Source: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/hearing-draft-regulation-on-general-appl/id97980/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:47:12+00:00

Document:
According to the preparatory works of the Act the aim also is to prevent distortion of competition in disfavour of Norwegian enterprises and employees.
Claims for general application must refer to a nationwide collective agreement and must be put forward by a workers’ or an employers’ organisation party to the agreement, the workers’ organisation having at least 10 000 members and the employers’ organisation representing at least 100 employers employing at least 10 000 workers. According to § 3 para. 1 of the Act claims for general application of wage agreements may also be put forward by organisations of smaller size, but they can not require the Board to consider the merits of the claim. If a regulation of general application is in public interest, the Tariff Board may make such a decisions on its own initiative.
The Boards decision on general application will apply to anyone performing work within the scope of the decision, both Norwegian unionised and non-unionised employees and foreign employees.
The parties to a collective agreement which is made generally applicable have an extended right to launch a boycott in case a decision on such an extension of the agreement is not complied with by the enterprises. The employer or a person managing the enterprise on the employer’s behalf is liable to penalty by a fine in case he does not comply with a decision by the Tariff Board. Additionally employees affected or their unions may institute private prosecution.
The Labour Inspection and the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway have the power to control that decisions on general application are complied with. Irrespective of any clauses of professional secrecy the supervision authorities shall have access to all necessary information. According to the General Application Act § 8 incompliance with a regulation on general application of wage agreements can be reported to the police.
the Electrical Installation Agreement 2004 – 2006 (LOK) between LO and the Electricians & IT Workers Union (EL & IT) on the one side and NHO and TELFO on the other side.
For FOB the claim is geographically limited to the counties of Oslo, Akershus, Buskerud, Østfold and Vestfold. The basis for such limitation is that these counties are all parts of the so called Oslo Fjord Region. This region is in many ways considered as a joint market with a very mobile workforce. In LOs opinion, efficiency considerations make it necessary to let the general application apply to the whole region.
As to LOK the claim is geographically limited to the counties of Oslo and Akershus. By experience, according to LO, there is a strong demand for foreign workers in these two counties.
The secretariat of the Tariff Board lies within the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, and Senior Legal Adviser Eli Mette Jarbo and Legal Adviser Bodil Stueflaten have been the Board’s secretaries.
The Tariff Board is an independent administrative body, and its proceedings follow the provisions of the Public Administration Act, cf. § 6 of the General Application Act. A decision on extended applicability of a wage agreement is nearly invariably a regulation pursuant to the Public Administration Act § 2-1 c). The general provisions of the Act as well as its special provisions concerning regulations are applicable, see especially its Chapter VII. The obligation to clarify the case in § 37 of the Act implies that a hearing must be held prior to the adoption of a regulation.
According to the preparatory works of the General Application Act the Tariff Board is only to make a decision to the extent necessary to fulfil the objective of the act. Neither the act nor the preparatory works gives any other instructions to the Board as to what aspects should be emphasised.
Pursuant to the General Application Act § 1-1 the Tariff Board can make a decision on the extension of a collective agreement if foreign workers perform work on terms which, based on a total assessment, are demonstrably inferior to the terms of Norwegian workers. According to the preparatory works of the Act the term demonstrably is not a required qualification, but rather a standard of proof in order to prevent unfounded cases. In the view of the Tariff Board this implies that it is a condition that it can be documented that foreign workers perform work in Norway on terms and conditions inferior to those of Norwegian workers. It is the party raising a claim for general application of a collective agreement who in principle has to provide sufficient information for the Board to open a case and make its own enquiries. According to the Act it is sufficient to prove it highly probable that there within the scope of the collective agreement in question are foreign workers performing work on conditions inferior to those of Norwegian workers. A requirement for a qualified probability can not be applied. What is required is that it to the Board seems more probable that the requirements of the act are complied with than that they are not. The appreciation of the Board must, however, be based on concrete information which the Board, after a total assessment, finds applicable.
According to the Act there is no requirement or condition that the terms of wages and working conditions of the foreign workers are substantially inferior to those of the Norwegian workers, that the differences are unfair, or that the difference in treatment applies to a large number of workers. If the problem of inferior conditions seems small, the Board can, however, after a total assessment conclude that a decision of general application of a collective agreement does not seem necessary in order to promote the objective of the Act.
The documentation requirement is not further commented on in the preparatory works of the Act, which, however, make it clear that the Tariff Board can make a decision not only when it has been documented that problems of inferior terms exist, but also when there is reason to believe that such problems are imminent. In that case it will be sufficient that such a development seems highly probable.
As a starting point, the risk of non-persuasion must rest with the party responsible for the general application claim, and who, according to the General Application Act, is also responsible for documenting the claim. If the Board has doubts as to whether the claim is sufficiently substantiated, the case must be rejected. Still, this cannot be more than a starting point. In practice it will almost without exceptions be the employers who possess the relevant documentation. The employees and their organisations have no free access to information on terms of wages and employment, but are dependent on cooperation from the employers in order to obtain such information. If the employer does not cooperate, the trade unions will not be able to document the oral information they may have received.
The employer or any person managing the enterprise on the employer’s behalf is obliged to provide the Board with information, cf. the General Application Act § 7. According to § 9 of the Act, violation of this obligation may lead to a fine. Still, employers might neglect to obey an order to provide the Tariff Board with information. The consequence of lack of such information from an employer may, in each individual case, be that the employer have to carry the risk of non-persuasion. Whether insufficient documentation shall be given such consequences, must depend on a concrete evaluation of the case.
The Tariff Board notes that within the building industry, there are an increasing number of posted workers, especially from Poland and the Baltic countries.
In the claim for general application, LO has displayed information from 17 local branches of FF on 22 construction companies with assignments in the Oslo Fjord Region.
According to this information, the companies have in common that they either employ posted workers or offer posted workers for hire, and that the terms of wages and employment are far below both what is usual in the industry as such and the provisions on minimum wages in the collective wage agreements.
Among other things, the documentation contains employment contracts which indicate wages on 100 Norwegian kroner (NOK) per hour. Copies of ads from some of the companies procuring labour indicates prices down to 60 NOK per hour, dependent on the additional agreements on lodge and boarding etc., and 95 – 170 NOK per hour, lodging not included, but which has to be agreed upon separately. According to one ad, Polish construction workers are offered at a rate of 100 NOK per hour. If the hiring out company provides lodging, the price is 120 NOK per hour. Copy of an interview with a company which offers prices 30 – 50% below average Norwegian prices is also part of the documentation. News headlines from the NRK shows that some Polish workers only got net 27 NOK per hour while the hiring out company charged 148 NOK per hour. Furthermore, from a newspaper article it appears that polish workers are building a hospital for net 50 NOK per hour.
El & It has displayed information about 8 companies in Oslo and Akershus. According to the union, the amount of cheap foreign labour is increasing and the situation is rapidly getting worse.
El & It has displayed a copy of an employment contract which shows that an electrician receives net NOK 75 per hour. The employee himself is also responsible for travelling costs to and from Norway and must also cover expenses for board and lodging. The documentation from El & It also includes copies of ads where Polish workers are offered at a rate of NOK 95 – 175 per hour, where lodging not is included, but has to be agreed upon separately.
From which countries do the employees come from who are either employed in your company, procured by your company or in any other way working for your company?
What terms of wages and employment apply to employees who are either employed in your company, procured by your company or in any other way working for your company?
In which parts of Norway is work performed by the company’s employees who either are employed in your company, procured by your company or in any other way working for your company?
The companies were made aware of their duty to provide information and that the Board would handle any information with confidentiality. Also, they were made aware that the Board would consider the information displayed by LO as correct if the companies did not reply within the stipulated time-limit.
The Tariff Board has received replies from eight companies. Out of these, one company is no longer in business, two state that they only employ Norwegian and Nordic citizens and another one states that they only procure Polish workers without having any knowledge of the terms of wages and employment. Most of the remaining replying companies have documented satisfactory wages and other working conditions, illustrated by examples of employment contracts. The wages were mainly in accordance with the minimum wages deriving from the relevant collective agreements. One company states that due to competition motives, they offer wages corresponding to those of their competitors, but the company is aware of the existence of wages and employment conditions which as a whole are less favourable for foreign workers. A copy of an employment contract, which was terminated in September 2004, shows an hourly pay on NOK 75 per hour for a skilled electrician, and that the employee himself had to cover travelling costs to and from Norway and the costs for board and lodging. Another company refers to the documentation provided by the LO, which indicates that their employees when working in Norway get paid net from NOK 12 000 to NOK 15 000 per month. The company covers the costs for travelling and lodging. The company emphasises the great differences between the Norwegian and the Polish tax structure, which makes it difficult to compare gross wages. Further, the company states that a comparison between Polish gross wages and Norwegian gross wages indicates that net wages are equal if living costs are taken into account.
Three letters were returned with “addressee unknown”. Nineteen companies did not reply to the Tariff Board’s request. As far as these companies are concerned, the Board takes it as a fact that the information provided by the LO is correct.
The increased immigration of labour from the new EU countries often makes news headlines with several examples of unacceptable terms of wages and working conditions for the employees in question. Because of the continues shortage of labour in the building industry, the debate to a large degree has been concentrated to this industry in particular. Based on the media headlines, there seems to be a general opinion that the terms of wages and employment for foreign workers are considerably poorer than for similar Norwegian workers, especially in the building industry.
In May 2005 the Labour Inspection carried out a large campaign in the building industry, focused on wages, employment contracts, health and safety. Thirty-seven of the controlled companies had Norwegian ownership, but with foreign employees. In most cases the employment contracts were not present at the work site and have to be evaluated at a later stage. However, oral information indicated satisfactory conditions in these companies. Nineteen checked companies were foreign owned with foreign employees. In such companies the Labour Inspection has not supervision responsibility on wages, but the Inspection got the impression that there is a gap between Norwegian terms on wages and employment and the terms offered the employees in the foreign companies. The Inspection was given information on wages as low as four Euro per hour.
Based on the foregoing, the Tariff Board finds it substantiated that foreign workers within the building industry in the Oslo Fjord region perform work on terms which, based on a total assessment, are demonstrably inferior to the terms stipulated in existing nationwide collective agreements for the trade or industry in question or otherwise normal for the place or occupation concerned. In accordance with this the Tariff Board has drawn up a draft regulation on general application of wage agreements.
The member of the Tariff Board Nina Melsom (NHO) refers to the dissenting vote from Lars Chr. Berge in Case No. 1/2003 and states that the General Application Act sets up a stricter documentation requirement than what the majority of the Tariff Board has based the decision on. Nevertheless, Melsom finds that in this particular case, the existing documentation is sufficient. Essentially she concurs with the majority’s concrete motivation.
When it comes to the question of which provisions should be made generally applicable, Melsom does not share the view of the majority. Several statements in the preparatory works of the General Application Act indicate that a decision on general application must not go further than what is necessary to achieve the objective of the Act. It is Melsom’s opinion that the provisions in the draft regulation § 4 No. 2.2 to 2.4, § 5 No. 3.1 to 3.7 and §§ 7, 8 and 9 are not necessary. Evaluated from “a user perspective” the draft regulation is too detailed and complex. When working out the regulation it should have been taken into consideration that the main target group are Norwegian and especially foreign building and electrical companies. It is important that the regulation is clear and easy to understand and accessible to citizens with no legal competence. As an organ given the competence to pass regulations, the Board must try to draw up substantially more accessible provisions. The possibility of compliance is reduced as the complexity of the regulation grows. As to the provisions on shift work, working time, and overtime pay, the ordinary provisions in the Working Environment Act are sufficient. These provisions also applies to posted workers, cf. the Working Environment Act § 73 M second paragraph. Many Norwegian building and electrical companies are not bound by the collective wage agreements included in this claim for general application. Thus, there is a certain risk that a decision on general application could lead to a general increase in wages in the Norwegian companies. It is important to underline that the system for general application is not to be used to give Norwegian collective agreements a wider range of use in general. Moreover, this has been stated by the majority of the Standing Committee on Local Government in the Norwegian Parliament, in Inst. O. nr. 98 (1992-93) page 7.
Certainly, the regulation will not apply if an employee, based on a total assessment, has better terms of wages and employment according to an individual employment contract, collective agreement or other laws or regulations which cover the employment. This means that an employment relationship with terms of wages and other working conditions which differ from the regulation on one or several clauses, still may be in conformity with the regulation if, based on a total assessment of the terms, the conclusion is that the terms are at least just as favourable for the employee. However, to make such a comparison may appear difficult and complex. Considerations of legal policy weigh against drawing up regulations of a kind that forces the users to make such difficult deliberations.
The majority of the Board underlines that the decision on general application in this particular case is not aiming at giving “Norwegian collective agreements a wider range of use in general”. If the decision leads to consequences for Norwegian employees who are not covered by a collective agreement today, this is an unintentional consequence, which in any case will be significant only to Norwegian employees who as a whole have poorer terms of wages and employment conditions than what will follow from the regulation.
The Tariff Board anticipates written comments on the draft regulation by 27 June 2005.
Case No 1/2005 of the Tariff Board is the second case handled under the provision of the General Application Act since the Act came into force in 1994.
An important consideration to the Tariff Board when handling it’s first case was to formulate a regulation which on the one hand attends to the demands in LO’s claim for general application and on the other hand is fairly simple and easy to use. This was the reason why the decision on general application of the three relevant agreements included in LOs claim in Case No 1/2003 was gathered in one regulation. In the present case LO has stated that they find it natural that a decision in Case No 1/2005 is given a similar shape. This has been followed up by the Tariff Board.
In the preparatory works of the General Application Act it is stated in several connections that general applicability must not be used to a greater extent than what is necessary to fulfil the objectives of the Act. This aspect has been decisive to the Board when making a choice as to which provisions of the agreements should be made applicable, especially in relation to the terms of wages.
According to the proposal from the Tariff Board, the employees comprised by the regulation will as a minimum be entitled to the minimum hourly pay in the collective agreements. In addition, the Board proposes that the provisions in the agreements on supplements for shift work are made generally applicable. LOK includes a fixed rate of 15 % of hourly pay, which is meant to cover the inconvenience of necessary overnight absence. This fixed rate is also proposed made generally applicable for employees comprised by the scope of this agreement. For employees comprised by the terms of wages in the regulation § 4 (FOB), the supplement for such inconvenience is included in the hourly pay rate. Additionally, the regulation has common provisions for all employees covered by its scope on working hours, supplements for overtime work and compensation for public holidays etc. Other common supplements plus compensation for travelling and board and lodging costs shall be agreed upon between the employee and the employer. The regulation also proposes a provision on accommodation of ordinary good standard.
The Tariff Board will underline that it finds it natural that the original collective agreement provisions also are taken into consideration, if the regulation is proved difficult to interpret.
In accordance with the claim from LO the regulation is based upon the Construction Agreement 2004 – 2006 (FOB) and the Electrical Installation Agreement 2004 – 2006 (LOK), but besides from the wage clauses, few agreements clauses are directly implemented.
The provision shall embrace all groups of employees and all kinds of activities falling within the scope of the two relevant collective agreements and within the geographical scope.
Compared to the provisions of the agreements, the Board has made substantial simplifications, with the aim to achieve reasonably practical rules. The collective agreements themselves should be consulted if there are difficulties in determining which agreement the individual employees fall under. In FOB the relevant provisions are § 1-1 No 1 first paragraph and No 2 to 4. In LOK the relevant provision is § 1 first paragraph.
Skilled workers must have some kind of officially approved trade certificate. The important point is that skilled workers must be able to document their skills.
The regulation does not apply to apprentices and participants in labour-market measures. These groups are usually covered by special arrangements.
The provision clarifies that the responsibility for giving employees terms of wages and employment according to this regulation, rests with the individual enterprise. The provision makes no changes in any agreements on this subject between for instance the main contractor and sub-contractors at the construction sites.
The provisions in §§ 4 and 5 must be read in connection with § 13. It follows from this section that the terms of wages and employment must be considered as a whole when determining whether the regulation is applicable. The provisions on shift work do not apply when agreements on diverging working time schedules are in force, e.g. divergent rotation systems including all the workers in a company or at a construction site.
To No 1: The rates correspond to the minimum wage rates in the collective agreement, but must be read in connection with § 6.
To No 2: The provisions, which appliy for shift work, are copied from FOB § 6.4.
To No 2: This supplement amounts to 15 % of the wage rates and shall compensate for the inconvenience of staying away from home. The employee is entitled to the supplement only if the necessity of staying away from home is due to the need of the enterprise. Cf. also LOK § 9.
To No 3: The provisions, which apply for shift work, are copied from LOK § 8 E and D.
The provision shall ensure that employees who are covered by this regulation, in addition to receive the minimum wage rates according to §§ 4 No 1 and 5, shall be evaluated as regards wage level in the same way as Norwegian workers covered by FOB or LOK.
The provision settles the main rule according to the collective agreements, which is 37.5 hours a week in average. The provision also contains rules on average weekly working hours for shift work. Furthermore, it clarifies that the opportunity of calculating average working hours according to the Working Environment Act Chapt. X also applies for employment relationships covered by this regulation. The aim is to give the enterprises the possibility to enter into the regular working schedules at the construction site or on the installation. It must be noted that the basis for calculating average working hours shall be 37.5 working hours per week.
The provision means that employees are entitled to supplement for overtime work if they work more than the average weekly working hours of 37.5 hours a week or the limits for shift work according to § 7. If the opportunity to agree on divergent working schedules is used, cf. § 7 above, the right to supplements for overtime work must rely on the limits in such agreements.
Ordinarily, the employee is entitled to regular pay on public holidays, 1 and 17 May if such days otherwise would have been working days. The entitlement is limited if the employee is absent from work in immediate connection to such holidays. A certain continuity in the employment relationship is also required. Both the collective agreements and the Act relating to 1 and 17 May as public holidays contains similar provisions.
The provision is meant to intercept different supplements covered by the collective agreements. What supplements and which amounts are to be determined by agreement between the employee and the employer. Supplements for dirty work, working clothes or tools are some examples, but the use of this provision must be seen in connection with common practice at the construction site or installation in question.
The collective agreements have many different and very detailed provisions on compensation for this kind of expenses. Thus, the Tariff Board proposes a provision without any fixed sum or standard. However, it instructs the employer to enter into an agreement with the employee on the coverage of such expenses. As for travelling expenses, the employer is obliged to cover at least the employee’s actual costs. A reasonable number of journeys home shall be agreed upon. Before concluding such agreements, it will be natural to seek guidance in the corresponding provisions in the collective agreements; FOB Chapt. 7 and LOK § 9.
The provision in § 12 is restricted to necessary minimum requirements on accommodations, at the same time as the requirements on construction, equipment and maintenance must be in accordance with the Working Environment Act § 8 No 3. It is emphasised that the demands must correspond with common practice within the industry or at the construction site in question.
The provision emphasises what also ensues from the General Application Act § 3, namely that terms of wages and employment derived from this regulation, are minimum terms. If an employee falling within the scope of this regulation already is entitled to better terms, either by individual agreement, collective agreement or by other law or regulations, such terms will still apply. The provision also emphasises that it is the wages and other working conditions that after an overall evaluation has to be in accordance with the regulation. This means that one or several clauses on wages or other working conditions may differ from the regulation and still, based on a total assessment of the terms be in conformity with the regulation.
The provision is included for information purposes and emphasises that rules or regulations with relevance to the employment relationship deriving from other laws or regulations are applicable as well. The provision lists the most important acts, but is not exhaustive.
According to the Working Environment Act § 73 M fourth to sixth paragraph, Chapt. XII B of the Act is not applicable for certain employees on very brief assignments. This limitation also follows from the General Application Act § 3 first paragraph. This means that this regulation will not apply to posted skilled or specialized workers on particular assignments when their assignment period does not last for more than eight days, cf. the Working Environment Act § 73 M fourth to sixth paragraph. It is presumed that the extent of this exception is limited.
Chapt. IV. Entry into force etc.
As a main rule regulations at the earliest can be made applicable one month after they have been published in Norsk Lovtidend, cf. the Public Administration Act § 39.
This regulation enters into force on 1 September 2005 and will as from this day on apply to all enterprises and employment relationships falling within its scope. This means that enterprises offering poorer terms on wages and employment than what follows from the regulation are obliged to offer terms in accordance with this regulation as from 1 September 2005.
The regulation is terminated one month after FOB (2004 – 2006) and LOK (2004 - 2006) are replaced by new agreements, or if The Tariff Board passes on a new resolution on general application based on the same collective agreements.
Established by the Tariff Board under the provision of Act 4 June 1993 No 58 relating to general application of wage agreements etc. § 3.
the Electrical Installation Agreement (LOK) 2004 – 2006 between LO and the Electricians & IT Workers Union (EL&IT) on the one side and NHO and TELFO on the other side.
Construction work within the counties of Oslo, Akershus, Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold.
Installation, servicing and repair work on electrical installations and automatization installations within the counties of Oslo and Akershus.
A skilled worker is a worker with an officially approved trade certificate or similar within his line of work. An unskilled worker does not have such trade certificate.
The regulation does not apply to apprentices and participants in labour-market measures.
Enterprises performing work covered by § 2 are responsible for implementing this regulation. The responsibility rests with the employer or any person managing the enterprise on the employer’s behalf.
Chapt. II. Terms of wages and employment 1Cf. § 13.
It is permitted to use shift work in accordance with the provisions laid down in Act 4 February 1977 No 4 relating to Worker Protection and Working Environment Chapt. X. When shift work is used, a working plan shall be drawn up in accordance with Act 4 February 1977 No 4 relating to Worker Protection and Working Environment § 48.
Supplements shall be paid only for shift work lasting minimum six days. Other shift work shall be paid as overtime.
Supplements on Saturdays after 13.00 hours and on days before public holidays after ordinary working hours: NOK 73.30.
If an employee by transition from day work to shift work or the opposite within 24 hours (from 00.00 hours to 24.00 hours) is working more hours than normal for the actual 24 hour period, the employee shall receive overtime supplement for the extra hours.
For overtime work before or after a shift, a 50 % supplement to the shift supplement shall be paid. For work on Saturdays after 13.00 hours, on days before public holidays after ordinary working hours and on Sundays and public holidays, a 50 % supplement shall be paid.
A 2-shift system means that working hours alternate between day and evening (one week day work and one week evening work). 2-shift systems can be agreed upon within the period of 06.00 hours and 24.00 hours on ordinary workdays.
Supplements shall be calculated on the basis of minimum hourly pay according to § 5 No 1. The supplement shall cover a nuisance compensation which amounts to 18.3 %. There is no supplement for day shift.
A 3-shift system means that working hours alternate between day, evening and night (one week day work, one week evening work and one week night work). 3-shift systems can be agreed upon within the period between 22.00 hours on Sundays and 06.00 hours on Saturdays.
Supplements shall be calculated on the basis of minimum hourly pay according to § 5 No 1. The supplement shall cover a nuisance compensation which amounts to 18.3 % for 2. shift and 29.3 % for 3. shift. There is no supplement for day shift.
Wholly continuous shift work is performed day and night without stoppage on Sundays and public holidays and is alternating between day, evening and night work according to a fixed shift plan.
On Saturdays after 13.00 hours and on days before public holidays after ordinary working hours the supplement shall cover a nuisance compensation which amounts to 73.2 %. On Sundays and public holidays before 22.00 hours the nuisance compensations shall also be 73.2 %.
All employees covered by this regulation shall be paid a supplement to minimum hourly pay, cf. §§ 4 No 1 and 5 No 1, according to their skills, qualifications, experience, responsibility and job contents.
The ordinary daily working hours shall not exceed an average of 37.5 hours a week.
Deviating working schedules may be agreed upon or determined according to the provisions laid down in Act 4 February 1977 No 4 relating to Worker Protection and Working Environment Chapt. X.
For work after ordinary working hours a 50 % supplement to hourly pay shall be paid. For work after ordinary working hours between 21.00 hours and 06.00 hours and on Sundays and public holidays a 100 % supplement to hourly pay shall be paid.
Lost earnings for public holidays, 1 and 17 of May which ordinarily would have been work days, shall be compensated by ordinary pay unless the employee has been absent from work the work day before and after the public holiday.
Entitled to such compensation are employees who have been employed continuously in the same enterprise for at least 30 days before the public holiday, or have been employed later and the employment will be of at least 30 days’ duration. In this connexion the three-days public holiday at Easter is counted as one unit and the two-days public holiday at Christmas plus New Year’s Day are counted as one unit.
Other supplements, e.g. for extremely dirty work, working clothes and tools, may be agreed upon between the employee and the employer in accordance with common practice at the construction site.
If work tasks make overnight absence from home necessary, the employer is obliged to conclude an agreement with the employee on compensation of the actual costs for a reasonable number of journeys home. The employee and the employer shall also conclude an agreement on compensation for reasonable board and lodging expenses.
Accommodation placed at the disposal of the employee shall be in proper condition, equipped and maintained in accordance with ordinary good standard.
This regulation is not applicable if the employee, based on a total assessment, is covered by more favourable terms of wages and employment according to agreement or the national law which ordinarily applies to the employment relationship.
Act 26 April 1947 No 1 relating to 1 and 17 May as public holidays.
This regulation applies within the restrictions laid down in Act 4 February 1977 No 4 relating to Worker Protection and Working Environment Chapt. XII B.
This regulation enters into force on 1 September 2005.
This regulation is terminated 1 month after the Construction Agreement (FOB) 2004 – 2006 between LO and NHO and the Electrical Installation Agreement (LOK) 2004 - 2006 between LO and NHO are replaced by revised collective agreements or if the Tariff Board passes on a new decision on general application based on the same collective agreements.

References: § 3
 § 8
 § 6
 § 2
 § 37
 § 1
 § 7
 § 9
 § 4
 § 5
 § 73
 § 4
 § 1
 § 1
 § 13
 § 6
 § 6
 § 9
 § 8
 § 7
 § 7
 § 9
 § 12
 § 8
 § 3
 § 73
 § 3
 § 73
 § 39
 § 3
 § 2
 § 13
 § 48
 § 5
 § 5