Maurice Ostroff, April 28, 2003
It is utterly incomprehensible, that while the world is desperately
improving hygiene to contain SARS, Israel is threatened by a deliberate reduction in our defences against this disease. I
refer to the impending strike action which will include the accumulation of rotting garbage in our streets compounded by reduced
medical services.
Yet, the threat can be averted if we are prepared to learn from the experience of other countries.
What I suggest, is the immediate introduction of legislation requiring compulsory labor arbitration. The concept is not unfamiliar
in Israel. Over the years the Knesset has considered, but rejected, several compulsory arbitration bills. Interestingly, the
Likud included an undertaking to introduce compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in its 1976 election manifesto, but sadly,
no concrete steps have been taken.
I urge, the powers that be, in the interest of our battered little medina to treat this subject as
urgent and prevent enormous grief and a serious national health threat.
The law governing strikes should provide
for compulsory mediation followed, if necessary, by binding arbitration. The present situation in which union leaders can
order a strike without consulting their members is undemocratic. We do not know whether the majority of grass roots members
of the union understand the reasons for the strike, nor whether they agree. An essential requirement before any strike can
be called should be a secret vote by union members. In some countries, even before such a vote can take place, the parties
must try to mediate and a period of grace must be given to consider any recommendations made by the mediator.
If mediation
fails, the next compulsory step must be binding arbitration as provided in the labor laws of many countries. Sure, there will
be difficulty in selecting an arbitrator or arbitrators, but it is not insuperable. Looking at what happens elsewhere,
we find, for example, that Southern Korean labor law makes special provision for ensuring continuity of public services. Specifically,
any form of industrial action affecting essential public services whose stoppages and discontinuity undermine the national
economy may not take place before prescribed steps have been taken including "mediation" and "arbitration".
Almost
exactly one year ago during a nurses' strike, the Norwegian Board of Health reported that the national health authorities
could no longer rule out the possibility of continued strike action posing a threat to public health. Norway considered a
potential threat to national health to be intolerable and the Norwegian government promptly asked its parliament to pass compulsory
arbitration legislation to end the strike. The strike ended immediately.
In 1993, President Clinton ended an American
Airlines strike by scheduling a binding arbitration. The Airline and striking flight attendants agreed to the binding arbitration
to settle their dispute after President Clinton's intervention, resulting in the cancellation of plans to eliminate 4,000
flight attendant positions.
In October last year, Newfoundland's doctors agreed to a binding arbitration, bringing
to an end a strike that had crippled the province.
Many more examples can be cited of the successful application of
compulsory arbitration settling in labor disputes.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Additional notes
The concept of compulsory arbitration of labour disputes is not fanciful. It is very
practical.
The subject was thoroughly analysed in a book published in 1983 by the Sacher Institute entitled
"Adjudication of Interest Disputes: - The Compulsory Arbitration Model" by Frances Raday,
The preface explains that
the book was written in the context of a continuing debate in Israel as to the viability of introducing a compulsory arbitration
system for labour disputes.
Since 1960 various Knesset members have been introducing private compulsory arbitration
bills in the Knesset and, hence, the need for some measure of compulsory arbitration for labour disputes has been repeatedly
debated in that body. Debates have generally been prompted by industrial disturbances in key industries or services and the
Knesset has repeatedly rejected the private members' bills.
Nevertheless, in 1972 a modified form of compulsory arbitration
was enacted for the public services and, somewhat ironically, it was introduced in the absence of any debate in the Knesset
about the nature or value of compulsory arbitration. The introduction of compulsory arbitration was incidental to the statutory
restriction of the freedom to strike in the public services and, hence, all debate centred upon the strike issue while compulsory
arbitration crept in unawares.
The Likud government included in its 1976 election manifesto an undertaking to introduce
compulsory arbitration of labour disputes and yet, after several years in office, no legislative measures have been taken.
Against
this local political and legal scenario, the Ministry of Labour requested a comparative report on the use of compulsory arbitration
in other countries.
An agreement both parties can live with, even if not considered ideal by either party,
is obviously better than an agreement arrived at under coercion of a strike.
Plainly, compulsory arbitration legislation
has been successful elsewhere. There is no doubt it would be beneficial here as well.
|
|
|
|
|
