Oslo – A norwegian court on Tuesday delivered a unanimous ruling against former union leader Merethe Solberg in a case stemming from her removal from a leadership position following the disclosure of a romantic relationship with a top labour official. The dispute, which captivated public attention in Norway, centered on whether Solberg held a formal employment contract and was entitled to the same protections as other union employees. The court’s decision has implications for the evolving understanding of employment versus positions of trust within Norway’s labor movement.
eline@lomedia.no
aslak@lomedia.no
steinar.schjetne@lomedia.no
A Norwegian court on Tuesday ruled against a former union leader who sued her organization after being removed from her position following the disclosure of a personal relationship with a top labor official. The case has drawn significant attention in Norway, raising questions about job security for union representatives.
Merethe Solberg, who led the Avdeling 10 branch of the Fellesforbundet union, lost her job, pay, and union support when the organization placed the branch under administration. She argued the move was invalid and sought reinstatement, claiming she held both a position of trust and an employment contract.
The dispute became public after Solberg revealed a romantic relationship with Fellesforbundet leader Jørn Eggum, leading him to withdraw his candidacy for the leadership of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO).
Unanimous Ruling
The Oslo District Court unanimously rejected Solberg’s claims, finding she was not legally considered an employee and therefore not entitled to the protections afforded under Norwegian labor law. The court also upheld the validity of the decision to place Avdeling 10 under administration, dismissing Solberg’s challenge to that action.
Solberg had also requested nearly 1.3 million Norwegian kroner in legal costs, but the court denied that claim.
Both Fellesforbundet and Solberg have been asked for comment on the ruling, but have not yet responded, leaving the question of a potential appeal unanswered.
Background: Now the trial starts that could change the whole labor movement
No Employment Contract
During the emotionally charged trial, Solberg’s lawyer argued that the branch felt as though “their whole world was torn away under their feet, with all of Norway as a spectator,” and that she had lost her livelihood.
Solberg told the court she wouldn’t wish the experience on anyone.
Judge Espen Bjerkvoll wrote in the ruling that Solberg could not be considered an employee in a legal sense, and therefore did not have the associated job security protections. This determination was based, in part, on the lack of a formal employment contract.
“There is nothing to suggest that a written agreement has been entered into or that a written board decision has been made to employ her as the daily manager of Department 10,” the court stated. The ruling effectively found that Solberg’s role was one of trust, not employment.
The court concluded that positions of trust are distinct from employment relationships, and labor laws do not apply to those holding only a position of trust.
Decision Upheld
Solberg also argued that the union board did not adequately investigate the situation before placing the branch under administration, and that Fellesforbundet leader Jørn Eggum was conflicted. She sought to have the decision invalidated on procedural grounds.
The court disagreed, stating it aligned with Fellesforbundet’s assessment that the focus should be on the branch’s ability to function independently.
The court noted that efforts to address the issues within Avdeling 10, including testimony from LO leader Kine Asper Vistnes, had little to no effect.
Problems Persisted
The court found that problems within Avdeling 10 had persisted for a significant period, exceeding the timeframe outlined in the branch’s bylaws. While the ruling did not place blame solely on Solberg, it stated:
“Solberg did not handle conflicts well and communicated poorly with several employees. This resulted in her being unable to unite the team around core tasks.”
The court concluded that “the conditions for placing the department under administration were (…) met. The court cannot see that this conclusion is doubtful.” The court also determined that even if Eggum had a conflict of interest, it did not influence the decision to put the branch under administration.
This story will be updated!
