Abstract
Abstract
Many government agencies have been privatized and the functions and services that were previously run by the state have been outsourced. This is mainly due to the international market where there is a demand for more liberalization and support for the private sector.
This paper will analyze and compare whether the transfer and reconstruction of governmental enterprises into private enterprises has caused any change in the essential rights of the former governmental employees i.e. civil servants and other people employed by the state. This will be done be giving an overview of the development of the Danish civil servant institution and other official positions.
The conception of ‘suitable post’ and the right to a ‘full government-pension’ are important factors for civil servants. They were originally initiated to protect him from being transferred against his will or being dismissed because of a fault not attributable to them. Under the law if their post is ‘abolished or terminated’, a new suitable post has to be found or they should be paid three years salary, subsequently a pension should be granted to them. If the civil servant disagrees with the authorities concerning the suitability of the new post, he can bring his case to court. Results from recent Supreme Court cases have shown that if the transfer of the civil servant is the result of an internal reconstruction for example following national elections, and not limited to one person and discussed with the union, the court will be apt to rule against the civil servant.
Another law that protects civil servants and other state employees against among other things, dismissals, is the Danish Public Administration Act. No ‘decision’ concerning an individual can be made without them having had the possibility to be heard on the matter, for example in the case of a dismissal. But in 2004 the Danish Supreme Court passed two verdicts, which show that ‘agreed dismissals’ as an alternative to ‘decisions’ are now accepted as long as the employees Trade union has been involved in the negotiation and the outcome is considered fair by the employee and his union.
In case of the privatization of a governmental enterprise the employees are protected by the ‘Acquired Rights Directive’. Under this act the new owner is obliged to accept the existing collective labour agreement. Due to the special character of a civil servants employment, their post will be abolished when the state privatizes their place of work and they must be offered a new post. To encourage them to work for their new employer, they can be contracted using a 'collective labour agreement' with special terms.
A civil servant’s decision can only be highly personal and must be based upon individual conditions such as; seniority, authority and promotion. The new terms for the collective labour agreement usually include his former rights, i.e. guaranteed pension and special procedures in case of dismissal. He also has the right to exercise his newly acquired right to take 'strike action' in a dispute.
The civil servant who does not want to accept these new terms can be ordered to work for the new owner. The state will remain his principal employer. He can be deprived of rights based upon a collective labour agreement, for example, representation and he will be denied the right to promotion in the new organization.
Employees who used to be employed in the public sector under the conditions of the 'collective labour agreement' and are subsequently transferred to the private sector lose their rights according to the 'Public Administration Act'.
Finally the significance of the responsibility labour Unions have in advising their members should not be underestimated. This is verified by the fact that courts are not apt to dismiss agreements that have been negotiated with the labour unions. From these cases it must be assumed that the unions act in a professional, impartial manner when representing their members.
Many government agencies have been privatized and the functions and services that were previously run by the state have been outsourced. This is mainly due to the international market where there is a demand for more liberalization and support for the private sector.
This paper will analyze and compare whether the transfer and reconstruction of governmental enterprises into private enterprises has caused any change in the essential rights of the former governmental employees i.e. civil servants and other people employed by the state. This will be done be giving an overview of the development of the Danish civil servant institution and other official positions.
The conception of ‘suitable post’ and the right to a ‘full government-pension’ are important factors for civil servants. They were originally initiated to protect him from being transferred against his will or being dismissed because of a fault not attributable to them. Under the law if their post is ‘abolished or terminated’, a new suitable post has to be found or they should be paid three years salary, subsequently a pension should be granted to them. If the civil servant disagrees with the authorities concerning the suitability of the new post, he can bring his case to court. Results from recent Supreme Court cases have shown that if the transfer of the civil servant is the result of an internal reconstruction for example following national elections, and not limited to one person and discussed with the union, the court will be apt to rule against the civil servant.
Another law that protects civil servants and other state employees against among other things, dismissals, is the Danish Public Administration Act. No ‘decision’ concerning an individual can be made without them having had the possibility to be heard on the matter, for example in the case of a dismissal. But in 2004 the Danish Supreme Court passed two verdicts, which show that ‘agreed dismissals’ as an alternative to ‘decisions’ are now accepted as long as the employees Trade union has been involved in the negotiation and the outcome is considered fair by the employee and his union.
In case of the privatization of a governmental enterprise the employees are protected by the ‘Acquired Rights Directive’. Under this act the new owner is obliged to accept the existing collective labour agreement. Due to the special character of a civil servants employment, their post will be abolished when the state privatizes their place of work and they must be offered a new post. To encourage them to work for their new employer, they can be contracted using a 'collective labour agreement' with special terms.
A civil servant’s decision can only be highly personal and must be based upon individual conditions such as; seniority, authority and promotion. The new terms for the collective labour agreement usually include his former rights, i.e. guaranteed pension and special procedures in case of dismissal. He also has the right to exercise his newly acquired right to take 'strike action' in a dispute.
The civil servant who does not want to accept these new terms can be ordered to work for the new owner. The state will remain his principal employer. He can be deprived of rights based upon a collective labour agreement, for example, representation and he will be denied the right to promotion in the new organization.
Employees who used to be employed in the public sector under the conditions of the 'collective labour agreement' and are subsequently transferred to the private sector lose their rights according to the 'Public Administration Act'.
Finally the significance of the responsibility labour Unions have in advising their members should not be underestimated. This is verified by the fact that courts are not apt to dismiss agreements that have been negotiated with the labour unions. From these cases it must be assumed that the unions act in a professional, impartial manner when representing their members.
| Originalsprog | Dansk |
|---|---|
| Status | Udgivet - maj 2009 |