only asked the trade union for new negotiations afterwards.