Employment law. Individual after-effect of collective rights upon change of collective agreements
Supreme Court judgment 2 June 2021, HR-2021-1193-A, (case no. 20-149286SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
Marianne Carolin, Luzviminda Orcino Maningding, Vivian Adesuwa Ogoleh, Rizza Ramirez Beramo, Anne Rønningen, Bente Jeanette Yndestad Bye, Trine Heiseldahl, Wenche W. Solheim, Kari Løkjell, Yasotha Dayalan (Counsel Magnus Buflod), Norwegian Nurses Organisation (intervener), The Confederation of Unions for Professionals (intervener) (Counsel Christopher Hansteen), Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees (intervener) (Counsel Kjetil Edvardsen), Parat (intervener) (Counsel Sigurd Øyvind Kambestad) v. Stiftelsen Grefsenhjemmet (Counsel Kurt Weltzien), The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (intervener) (Counsel Margrethe Meder), Spekter (intervener), Virke (intervener) (Counsel Tarjei Thorkildsen)
Justices: Webster, Noer, Arntzen, Thyness, Steinsvik
Ten nurses at a private nursing home had, in 1998, received a salary supplement pursuant to a collective agreement. The nursing home joined a new employers' union in 2014, and a new collective agreement was entered into, which contained no clause on the supplement. The Supreme Court found that the supplement was a normative collective agreement provision that had become part of each nurse's individual employment contract. Thus, it was not lost because of the termination of the original collective agreement. The question whether the supplement was in conflict with the applicable collective agreement, see section 6 of the Labour Dispute Act, was not reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal's judgment, dismissing the nurses' appeal against the District Court's judgment in favour of the employer, was set aside.