Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's reports and the comments made by the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO).

The Committee notes the Government's indication that the drafting committee appointed in 1993 to propose a new system of health and work injury insurance received new terms of reference to draft a scheme of universal illness insurance organized by the State, and not merely to reappraise its existing insurance system. The Committee was also to analyse the conditions in which supplementary insurances providing compensation over and above the universal illness insurance satisfied requirements of efficiency and fairness, so that insurances of this kind would not tend to augment the cost of universal illness insurance if current rules of reduction were abolished and the labour market parties assumed full responsibility for the supplementary insurances. The Committee's analysis was to include the rules of reduction existing in present-day sickness allowance insurance, whereby compensation out of national insurance is reduced in cases where the insured receives compensation from the employer or from contractual insurance above a certain level. The Committee presented its final report in 1996. It has been circulated for comment and there has as yet been no decision by the Government or Parliament concerning the proposal.

The Committee notes that, according to the TCO, the prohibition on agreements made in 1991 was still in effect and the Government's Proposition 1995/96:69 lowers the level of compensation to 75 per cent and requires that no fundamental deviations from the new benefit levels for the period of sick pay arise during the negotiations and conclusion of any agreements. The TCO concludes that these changes represent a continued encroachment on the right to negotiate freely.

In its reply, the Government indicates that the 1995 Bill proposed retaining the so-called reduction rules pending proposals from the Sickness and Work Injuries Committee. In the meantime, the Government indicates that it was assumed in the Bill that collective agreements would not entail any deviations of principle from the new compensation rate for the sick pay period, which is 75 per cent. Following the introduction of the Bill, the National Insurance Act and the Sick Pay Act were amended with effect from 1 January 1996, thus introducing a uniform compensation rate of 75 per cent of qualifying income in respect of sickness allowance and sick pay from the employer.

The Government asserts that the amendment of the health insurance compensation rate does not mean that the parties are forbidden to conclude agreements on full compensation, nor is it to be equated with any such prohibition. The Government has merely stated that, pending proposals from the Sickness and Work Injuries Committee, it anticipates that collective agreements will not include deviations of principle from the new compensation rate. The Government adds that this pronouncement does not contain anything which can be construed as a new "threat" of legislation in the event of agreements deviating from the compensation levels and concludes that it has only been trying to persuade the social partners to have regard voluntarily to major economic and social policy considerations and the general interest, as the Committee had requested.

The Committee notes the information and explanations provided by the Government, in particular the Government's indication that it is not threatening legislation in the event of agreements deviating from the new compensation levels but merely trying to persuade the social partners to have regard voluntarily to major economic and social policy considerations, as the Committee had emphasized in its previous comments. Nevertheless, the Committee requests the Government to provide along with its next report a copy of Proposition 1995/96:69, as well as any proposals made by the Sickness and Work Injuries Committee concerning the "reduction rules". In particular, it requests the Government to indicate the manner in which these reduction rules are to be applied and whether they might indirectly interfere with the collective bargaining process by invalidating any gains made through negotiation. It further requests the Government to provide information on any new collective agreements which might have a bearing on this matter.