To: The European Committee of Social Rights
Department of Social Rights
Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law,
Council of Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
E-mail: DGF-ESC-Collective-Complaints@
Statement of Support to two pending complaints
Your reference — / Our reference RG/EC-SR/26 Date 19.06.2026
This is a supportive letter in support of complaints 238/2024 (SMB Norge) and 263/2026
(FFFS), delivered independently by Norwegian Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA),
with individual rights to file complaints.
NATCA is both a professional association that works to inspire the development of the air
traffic controller profession and a trade union in the collective bargaining context. The
association has approximately 550 members which is close to 100% of all air traffic
controllers in Norway.
NATCA refers to the complaint submitted by Fellesforbundet for Sjøfolk, FFFS, to the
European Committee of Social Rights concerning an alleged violation of Article 5 of the
Revised European Social Charter. FFFS has submitted the complaint as an independent trade
union in Norway, and the complaint has been submitted as a separate complaint in support of
complaint no. 238/2024 from SMB Norge concerning the same matter.
In our view, the case raises important questions of principle concerning freedom of
association, equal treatment unions, and the genuine ability of smaller trade unions to
safeguard their members´ interests. FFFS argues that freedom of association under Article 5
must be practical and effective, and that a legal framework which favours large trade unions
and makes smaller trade unions less effective may weaken that right.
NATCA shares this view. Freedom of association should not merely protect the right to
establish and join a trade union in a formal sense. It must also protect employees´ genuine
ability to choose a trade union that can in fact represent them effectively in employment law
matters – not depended of the size of the association/union.
As a smaller, profession-based trade union, NATCA is particularly concerned that employees
should be able to organize on the basis of their own professional, occupational and
democratic preferences. For employees in specialized professions, it may be essential to have
a trade union that understands the particular responsibilities, working methods, safety
requirements and professional challenges of the profession. If legislation grants large
confederation special rights that smaller trade unions cannot obtain, this may weaken the
value of such free choice of association, and it does not cater for the real democratic rights
and the real freedom of speech.
In its complaint, FFFS points, among other things, to rules under which rights are linked to
trade unions with at least 10 000 members. FFFS refers among other things, to section 39 of
the Labour Disputes Act, which according to the complaint only gives trade unions with at
least 10 000 members the right to propose judges to the Labour Court. FFFS further argues
that FFFS, with approximately 1 500 members, is thereby excluded, and that the threshold
gives large trade unions influence over the composition of the Labour Court. This may
contribute to weakening legal certainty for certain professional groups.
NATCA considers that such thresholds and arrangements should be carefully assessed
against the right to freedom of association. Where rights and institutional influence are linked
to membership thresholds that smaller and profession-based trade unions cannot meet in
practice, this may create an employment lay system in which smaller trade unions become
less effective than others, not because of the members´ free choice, but because of statutory
advantages.
As FFFS points out, section 10-12 of the Working Environment Act only permits trade unions
with nomination rights, meaning at least 10 000 members, to enter into agreements that
derogate from the statutory rules on working time. FFFS argues that this creates a structural
incentive for both employees and employers to prefer large trade unions, because smaller
trade unions cannot offer equivalent bargaining strength. NATCA shares this concern.
Norsk Flygelederforening, Dronning Eufemias gate 16, 0191 Oslo. Org. nr: 980 018 067.
Working time rules can be of great practical importance to employees and undertakings.
Where only trade unions above a certain size may enter into certain types of agreements,
employers may have a practical incentive to prefer larger organizations. Employees may
likewise experience that membership of a smaller trade union gives weaker practical effect,
even if the smaller trade union is otherwise the organization that best safeguards their
occupational and professional interests.
As FFFS also points out, it follows from section 14-12 of the Working Environment Act that
agreements concerning hiring from temporary-work agencies are reserved for trade unions
with at least 10 000 members. FFFS argues that smaller trade unions are therefore excluded
from this regulatory framework, and that this reinforces unequal treatment and favours
larger trade unions, particularly LO. NATCA supports FFFS´ view on this point.
NATCA considers that such rules cannot be assessed in isolation as technical threshold
provisions. They must be assessed by reference to their overall effect on freedom of
association and general democratic rights. If legislation makes it more advantageous for
employers and employees to deal with large trade unions, this may in practice weaken
smaller trade unions´ ability to grow, recruit members and represent employees effectively.
FFFS also refers to the fact that Article 5 protects both positive freedom of association,
meaning the right to join a trade union, and negative freedom of association, meaning the
right not to join a particular trade union. FFFS argues that if legal structures make certain
trade unions substantially less effective, employees may be indirectly pressured into joining
larger organizations. NATCA considers this to be a central point of the case.
NATCA is particularly concerned that freedom of association must be real. An employee
should not have to choose a trade union on the basis of which organization the State has
granted the most practical rights. The employee should be able to choose an organization on
the basis of trust, professional affiliation, occupational community, political independence and
democratic conviction.
FFFS further argues that the disputed legal framework must be assessed in light of a broader
institutional context in which LO enjoys privileged political access. FFFS argues that the main
basis for the complaint is structural preferential treatment of LO, which is described in the
complaint as an organization to the Labour Party. FFFS also refers to regular meetings
between LO and the Labour Party through the LO-AP Cooperation Committee.
NATCA considers it important that the European Committee of Social Rights assess both the
specific statutory provisions and the overall effect of these arrangements. Individual
provisions may appear neutral of technical when viewed separately, but collectively they may
contribute to giving large trade unions a special position with which smaller and independent
trade unions cannot compete on equal terms.
This is particularly important for smaller, independent and profession-based trade unions.
Such trade unions may be of great importance to their members, even if their membership
numbers cannot be compared with those of the largest confederations. The significance of a
trade union should not be measured only by numbers of its members, but also by its ability to
represent a particular occupational group, safeguard its members´ interests and participate
in a diverse and democratic working life.
NATCA therefore supports FFFS´ view that a system which grants large trade unions special
rights and gives smaller trade unions a weaker legal position may restrict employees´ genuine
free choice of trade union. This applies particularly where the rights reserved for large trade
unions concern central employment law issues such as working time, hiring-in, representation
and influence in employment law institutions.
NATCA considers that the State must ensure that freedom of association under Article 5 of
the Revised European Social Charter is practical and effective for all employees and all trade
unions, not only the largest organizations. If smaller trade unions may formally exist, but in
practice do not have access to key rights and instruments, freedom of association may
become illusory for those employees who wish to organize outside the largest confederations.
NATCA supports FFFS´ request that the European Committee of Social Rights conclude that
Norway is in breach of Article 5 of the Revised European Social Charter by granting
Landsorganisasjonen I Norge, LO, preferential treatment in Norwegian legislation and in
Norwegian courts.
Norsk Flygelederforening, Dronning Eufemias gate 16, 0191 Oslo.
Org. nr: 980 018 067. office@natca.no www.natca.noOn this basis, NATCA request that the conclusions of SMB Norge’s complaint (238/2024) and
FFFS´ (263/2026) complaint be upheld.
Yours sincerely
Robert Gjønnes / President / www.natca.no
Norsk Flygelederforening, Dronning Eufemias gate 16, 0191 Oslo. Org. nr: 980 018 067. office@natca.no www.natca.no
