Dunn and Gennard found 111 British redundancies when a closed store was introduced, 325 people were involved,:125, and they stated: “While supporters of the closed store can argue that it is estimated that at least 325 layoffs are a relatively small number of closed shops compared to the total population, critics would consider this figure to be substantial, arguing that dismissal is too much.” :126 With regard to the store closed before entry, they stated: “Its raison d`être is to exclude people from jobs by denying them union membership.” 132 Also known as pre-closed store contracts, store contracts are entered into to protect union workers. Under this type of agreement, a particular company may require all of its employees to be part of a particular union or union. In addition, the case called into question the collective and conventional nature of labour relations in Denmark, i.e. the balance between individual rights over legislation and the rights of collective agreements through agreements. The use of past agreements goes beyond agreements with disorganized employers. Similar agreements are practised in the dental professions, in the legal, medical and pharmaceutical professions, and any changes to current practice will have significant consequences. (Kére FV Petersen, FAO) In some cases, unions have a monopoly on a certain industry and companies in that sector. If that is the case, all businesses in an area must hire union workers, and they call it a “closed business.” Both the government and the established trade union movement assert that it is reasonable to seek the membership of these unions in order to enjoy the individual rights registered in Dencausen and created by the unions. The adoption of the right to use the agreements reached would alter the balance of power between unions and disorganized employers and, consequently, cause unrest in Danish industrial relations. The store contracts are included in Section 26 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and are perhaps among the most sensitive and controversial provisions of the LRA in terms of the constitutionality of these agreements that I concern.
The only compelling reason why an employer can accept and, if necessary, welcome a store agreement reached is to limit union competition on the ground, since the existing union essentially monopolizes the employer`s union affiliation through the store agreement.