Being fired for a legal activity

[justsaygnosis]

How is it that a police officer can be fired for smoking tobacco while off duty?
I doubt this same restriction applies to the mayor and city council.





http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20030619_fr19smok.6a5ec.html

[Thumper]

Probs the same way a football coach can be fired for going to a strip club (which is also legal).

[subgenius]

Believe it or not it is legal for an employer to fire you for off the job speech or being in a demonstration of any kind (absent employment contract to the contrary).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
How is it that a police officer can be fired for smoking tobacco while off duty?
I doubt this same restriction applies to the mayor and city council.





http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20030619_fr19smok.6a5ec.html

I couldn't read the link..

Was ' no tobacco ' a condition of employment?

[Thumper]

Originally posted by subgenius
Believe it or not it is legal for an employer to fire you for off the job speech or being in a demonstration of any kind (absent employment contract to the contrary).

Do not believe it, sorry.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Thumper


Do not believe it, sorry.
Or not. (I don't agree with the law)

[JAR]

Wow. I once saw a police officer smoking and he was in his uniform, so he might of been smoking on duty.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by subgenius
Believe it or not it is legal for an employer to fire you for off the job speech or being in a demonstration of any kind (absent employment contract to the contrary).

Well, in employment-at-will states, which I believe are in the vast majority, it is perfectly legal for a private employer to fire an employee for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all" (quoting from a legion of appellate decisions addressing the issue).

The only exceptions are when there is an employment contract to the contrary, or for certain statutory exceptions, most notably anti-discrimination statutes and those protecting employees from being fired merely for exercising their rights, such as filing a worker's compensation claim or reporting workplace safety violations to OSHA or other authorities.

Therefore, as an employer, I can fire my employee simply because I don't like the color of her shoes. There is nothing she can do about it, save for filing for unemployment compensation.

In the case of police officers, they are either local government or state employees. In either case, I suspect government workers' employment rights are governed by regulations affording them at least certain minimal procedural protections, such as the right to a hearing or an administrative appeals process.

People need to get rid of this misguided notion that they have a "right" to their jobs. Most employers are private, and do not owe their employees unfettered lifetime employment, despite bad or insubordinate behavior on the part of the employees.

I realize this has nothing to do with the smoking police officer, but it seems to be a very commonly held belief.

AS

[MRC_Hans]

In other countries, different rules apply. In Denmark, you cannot fire an employee for "any reason or no reason at all". Most people here are members of unions, but there are also laws to give some protection to those who are not.

Here, you can basically not be fired for legal activities pursued in your off-duty time. There are a number of exceptions, though. Public illoyalty to your emplyer is one that has cost a number of people their job. Some (but few) companies have contracts that forbid emplyees to smoke, even in their own time; but such contracts are not always legal. Some drugs (especially cannabis types) have long-term effects; if justified by job-safety, it is legal to forbid employees to smoke cannabis in their free time. Note: It is legal to possess and use small amounts of cannabis in Denmark, however it is not legal to sell it.

Hans

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
In other countries, different rules apply. In Denmark, you cannot fire an employee for "any reason or no reason at all". Most people here are members of unions, but there are also laws to give some protection to those who are not.


Hans,

I suspect very much that is simply not the case. i doubt very much that employment law in Denmark is radically different from that in the US. The employment at will doctrine is very old and comes from English Common law from centuries ago.

In the case of union members, many aspects of their employment, and hence their termination, are governed by collective bargaining agreements. This means their employment is governed by an employment contract which is common to union members. Therefore, it would be one of the exceptions to the "employment at will" doctrine which is so prevalent.

The fact that unions and anti-discrimination laws exist has given rise to so much confusion and belief that employers are hostages to their employees. Employers often cower in fear of a lawsuit if they try to take any adverse action against an employee. That's just BS.

AS

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Hans,

I suspect very much that is simply not the case. i doubt very much that employment law in Denmark is radically different from that in the US. The employment at will doctrine is very old and comes from English Common law from centuries ago.

*snip*
AS Well, they are (things have changed a bit during the last centuries, after all). There is a specific set of laws covering civil cervants (a police officer would be a civil servant here). Other types of employees, the best English word I can think of is clerks, also have a set of laws governing their employment. Hourly paid workers are generally covered by union agreements.

Some types of jobs are out in the dark, but generally, you cannot fire somebody here without a legal reason. We have numerous court cases all the time about illegal termination.

That this should leave employers as hostages is, however, a myth. First of all, there are plenty of legal reasons for firing people, and even if there isn't one, you can get rid of them anyway, it's just more expensive.

Also, both laws and union contracts proscribe ritghts and duties to both sides. I have worked as a manager for 12 years, and I can tell you that this system is mostly for mutual advantage.

Hans

[Tmy]

I heard he got axed cause the smoking thing ties into the polices disabilty, retirement or health plan. Basically the city is like "we'll give you this awesome health benefit plan BUT you promis that you cant smoke."

He smoked.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
I heard he got axed cause the smoking thing ties into the polices disabilty, retirement or health plan. Basically the city is like "we'll give you this awesome health benefit plan BUT you promis that you cant smoke."

He smoked.
In that case, it makes sense that they got mad at him.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The only exceptions are when there is an employment contract to the contrary, or for certain statutory exceptions, most notably anti-discrimination statutes and those protecting employees from being fired merely for exercising their rights, such as filing a worker's compensation claim or reporting workplace safety violations to OSHA or other authorities.

Therefore, as an employer, I can fire my employee simply because I don't like the color of her shoes. There is nothing she can do about it, save for filing for unemployment compensation.

Well then, after my employee reports me for violating worker's rights, or safety regulations I can fire her for the color of her shoes.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, they are (things have changed a bit during the last centuries, after all). There is a specific set of laws covering civil cervants (a police officer would be a civil servant here). Other types of employees, the best English word I can think of is clerks, also have a set of laws governing their employment. Hourly paid workers are generally covered by union agreements.

Some types of jobs are out in the dark, but generally, you cannot fire somebody here without a legal reason. We have numerous court cases all the time about illegal termination.

That this should leave employers as hostages is, however, a myth. First of all, there are plenty of legal reasons for firing people, and even if there isn't one, you can get rid of them anyway, it's just more expensive.

Also, both laws and union contracts proscribe ritghts and duties to both sides. I have worked as a manager for 12 years, and I can tell you that this system is mostly for mutual advantage.

Hans

You haven't said anything here which contradicts my post.

The existence of union contracts does not do away with the employment at will doctrine. It merely introduces duties and rights which are not present absent an agreement.

I acknowledged that government employees usually have procedural protections that are not afforded private workers.

That there are lawsuits filed over employment termination does not mean that employment at will does not exist in your country. We have plenty of employment discrimination suits here. The vast majority of them lose, primarly due to the tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what unlawful discrimination is.

Merely being fired or laid off does not mean you are being unlawfully discriminated against. Based on the scores of persons I have counseled on this issue, I would have to conclude that there is a lot of misunderstanding about just that.

A plaintiff alleging unlawful discrimination must first plead and provide evidence supporting a prima facie case. Only then does the burden shift to the employer to show a lawful reason for firing (or taking some other adverse personnel action against) the employee. You seem to be shifting the burden to the employer from the beginning. Again, I seriously doubt that is the case in Denmark.

AS

AS

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by JAR
Wow. I once saw a police officer smoking and he was in his uniform, so he might of been smoking on duty.

Wow. I once saw a police officer.

[reprise]

How common is it in the US for the outside of work hours activities of employees to be restricted because of health insurance considerations (it seems like one hell of a slippery slope to me)?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


You haven't said anything here which contradicts my post.

Merely being fired or laid off does not mean you are being unlawfully discriminated against. Based on the scores of persons I have counseled on this issue, I would have to conclude that there is a lot of misunderstanding about just that.


I have a feeling Danish law is similar to Norwegian, but I've been unable to track down the Danish equivalent to this:


Act No. 4 of 4 February 1977 relating to
Worker Protection and Working Environment

Chapter XII. Dismissal with notice and summary dismissal, etc.

Section 60. Protection against unfair dismissal.
1. Employees may not be dismissed unless this is objectively justified on the basis of matters connected with the establishment, the employer or the employee.

This has the force of law in Norway, meaning you cannot dismiss an employee unless you have objective justification. The color of ones shoes isn't.

[swellman]

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/smok06222003.htm

(no registration required)

Fall River police officer fired for smoking after an anonymous tipster ratted him out is fighting the move, saying his dismissal clears the way for departments and disgruntled citizens to take revenge on cops.

``I don't think when they drafted this law they intended it to be used in this manner,'' said Wayne Jeffrey, a seven-year veteran of the Fall River force who was fired based on an unsigned letter claiming Jeffrey smoked at a party. ``The thing I'm concerned about is, I could lose my job over an anonymous letter.''

Sounds like he's attacking the process, not the employers right to fire him.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

You haven't said anything here which contradicts my post.

In that case, I do not understand your post. We have LAWS here putting down rules for dismissal of employees. Practically all employees are either covered by these laws, by union contracts or by personal contracts, the latter mainly on the management level. You cannot (except on management level) hire somebody on a contract or other agreement that gives them less rights than stipulated by law.

I assume that basically, employment at will is valid here too, but there is a lot of regulation on top of it.
*snip*

I acknowledged that government employees usually have procedural protections that are not afforded private workers.

That there are lawsuits filed over employment termination does not mean that employment at will does not exist in your country. We have plenty of employment discrimination suits here. The vast majority of them lose, primarly due to the tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what unlawful discrimination is.

Here, about 50% of them are won by employees.

Merely being fired or laid off does not mean you are being unlawfully discriminated against.

An employer has to state a reason for dismissal, and it cannot be the color of your shoes.

Based on the scores of persons I have counseled on this issue, I would have to conclude that there is a lot of misunderstanding about just that.

I gather this counselling have taken place in the US? Have you got any knowledge of European legislation in general and Danish in particular?

*snip*
Again, I seriously doubt that is the case in Denmark.

I am informing you that rules are different here. I have been involved in several dismissals. It has been part of my job for a decade to know the rules.

AS



I have at no point doubted your insight in US conditions. I merely pointed out that different conditions existed elsewhere.

Hans

[LW]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist




The employment at will doctrine is very old and comes from English Common law from centuries ago.

Somehow I suspect that Denmark is not one of the countries whose legal tradition dates from the English Common law, though I might be wrong.

Similarily to the Norwegian one, Finnish "Työsopimuslaki 26.1.2001/55" states that (my translation since online FinLex-database contains only Finnish and Swedish texts and no translations):

§7.1 General Rule for Termination of Employment

A employer may terminate a permanent employment only for an objective and cogent reason.


The rest of §7 enumerates what those objective and cogent reasons are. A "permanent" employment is one that is not agreed to last only for a certain period of time.

[edited to add: When I was in high school we once visited a random court session. The case we ended following was such that a part-time employee sued her employer because he hadn't allocated any work hours for her and she was paid by hour. The case was that the employer had wished to fire her but when he had been informed that he had no legal reason to do it, he had withdrawn the notice but refused to give her any work, hoping that she would quit. I don't know how the case ended since we left before the verdict was issued.]

[Lothian]

My understading of the current Uk law is that unfair dismissal applies only where the employee has over 1 years service. Employers are therefore advised to check their employees footwear before this time.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I suspect very much that is simply not the case. i doubt very much that employment law in Denmark is radically different from that in the US. The employment at will doctrine is very old and comes from English Common law from centuries ago.
Canada comes from the same English Common Law tradition as the United States, but we don't have employment at will here. The courts have implied a term into employment contracts that states that the employee will not be fired without cause unless reasonable notice is given. If a company is alleging cause, then they have to prove it. This can be difficult.

Basically, if you want to fire someone for the colour of their shoes, you must give them reasonable notice. What "reasonable notice" means depends on several factors, including the seniority of the employee, age and length of service. A very rough rule of thumb is one month per year of service. We also have an Employment Standards Act, which sets out minimum notice periods. Common law periods generally exceed the ESA.

[Dancing David]

Sounds like the Regan Drug Free Work Place policy to me, draconian...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by reprise
How common is it in the US for the outside of work hours activities of employees to be restricted because of health insurance considerations (it seems like one hell of a slippery slope to me)?

It is very common that if you commit a criminal act in your off hours that you can be fired or forced into counseling.

Health insurance is a whole nuther ball of yarn...

[Crossbow]

Try going to this account of the event.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8543816&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

I think that this person may well have a good case for getting his job back since he was fired for doing something that is not illegal.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


I have at no point doubted your insight in US conditions. I merely pointed out that different conditions existed elsewhere.

Hans

Thanks for setting me straight and providing some insight into differing laws in Denmark. I will defer to your experience and knowledge.

Sorry about my stance, as we Americans do so often tend to be Americentric. In our defense, at least part of this can be attributed to our relative isolation on a distant continent, our neighbors to the north and south notwithstanding. Many of us have never even been to another country.

Question: Do the protections afforded workers by law mean that getting a job in the first place is more difficult? After all, as an employer I am going to want to be especially careful to insure that you are trustworthy before I hire you and become beholden to you.

What about insubordination? Is it used often as grounds for termination? It would seem to be a relatively easy pretext to use.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by bpesta22


AS: I thought the burden doesn't shift once the victim establishes the prima facie case.


After the victim establishes his case, the company must then merely produce a non discriminatory reason for why they fired the person. No burden shifting.

Then, the victim could argue that the employer's reason was just a pretext for unlawful discrimination.




For summary judgment purposes, which in these lawsuits can be everything, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production (not the burden of persuasion) shifts to the defendant employer to provide some evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for the termination.

The burden of production then shifts back to the plaintiff to provide evidence that such reason is merely pretextual.

All of this takes place at the summary judgment level, not at trial.


I thought the burden only shifted in adverse impact cases, where after the victim shows the employment practice caused AI, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the practice is job related or a business neccessity.


I'm not familiar with that doctrine, but the burden shifting I described applies to all employment discrimination cases arising under Title VII.



***

Also, almost all collective bargaining agreements contain a "just cause clause" which says that the er will not discipline nor fire an employee without just cause.

Just cause then is determined through the grievance procedure, with a neutral arbitrator (as opposed to the company) having the final say.

So, in effect, doesn't management waive their EOW rights with this clause?

Seems like most police and fire departments nowadays are unionized, so I'm surprised this could happen.

I don't know. As the procedural protections afforded by such agreements can be quite different from those afforded private employees, it can be harder to terminate someone, even for good cause.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Thanz

Canada comes from the same English Common Law tradition as the United States, but we don't have employment at will here. The courts have implied a term into employment contracts that states that the employee will not be fired without cause unless reasonable notice is given. If a company is alleging cause, then they have to prove it. This can be difficult.

Basically, if you want to fire someone for the colour of their shoes, you must give them reasonable notice. What "reasonable notice" means depends on several factors, including the seniority of the employee, age and length of service. A very rough rule of thumb is one month per year of service. We also have an Employment Standards Act, which sets out minimum notice periods. Common law periods generally exceed the ESA.

Thanks, Thanz, for that interesting distinction. I had no idea you had an implied employment contract in Canada.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by LW


Somehow I suspect that Denmark is not one of the countries whose legal tradition dates from the English Common law, though I might be wrong.


LW,

LOL. Good point. It would more likely be the other way around, wouldn't it, due to the Viking invasions?

Thanks for the quote of the Finnish law. We have no such equivalent in US federal law which governs purely private employees.

AS

[bjornart]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Question: Do the protections afforded workers by law mean that getting a job in the first place is more difficult? After all, as an employer I am going to want to be especially careful to insure that you are trustworthy before I hire you and become beholden to you.

What about insubordination? Is it used often as grounds for termination? It would seem to be a relatively easy pretext to use.

I'm gonna butt in again with the Norwegian perspective. In Norway the employment contract often have a trial period of 3-6 months. In this period the employer is still required to give notice and have a valid reason. But the notice period is shorter (6 weeks instead of three months), and the reason can be 'less objective' and is less likely to end up in court.

However, as an employer you can fire me if you can prove I'm not thrustworthy. You can fire me if you have sufficient evidence I'm a slacker. (A couple of written reprimands and still no improvement, out on your head.) If I haven't done anything criminal you might have to give me three months notice, or pay me for three months, but can lock me out of the building immediately.

By the way, if you downsize and fire people for economic reasons you cannot hire again for a certain period of time. Norwegian companies that downsize go to a whole lot of trouble to get people to quit voluntarily. Including giving them extended severance packages, assistance in finding a new position, etc.
Oh, and if a company terminates your position because it's no longer needed they have to at least try to find you similar work within the organization, which means the bigger the company, the safer you are, until it's time for big time downsizing. (I survived this round though. :))

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Check out the back of any standard job application, at the bottom, in the small print, right above where you sign. It states that you can be terminated at any time, with no warning, with no reason. Right below that, it says "I certify that I have read the above...." and then you sign it.

Of course, signing a contract doesn't actually mean a whole hell of a lot in the US these days, so long as you can prove that you feel persecuted.

[LW]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist






Question: Do the protections afforded workers by law mean that getting a job in the first place is more difficult? After all, as an employer I am going to want to be especially careful to insure that you are trustworthy before I hire you and become beholden to you.

Here the law allows a four-month "trial period" in the beginning of an employment during which either side can get out of it easier. In some cases it may be extended for six months if a long training period is necessary for the job.

The law has still few loopholes. In some areas (nightclub workers in particular) temporary 1-3 month jobs are almost the norm. The law states that a person who has worked more than two consequtive temporary periods in the same place is actually a permanent employee, but the firms get around this by hiring work from different temporary worker agencies (that are often all owned by one person) so that a person might work in the same nightclub for several years but have 4-5 different employers during that time.

What about insubordination?

There's a grey are there. Obviously, a worker can be fired for not doing his or her work, but it is not always clear when insubordination reaches the point of "not doing the work". In any case, before firing the worker has to be warned at least once and the employer has to "investigate the possibilities of assigning the employee to a different work position". However, these niceties may be skipped if the worker did something seriously wrong.

As a general rule, the employer has to give a notice whose length is from two weeks to six months depending on seniority of the worker (two weeks if less than a year, six months if more than 12 years). The work contract may also be dissolved without a notice in case of severe violations. For example, if an employee doesn't come to work for a week and gives no explanation, then a notice period is not necessary for termination.

[Tmy]

If this guy is chasinga criminal and has a heart attack it will be dubbed a workplace injury. You know how much in disabilty that will cost the city? The last thing they want is to be on the hook for cops dropping dead on duty due to smoking.

[aggle_rithm]

I once worked for a place where only non-smokers were hired. Smokers have to take too many breaks.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Tmy
If this guy is chasinga criminal and has a heart attack it will be dubbed a workplace injury. You know how much in disabilty that will cost the city? The last thing they want is to be on the hook for cops dropping dead on duty due to smoking.

or eating meat?

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry about a late answer, I have been away:

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Thanks for setting me straight and providing some insight into differing laws in Denmark. I will defer to your experience and knowledge.

Sorry about my stance, as we Americans do so often tend to be Americentric. In our defense, at least part of this can be attributed to our relative isolation on a distant continent, our neighbors to the north and south notwithstanding. Many of us have never even been to another country.

No worries, mate :)! Heheh, it often seems that from the POV of Americans (US), there is nothing else in the world. Comes from being such a large and important country, I expect. Denmark is a little over 5 million people, so we have to be acutely aware of there being a surrounding world. ;)

Question: Do the protections afforded workers by law mean that getting a job in the first place is more difficult? After all, as an employer I am going to want to be especially careful to insure that you are trustworthy before I hire you and become beholden to you.

What about insubordination? Is it used often as grounds for termination? It would seem to be a relatively easy pretext to use.

AS [/B]I see that other Scandinavians have already answered your questions. Conditions are very similar in Denmark. But I'll give my own answers anyway:

About getting jobs. No, it does not really make a difference because the conditions are the same for all. An employer hires the employees he needs, under the conditions that exist. Its like if one shop in a town doubled its prices, nobody would buy their goods there, but if all the shops did it, well... (of course, they might shop in the next town, but every analogy has its limits ;) ).

Also, there is a probation period, typically three months during which you can dismiss the new employee at shorter notice. In theory, you still need a reason, but in practice, it does not need to be as solid; stating that the new person has not adapted to the job as well as expected will often do.

Valid reasons for termination in Denmark (this is a general overview, rules and practice varies somewhat according to job type etc.):

Downsizing: A valid reason, depending on employee type, the downsizing has to be of varying severity. A construction worker can be laid off if there is no work next week, an accountant if the coming year's budget show a slump.

The particular job function is discontinued. The company must make a serious attempt to relocate the employee. Nevertheless, this is a well-known loophole: If you want rid of a troublesome person, you do a reorganisation that somehow leaves him or her without a function in the company. If all else fails you can outsource the function.

"Cooperation difficulties". This is an oft-used reason, usually with fair reason. It can be chemistry, or the company finds out it has hired the wrong person. You'd better be able to come up with some good and concrete examples, though, if the employee chooses to make a case.

Insubordination. Basically, refusal or failure to follow orders, often in the form that the employee does not do the job properly. An employee has the right to refuse to follow orders that may threaten his "life, health, or honor". This means that you cannot dismiss anybody for refusing to do something dangerous or illegal or something that would otherwise dishonor them (appearing naked comes to mind as an example). A dismissal for insubordination should be well documented. The normal procedure is to issue a warning in writing on the first occasion, followed by a dismissal on normal notice, if the situation does not improve.

Crime against the employer (e.g. theft), other crimes, severe disloyalty (like disclosing confident information), downright refusal to carry out a specific order, failure to show up for work without giving a valid reason. These are not only causes for dismissal, but ofte for dismissal without notice. Many court cases are about immidiate dismissal, where the employee sues the company to get payment corresponding to the notice period.

Dismissal notice is usually from 3 to 6 months, depending on seniority. There is a caveat for the employer here: The seniority includes the notice period. This means that if John Doe has three months notice period, but will gain four months in two months, you cannot give him three months notice now, you must give him the four he will have gained before the three months notice expires. Quite a few employers have run into that one.

During the dismissal period, you must employ the dismissed person in a relevant way (relevant to their education or the job held), or you can choose to set them free. This can happen in two ways:

You can let them stay home and send their payment on a normal scedule during the notice period. If the employee finds a new job within the notice period, you can withhold payment from the date he/she starts in the new job.

Or, you can send them home with an immidiate payment corresponding to their salary in the notice period. If they find a new job, you cannot demand a refund. This is often used for salespersons and other persons in sensitive positions on order to minimize the damage they might do due to vengeance.

Long rant, heheh. There are mucho details, but I guess this will do, otherwise do ask :)

Hans

[Ove]

And then you forgot one thing Hans, theese cases are NOT tried in a normal court but in a special "workers court" where the judges are specialists in theese cases. I would imagine that makes a lot of difference compared to the american legal system:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[American]

When you drag Civil Rights into the picture, things can change.

Who knows how they'd argue the case, maybe they'll say he's trying to quit and he has a disability... Watch how fast he gets his job back and nets a quick million bucks from the folks who fired him.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Ove
And then you forgot one thing Hans, theese cases are NOT tried in a normal court but in a special "workers court" where the judges are specialists in theese cases. I would imagine that makes a lot of difference compared to the american legal system:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Yeah, that's a funny thing. But when it is decisions pertaining to laws (like funktionærloven), they can be taken to ordinary courts too, although it seldom happens. Some of the union contracts (overenskomster) are in fact law too, because if there is a major disagreement, resulting in extensive strikes and lock-outs, it goes to a mediator institution, and if the parties cannot agree, the government sometimes steps in and turns the mediation suggestion into law.

(Boy, this must sound weird to Americans, but it actually works quite well)

Hans