in Europe Relations - Unictcsdle.lex.unict.it/Archive/LW/Data reports and studies/Reports and communication from...PRINCIPAL ADVANCES IN LABOUR RELATIONS IN EUROPE 11 Involvement of

European Commission

Employment social affairs

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg

5 4K

E-39-01-287-E

N-C

IndustrialRelationsin Europe


Ind

ustria

l Re

latio

ns in

Eu

rop

e 2

00

2

Indu

stria

l rel

atio

ns &

indu

stria

l cha

nge

Cover definitive 28/10/02 9:02 Page 1

Industrial Relations in Europe2002

Industrial relations and industrial change

European CommissionDirectorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs

Directorate D

Manuscript completed in May 2002


A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002

ISBN ?????

© European Communities, 2002Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission,Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs.

If you are interested in receiving the electronic newsletter "Esmail" from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, please send an e-mail to [email protected]. The newsletter ispublished on a regular basis in English, French and German.

Industrial relations are at the core of the Member States' economic and socialorganisation. They play their part in creating an area of solidarity withinEurope, where people rally together and participate.

The first edition of this report described the distinctive features of theEuropeanisation of industrial relations and the significant changes over recentyears. We saw the extent to which the development of industrial relations waslinked to that of European integration.

The European venture presses forward and introduction of the euro has been asuccess story. Against that backdrop, industrial relations are having to meet newchallenges, while the national industrial relations systems are facing radicaltransformations, namely globalisation, the strengthening of economic andmonetary union, enlargement, new technologies and the knowledge society,demographic ageing and the dramatic changes on the labour market.

The 2002 report reviews a number of notable trends, in particular theorganisation of new European players at sectoral level and the preparations forenlargement, and outlines the principal advances in labour relations in Europein the course of 2000 and 2001.

Enlargement is a key rendezvous for the Union. Most of the candidate countrieshave adjusted their economic and social structures in a big way over the pastten years and this has affected industrial relations and the interested parties. Itwas important, therefore, in the run-up to enlargement, to present the socialpartners in the candidate countries for the first time and report on how they arecoping with their own particular challenges.

Anna Diamantopoulou

Foreword by Commissioner Diamantopoulou

I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s i n E u r o p e

Summary

I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s i n E u r o p e 1

Editorial 2

Preliminary observations 5

PRINCIPAL ADVANCES IN LABOUR RELATIONS IN EUROPE 11

Involvement of the social partners 12

Review of legislation 2000-2001 28

Non-discrimination 34

Extension of collective agreements 39

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PLAYERS IN THE SOCIAL DIALOGUE 49

Introduction 50

Banking industry 52

Insurance industry 57

Land Transport 61

Water Transport 67

Air Transport 71

Commerce 75

Construction industry 79

Textiles/Clothing industry 83

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES 87

The Actors 92

Collective disputes 99

National level: the predominant role of tripartite 103

partnership

Autonomous social dialogue at intermediary levels 110

Industrial relations at enterprise level 114

Workers’ participation 116

Concluding remarks 118

ANNEXES 121

Glossary 126

Social partners declarations 128

The European Councils and the social partners, 2000–2001 134

In the first edition of this report issued in March2000, the Commission described the distinctivefeatures of the Europeanisation of industrialrelations1.

This trend is gaining ground. The forces forchange are prompting the players in this vast fieldof industrial relations to cooperate and coordinatetheir action. These forces are, of course, structural:globalisation dissolves frontiers and makesspecific demands on social systems; the growth ofnew technologies is transforming theorganisation of work and has numerousimplications for time spent in economic activity,the forms of governance that businesses adoptand the role of lifelong learning. The forthcomingenlargement, the Union’s fifth, will usher in anew era with tremendous challenges, particularlyfor the social partners. The report presented inlate January by the high-level group on industrialrelations and change, chaired by Ms J. Rodrigues,outlines these challenges and puts forwardguidelines for the future.

Nowadays industrial relations are at the core ofthe Member States’ economic and socialorganisation. They play a decisive part in shapingEurope’s identity, an area of free enterprise andfree competition, but also responsibility,compliance with rules on equal treatment forworkers, solidarity and dialogue.

Industrial, labour or employment relationsregulate the link between the company and theemployee and also, indirectly, between society asa whole and its citizens. They cover both thecontent of the labour relationship and the wageor salary, and also the arrangements for workingtime (which affect all other aspects of life), ruleson access to employment and hence the fluidityof the labour market. In addition, industrialrelations in Europe enhance the value of contractsfreely negotiated between independent players,partners in building the social area.

The salient feature of labour relations in the EUMember States is the role played by the socialpartners who represent the interests of employees

and businesses. Recognition has been given totheir rights, which are based on their ability toregulate, by means of agreements, numerousaspects of labour relations; at the same time, theyhave become partners of the public authorities inmany economic and social fields. Today thispartnership takes shape in different ways, inparticular in the negotiation of national pacts andwhen the social partners are consulted ongovernment initiatives and policies.

The Maastricht Treaty placed the social partnersand industrial relations at the heart of theEuropean venture. The consultation processestablished by Article 138 of the Treaty and thesocial partners’ ability to open negotiations onany topic coming within their responsibilitiesgives tangible recognition to their contribution.Europe has clearly opted for a system of labourrelations based on the social partners’ bargainingcapacity. More than in other areas, this optiondistinguishes and gives a strong identity to theEU, which is not found in the other similarly-developed regions.

In pursuing its work on the Social Policy Agendaadopted at the Nice European Council inDecember 2000, the Commission intends topromote the quality of employment andindustrial relations and social policy generally.Over and above the clearly-defined procedureswhich enable all interested parties to take actionor be heard, it is vital that industrial relationsmeet the challenges now facing the EU andconstitute a force for change and modernisation,not a barrier.

The European social partners have been requestedto take part in this collective effort to moderniseour employment relations. In the context of theirsocial dialogue and the agreements they canconclude (on telework or vocational training inparticular) or in the context of implementing theEuropean employment strategy guidelines andthe Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, theircontribution is indispensable and decisive.

On account of its very organisation, from the levelof the company to that of the centralisedindustrial branch, the social dialogue can bringforward new, innovative solutions, adapted to the


EditoEditorial

1 The 2000 edition covered the following issues: Industrial relations atnational and European level, labour law, wages, working time and thesocial pacts

business environment and providing appropriatebalances between flexibility and security. In manyfields, social dialogue stimulates innovation.Moreover, being based on discussion, then, whereappropriate, freely-negotiated commitments andagreements, the social dialogue is one of the mostrefined forms of good governance. In the contextof the debate under way on governance, theEuropean social dialogue constitutes anexemplary practice: associating external players indecision-making. It plays a big part in promotingwidespread, open discussion on what is at stake inthe building of Europe and also directly involvesthe world of work in setting the European Union’sgoals.

Now that the European Union is forging aheadwith integration and the Euro has successfullybecome legal tender, labour relations will becalled upon to deal with new questions: mobility,transferability of rights and equal treatment.

These new challenges are emerging while, at thesame time, in all Member States of the Union, theindustrial relations systems are themselvesdealing with radical change.

The 2002 report focuses on a number of the mostdistinctive aspects of the challenges mentionedabove: the social partners' contribution to theEuropean venture, the training of new Europeanpartners, notably at sectoral level, andpreparations for enlargement.

The European social dialogue has gained strengthon both fronts of its activities: tripartiteconcertation and bipartite dialogue. The socialpartners’ joint declaration presented on theoccasion of the Laeken Social Summit on 13December 2001 clearly displays their willingness toextend their action over the coming years.

The setting in place of a single consultation forumfor all aspects of the strategy decided upon at theLisbon European Council in March 2000 grantsofficial recognition to the responsibility shared byall the players on macroeconomic and monetarypolicy matters and as regards the structural reformsof the labour market and employment policy.

The European social partners’ undertaking toopen discussions on drawing up a multiannualwork programme by the end of 2002 illustratestheir willingness to contribute actively and inadvance to the different issues at stake in SocialEurope (quality, employment, anticipation ofchange).

Beyond this formal involvement and theintention to participate in building up European

structures, the actual results of social dialogueactivities have been limited and marked by thefirst failure of cross-industry negotiations afternine months of discussion on temporary workand the lack of any substantial contribution onemployment. However, marked progress wasmade on reinforcing European provisions onworker information and consultation, extendedto establishments with more than 50 employees.After more than 30 years of fruitless discussions,the European Company Statute now offers abalanced framework which makes life moresimple for companies, while providing newguarantees for employees. With a view tomanaging restructuring in a responsible andcontrolled fashion, the rules on workerinformation and consultation have been fleshedout and extended to all establishments with morethan 50 employees.

The European rules on combating discriminationconstitute genuine progress for Europe asguardian of fundamental rights and equalopportunities.

Following on from the 2000 report, the firstchapter reviews the measures introduced in theMember States to extend collective agreements.These provisions are essential to understandingthe scope of Article 139 of the Treaty whichprovides for an extension procedure and alsoallows the social partners, if they so wish, to makeuse of national arrangements for implementation.

Representativeness is a key issue. The Commissionhas examined representativeness in a number ofcommunications on the social dialogue (COM(93) 600 final and COM (1998) 322 final), settingout its approach to implementation of Article 138of the Treaty.

To take part in the consultation process underArticle 138 of the Treaty, the social-partnerorganisations have to fulfil the following threecriteria:– be multisectoral, or relate to specific sectors or

categories and be organised at European level;– consist of organisations which are themselves

recognised as part of Member States’ socialpartner structures and have the capacity tonegotiate agreements and, in so far as possible,be representative of all the Member States;

– have adequate structures to ensure their effec-tive participation in the consultation process.

At present some 30 European-scale organisationsmeet these criteria. The Commission is followingdevelopments in this area very closely by meansof a study on representativeness, which will coverother occupational categories.


Editorial

The 2002 report covers eight sectors presented ina broad context, including the economicsituation and employment. Despite the unequalprogress among national organisations, thesectoral players are increasingly organised at EUlevel.

The European Union’s key rendezvous in theforthcoming period is enlargement. It representsan enormous challenge on account of thegeographical expansion (territory up by 34%) anddemographic aspect (population up by 28%) andalso the juxtaposition of two very differenthistories and extremely diverse industrialrelations practices.

The social partners of the Union are alreadyinvolved in the enlargement process and havebuilt bridges with organisations in the candidatecountries, both through affiliation and exchangesand information. The European conferencesorganised by the social partners in Warsaw andBratislava sought to strengthen these links.

Several key questions arise in this context. Thestatus of the social partners has often beenweakened during the transition process. The far-reaching economic reforms have promptedorganisations to restructure and redefine their

operations. The social-partner organisations inthe candidate countries have not yet completedtheir reshaping and restructuring: hence theexistence of numerous players and uncertainty asto how they will develop. The nature of the roleassigned to partnership and social dialogue haschanged considerably in recent years. Centralisedtripartite set-ups leave room for manydecentralised, bipartite social-dialogue forums,while the interested parties are not ready to takeon this new role; they have no terms of referenceor legitimate status. The candidate countries havepractically no sectoral social dialogue, so atransitional balance has to be found betweenapproaches discussed on a tripartite basis andvoluntary negotiation in sectors or undertakingscapable of carrying through such negotiations.

During the catching-up process, the socialpartners will play a crucial role. Labour relationswill determine the pace of this process and itsquality. Against that background, the Europeansocial model, and in particular its dual balancebetween the economic and social dimensions andbetween the role of the decentralised players andthe public authorities, can be seen as a rampartand a trail-blazer in the successful management ofchange.


Editorial

Social relations in the workplace – some indicators

The employment situation in Europe sets the scenefor industrial relations, although such relationscannot be reduced to mere economic variables. Wepropose to describe employment and labourconditions in Europe using some composite ind-icators.

1 Growth of productivity and distribution of value added

As we indicated in the 2000 report, the growth inreal labour productivity gains and in the share ofwages in value added is causing a situation of wagerestraint and a sharing of wealth in favour ofcapital.

Inconsistent but widespread productivity gains(Figure 1). All countries have experienced growthin labour productivity in the three periodsexamined here. Following a drop in theintermediate period 1990-94, these levels, whilesometimes high, remain fairly average acrossEurope. (However, we must not lose sight of thefact that these increases in GDP are the result ofseveral factors, which are not clear from theseaggregated data).

Labour costs (Figure 2), which include basic wagesand indirect labour costs, have also increased,though this growth is slight in relation to theEuropean Union average and is uneven across thevarious Member States. The exception is Spain,

where annual growth in these costs fell beforeincreasing significantly. On average, therefore,Europe experienced a moderate increase inearnings from work during this period.

The distribution of value added has on the wholebeen more favourable to capital than to labour(Figure 3). This is clear from the graph below,which illustrates the data from the first two series.The share of wages in European GDP fell by anaverage of 0.5% per year. Only the United Kingdomand Sweden experienced growth in salaries duringthe latest period.

While the level of tensions in industrial relationsis not evident from the number of actual strikesalone, it may be examined in terms of the numberof working days lost from strikes. The graph below

Preliminary observationsPreliminary observations


-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK E15

1985-90 1990-94 1994-2000

Annual average % change incompensation per employee

Growth of labour productivity, 1985-90, 1990-94 and 1994-2000

Source: Eurostat, National Accounts

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


1

2

3

4

5

6Annual average % change in GDP per person employed 1985-90 1990-94 1994-2000

Change in labour costs per employee, 1985-90, 1990-94 and 1994-2000

2


-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2


Annual average % change in real unit labour costs 1985-90 1990-94 1994-2000

Change in wage share per unit of GDP, 1985-90, 1990-94 and 1994-2000


31


Preliminary observations

shows a reduction in the average number of strikedays per year for the three periods under review inall EU Member States, with the exception ofDenmark and Sweden.

2 Structural data for employment and training

As we know, the increasing number of women inthe workforce brings with it inequality anddiscrimination, which are of the utmost concern tothe social partners.

Equal opportunities for men and women inEurope, in terms of access to employment andequal and fair remuneration, are improving.

The percentage of women in employment remainslower than that of men. The rate of employment ofnon-European non-nationals is significantly lowerthan that of nationals. (Figures 5 and 6)

The two graphs illustrate this discrimination inemployment, particularly in relation to women.

An uneven pattern emerges when levels ofeducation in Europe are examined in relation toemployment.

The European average shows the relative equalityof education levels between men and women, butthis average equivalence conceals significantdiversity across the Member States.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

A D L UK P NL EL B F S I IRL FIN E DK0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

4501986-90 1991-94 1995-99Number per 100,000 days of total working, average per year

Number of working days lost from strikes per 100,000 days worked, 1986-90, 1991-94

and 1995-99

4

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on industrial disputes

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU0

4

8

12

16

20

24% of men 25-39

D and I: Non-EU nationals refer to the total number irrespective of their country of birth

NationalsNon-EU nationals

Unemployment rates of men aged 25-39 by nationality, 2000

5

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

NationalsNon-EU nationals

% of women 25-39

D and I: Non-EU nationals refer to the total number irrespective of their country of birth

Unemployment rates of women aged 25-39 by nationality, 2000


6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B DK D EL E F I L NL A P FIN S UK E150

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% total employed Left bar men, right bar women Low Medium High

Education attainment levels of men and women aged 25-59 in Member States, 2000


7

An examination of education levels by age givesgrounds for optimism as education levels are higherfor younger groups. This trend is confirmed amongboth women (Figure 9) and men (Figure 8).

The provision of training is unevenly distributedacross Member States (Figure 10).

Although the level of ongoing training provided isslightly higher for women than for men in mostEuropean Union countries, a comparison revealsconsiderable differences: levels are significantlyhigher in Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdomthan in other countries.

These same countries also stand out as regards prov-ision for older workers aged 50 and over (Figure 11).

Level of education is a crucial factor of employability,particularly for women.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P E I B L EL E15 UK NL F FIN D A S DK0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Upper secondary Tertiary

% each age group Left bar: 50-54; middle bar: 40-44; right bar: 30-34

Education attainment levels of men by age group, 2000


8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P E I UK L E15 EL F B NL A D DK S FIN0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Upper secondary Tertiary

% each age group Left bar: 50-54; middle bar: 40-44; right bar: 30-34

Education attainment levels of women by age group, 2000


9

0

20

40

60

80

100

P D I EL F NL IRL E B A EU UK FIN DK S0

20

40

60

80

100General education

Vocational training

Proportion of employed men and women aged 25-49 who received training over previous year in Member States, 1998

Source: Eurostat, European Community Household Panel

10

0

20

40

60

80

D P NL EL I F IRL E B A EU UK FIN DK S0

20

40

60

80General education

Vocational training

Proportion of employed men and women aged 50-64 who received vocational training over previous year in Member States, 1998

Source: Eurostat, European Community Household Panel

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

S E EL I F FIN E15 D L B UK DK A NL P0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Women Men% population 25-59

Figure 12 Employment rates of men andwomen aged 25-59 with a high level

of education, 2000


12



3 Working conditions and quality of employment

When asked about the quality of their workingconditions, European workers give various answersdepending on the criteria applied and the countryin question.

Among countries with figures above the EUaverage, the level of job satisfaction is, para-doxically, close to the percentage of employees whofeel they are working in conditions which pose ahealth risk and often inadequate workingconditions (Figure 15). The lowest level ofsatisfaction for all criteria was found among thecountries of southern Europe.

Fewer than 5% of European workers fall into thecategory of involuntary temporary work. But thisaverage conceals disparities of up to 25% (Spain).

Weekly working hours vary considerably inEurope. While 4% of the EU population aged 25-64work fewer than 15 hours per week, this figure isclose to 10% in the Netherlands (Figure 17).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FIN D I S E15 EL E A F P UK B DK L NL0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Employment rates of men aged 25-59 with a medium level of education, 2000


13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FIN D A B UK F I S DK E15 E NL L EL P0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Figure 14 Employment rates of men and women aged 25-59

with a low level of education, 2000

14


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

EL E I FIN D S B DK0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Satisfaction with working conditionsSatisfaction with jobWork does not endanger health

P F E15 UK L NL A IRL

Job quality indicators 15

Source: Eurostat, European Household Panel and European Foundationfor the Improvement in Living and Working Conditions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A IRL D UK DK I E15 NL B S P EL FIN E0

5

10

15

20

25

30

351995 2000

% employees 15+

Share of employees in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent

ones, 1995 and 2000


16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

EL E P I A IRL E15 UK0

2

4

6

8

10

121990 1994 2000% total 25-64

FIN L F B DK S D NL

Total employed aged 25-64 working <15 hours a week in 1990, 1994 and 2000


17



If only employment among women is taken intoaccount, these figures are respectively 8% for theEU and 20% for the Netherlands.

Conversely, employees working over 50 hours perweek are more common in both categories andthere are more 'over-employed' men (Figure 19)than women (Figure 20). Over-employment isparticularly pronounced in the countries ofsouthern Europe, although it has fallen in the lastdecade.

The graph below summarises the differences inconcentration of weekly working hours inEurope. The lines illustrate the distribution ofworking hours of the average third of the workingpopulation, while the top and bottom representthe top and bottom thirds respectively. In theNetherlands, for example, a third of the workforceworks fewer than 32 hours per week and a thirdworks more than 39 hours, while in the UnitedKingdom these thresholds are significantly higher,respectively 36 and 42 hours.

4 Mobility and integration into the labour market

Mobility is an indication of a series of complexmovements in the labour market and between vol-untary and involuntary inactivity and employment.

The composite index of labour mobility (Figure 22)takes account of job rotation (for 50% of the index)and inflows into employment following a period ofunemployment, after leaving the education systemand having looked after a family.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

EL E P I A IRL E15 UK0

5

10

15

20

25

301990 1994 2000% total 25-64

FIN L F B DK S D NL

Women employed aged 25-64 working <15 hours a week in 1990, 1994 and 2000

18


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

L S B P D I E15 EL0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1994 2000% total

NL A F FIN DK E IRL UK

Men employed working 50+ hours per week, 1990, 1994


19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

L S B P D I E15 EL0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

181990 1994 2000% total

NL A F FIN DK E IRL UK

Women employed working 50+ hours per week, 1990, 1994 and 2000

Figure 20 Women employed working 50+ hours per week, 1990, 1994and 2000

20

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

B DK D E F EL IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EU30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

Bottom third (ie one third of employees work fewer hours than this)

Top third (ie a third of employees work longer hours than this)

Number of hours worked per week

Usual weekly hours worked by top andbottom third of employees in industry

and services ranked by hours worked, 2000


21



The graph (Figure 22) below illustrates thesesituations and shows the extent to which thevarious national employment systems avoid labell-ing workers who experience unemploymentsituations.

In addition, as already mentioned, the probabilityof finding a job is increased by level of educationand gender. With the notable exception of Portugal(where the rate of employment of women and low-skilled workers is very high), the difficultiesexperienced by European women in entering thelabour market after fulfilling family responsibilitiesare greater the further north they live. The sameapplies to young people.

The graphs (Figures 24 and 25) illustrate the diffe-rences in retirement age for men and women. Theymay be read as follows: two thirds of the popu-lation are distributed (and more or lessconcentrated according to the length of the line)between the top and bottom of the vertical lines.One sixth of the population leaves before the lowerage and one sixth after the upper age. Nationalsituations vary significantly. The retirement age forwomen is generally lower than for men, except in

Mediterranean countries with a high percentage ofagricultural workers. The northern countries havenoticeably shorter lines, and retirement is based ona shorter period of time. However, the lower andupper ages can vary considerably even within the'northern' countries of the EU. For example, inSweden most people retire between the ages of 60and 65, which is much later than in Germany,where most retire between the ages of 56 and 62.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

EL I B FIN E F EU A L S D P NL UK IRL DK

Composite index of labour mobility


22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B D FIN EL I NL A F E15 S UK DK P E0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Unemployed 1 year before in workYoung people, 15-24, finding employment on moving from education into the labour marketWomen, 25-49, finding employment on returning to the labour force after fulfilling family responsibilities

% unemployed 1 year before in work

People in employment one year after beingunemployed, LFS data, 1999-2000


23

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

DK D EL E I L NL A P FIN S UK45

50

55

60

65

70

75Age at which 1/6 of women have retired

Age at which 5/6 of women have retired

Age

B, F, IRL: no data

Retirement age of women in Member States, 2000


24

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

DK D EL E I L NL A P FIN S UK45

50

55

60

65

70

75Age at which 1/6 of men have retiredAge at which 5/6 of men have retired

Age

B, F, IRL: no data

Retirement age of men in MemberStates, 2000


25


Principal advances

in labour relations

in Europe

Involvement of the social partnersInvolvement of the social partners


The role of the social partners is a key feature of theEuropean social model, which combines a numberof values — responsibility, solidarity andparticipation. All aspects of the social dialogue —from consultation to negotiation — help to makethe decision-making procedure more effective andenhance good European governance. The socialpartners’ involvement in the dialogue has gonehand in hand with progress in Europeanintegration. The seventies was above all the periodwhen the national organisations expressed atEuropean level the concerns of their members,employees and businesses, a first stage wherenational representatives could be consulted on atripartite basis and give their opinions onCommunity policies. From 1985 onwards, on theinitiative of Jacques Delors, steps were takentowards a more independent dialogue, the beginningsof a European bargaining area.

At cross-industry level, the Social Dialogue Com-mittee is a forum for ongoing, independent,bipartite dialogue; it has technical working partieson macroeconomics, the labour market, andeducation and training.

At industry level, the sectoral social dialoguecommittees have now been established and thescope of their initiatives is expanding.

The social partners also play a part in preparing thework of the Council, together with the MemberStates and the Commission, in the context oftripartite concertation, which has intensified inrecent years.

Since 1985, the results of the social dialogue in itsvarious guises have become increasingly diverse:from joint texts (joint opinions, statements andjoint contributions) to framework agreementsnegotiated under the Treaty.

The social partners have thus made a start onsetting up their own genuine bargaining area.

During the 2000–2001 period, the social partners’contribution took shape against a very specialbackground: the new strategy launched in Lisbon andthe social agenda, which set the targets for Europeansocial policy until 2005.

An additional factor was the prospect of Europe’s fifthenlargement.

The social partners were accordingly involved in allstages of implementation of the "active welfarestate" launched by the Lisbon European Council(23 and 24 March 2000) which set Europe a newgoal: "to become the most competitive and dynamicknowledge-based economy in the world, capable ofsustaining economic growth, with more and better jobsand greater social cohesion".

At Feira (19 and 20 June 2000), the Councilconfirmed its optimism: economic and socialrenewal, full employment, social cohesion andjustice; it called on all interested parties to playtheir part.

In Nice (7 and 8 December 2000), the Social PolicyAgenda adopted by the Council set forth a five-yearwork programme, aiming to make social policies averitable productive factor. The European Councilassigned the social partners a central role inimplementing and monitoring the agenda, notablyon the occasion of an annual meeting to be heldbefore the spring European Council.

In Stockholm (23 and 24 March 2001), theCouncil underlined the importance of the socialpartners' role in managing change. To contribute tothis aim, it endorsed the setting-up of the EuropeanObservatory for Industrial Change.

In Gothenburg (16 June 2001), the EuropeanCouncil adopted a strategy for sustainabledevelopment and added an environmentaldimension to the Lisbon process for employment,economic reform and social cohesion.

In Laeken (14 and 15 December 2001), theEuropean Council welcomed the social partners’willingness to develop their social dialogue byjointly drawing up a multiannual work programmebefore the European Council in 2002. It also notedtheir desire to develop and improve coordinationof tripartite concertation on the various aspects ofthe Lisbon strategy and confirmed that a socialaffairs summit would be held in future before eachspring European Council.


Involvement of the social partners

In addition, since the Luxembourg Summit (20 and21 November 1997), the social partners have beenclosely associated in the European employmentstrategy. The 2001 employment guidelines furtherreinforced their involvement by confirming theirparticipation in national action plans foremployment and their role in monitoring andassessment, inviting them to establish their ownprocess in accordance with their national traditionsand practices.

The social partners responded to this invitation bybecoming fully involved in introducing change andparticipating in reinforcement and modernisation of theEuropean social model.

The development of new forms of employmentwhich can reconcile the need for greater flexibilitywith security are a key component of change. Thecross-industry negotiations on telework, whichstarted on 12 October 2001, are in line with thisnew goal. The social partners’ commitment isespecially important in so far as, for the first time,the agreement resulting from their negotiationswill not be incorporated into a Council directive.The guidelines negotiated on a voluntary basissigned on 7 February 2001 in the telecom-munications industry and the agreement signedin the commerce sector on 26 April 2001 ontelework will constitute a reference and source ofinspiration for the negotiators.

The negotiations launched in June 2000 ontemporary employment also tie in with the aim offinding new forms of flexibility and security.Although they were inconclusive, despite the manymediation meetings organised by the Commission,the social partners worked for nine months in aEuropean bargaining area and arrived at manypoints of consensus which served as a basis for theCommission in preparing its proposed legislation.

Anticipating change

The social partners also acted as agents for changein the preparations for the recently-inauguratedEuropean Monitoring Centre on Change. Theydefined its tasks in their joint opinion of November2000 and are now taking part in its steeringcommittee. Thanks to its capacity for analysis, theMonitoring Centre will keep the key players atterritorial, sectoral and company levels informedabout change.

Various industries also expressed willingness tocontribute to the employment strategy under theadaptability pillar. The agreement concluded on 22March 2000 on working time in civil aviation isa good example. It is at industry level that theplayers have to deal most directly with industrial

change: that is why a number of sectors have issuedstatements of support for the European MonitoringCentre on Change. Others, such as electricity,postal services and telecommunications, reactedstrongly, by means of joint statements, to the socialrepercussions of privatisation. Similarly, the civilaviation industry is continuing its deliberations onthe social consequences of the "single sky".

Lifelong learning

Investment by companies in human capital andlifelong learning for their employees to enablethem to enhance their skills and adapt to newtechniques and know-how has become a key issuein the context of change. As a result, the cross-industry social partners decided to tackle trainingdifferently from their previous approach in thejoint opinions adopted in the 1985–1999 period.Since October 2000, they have been focusing onidentifying ways and means of access to lifelonglearning and reflecting on the development ofpersonal skills. Their discussions (lasting more thanone year) culminated in a report for the BarcelonaEuropean Council in March 2002.

The social partners have organised practicalmeasures closer to the grass roots in the differentsectors. The reasons for these initiatives variedfrom one sector to another: mobility inspired theEuropean forum on the mutual recognition oflicences in sea fishing in Europe at Bénodet,France on 13 and 14 October 2000. Training wasrecognised as a tool for modernisation and skillrenewal in the postal, footwear, leather,textiles and clothing, and cleaning indus-tries. New qualifications needs caused by changesin the industry gave rise to the establishment ofthink tanks on employability in the differenttransport sectors.

In the telecommunications sector, someworking groups debated on the future skills needsand job profiles in the ICT and telecommu-nications sector.

European employment strategy

As for the European employment strategy, at thisstage, the social partners have limited themselvesto exchanging experiences at European level andproducing a compendium of good practices linkedto the strategy’s four pillars. They have not yetmade a start on their own process for scrutinisingthe national plans. It has to be said that theirparticipation in the strategy is a big challenge forthem: operating simultaneously at national, cross-industry and European level is far from easy.



Quality

Quality is an essential part of strengthening andmodernising the European social model. It has becomea common theme of the Lisbon strategy and shouldbecome the benchmark by which social policies aredevised and evaluated. It comprises guarantees onthe exercise of fundamental and social rights, equalopportunities for men and women, the preventionof new forms of insecurity and active reduction ofexclusion, decent levels of health and safety and ahigh standard of social protection. The quality ofsocial policy also includes services, which combinecompetence with the social dimension.

The private security sector and the cleaning sectorare promoting quality in employment and servicesthrough manuals on selecting best value in publictendering. The sector social partners in all MemberStates have implemented the manual in privatesecurity.

Fundamental rights and equal opportunities

Initiatives were most numerous at sectoral level inthe very sensitive area of fundamental rights andequal opportunities.

Most of the undertakings in the fashion industryare modern, competitive SMEs employing 2.6million workers across the European Union.However, the fashion industry employs a total of 6million people within the Euromed economic andcommercial area, including the applicantcountries. Hence the importance of activepartnership in applying codes of conduct in theindustry.

A code of conduct was signed by theleather/tanning industry on 10 July 2000. Thisinnovative code covers the guiding principles ofhealth and safety at work, maximum workingtimes, rest periods, overtime and minimum wages.It enforces respect for workers’ dignity and strictlyprohibits any physical abuse, threats and sexualharassment. The code also covers activities that arecontracted out — even at international level — andestablishes a number of control, verification andappeal mechanisms.

The most recent code, adopted by the footwearindustry on 17 November 2000, includes moni-toring machinery similar to that of theleather/tanning industry code. It opens the way forchecks by specialised, independent institutes.Employers in the retail footwear trade have alsoadopted the code and the social partners in thedistributive trades in general have already adopted

a code of conduct covering fundamental rights.On the same tack, the textiles and clothingindustry produced a compendium of best practiceon women’s employment in the industry and acode of conduct was signed in the hairdressingindustry on 26 June 2001.

A guide on best practices in the postal sector wasadopted.

Social protection

At cross-industry level, the social partnersparticipated, in the context of the new openmethod of coordination set in place in Lisbon, inthe work of the Social Protection Committeeestablished in December 2000. They were alsoassociated in the debate on pension viabilitywithin the recently-established Pensions Forum.They were thus fulfilling their natural role as theyplay a decisive part in framing European socialpolicy and are involved in the national socialprotection systems.

In contrast, their contribution to preparation of thenational action plans to combat social exclusionwas rather limited.

As for the quality of services, ETUC and CEEPadopted on 15 June 2000 a charter for services ofgeneral interest where they drew attention to thefundamental responsibilities of the publicauthorities in this field. High quality services ofgeneral interest support economic developmentand have strong job-creation potential.

Health and safety

Health and safety is of paramount importance toworkers. That is why many sectoral social dialoguecommittees have focused on the subject indifferent ways. In farming and the cleaning andsugar industries, information packs have beenproduced for workers and disseminated widely. Theconstruction industry is taking part in thepreparation and monitoring of Community law onhealth and safety. As mentioned above, the code ofconduct in the leather/tanning industry includesguidelines on health and safety.

Industrial relations

Quality is also indispensable in industrial relationsand was one of the aims of the Social Agenda. It isintrinsically linked to the deliberations ongovernance at all levels.

The White Paper on governance of June 2001 raisedthe question of the social partners’ place and rolein European civil society. Similarly, the high-level



group on industrial relations and the managementof change set up in 2001 raised the issue of good-quality industrial relations and the conditions forattaining them. The group’s recommendations areexpected for 2002.

The quality of social dialogue depends also on closelinks between the European level and the national,regional and local levels; it is the key to the successof the social partners’ contribution to theemployment strategy and the recently-introducedinclusion strategy.

As we have seen, it is a collective learning process.

The joint declaration signed by UEAPME and ETUCon 5 July 2001 is an example of high-qualityindustrial relations.

The social partners’ joint contribution to theLaeken European Council also refers to thequality of their dialogue. They wish to strengthentheir special role in European governance,distinguish more clearly between bipartite socialdialogue and tripartite social concertation, tightenthe links between tripartite concertation on thedifferent aspects of the Lisbon strategy and givenew impetus to their social dialogue through amultiannual work programme.

In this context it is also interesting to note thegrowing involvement of the Social Partners in theplanning and implementation of the StructuralFunds. Partnership was an innovating principle ofthe 1988 reform of the Structural Funds and theinvolvement of the social partners was stressed inthe 1993 revision of the Funds. The 1999regulation of the Structural Funds reinforced thisinvolvement.

Enlargement

It is of vital importance that the social partners ofthe candidate countries are well prepared forenlargement. For them that means building up anindependent social dialogue with structuredemployers’ and trade union organisations capableof conferring together on a bipartite basis andultimately negotiating agreements.

The first conference on the role of the socialpartners in the enlargement process, organised inWarsaw in March 1999 at the joint request of thesocial partners and with Commission support,constituted a decisive point of departure for thesocial dialogue in the candidate countries. Sincethat conference, the social partners have launchednumerous initiatives both jointly and individually.

The social partners organised jointly a conference

in Bratislava in March 2000; it assembled socialpartners from the European Union and thirteencandidate countries. The aim was to present anddiscuss the main results of a joint study, "Socialdialogue and consultation in the candidatecountries, status and prospects", which took stockof consultation and social dialogue systems andpractices in the candidate countries. The statementadopted on conclusion of the conference gave afirst status report on the social dialogue in thesecountries and made suggestions for practicalaction.

The follow-up to Bratislava will be an integral partof forthcoming work in the cross-industry socialdialogue. A first step was the organisation for thefirst time of a Social Dialogue Committee meetingwith social partners from the candidate countrieson 29 January last.

Individual operations have also been organised,such as the fourth employers’ round table in Nicosiain 2000 on health and safety and the fifth roundtable in Berlin in 2001 on worker information andconsultation. These round tables have beenorganised since 1997 and have gradually becomean indispensable tool for employers in discussingamong themselves the most sensitive issues invol-ved in transposing the Community acquis.

In addition, missions of general interest constitutea major challenge for the Member States and formpart of the Community acquis to be taken on boardin the candidate countries.

After a first seminar in 1999 in Brussels, which tookstock of the problems of public undertakings andundertakings of general interest in the candidatecountries, CEEP organised a second one in 2001on more specialised matters (financial conditionsfor modernising infrastructure, training and skillsmanagement).

Again, Social Partners' involvement in theplanning, monitoring and implementation of theStructural Funds will become a requirement in theenlargement process.

Towards the end of 1999, ETUC launched a studyon "Central and Eastern Europe in EU enterprises’strategy for industrial restructuring and relocation".This study reviewed not only the sometimesconsiderable adjustments at local level, but also theopportunities created by relocation in terms ofcompetitiveness and economic growth in anenlarged European Union.

Date Subject Social partners’ contribution Result

1993 European works council Opinion Directive 94/45/EC

1995 Reconciling working Agreement Directive 96/34/EClife and family life on parental leave,

14 December 19951995 Burden of proof in Directive 97/80/EC

cases of discriminationbased on sex

1995 Flexibility in working time • Agreement on part-time Directive 97/81/ECand worker security work, 6 June 1996

• Agreement on fixed- Directive 99/70/ECterm work, 18 March 1999

• Failure of negotiations on Proposal adopted by the temporary work Commission on

20 March 20021996 Fight against sexual Political agreement

harassment on 17 April 20021997 Worker information Agreement reached on 17

and consultation December 2001 in the Conciliation Committee

2000 Protection of workers Opinion Political agreementagainst their employer’s in the Council on insolvency common position

on 3 December 20012000 Modernising and improving Negotiations in hand -

employment relationships on telework2000 Asbestos Opinion Directive adopted by the

Commission on 20 July 20012000 Health and safety at Opinion Proposal for a Commission

work for the self-employed Recommendation in preparation

2001 Data protection Opinion -2002 Anticipating and

managing change



Consultation under Article 138

Article 138 Treaty gives the social partners the rightto be consulted in two stages on the advisability anddirection of a proposal and its content. The areas onwhich the Commission is required to consult thesocial partners are set out in Article 137 of the Treaty.

On completion of the consultation, the organi-sations consulted may submit an opinion orrecommendation to the Commission or inform it oftheir intention to open negotiations on the subjectof the consultation. The consultation steers a coursebetween agreements and legislation. Theseprovisions have been used eleven times since 1993.In three cases, the social partners negotiated aframework agreement implemented at Europeanlevel by means of a Council directive (parental leave,part-time work and fixed-term work). In one casethey commenced negotiations but did not come toany agreement (temporary work). In the context ofmodernising employment relationships, the socialpartners have opened negotiations on telework.

Commission Social Partners

Proposal in the social policy field

If Community actionis desirable

Where appropriateCommission follow-up

Where appropriateCommission follow-up

Agreement

art. 138

Negotiation

Nine monthsunless extended

Consultation on

possible direction

Failure

Opinion

or recommendation

Opinion

Consultation on the

content ofenvisaged proposal

Choice



Framework agreements

Article 139(2) of the Treaty states: "Agreementsconcluded at Community level shall be imple-mented either in accordance with the proceduresand practices specific to management and labourand the Member States or, in matters covered byArticle 137, at the joint request of the signatoryparties, by a Council decision on a proposal fromthe Commission."

Of the nine agreements concluded by the Europeansocial partners, five have been implemented bymeans of a Council directive. The social partners inthe agriculture, telecommunications and com-merce sectors preferred to relay the terms of theiragreements in further agreements and texts signedat both national and company level.

Commission CouncilSocial Partners

Agreement

Implementation underthe social partners’ and

the Member Statesown procedures

and practices

Commission askedto submit the

agreement forimplementation

by Council decision(field coveredby Article 137)

The Council discussesthe proposal forimplementing

the social partner’sagreement

The Counciladopts aDirective,

a Regulationor a Decision

Proposal forthe agreementto be extended

The Councilrejects theproposal

The Commissiondoes not adopt the

proposal

The Commission assessesthe representativity of

the contracting parties, theirmandate, the legality of each

clause of the collectiveagreement in respectof Community law and

compliance withthe provisions

concerningSMEs



Agreement Implementing provisions Implementation

Agreement on the role Text taken overof the social partners in Articles 138 andin the development of 139 of the Treatythe Community social dimensionOctober 1991

Framework agreement "The ETUC, UNICE and CEEP request the Commission Council Directiveon parental leave to submit this Framework Agreement to the 96/34/EC14 December 1995 Council for a decision making these requirements 3 June 1996

binding in the Member States of the European Report on Community with the exception implementation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in preparationand Northern Ireland." in Commission

Framework agreement "The ETUC, UNICE and CEEP request the Council Directiveon part-time work Commission to submit this Framework 97/81/EC6 June 1997 Agreement to the Council for a decision 15 December 1997

making these requirements binding in the Member States which are party to the Agreement on social policy annexed to the Protocol on social policy annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community."

Recommendation "Collective bargaining is an effective means of Implementationframework agreement on developing and implementing policies aimed through national the improvement of paid at promoting and improving employment. collective agreementsemployment in agriculture The social partners within the agricultural Monitoring in handin the Member States sector, represented at European level by the within sectoral socialof the European Union GEOPA/COPA and the EFA/ETUC, recognise dialogue committee24 July 1997 each other’s independent power of negotiation on agriculture

under the provisions of Article 118b of the Treaty on European Union and Article 4(1) of the Agreement on Social Policy annexed to the Treaty…""Given the changing economic background to this recommendation framework agreement, the signatory parties ask the Joint Committee on social problems affecting agricultural workers in the European Union to examine the situation in the Member States in the various areas affected by this text every two years from the standpoint of both national legislation and applicable collective agreements."

European Agreement "…Whereas Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy Council Directive on the Organisation of provides that agreements concluded at European level 99/63/ECWorking Time of Seafarers may be implemented at the joint request of the 21 June 199930 September 1998 signatory parties by a Council decision on a proposal

from the Commission…"

Framework agreement "The ETUC, UNICE and CEEP request the Commission to Council Directive on fixed-term work submit this Framework Agreement to the Council 99/70/EC18 March 1999 for a decision making these requirements binding 28 June 1999

in the Member States which are party to the Agreement on social policy annexed to the Protocol (No 14) on social policy annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community."

European Agreement on "…Having regard to the fact that Article 139(2) of the Council Directivethe Organisation Treaty provides that agreements concluded at 2000/79/EC of Working Time of European level may be implemented at 27 November 2000Mobile Workers in the joint request of the signatory partiesCivil Aviation by a Council decision on a proposal22 March 2000 from the Commission,

Having regard to the fact that the signatory parties hereby make such a request…"

Guidelines for telework "The sectoral social dialogue committee recommends Implementation in Europe in these guidelines for adoption by the end of 2001, through collectivetelecommunications on a voluntary basis and according agreements at7 February 2001 to each country’s laws and collective bargaining practices. company level

The sectoral social dialogue committee agrees to monitor the adoption of these guidelines in 2002."

European framework "Social partners for commerce in different Member States Implementationagreement on guidelines of the European Union have chosen or may choose through collectiveon telework in commerce to regulate telework in various ways, through particular agreements26 April 2001 agreements on appropriate levels or through integrating at national and

telework -issues in existing collective agreements company level or recommendations…" or other provisions



The Social Dialogue Summits

The bipartite social dialogue, launched at ValDuchesse in 1985 by the then CommissionPresident, Jacques Delors, continues nowadays inthe Social Dialogue Committee and in its technicalworking parties (macroeconomics, labour market,education and training). Summits are organised atregular intervals to impart momentum and breaknew ground.

The social dialogue summits are high-levelmeetings between the cross-industry social partners(chairmen and general secretaries of ETUC, UNICEand CEEP and member organisations) chaired bythe Commission.

They may take the form of "plenary meetings"(with representatives of all national affiliates) or"restricted meetings" (mini-summits). The summitsfrom 1985 to 1997 fell under the first heading,while the Vienna and Brussels summits of 1998 and2000 fell into the latter category.

Date Place Outcome

31 January 1985 Val Duchesse I Social dialogue relaunched

12 November 1985 Val Duchesse II Establishment of two working parties: on macroeconomics and on new technologies and social dialogue

7 May 1987 Palais d’Egmont I Social dialogue reviewed for first time

12 January 1989 Palais d’Egmont II Establishment of a political steering group comprising representatives of the three organisation and the Commission, and two working parties: on education and training and labour market

3 July 1992 Palais d'Egmont III Joint statement on the future of the social dialogue (implementation of new Community dialogue procedures, consultation and negotiation in accordance with the agreement of 31 October 1991 and with the Maastricht Treaty)

28 September 1993 Palais d'Egmont IV Preparations for joint contribution to the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment

8 November 1994 Brussels, Commission Discussion on the role of vocational training

21 October 1995 Florence Launching of ECIRJoint statement on the fight against racismJoint statement on employment

29 November 1996 Dublin Castle Joint declaration on Action for employment: a confidence pact

6 June 1997 The Hague Signing of the social partners' agreement on part-time work

13 November 1997 Palais d'Egmont V Joint contribution to the Luxembourg summit on employment

2 June 1998 Val Duchesse III Discussion on the prospects for the social dialogue

4 December 1998 Vienna Exchange of views on the European Employment Strategy and on the Commission Communication of the organisation of work

25 May 2000 Brussels – Commission Exchange of views on the role of the social partners in following up the Lisbon European Council and with a view to the Forum of 15 June

22 March 2001 Stockholm Social partners' contribution to the Social Policy Agenda

13 December 2001 Laeken Prospects for the social dialogue: joint declaration by the social partners



The agenda for concertation: 2000/2001

The meetings between the European social partnersand the European institutions are known asconcertation.

Since 1970, the Standing Committee onEmployment -recast in 1999- has been meetingevery six months in the presence of therepresentatives of the Council, the Commissionand the social partners to discuss subjects ofimportance related to industrial change andemployment.

Tripartite concertation has made headway in recentyears: the social partners are now invited to regular,informal meetings with the troika of heads of stateor government on the sidelines of the EuropeanCouncils, with the Employment and Social AffairsCouncil, the Economic and Financial AffairsCouncil and the representatives of the EuropeanCentral Bank. The Cologne European Council ofJune 1999 established a macroeconomic dialogue,involving the social partners in the coordination ofeconomic, monetary, budgetary and fiscal policies.

11–12.02.2000 Informal Social Affairs Council, Lisbon Preparations for Social Affairs Council

13.3.2000 Standing Committee on Employment Preparations for Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000

22.3.2000 Social partners meet with the troïka Preparations for the Lisbon and the Commission, Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000

14.4.2000 and 08.5.2000 Macroeconomic Working Party a - Discussion on the economict technical and political level situation and prospects

- Broad economic policy guidelines

15.6.2000 Forum assembling the representatives Follow-up to the Cologne Europeanof the governments of the Member Council (December 1999),States, the Commission, the European discussion on contribution Parliament, the Economic and Social of the different players Committee, the Committee of the to the Lisbon strategy, Regions, the ECB, the EIB and the notably the social social partners, Brussels partners' contribution

08.7.2000 Informal Social Affairs Council, Paris Preparations for Social Affairs Council

17.10.2000 Standing Committee on Employment, Discussion on the 2001 17 October 2000 employment package

15.11.2000 Macroeconomic Working Party at Discussion on the economicand 27.11.2000 technical and political level situation and prospects

05.12.2000 Social partners meet with the Preparations for the Nice European troika and the Commission, Paris Council, 7 and 8 December 2000

21–23.01.2001 Informal Social Affairs Council, Preparations for Social Affairs Council Norrkoping

06.3.2001 Standing Committee on Employment Preparations for Stockholm European Council, 23 and 24 March 2001

05.4.2001 Macroeconomic Working Party at - Discussion on the economic and 07.5.2001 technical and political level situation and prospects

- Broad economic policy guidelines- Comparison of US/EU investment

performance

06–07.7.2001 Informal Social Affairs Council, Liège Preparations for Social Affairs Council

08.10.2001 Standing Committee on Employment Discussion on the 2002 employment package, notably the quality of employment

22.11.2001 Macroeconomic Working Party at Economic situation, prospects in the wakeand 03.12.2001 technical and political level of the events of 11 September 2001

Date Meeting Contex and Aim



European social partners and the social agenda

Anticipation and management of change

Air transport Management of social consequences of the "single sky" initiative

Footwear Support for establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on ChangeInsurance Support for establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on Change

Multisectoral level Follow-up to and establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on Changewithin the Dublin Foundation

Railways Start of discussions on working conditions for workers on interoperable networks and introduction of a European licence for such workers

Equal opportunitiesFundamental rights

Commerce Follow-up to the declaration of May 2000 on racism and xenophobiaImplementation of the 1999 agreement

Fisheries Deliberations on introduction of a social clause in fisheries agreements

Footwear Extension of the code of conduct on child labour to all fundamental rights (ILO conventions) signed in November 2000

Hairdressing Code of conduct signed on 26 June 2001

Postal services Compendium of good practices

Tanning Implementation of the code of conduct on fundamental rights, 10 July 2000

Telecommunications Establishment of the DIVERSITY working party covering subjects like equal opportunities, disabled workers and migrant workers.

Textiles and clothing Manual of good practices and recommendations concerning women’s employmentDeliberations on updating the code of conduct signed in 1997

Wood Implementation of the European wood industry social partners' charter

Quality of social policy

Cleaning Manual on selecting best value, 2001

Fisheries Standard social clause adopted in the fisheries sector; it will be included in all fisheries agreements between the European Union and third countries

Multisectoral level Follow-up to the ETUC/CEEP charter on services of general interestJoint ETUC/UEAPME declaration on the social dialogue

Private security Manual on selecting best value, 1999

Transport, footwear, Integration of the social dimension into the planning of Community policiesleather, textiles/clothing



Sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDC)

Sector Workers Employers Old Old New Committee informal SSDCgroup

Agriculture EFFAT GEOPA–COPA ✓ ✓

Air transport ECE; ETF ACI Europe; AEA; ERA; IACA ✓ ✓

Banking UNI–Europa EACB; ESBG; FBE; ✓ ✓

Cleaning UNI–Europa EFCI ✓ ✓

Commerce UNI–Europa EUROCOMMERCE ✓ ✓

Construction EFBWW FIEC ✓ ✓

Culture EEA PEARLE* ✓

Electricity EMCEF; EPSU EURELECTRIC ✓ ✓

Footwear ETUF–TCL CEC ✓ ✓

Furniture EFBWW UEA ✓

HORECA/Tourism EFFAT HOTREC ✓ ✓

Inland waterways ETF ESO/OEB; UINF ✓ ✓

Insurance UNI–Europa ACME; BIPAR; CEA ✓ ✓

Mining EMCEF APEP; CECSO ✓ ✓

Personal services (hairdressing) UNI–Europa CIC Europe ✓

Postal services UNI–Europa POSTEUROP ✓ ✓

Private security UNI–Europa CoESS ✓ ✓

Railways ETF CER ✓ ✓

Road transport ETF IRU ✓ ✓

Sea fishing ETF EUROPECHE/COGECA ✓ ✓

Sea transport ETF ECSA ✓ ✓

Sugar EFFAT CEFS ✓ ✓

Tanning/leather ETUF–TCL COTANCE ✓

Telecommunications UNI–Europa ETNO ✓ ✓

Temporary work UNI–Europa CIETT Europe ✓

Textiles/clothing ETUF–TCL EURATEX ✓ ✓

Wood EFBWW CEI–Bois ✓ ✓

TOTAL 10 12 27



Social partners’ contribution to the employment strategy

General contribution Vocational trainingAgriculture White Paper on employment Negotiations on the validation of

qualifications

Banking Work of group on employability Conference on best training practiceof bank staff (study completed in June 2001) Follow-up to the project on the

Cleaning Conference on evaluation and training kit for cleaners workingdevelopment of the social dialogue in the home in the sector, 19 and 20 April 2001 Project in hand on the trainingJoint contribution on employment, kit for basic cleaners 20 February 2001

Commerce Follow-up to the declaration on Implementation of the e-commerceemployment of April 2000 training projectAgreement on telework, April 2001

Construction Follow-up to a study on future vocational training needs

Culture Three-year work programme on good practice in employment in live performance and national round tables

Electricity Follow up to the Joint Declaration on the social consequences of sector restructuring.

Fisheries Analysis of matters relating to Preparatory work forrecruitment of young people the establishment of a networkfisheries training and employment

Footwear Implementation of a multiannual Project on setting up European-level action plan on competitiveness education and vocational trainingand employment institutesEstablishment of a joint database on collective agreements

Graphics Follow-up to the seminar on Article 6 ESF project on the updating ofcompetitiveness and employment, qualifications Lisbon, June 2000

Horeca/Tourism Analysis of medium-term trends (hotels, restaurants, cafés) in the industry

Multisectoral Preparation of country fiches on Interim report to the Stockholmimplementation of the NAPs European Council: on that basis, Negotiations on telework preparation of a contribution for the Barcelona European Council

Personal services Signing of a code of conduct on Follow-up to the project on training (hairdressing) the quality of work and service, needs requirements (Leonardo)

terms and conditions of employment Follow-up to a study on future training and fundamental rights, Preparation of a project26 June 2001 on exchanges for young people

Postal services Support to the study on employment Conference on training and skills development, December 2001

Railways Pursuit of working party’s review of Study on the development of keyadaptability and interoperability occupations (visits to undertakings) with a view to establishing a strategy for employability in railway undertakings

Sea transport Follow-up to the repercussions on Follow-up to the Commissionemployment on the abolition of communication on the employmentduty-free goods and training of seafarers

Sugar Follow-up to the joint declaration on Dissemination of Leonardo kit on active/the joint organisation of the sugar market interactive safety in the sugar industry

Tanning Implementation of the joint declaration Determination of training and of 7 December 1999 on employment skills needs and competitivenessEstablishment of a joint database on collective agreementsFollow-up to the code of conduct (10 July 2000) on terms and conditions of employment

Telecommunications Agreement on guidelines on telework, Working party on training in newFebruary 2001 technologies

Conference on the human factor in the third-generation telephony market (UMTS)Conference on ‘Delivering skills for the future’, September 2001

Temporary work Follow-up to the study on temporary workJoint declaration on objectives for a directive on temporary agency work, 8 October 2001Joint declaration on the development of the social dialogue, 3 July 2000

Textiles and clothing Implementation of the Commission’s Assessment of training and skills needsaction plan on competitiveness Project on advanced vocational trainingand employment

Wood Discussion on competitivenessin the wood industry



Enlargement came to the fore in many sectorsduring 2000 and 2001. The commerce, textiles andclothing, agriculture and banking sectors were thefirst to take joint initiatives, paving the way forinvolvement by the social partners of the candidatecountries in European social dialogue. Theseinitiatives took various forms, including confe-rences assembling the social partners of the EU and

those of the candidate countries, and progressiveapplication of codes of conduct.In other sectors, the possible consequences ofenlargement on working conditions gave rise todeliberations, for example, in road and railtransport and civil aviation. In telecommunica-tions, the social implications of market libe-ralisation were high on the agenda.

The sectors in the enlargement process: a few examples

Sectors Initiatives

Agriculture Conference on the involvement of the CEEC social partners in the social dialogue (Budapest, January 2000)

Air transport Conference on the social dialogue in the industry (September 2000)

Banking Bilateral round tables (Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Malta)

Cleaning Joint declaration following up a joint project on identification of the social partners in the candidate countries

Joint declaration on the enlargement

Commerce Round tables (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania, Slovenia)

Footwear Economic and social forum on the Community acquis (Prague, November 2000)

Horeca Seminar organised by ECF/IUF with the Hungarian trade unions on European social dialogue (Brussels, May 2000)

Postal services Round table on enlargement (Bucharest, December 2001)

Private security Joint declaration on the consequences of enlargement for the industry

Road transport Joint opinion on drivers from third countries in intra-Community traffic (September 2000)

Sea transport Discussion under way on flags of convenience

Tanning Economic and social forum (Hungary, September 2001)

Telecommunications Joint seminar in Hungary on the social implications of market liberalisation (October 2001)

Textiles and clothing Extension of the 1997 code of conduct to the CEECs and Turkey (seminar in Turkey in 2000 on the social dialogue and fundamental social rights)



Enlargement: initiatives at cross-industry level

Since the Warsaw conference in March 1999, thesocial partners have launched a number ofinitiatives, both jointly and separately (roundtables, seminars, and studies).

In addition, in certain areas, the candidate

countries qualify for pre-accession financialassistance, notably under the Phare programme forthe CEECs. A number of the projects funded underthe programme in 2000–2001 concerns the socialdialogue.

JOINT OPERATIONS MAIN SPECIFICINITIATIVES

Employers’ round tablesBrussels 1997, Prague 1998,

Stockholm 1999, Cyprus 2000, Berlin 2001

ETUC study on the relocation of enterprises

ETUC conferenceBrussels, 15 and 16 June 2001

CEEP seminar on services of general interest

Brussels, 2 and 3 December 1999Brussels, 12 and 13 February 2001

Integration committees set up in the candidate

countries by ETUC

Bratislava conference16 and 17 March 2001

"Report on the social situation inthe candidate countries"

Special meeting of the SocialDialogue Committee attended byrepresentatives of the candidate

countries, 29 January 2002

Warsaw conference18 and 19 March 1999

"Social dialogue:the challenges of enlargement"



Joint texts adopted in 2000 — October 2001

Sector Title of agreement

Agriculture • EFA – GEOPA/COPA conference on employment of agricultural workers in the European Union, Saint-Raphaël, France, 12 and 13 April 2000: final statement, 13 April 2000

• European social partners’ White Paper on employment and agriculture: Guaranteeing employment through vocational and continuing training in European agriculture, 13 April 2000

• Guidelines for sprayers: Spraying techniques, environment and safety, 8 November 2000• Safety manual for forestry work, 8 November 2000

Civil aviation • European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (AICA), 22 March 2000

Wood • Code of conduct, 31 October 2000

Footwear • Social action programme: social partners’ contribution to the footwear sector, 2 June 2000• Code of conduct: social partners’ charter for the footwear industry, 17 November 2000

Commerce • Joint declaration of the conference on employment, 14 April 2000• Joint declaration on the fight against racism and xenophobia, 15 May 2000• European agreement on the guidelines on telework, 26 April 2001

Construction • Joint declaration FIEC–FETBB, 24 January 2000

Electricity • Joint declaration by EURELECTRIC, EMCEF and EPSU on the ECOTEC study for the European Commission on the social implications of the internal electricity market, 7 November 2000

Cross-industry • Joint social-partner declaration to the Forum on 15 June 2000• Joint declaration on the European Monitoring Centre on Change, 21 November 2000• Introductory statement to the social partners’ compendium concerning the employment

guidelines, 21 November 2000

Cleaning • Joint conclusions on the report on the study on certain key aspects of the industrial cleaning sector in Europe, 2 October 2000

• Joint declaration on the follow-up to the survey on harmonious development of the industry, 31 January 2000

• Joint declaration on employment, 20 February 2001• Joint FENI/UNI–Europa declaration: The social partners of the industrial cleaning industry and EU

enlargement to the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEECs), 3 April 2000

Fisheries • Resolution of the fishing industry social partners on the oil crisis, 20 November 2000• Joint declaration on the results and recommendations of the European Forum for the

Mutual Recognition of Certificates in the sea-fishing sector in Europe and on the establishment of a fisheries training and employment network (REFOPE), 20 November 2000

• Proposal on social clause

Postal services • Proceedings of the round table on training, 29 November 2000• Compendium of best practice in equal opportunities, 30 November 2000

Private security • Joint declaration by CoESS and UNI–Europa on modernising work organisation in the private security industry, 11 July 2000

Personal services • Code of conduct for hairdressing, 26 June 2001

Performing arts • Joint declaration on lifelong learning, 27 May 2000

Sugar • Joint declaration on apprenticeship, 13 November 2000• Joint declaration on the least-developed countries, 13 November 2000

Tanning • Contribution by the social partners of the leather industry to preparation of a new agenda for social policy, 26 May 2000

• Code of conduct in the leather and tanning sector, 10 July 2000

Telecommunications • Joint statement for the Lisbon Summit: New work organisation and skills for modernisation, growth and competitiveness in the information society, 9 March 2000

• European agreement on the guidelines on telework, 7 February 2001

Textiles and clothing • Social action programme: social partners’ contribution, 26 May 2000

Sea transport • ETF/ECSA contribution on training and recruitment of seafarers in Europe, 25 January 2000

Road transpor • Joint opinion on the employment of drivers, 15 September 2000

Temporary work • Joint declaration on the development of the sectoral social dialogue, 3 July 2001• Joint declaration on a draft directive on temporary agency work, 8 October 2001


Review of legislation

2000-2001

Revue of legislation 2000 - 2001Review of legislation 2000 - 2001


A milestone was reached in labour law in2000–2001, with the adoption of the Directiveannexed to the European Company Statute. It isespecially relevant to the social partners. Thepolitical agreement on a common position of theCouncil on the Directive on worker informationand consultation was also of vital concern. It isvery closely linked with the Lisbon EuropeanCouncil's aim of achieving a competitive,adaptable European labour force.

In addition, under Article 211 of the Treaty, theCommission ensures, in various fashions, that theMember States correctly incorporate directives intonational law.

European Company Statute

On 8 October 2001 the Employment and SocialAffairs Council formally adopted the EuropeanCompany Statute (Societas Europaea - SE). Theagreement reached at the Nice European Councilhad given fresh impetus to the debate on thissubject.

Europe had been discussing the EuropeanCompany for more than thirty years — anindication of its importance and complexity.

The Member States have three years to take all thenecessary measures to enable SEs to register in theirterritory from June 2004.

The advantages of this legal innovation tocompanies are obvious: in the long term, they willbe able to set up as a single company operatingthrough establishments in the different MemberStates, presenting a single annual report and asingle tax return within a single Europeanframework with European employees.

Thanks to the European Company, big savings willbe made in administrative and legal costs by small,medium-sized and big businesses wishing tooperate on a Community scale through an SEinstead of through a complicated, costly networkof subsidiaries registered under the laws of thedifferent Member States.

The European Company Statute will also allowcross-border mergers for the first time,

(transforming subsidiaries into establishments ofthe single SE) and in that case the tax measuresunder the 1990 Directive will apply; companiescould not take advantage of these measures untilnow as they were unable to carry out such mergers.The new Statute will also provide forrationalisation of structures in groups which haveoften become extremely complex on account ofacquisitions and other operations over the courseof time; they will be able to set up an SE by productrange, sector of economic activity or geographicalarea, without regard to national boundaries.

The Statute will also be very attractive from the taxstandpoint. An SE operating through establ-ishments instead of subsidiaries will be able tooffset losses from such establishments against theSE’s profits — a considerable tax advantage. An SEmay transfer its head office to another MemberState without needing to wind up (tax advantage)and re-establish (cost saving).

The simplification of group structures will alsomake the financial markets more transparent andraise their profile at European and internationallevel.

The SE Directive does not depart from theprinciples of the Directive on European workscouncils: liberty to negotiate together withsubsidiary rules in the absence of an agreement. Asfor transnational information and consultation,the subsidiary rules are tighter than those of theEWC Directive. They include arrangements forparticipation where employees were affordedparticipation previously in the companiesconcerned.

The question of participation will surely makenegotiations more difficult, as demonstrated in thecase of some recent mergers where the definition ofthe rules on participation to be applied in theentity resulting from the operations concernedcould not be ignored, despite the fact that no legaltext required that the issue be covered (althoughthis will be the case in three years’ time under theSE Directive). However, recent experience has alsoshown that the parties concerned (mergingcompanies and their workers’ representatives) areable to arrive at mutually-acceptable solutions.


Review of legislation 2000-2001

The principal difficulty in the negotiations underthe SE Directive (and the principal difference vis-à-vis the EWC Directive) will be caused by the twoparallel sets of negotiations, inevitable in manycases: one on the arrangements for involvingemployees to be applied within the SE and theother on the social consequences of therestructuring often involved in the operation.

From the institutional point of view, Communitylaw has been enhanced. Five further Community-law texts of similar importance were awaiting asolution to the problems related to the Statute forthe European Company: the three "twin" statutesof the SE (the European cooperative society, theEuropean association and the European mutualsociety) and two company law directives (ontransnational mergers and the transfer of the headoffice of a company from one Member State toanother). In all these cases, the challenge is thesame: how to reconcile the flexibility afforded tocompanies to organise themselves at transnationallevel with socially-acceptable arrangementsproviding in particular for the protection ofacquired rights in respect of employees’involvement in the operation of a business. In thecourse of the next few years, the Commission, theCouncil and the European Parliament should beable to wind up these five dossiers on the basis ofthe agreement reached for the European Company.

Lastly, adoption of the European Company Statutecleared the logjam for the proposal on informationand consultation of workers in the EU which wasalso based on rules on anticipation, crisisprevention and management of change (seebelow).

At the end of this marathon, ten Communitydirectives concerning collective labour relationswill have been introduced. They will form acohesive whole which should guaranteethroughout the European Union, after enlargementas well, the safeguard and development of thisessential component of the European social model.

Worker information andconsultation

On 11 June 2001, the Employment and SocialAffairs Council adopted a common position on theproposal for a Directive of the European Parliamentand of the Council establishing a generalframework for informing and consultingemployees, which the Commission had putforward in November 1998.

This Directive completes the Communityframework in this area. It includes arrangementsfor regular, ongoing information and consultationof workers’ representatives in undertakings with atleast 50 employees and covers the economic andfinancial situation of the company, the probabledevelopment of employment within the company,any anticipatory measures envisaged and anydecision affecting employment contracts.

The Community rules in force for more than 25years on information and consultation ofemployees in the event of collective redundanciesand of transfers of undertakings will thus besupplemented and covered by general, standingprocedures.

Following the agreement reached in theConciliation Committee on 17 December 2001, theDirective on worker information and consultationwas formally adopted by the European Parliamentand the Council early in 2002.

Working time

On 22 June 2000, the Council adopted a Directive2

amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concer-ning certain aspects of the organisation of workingtime to cover sectors and activities excluded fromthat Directive. It extends the scope of Directive93/104/EC as regards minimum rules on workingtime to all non-mobile workers and mobile workersin the railway industry. It also provides for specificmeasures as regards the working time of seafarersand road transport workers.

The Council Directive of 27 November 20002 onthe organisation of working time of mobile workersin civil aviation implements the agreementconcluded on 22 March 2000 by the civil aviationsocial partners. This is the fifth directive adoptedunder Article 139(2) of the Treaty.

The agreement by the social partners in civilaviation limits annual working time to 2 000 hoursand flying time to 900 hours.

It is this agreement — implemented at Europeanlevel by a Directive — which henceforth regulatesthe working time of mobile workers in civilaviation. However, Directive 93/104/EC still appliesto the sector’s non-mobile workers.

2 Directive 2000/34/EC: OJ L 195/41 of 1. 8. 20003 Directive 2000/79/EC: OJ L 302 of 1. 12. 2000



Employee protection in the event of the employer’s insolvency

In January 2001, the Commission transmitted tothe Council a proposal for a Directive amendingDirective 80/987/EEC relating to the protection ofemployees in the event of the insolvency of theiremployer . While retaining the basic structure ofthe Directive in force, the main proposedamendments aim to:• extend the concept of insolvency and improve

consistency with other Community directives;• adopt an explicit rule to specify the competent

guarantee institution responsible for settlingemployees’ claims in cross-border insolvencysituations;

• introduce a new rule providing for administrativecooperation between Member States.

The European Parliament gave its opinion on thefirst reading on 29 November 2001. TheEmployment and Social Affairs Council of 3

December 2001 reached political agreement on acommon position. The Council formally adoptedthe common position in early 2002

Implementation of Community law

In accordance with Article 211 of the Treaty, theCommission monitors the Member States’implementation of Community law and regularlyprepares reports for the Parliament and Council.They received two reports in 2000: on the state ofapplication of the European works councilDirective (Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22September 1994), and on implementation of theDirective on working time (Directive 93/104/EC of23 November 1993).

Its work is not restricted to the preparation ofreports however. It provides back-up for theMember States in the transposal of directives. TheDirective on the posting of workers is a very goodexample of close coordination in implementationof a directive.

Implementation of the Directive on the posting of workers

To provide support for the transposal of the Directive on the posting of workers (Directive 96/71/EC of16 December 1996) in the different Member States, the Commission set up an ad hoc group of nationalexperts to provide a forum for discussion.

Purpose and composition of the group

As this Directive comprises many provisions with a transnational dimension, it was considered usefulthat, during the period for transposing the text into the different national laws, the Member Statesshould coordinate to prevent any clashes between the different national systems. The group was madeup of national experts responsible for transposing the Directive in their Member State and theCommission provided logistical support.

The group’s activities

The group held nine meetings between April 1997 and March 1999. Thanks to the reflection,discussions and exchanges within the group a document was drawn up and subsequently published bythe Employment and Social Affairs DG. The detailed analysis of all the Directive’s articles, and theconclusions and guidance on interpretation and implementation helped to ensure coordinatedtransposal into the laws of all the Member States. In the context of enlargement, this document shouldalso help the candidate countries.



Subject Commission position Legal basis Status

Health and COM(2001) 417: Protection of workers Article 137(2) EC Proposal adopted: 20/07/2001safety at from the risks related to exposure Codecision Common position of the Council: the workplace to asbestos at work Conciliation Committee

Signature Parliament and Council

COM(98) 678 final: Minimum safety Article 137(2) EC Proposal adopted: 27/11/1998and health requirements for the use of Codecision Common position of the Council:work equipment by workers 23/03/2001

Conciliation CommitteeSignature Parliament and Council

COM(1992) 560: Minimum health and Article 137(2) EC Proposal adopted: 23/12/1992safety requirements regarding the exposure Codecision Common position of the Council: of workers to the risks arising from 25/06/2001physical agents Conciliation Committee


COM(1990) 588: Minimum requirements Article 137(2) EC Proposal adopted: 5/12/1990to improve the mobility and safe transport Codecision Common position of the Council of workers with reduced mobility Conciliation Committee


COM(1992) 234: Minimum safety and Article 137(2) EC Proposal adopted: 16/11/1992health requirements for transport activities Codecision Common position of the Counciland workplaces on means of transport Conciliation Committee


Social security COM(2001) 344: Application of social Articles 308 Proposal adopted: 25/06/2001 for migrant security schemes to employed persons, and 42 EC Common position of the Councilworkers self-employed persons and Codecision Conciliation Committee

to members of their families moving Signature Parliament and Councilwithin the Community

COM(1998) 779: Coordination Articles 8a, 51 Proposal adopted: 21/12/1998of social security systems and 235 EC, Common position of the Council

then 18, 42 Conciliation Committeeand 308 EC Signature Parliament and CouncilCodecision

COM(1997) 561: Application of social Articles 51 and Proposal adopted: 12/11/1997security schemes to employed persons, 235 EC, then Common position of the Councilself-employed persons and to members 42 and 308 EC Conciliation Committeeof their families moving within Codecision Signature Parliament and Councilthe Community

COM(1995) 734: Unemployment benefits Articles 42 Proposal adopted: 10/01/1996and 308 EC Common position of the CouncilCodecision Conciliation Committee


COM(1995) 735: Pre-retirement benefits Articles 51 Proposal adopted: 10/01/1996 and 235 EC, Common position of the Councilthen 42 and Conciliation Committee308 EC Signature Parliament and CouncilCodecision

COM(2000) 186 final: Social Articles 42 Proposal adopted: 28/04/2000security schemes and 308 EC Common position of the Council

Conciliation Committee Signature Parliament and Council

Review of legislation 2000–2001



Worker COM(2000) 832: Approximation of the Article 137 EC Proposal adopted: 15/01/2001information laws of the Member States relating Codecision Common positionand to the protection of employees of the Council: 3/12/2001consultation in the event of the insolvency Conciliation Committee

of their employer Signature Parliament and Council

COM(1998) 612: Establishment of a Article 137(2) Proposal adopted: 11/11/1998general framework for improving information Codecision Common position of the Council:and consultation rights of employees in 13/02/2001 the European Community Conciliation Committee 17/12/2001


Anti- COM(2000) 368 final: Programme of Article 141(3) Proposal adopted: 16/06/2000discrimination Community action to encourage Codecision Common position of the Council:

cooperation between Member States to 13/02/2001combat social exclusion Conciliation Committee


COM(2000) 459: Community incentive Article 129 Proposal adopted: 20/07/2000measures in the field of employment Codecision Common position of the Council:

20/06/2001Conciliation Committee Signature Parliament and Council

Equal COM(2000) 334 final: Implementation Article 14(3) Proposal adopted: 7/06/2000opportunities of the principle of equal treatment Codecision Common position of the Council

for men and women as regards access Conciliation Committee to employment, vocational training and Signature Parliament and Councilpromotion, and working conditions

Freedom COM(1998) 394/1: Freedom of movement Article 49 EC, Proposal adopted: 22/07/1998of movement for workers within the Community then 40 EC Common position of the Councilfor workers Codecision Conciliation Committee


COM(1998) 394/2: Abolition of restrictions Article 49 EC, Proposal adopted: 22/07/1998on movement and residence within the then 40 EC Common position of the CouncilCommunity for workers of Member States Codecision Conciliation Committeeand their families Signature Parliament and Council

COM(1997) 561: Extension to nationals Articles 51 and Proposal adopted: 12/11/1997of third countries of Regulation (EEC) 235 EC, then Common position of the CouncilNo 1408/71 42 and 308 EC Conciliation Committee

Codecision Signature Parliament and Council

European COM(1989) 268/2: Statute for a European Article 95 EC Proposal adopted: 24/08/1989Company company with regard to the involvement Codecision Common position of the CouncilStatute of employees Conciliation Committee


Working time COM(1998) 662: Organisation of working Article 137(2) EC Proposal adopted: 18/11/1998time to cover sectors and activities excluded Codecision Common position of the Council: from that directive 2/07/1999

Conciliation Committee: 28/03/2000, 06/04/2000Signature Parliament and Council: 22/06/2000



DIRECTIVES B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK

1. LABOUR LAW

80/987 "insolvency" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

91/533 "written statement" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

91/383 "temporary employment" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

93/104 "working time" C C C C C IC C N C C C C C C C

94/33 "young people" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

94/45 "European works councils" (97/74-UK) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C NR

96/71 "posting of workers" (deadline : 16.12.99) N C C C C C C C N C C C C C C

97/74 "extension 94/45 to UK" (15.12.99) C - - - C - - - - - - - - - C

97/81 "part-time work" (dea.:20.01.2000)(98/23-UK) IC C C C C C N C C C C C C N NR

98/23 "extension" 97/81 to UK (7.4.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C

98/50 "transfers of undertakings 2" N N N N C N N C N N N N C N N (dea:17.07.2001)

98/59 "collective redundancies - C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Ccodif" - JO 98.225 16-21

99/63 "working time of seafarers"(dead: 30.06.2002) C C

99/70 "fixed-term work" N D C D C N N D C N IC D C N D(deadline : 10.07.2001)

00/34 "excluded sectors 93/104"(date transposition: 1.8.05)

00/79 "agreement on working time civil aviation" (1.12.03)

01/23 "transfer of undertakings" codification 77/187 et 98/50)

2. EQUAL TREATMENT

75/117 "equal pay" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

76/207 "access to employment" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

79/7 "social security" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

86/378 "occupational social security schemes" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

86/613 "self-employed women" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

92/85 "pregnant workers" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

96/34 "parental leave" (97/75 - UK) (dea.:15.12.99) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C NR

96/97 "occup.so.sec.schemes" C C C N C C C C C C C C C C C

97/75 "extension 96/34 au RU" (15/12/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C97/80 "burden of proof" C C C N C N C C C C C C C C NR(dea:1.1.2001)(UK:98/52;dea, 22/7/2001)

98/52 "extension 97/80 to UK" (22/07/2001) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C

00/43 "race" - (19/07/03)

00/78 general framework equal treatmentin employment & occupation" (02/12/03)

3. FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS

98/49 "supplementary pensions rights" - - - - C - - C - C C C - - -

(dea:25.01.2002) 98L209

Transposal of European directives



4. HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK

78/610 "vinyl chloride monomer" C NR C C C C NR C C C C C C C C

82/130 "explosive atmospheres (firedamp)" C C C C C C NR C C C C NR NR C C

83/477 "asbestos" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

86/188 "noise" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

88/35 "explosive atmospheres (firedamp 2)" C C C C C C NR C C C C NR NR C C

89/391 "framework" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

89/654 "work places" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

89/655 "work equipment" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

89/656 "personal protective equipment" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

90/269 "manual handling of loads" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

90/270 "display screen equipment" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

90/394 "carcinogens" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

91/269 "explosive atmospheres (firedamp3)" C C C C C C C C C C C NR NR C C

91/322 "chemical, physical C C C C NR NR C C C C C NR C C Cand biological agents 3"

91/382 "asbestos 2" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

92/29 "medical assistance on board of vessels" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

92/57 "construction" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

92/58 "health and safety signs" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

92/91 "drilling" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

92/104 "mining" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

DIRECTIVES B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK

93/103 "work on board fishing vessels" C C C C C C C C NR C NR C C C C

94/44 "explosive atmospheres 4" (COM directive) C C C C C C NR C C C C NR NR C C

95/30 "biological agents 3" C C C C C C C C C C IC C C C C

95/63 "work equipment 2" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

96/94 "chemi.,phys.& bio.agents 4" C C C C NR NR C C C NR C NR C C C

97/42 "carcinogens 2" (deadline : 27.06.00) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C



98/24 "chemical agents 5" (deadline : 5.5.2001) N C IC N C N N N N N IC N C N N

98/65 "explo.atmo.5" N N C C C C NR N C C N NR NR C C (COM direc.)(dead: 31.12.99)

99/38 "carcinogens 3" (deadline: 29.04.2003) C C C IC C C

99/92 "explosive atmospheres" 30.06.2003

00/54 "agents biologiques" (7e - 89.391) codification C C IC

00/39 "Dir.first list of indicative occupational exposure limit values chemical agents Commission" (31.12.01)

01/45 "scaffolding" (modification 89/655 (19/07/2004) - JO 195 du 19/7)

% of national legislation 2001 87,8 95,9 95,9 91,8 100 89,8 91,8 93,9 93,9 93,9 85,7 95,9 100 91,8 95,9communicated on 1 October% of national legislation 96,2 98,1 98,1 92,4 100 92,4 96,2 86,7 90,5 96,2 90,5 98,1 98,1 100 94,3communicated on 1 January 2000

C = Communication of national legislation

D = Derogation

IC = Incomplete / communication

NR = Directive not relevant to a particular country

N = No communication of national legislation


The anti-discrimination package

This section reviews recent EU developments incombating discrimination.

The right to equality before the law and theprotection of all persons against discriminationconstitutes a fundamental right and is essential tothe proper functioning of democratic societies.

The European Community has a long-standingcommitment towards equal opportunities andequal treatment for women and men. It has alsoconsistently shown its commitment to eliminatingall other forms of discrimination through a varietyof instruments – joint declarations, resolutions,directives and action programmes. The 1989Community Charter of the Fundamental SocialRights of Workers recognised the importance ofcombating all forms of discrimination so as toensure equal treatment for all.

However, the Community has often been criticisedfor not going further and in particular for the lackof a specific legal base for action. In Amsterdam inJune 1997, the Heads of State or Governmentrecognised the crucial importance of underliningthe principles of non-discrimination. They agreedto strengthen the European Union's capacity to actin this area by introducing Article 13 into theTreaty establishing the European Community. Itprovides the Community with specific powers totake action to combat discrimination based on sex,racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability,age and sexual orientation.

Following the signature of the new Treaty, theCommission held extensive consultations aboutthe scope of legislation with civil society includingthe social partners, the Member States and theEuropean Parliament.

During these consultations, the key actors involvedconfirmed the importance of four principles:

• the need to move forward on a broad front;• the need to take account of the varying levels of

progress made in the Member States: while someMember States have relied on constitutionalclauses alone, others have developed very specificlegislation in certain areas;

• the need to make full use of the availablemomentum and political will;

• the need to contribute to the development ofpractical policies on the ground and also to theestablishment of the right not to bediscriminated against.

The reasoning behind this is that while legislationto outlaw discrimination is an essential part of aneffective strategy to change attitudes andbehaviour, sending clear signals about what societyregards as acceptable or unacceptable, it is notsufficient on its own. Legislation must beunderpinned by concrete action which enablespeople to learn from the successes and failures ofothers and to build those lessons into their ownaction to tackle discrimination at local level –where it is often most effective.

The Commission proposed a range of initiatives tofight discrimination on 25 November 1999. Thepackage fulfilled the Commission's undertaking totable measures implementing the article as early aspossible and responded to the invitation for actionfrom the European Parliament and Member States,and from EU leaders at their meeting in Tampere.

Although all the Member States have included intheir constitutional and/or legal order provisionson non-discrimination, the scope and enfor-ceability of these provisions (including ease ofaccess to justice) vary considerably from oneMember State to another. The package requires thatall Member States broaden and deepen theprotection provided against discrimination. Theseinitiatives will bring Community added value toexisting national provisions by providing acomprehensive framework for protection againstdiscrimination right across the European Union,including protection against harassment, positiveaction, remedies and proper enforcement.

The package was made up of a communication,which presented the issue, and two separatedirectives:

• a horizontal directive to combat discriminationbased on religion or belief, disability, age orsexual orientation in the labour market.Employment is the area in which discriminationon all grounds is most evident and where it is

Non-discriminationNon-discrimination



frequently most damaging to individuals'chances of success in society;

• a specific directive to combat discrimination ongrounds of racial and ethnic origin. As with thehorizontal directive, it prohibits discriminationin employment, but it also goes beyond that tocover other economic and social rights such asnon-discrimination in education, social advan-tages, social protection and access to goods andservices.

These legislative proposals were supplemented byan action programme.

Complementarity

The package does not constitute the entirety of theCommunity's action to combat discrimination.The measures included in the anti-discriminationpackage are intended to complement otheractivities at Community level.

• First, the Employment Guidelines commitMember States to make the fight againstdiscrimination against women a priority for alltheir action in the labour market. They alsorequire them to give special attention to theneeds of the disabled, ethnic minorities andother groups and individuals who may bedisadvantaged in the labour market, including asa result of discrimination.

• Second, these groups can benefit from theordinary assistance of the Structural Funds, inparticular the European Social Fund, through thenew Community Initiative EQUAL. Focusing onthe labour market, EQUAL forms part of theintegrated strategy to combat discrimination andsocial exclusion. It is complementary to thespecific legislation and action programmes underArticles 13 and 137 of the Treaty establishing theEuropean Community. The priorities are thoseagreed between the Member States and theCommission, relating to the four pillars of theEuropean Employment Strategy. All theCommunity Initiative Programmes initiated byMember States under EQUAL have now beenadopted by the Commission.

• Third, the new Education, Training and Youthprogrammes will continue to promote theintegration of disadvantaged groups, includingpeople exposed to discrimination on variousgrounds, as one of their horizontal priorities.

• Fourth, the new Community Action Programmefor Equality between Women and Men 2001-2005.

Finally, the Commission Programme to combatSocial Exclusion under Article 137 was launched in

January 2002. The aim of the programme is toencourage co-operation between Member States tocombat social exclusion. Discrimination can, ofcourse, be a contributory factor leading to socialexclusion. Unlike EQUAL, the programme is notmeant to provide financial support for activitiescarried out on the ground, but rather to promotepolicy-oriented co-operation at Community levelto underpin Member States' efforts to prevent andcombat social exclusion. It focuses on MemberStates' efforts to promote the integration of groupswhich are excluded or are at risk of exclusion, whilethe programme included in the package based onArticle 13 is designed to support and improve theeffectiveness of Member States' measures to combatdiscrimination.

In March 2000, the European Council of Lisbon inMarch 2000 recognised that the extent of povertyand social exclusion was unacceptable. Building amore inclusive European Union was thusconsidered as an essential element in achieving theUnion's ten-year strategic goal of sustainedeconomic growth, more and better jobs and greatersocial cohesion. The Lisbon Council agreed toadopt an Open Method of Co-ordination in orderto make a decisive impact on the eradication ofpoverty and social exclusion by 2010.

In June 2001 the first two yearly National ActionPlans against poverty and social exclusion wereadopted by the Member States.

Over and above these measures, action is taken tocombat racism and xenophobia through police andjudicial co-operation under Title VI of the Treaty onEuropean Union.

Institutional discussion

It is not without significance that it took less thantwo years from the entry into force of theAmsterdam Treaty to reach agreement on thisambitious package of measures under the newArticle 13. The rapid adoption was achieved thanksto effective and constructive co-operation from allinstitutions and bodies involved in the decision-making process (Council of Ministers, EuropeanParliament, Economic and Social Committee andCommittee of the Regions).

The directive on racial and ethnic discriminationwas adopted in June 2000 and the directive on theother grounds of discrimination and the actionprogramme were adopted by the Social AffairsCouncil of 27 November 2000.



Common elements

The two directives have many common elements.

Concept of discrimination: it includes both direct andindirect discrimination: Unlike direct discrimination,which can be described as different treatment onthe grounds of a specific characteristic, indirectdiscrimination is much more subtle and difficult toidentify. Under the directives, an apparentlyneutral provision, criterion or practice would beregarded as indirectly discriminatory if it putpersons having a particular race, religion, disability,age or sexual orientation at a particulardisadvantage compared with other persons unlessthat provision, criterion or practice was objectivelyjustified.

Protection against harassment which is considered asdiscrimination: Harassment is any unwantedphysical or verbal conduct that offends orhumiliates others. Such conduct can interfere withability to do a job or obtain a service. It can takedifferent forms such as: threats, intimidation, orverbal abuse; unwelcome remarks or jokes aboutsubjects like ethnicity, religion, disability, sexualorientation or age; displaying offensive pictures orposters, etc.

Material scope with regard to employment: Conditionsof access to employment, vocational training,employment and working conditions andmembership of and involvement in employers' andworkers' organisations;

Justified differences of treatment when a characteristicconstitutes a genuine occupational requirement for thejob: The justification for these cases relates to thenature of the job concerned or the context inwhich it is carried out.

Possibility given to the Member States to maintain oradopt positive actions: Positive actions may include,inter alia, measures intended to promote theemployment and training of disabled people.

Defence of rights: Victims of discrimination musthave a right of redress through an administrative orjudicial procedure, associated with appropriatesanctions for those who discriminate. Thisprocedure can be engaged by associations ororganisations on behalf or in support of thecomplainant with his or her approval.

Shift of the burden of the proof: once a prima faciecase of discrimination has been made out by acomplainant and accepted by a court or otherinstance, the burden of proof in a civil oradministrative procedure shifts to the respondent(this does not apply to criminal law procedures).

The victims of discrimination are protected againstvictimisation, and in particular against dismissal.

The Member States are required to provideappropriate means of disseminating informationon the provisions adopted to implement thedirectives.

Social Dialogue

Both directives have a specific provision concer-ning social dialogue.

The role of the social partners in the fight againstdiscrimination was first embodied at Europeanlevel by the Social Partners' Joint Declaration onRacism and Xenophobia in the Workplace adoptedin Florence in 1995. This was followed by a SocialPartners' Joint Declaration in 1999 on employmentof disabled people and a Compendium of bestpractice.

"… In adopting this declaration, they reaffirmopenly, clearly and publicly their commitment totake an active part in a common endeavour toprevent racial discrimination and to act jointlyagainst it in their own sphere of influence, theworkplace."

(Declaration of 21 October 1995 on theprevention of racial discrimination andxenophobia)

"UNICE/UEAPME and the ETUC fully recognise thechallenge of improving employment opportunitiesfor people with disabilities on the open labourmarket. … These organisations would like to makea contribution to promoting the occupationalintegration of people with disabilities in Europe."

(Declaration of 11 May 1999 on the employ-ment of people with disabilities)

The Social Partners at national level in someMember States (Belgium, France) have also adoptedframework agreements on combating racial andethnic discrimination in companies and codes ofconduct have been agreed at national and locallevel in other Member States (UK, Netherlands). Anumber of these include provisions to resolvedisputes about discrimination through, forexample, the establishment of complaints pointsor nominated mediators within the companywhich can have a positive effect on the eliminationof discrimination.

The directives require Member States to encouragesocial partners to contribute to their implemen-



tation by adopting anti-discrimination agreementsand by monitoring the implementation of equaltreatment in the workplace. Possible measuresinclude the conclusion of agreements betweensocial partners and the adoption of codes ofconduct aimed at preventing discrimination.

Action Programme

Finally, the Community Action Programme tocombat discrimination was launched on 1 January2001 with a budget of 100 million Euro over sixyears.

The anti-discrimination programme is designed topromote measures to prevent and combat directand indirect discrimination based on racial orethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age andsexual orientation, whether on one or multiplegrounds. It will both support the implementationof the directives and tackle issues which cannot besatisfactorily dealt with by legislation.

The programme takes into account not only thespecific features, but also the similarities in theexperience of discrimination under the differentgrounds and the methods which have beendeveloped to tackle it. It will enable the actors topool their efforts, strengthening the multiplicationof good practice and facilitating the developmentof integrated, co-ordinated co-operation acrosssectors and grounds. There is no ranking ofpriorities between the grounds covered in theaction programme. It addresses discriminationacross the board rather than providing separatelyfor action under the different grounds.

The programme is split into three strands:

• improvement of existing knowledge as regardsdiscrimination: development of statistical basesand indicators making it possible to evaluate theeffectiveness of the anti-discriminatory policies;

• support for transnational exchanges ofinformation and good practices between targetactors - NGOs, local and regional authorities,research institutes and social partners - in thefight against discrimination;

• change of attitudes in society by means ofawareness-raising: information, publications,campaigns, conferences, etc, which can have animpact on public opinion.

To create the maximum impact with a limitedbudget, the programme focuses on key operations.It works with target actors, including the socialpartners, who can ensure cross fertilisation ofexpertise and influence developments in policy

and practice within the Member States. Thestrategy is, therefore, to promote transnational co-operation with and between these actors on anumber of key themes.

Good practices

EmployersThe Centre for Business & Diversity of theEuropean Business Network for Social Cohesionaims to help business recognise and benefit fromthe growing diversity of European society. TheCentre promotes work that identifies how diversityis linked with business performance now and howit can be integrated into business operations andpractices in the future. For example, the Centre isdeveloping a common auditing tool for theimplementation of diversity practice, a DiversityLearning Space where practitioners can accesspersonal Intranet sites with tailored resources andlearning tools, and an online Database ofPractitioners. The aim is to have a community of3000 people by 2003.

Concerning raceIn the Joint Declaration of 1995 on "Prevention ofRacial Discrimination and Xenophobia andPromotion of Equal Treatment at the Workplace",the social partners stated their commitment to thefight against racism. In order to address theproblem of racism and xenophobia and encouragediversity at work, they decided to highlightworkplace initiatives in the form of a compendiumof good practice. This European Compendium ofGood Practice for the prevention of Racism at theWorkplace (1997) includes 25 cases on preventingracism in the 15 Member States of the EuropeanUnion. They encompass private and public-sectorcompanies, trade unions, collective agreements,and codes of conduct and national initiatives.

Concerning disabilityTo contribute to the discussions on equalopportunities for people with disabilities, CEEP,UNICE and ETUC published in 1999 a com-pendium of 36 cases of good practice to show howcompanies and trade union are integratingdisabled people at the workplace. This com-pendium highlights positive initiatives taken inthe ordinary work environment in favour of theemployment of disabled people. The number anddiversity of the examples show that employmentof people with disabilities can have a positiveimpact not only on the disabled employeesthemselves but also on other staff and employers,as these measures have enabled the employeesconcerned to perform their tasks and duties moresuccessfully.


Extension of agreements: various mechanisms

Mechanisms for extending collective agreementscover all institutional (legal) systems and voluntarypractices or a combination of the two, whether theyemanate from employers or employees or from theauthorities, under which the initial coverage of all orpart of a collective agreement is extended to coverparties which were originally non-signatories or theirmembers.

Using a single term – extension – to denote all themechanisms which increase the coverage ofcollective agreements may lead to confusion giventhe range of situations and procedures in Europe.

For the sake of comparability, we shall consider hereprimarily the procedures for extending sectoralcollective agreements. We recognise the importanceof cross-industry bodies in some countries (Belgium,Finland, Italy, Austria, Portugal or Spain) and, incontrast, the processes of decentralisation fromsector to enterprise (Netherlands, Germany, France,etc.) and from national towards territorial nego-tiation. By definition, however, company agree-ments are excluded from the scope of the extension:it is always sectoral collective bargaining which esta-blishes wages, working conditions and working time inmost European countries and for most workers.

We can therefore define three mechanisms forextending collective agreements:

• The first type is where a worker is employed by afirm where the employer is a member of a signa-tory organisation to the collective agreements,although he himself is not affiliated to a signatorytrade union organisation. The same enterprisesmay contain workers affiliated to a signatory orga-nisation or to a non-signatory organisation

covering the same categories of employees.Another frequent case is that where a worker is notaffiliated to any employees' organisation, althoughhis employer is linked to trade unions by acollective agreement.Here, the extension expands a collective agree-ment to cover all employees of the enterprise(s)(represented by the employers' organisationpotentially affected by the agreement), whetheraffiliated to a signatory trade union or not.

• The second type concerns workers affiliated to atrade union signatory to the collectiveagreement(s) covering their field of activity, wheretheir employer is not. This situation may resultfrom plural representation of the employers'interests or from a low rate of organisation amongthem. This may involve certain sectors, regions,categories of enterprises or all employers. In thissecond situation, the coverage of a collectiveagreement is extended to include employees inenterprises not represented by signatory emplo-yers' organisations. Empirically, it may be realisedthat this problem arises in almost all industrial re-alations systems, albeit to widely differing degrees.

• Finally, the third type is where neither the workernor the employer are affiliated to a signatoryorganisation to the collective agreements. Al-though analytically this situation should bedistinguished from the previous one, in practice itis usually the same extension systems which apply.In these cases, extension will consist of applying toenterprises not originally covered all or part of theagreements negotiated for the sector or occupa-tional category. If the entire sector or region is non-organised, one could envisage the extension ofagreements negotiated under similar conditions toother geographical areas/branches of activity.

In each national industrial relations system, thesethree cases are applied to different degrees eitherby legal mechanisms, which is most frequently the

Extension of collective agreementsExtension of collective agreements

The table below summarises the three cases of extension.

Employers

Employees Affiliated Not affiliated

Affiliated Normal cover Extension (2)

Not affiliated Extension (1) Extension (3)


Extension of collective agreements

case, or through voluntary practices on the part ofthe players.

It should also be noted that the different types ofextension are often mixed in current practice.

Forms of extension

Type 1 extension

This first type of extension concerns workers notaffiliated to a signatory trade union, or not organisedat all, while the employer is a member of anemployers' organisation. It is by far the mostcommon type of extension in the Member States ofthe EU, although paradoxically the least well known.

A distinction can be made between three maingroups of countries, which use different methods forextensions of this type:

• In one group of countries, the law and legalprovisions govern the extension of agreements. InAustria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, theNetherlands and Spain, the legal texts governingindustrial relations explicitly state that the sectoralcollective agreements signed shall apply to allworkers in the member enterprises of the signatoryorganisations. Straight away, collective agreements

go beyond the simple contractual field. The case ofSpain, however, is unusual in so far as theparticular mechanism for concluding thecollective agreement establishes employers' andemployees' organisations directly as legislativepartners provided that certain conditions are met(reference is made to ‘statutory agreements’). Theagreements concluded apply directly to allenterprises and workers concerned. In this case, thereis therefore no real distinction between the threetypes of extension. On the other hand, if the legalconditions set out in the Organic Law onfreedom of association are not met, agreementsare binding only on the member parties and aproblem such as that with the type 1 extensionmay arise. Apart from this exception, one maytherefore consider that the sectoral coverage of acollective agreement corresponds to the rate ofaffiliation of employers' organisations.

• In a second group, we find countries where thistype of extension rests on voluntary practices onthe part of employers. In Denmark, Finland andSweden, the great majority of employersautomatically apply the negotiated provisions tonon-affiliated workers. This practice also exists(although apparently to a lesser extent) in Italy. InIreland, employers tend to apply agreementsconcluded with trade unions to employees andnon-employees without differentiation. This latter

Importance OriginAustria Default procedure Legal provision (Tarifvertragsgesetz)Belgium Default procedure Legal provision

(possibility of individual opt-outs)Denmark Default procedure Voluntary (individual employers)

(if mentioned in the agreement)Finland Default procedure Voluntary (individual employers)France Default procedure Legal provision Germany Sometimes Anschlusstarifvertrag by non-signatory

trade unionAlways Voluntary (individual employers)

Greece Sometimes Voluntary adhesion by trade unionIreland Sometimes Voluntary (individual employers)Italy Common practice VoluntaryLuxembourg Default procedure Legal provisionNetherlands Default procedure Legal provisionPortugal Default procedure Legal provision

Provided that they comply with legal requirements, statutory collective agreements apply to all workers of a given sector/category/area

SpainVery limited, due to the small Voluntary adhesion to non-statutory agreements number of such agreements by individual worker, trade union, companies

Sweden Sometimes VoluntaryUnited Kingdom Sometimes Voluntary

Type 1 Extension



case relates to company agreements.• Finally, in some countries, particularly Greece and

the United Kingdom, there may be lessstraightforward situations, limiting the scope ofthis type of extension mechanism. Firstly, if themain basis for signing the agreements isprofessional or occupational, the scope of this type ofextension, whether voluntary or not, will berestricted.

Secondly, while not a failure of membership butrather a pluralism – particularly conflictual – withinthe trade unions present which explains the lack ofcoverage of an agreement, it is not certain that thistype of system could operate as satisfactorily. Sometrade unions may subscribe a posteriori to anagreement, thus extending coverage to theiraffiliates. One could also visualise the oppositesituation, where an agreement exists for certaincategories of personnel while, for the rest, individualnegotiations will lay down terms and workingconditions.

One of the difficulties posed by these voluntarypractices is that they are difficult to measure. Most ofthe national teams of researchers who contributed tothe project note the absence of relevant data.

Type 2 extension

Although in most cases type 2 and type 3 extensionsoverlap, there are some situations where it isnevertheless worthwhile distinguishing the specificnature of the type 2 extension. The type 2 extensioncovers situations where the workers are affiliated to asignatory trade union, although their employer isnot. In practice, this case is most frequently coveredby systems which apply equally to all enterpriseswhich are not members of an employers'organisation.

However, there are two examples relating solely tothis type of extension, in Italy and Sweden. Theirpresence in other countries is not impossible, buttheir scale appears more limited. In both cases, theextension is applied through the trade unions,which are generally well represented, with averageaffiliation rates exceeding 50%.

In Italy, this generally occurs before the courts, withthe invocation of an article of the Italianconstitution (Article 39) providing for theapplication erga omnes to all workers of minimumterms and working conditions. The procedure is sowidespread that some employers anticipate thebehaviour of trade unions by implementing theminimum provisions of the agreement in individualemployment contracts. In Sweden, on the other hand, the powerful tradeunions can exert pressure directly on the enterprises

concerned by urging them to subscribe to existingagreements if they are not members of a signatoryemployers' organisation.

Type 3 extension

This type of extension relates to enterprises notaffiliated to an employers' organisation. In practice,a number of examples may arise: there may beindividually non-organised employers in a sectorwhere the majority are organised, or on the contrarybranches where there is no collective agreement.There are various mechanisms for applying to theseenterprises conditions negotiated within the sector,and we shall examine them in order of frequency.

Legal extension

The most frequent case (involving nine of the 15Member States) involves a legal mechanism givingthe collective agreement legal force by one methodor another. Methods differ from one country toanother, but are broadly as follows: under certainconditions (representativeness of the signatoryparties, or coverage of the agreement already signed),all or part of the content of a collective agreementmay be applied to enterprises in a sector which arenot covered, or to enterprises in another sectorconsidered to be similar. This mechanism functionsthrough the intervention of the authorities,generally the Ministry of Employment, at therequest of one or both parties concerned, or, morerarely, on an own-initiative basis followingconsultation of employers' or employees'organisations. The countries covered by thesedifferent variations are Belgium, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,Portugal, Spain and Austria.

As can be seen from the table below, there aresignificant differences between these varioussystems. They vary on two important points:

The number of extended agreements: in Belgiumand Finland, almost all collective agreements may beconsidered to be extended. Legal extension is almostautomatic and occurs in a context of high collectiveorganisation of employers and employees. Itsupplements a rate of initial coverage for collectiveagreements which is already very high. In France,Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Netherlands,extension is a common practice but not systematic.It usually occurs at the discretion of the authorities,who consult employers' and employees'organisations. The extension mechanism hereconstitutes a tool for overcoming the weakness ofone or both negotiating parties, usually the tradeunion partner, and involves a large number ofemployees. On the other hand, in the cases ofAustria, Germany and Luxembourg, extension



Type 3 legal extension devices

Devices Extent Extended content

Austria Satzung (Extension order) Rare Allby the Federal Arbitration Board

Belgium Collective agreements automatically Default procedure Allturned into Royal Decree

Finland Automatic if agreements already cover Default procedure Minimal provisionsmore than 50% of employees in a sector

France Extension/Elargissement declaration by Most agreements All the Minister of Labour upon advice ofemployers'/ employees' organisations

Germany Allgemeinverbindlichkeitserklärung: Few agreements Minimal provisionsextension of a sectoral agreement byrequest of one of the parties if 51% ofthe workers are already covered

Greece Epektasi sylloyikón symváseon: Most agreements Allextension to all workers in a sector if 51% are already covered. Some occupational agreements may not be extended.

Luxembourg Agreements declared generally binding Few agreements All by Règlement grand-ducal

Netherlands Agreements declared generally binding Most agreements All by the Government at the request of oneor more of the parties, if 55 to 60% of theworkers are already covered

Portugal Portario de extensão (extension directives) Most agreements Allby the Ministry of Employmentand Social affairs

Spain Provided that they comply with legal Automatic in case Allrequirements, collective agreements apply of statutory (i.e.to all workers of a given scope most) agreements



involves only a minority of collective agreementsand workers, and appears to be more of a safetydevice for avoiding excessive disparities betweenemployees or enterprises in the labour market.

As a corollary, the margin for manoeuvre foremployers' and employees' organisations varies interms of the initiative given to extensionmechanisms. In Belgium, Finland, Austria, Germanyand the Netherlands the mechanism is set in motionat the request of the social partners and the decisionis generally taken by a body on which they sit. Incontrast, in France sometimes, but particularly inGreece and Portugal, the authorities have moreinfluence over the decision, and the social partnerscan generally only issue an opinion on theprocedure under way, which is frequently at theinitiative of the government.

Judicial mechanisms

In some countries, recourse to the courts andtribunals or to third organisations is one of themeans whereby the content of collective agreementscan be extended to cover individual enterprises.Apart from the cases already dealt with in section2.2, where a trade union is represented in a companyand calls for the application erga omnes of sectoralminima, two other possibilities may arise:

• In Austria, in the absence of a collectiveagreement, and at the request of an employees'organisation, the Federal Conciliation Committee(Bundeseinigungsamt), a body subordinate to theMinistry of Labour (Bundesministerium für Arbeit,Gesundheit und Soziales, BMAGS) representingtrade unions, employers and the authorities, maylay down minimum pay scales.

• In Ireland, in the context of voluntary industrialrelations, the Labour Court plays a role inextending collective agreements. There are twosystems:

Company or (rarely) sectoral agreements may beregistered with the Labour Court. These RegisteredEmployment Agreements (REA) apply to allworkers potentially affected by the agreement,regardless of whether their employer is affiliated toa signatory organisation. This mechanism,however, has hitherto been little used.

One of the 16 Joint Labour Committees (JLC),tripartite bodies subordinate to the Labour Court,may, at the request of an employers' or employees'organisation or of the authorities, issue proposalsconcerning minimum wages and workingconditions. These may be confirmed by the LabourCourt in the form of an Employment RegulationOrder (ERO). However, the complexity of theconditions which have to be met in order to start

up this system, allied to the low level of minimumterms and conditions effectively negotiated, limitstheir scope and does not slow down wagecompetition.

Voluntary mechanisms

In contrast to the systems described above, there is asecond set of extension mechanisms. However, theseare characterised by a wider diversity of forms.

• In some countries, individual employers oremployers' organisations may sign a membershipagreement with their employees or with (a) tradeunion(s). This formally recognises that, even if theemployer is not affiliated to one of the orga-nisations which negotiated the collective agree-ment, he wishes to observe its terms and cond-itions. The importance of such practices is verydifficult to evaluate, but it appears – logically – to bemore established in those countries characterised bya more voluntarist tradition of industrial relationsand only involves fairly rare cases. Danish, Swedish,Luxembourgish and German experts havementioned such agreements in their countries.

• Without concluding a formal agreement,employers may individually follow the provisionsof agreements negotiated at sectoral or occu-pational category level. This could be the case, forexample, with smaller enterprises which therebyavoid the costs involved in membership of anorganisation representing them in the context ofwhat economists might term a "free rider" effect.Thus in Denmark, it is considered that collectiveagreements "rub off" on the working conditions ofa number of enterprises which were notrepresented when they were negotiated. Thispractice appears to be quite widespread, but ismore developed in Italy, Denmark and Sweden.

Other mechanisms

Finally, other systems may be considered as extensionmechanisms, even if they are not known as suchalthough they fulfil that function. We have chosen tolist them in terms of how specific they are to theMember States.

• In the context of the Austrian industrial relationssystem, all employers must be affiliated to the legalorganisation which represents their interests,namely the Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ) and itsterritorial and/or sectoral units. By default,therefore, almost all enterprises are members of asignatory organisation to collective agreements,with coverage therefore approaching 100%. Inaddition, by default, a legal provision (TVG) laysdown that a collective agreement covers employeeswho are not trade union members working for anemployer covered by a collective agreement.



• In the Netherlands, apart from other existing typesof extension, employers' and employees' orga-nisations sit on public bodies charged withregulating various aspects of sectoral policy. These‘statutory trade organisations’ (PubliekrechtelijkeBedrijfsorganisatie - PBO) have the power to issueregulations governing working conditions(vermogensaanwasdeling - VAD), establishingminimum standards and making up for theshortcomings of agreements.

• In Belgium, where sectoral negotiations take placewithin ‘joint commissions’, two of these have thetask of defining working conditions and wages formanual workers and employees not covered byother collective agreements. While the first coversonly a small number of employees, the seconddefines working conditions for 300 000 privatesector employees. The provisions negotiated aregenerally less favourable than those in othersectors. They comprise representatives of generalemployers' and white-collar workers' organisations(and not particular trade unions), and negotiate acollective agreement (subsequently extended tocover all enterprises potentially concerned) forthese workers. The combination of these twosystems (the auxiliary joint commissions and theextension of collective agreements negotiatedwithin them) constitutes a safety net, providingemployees with minimum cover. It is important tonote that the National Labour Council can alsoconclude collective agreements which can beextended by Royal Decree covering all workers andemployers in the Belgian private sector.

Content of the extension and the role of the players

The various forms of extension say nothing aboutthe content and the extent of their effects.

According to the legal provisions in force from onecountry to another, extension mechanisms may beused to extend all or only part of the content ofcollective agreements. This distinction is importantas it permits a differentiation between a systemcharacterised by a high degree of standardisation ofworking conditions guaranteed through industrialrelations and one where only minimum standardsare laid down.

Measuring the content of the extension

• In many countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark,France, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain andSweden) the whole content of the agreements isextended, with the exception of clauses specificallylinking signatory organisations (such ascommitments to social peace in some cases). Inthis case, extension has the role of harmonisingworking conditions, and may involve a very

significant number of workers, as is the case inFrance or Spain. The main way of obtaining thisresult is through legal extension mechanisms (cf.2.3.1), but in the view of some experts there maybe functional equivalents, such as the system ofcompulsory membership of the employers'organisation in Austria, which results in ‘complete’coverage by collective agreement of enterpriseswhich would not otherwise have signedagreements. This tendency is also noted in thecondition imposed on most legal extensionmechanisms of more than 50% prior coverage bythe agreement proposed for extension.

• In contrast, in countries such as Finland, Germany,Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands, only aproportion of agreements (generally the sectoralminima) are the subject of an extension. In thiscase, the extension mechanisms supplementexisting laws (where they exist) in some countrieswhich lay down minimum wages or workingconditions. Depending on the rate of affiliation byemployers and employees to signatoryorganisations to collective agreements, and on theother hand on the existence and the level of legalminima in terms of wages or working conditions,there may be a greater or lesser margin offluctuation for competition based on theseelements. It may be slight, as in Germany, wheresectoral minima and the rate of coverage are fairlyhigh. It may be more significant where sectoralminima are lower, as in Ireland, and do notprevent competition on the basis of low wages.The recent introduction of a legal minimum wagein this country provoked an internal debate, as anumber of the sectoral minima negotiated werelower than those laid down by law.

Degree of organisation of the players andimportance of extension practices

Extension practices play a role of varying importancefrom one Member State to another. An initialapproach (requiring all precautions with regard tothe reliability of the data available) is to compare therate of coverage by collective agreements, which isoften high, with the importance of the playerstaking part in this negotiation. This question meritsmore detailed examination, which space here doesnot permit. However, if we consider the average rateof affiliation (density) to employers' or employees'organisations, we can roughly distinguish countrieswhere extension is a complement to the localisedbut relatively insignificant deficiencies of the socialpartners from those where its role is as an importantsubstitute when faced with a fairly low degree ofcollective organisation.There are three examples, referring to different typesof extension:

• The negotiating partners may both be highly



organised, and the initial coverage of collectiveagreements may be considered to be significant.This is the case in Belgium, Denmark, Finland andSweden. In all these countries, affiliation ratesexceed two thirds of employees, and extensiontherefore supports a strong initial presence by thesocial partners.

• In a second case, there is a sometimes significantasymmetry between the signatories to collectiveagreements. The most frequent case appears to beone where the trade union partner is weak andemployers more strongly organised. This situationappears more typical in France, Austria, Germany,Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It isprimarily the type 1 mechanisms which play animportant role in this situation, extending theprovisions of agreements to workers not affiliatedto signatory trade unions. The other extensionsystems play only a limited role.

• In the third case, the two parties have relativelylittle weight, and extension plays a key supportingrole in collective negotiations, which wouldotherwise be only a marginal factor in determiningwages and working conditions, if the contractuallogic (coverage of the signatory parties only) wasfollowed. This appears to be the case particularly incountries such as Greece, Portugal or Spain.

Finally, in the case of enterprises not affiliated to anemployers' organisation, particular attention mustbe paid to the role played by industrial relations as awhole in regulating labour markets, at the risk ofoverestimating the weight of some systems. Inparticular, whether extension mechanisms may existin some countries, such as Greece and Portugal (andto a lesser extent in Spain), although sectoral (ornational) collective agreements play only a limitedrole in determining working conditions.

Conclusion

Extension mechanisms represent very differentsituations from one Member State to another. Thisdiversity is expressed in the forms that they mayadopt, the gaps in coverage they are intended to filland social practices in each country. As a result ofthese differences, there is a basic distinction betweenextension mechanisms in different countries,between those where they appear primarily to play apart in harmonising working conditions by applyingthe provisions of agreements to a large number ofworkers and those where they establish limits tocompetition between employers on the basis ofworking conditions and wages. Extension mechanisms thus provide an indicator ofthe degree of integration of collective bargaining,and of how closely intermeshed are the agreementprovisions which individual employment contractsmust meet in each Member State of the EU.

The table below shows the main variables to enablean assessment of extension mechanisms betweenMember States.

0

20

40

60

80

100

UK PT DK GE ES NL SW IR GR FR FI BE A

Coverage of collective agreements, 2000

Source: IST, Univ. Catholique de Louvain la Neuve

26



Main extension mechanisms Content TMA L TMA K Cover Extent (sorted by importance) extended * ** CB

Level***

Austria 1. Compulsory membership for employers' All 41% Nearly 100% 1.Importantorganisations (type 3) 100% S 2, 3.

2 Agreements binding on non-unionised Marginalworkers (legal provision – type 1)

3. Satzung (Extension Order) by the Federal Arbitration Board (type 3)

Belgium 1. Collective agreements turned into All 51 67% >90% 1.MostRoyal Decree (type 3) S, I agreements;

2. Agreements binding on non-unionised Lower 2. workers (legal provision – type 1) rates Automatic

3. Agreements negotiated in the Auxilliary Joint Committee (type 3)

Denmark 1. Agreements binding on non-unionised All 78 >50% 71-77% 1, 2 workers (voluntary - type 1) S, I, C important;

2. Formal adhesion agreements (type 3) 3. 3. Informal ‘rub-off effect’ (at company level - type 3) Sometimes

Finland 1 Automatic if already covering > 50% of Min. 68 70 95% Importantemployees in a sector (legal provision type 3) rates (about 25%

2. Agreements binding on non-unionised workers All of employees)(legal provision – type 1)

France 1. Agreements binding on non-unionised 9 >90 >93% 1.workers (legal provision – type 1) important

2. Extension/Elargissement declaration by All 2. 80% ofthe Minister of Labour (type 3) agreements

Germany 1. Agreements binding on non-unionised Min. 30% 82 70 to 1.workers (voluntary – type 1) rates 80% Important

2 Allgemeinverbindlichkeitserklärung: All S, I, C 2. Modestextension of a sectoral agreement by request about 1of one of the parties (type 3) million

3. Mirroring of sectoral agreements by individual 3. Notcompany agreements (type 3) known

Greece 1. Sometimes voluntary adhesion 25 <25 90% by trade union (type 1) S, O

2. Epektasi sylloyikón symváseon: extension to All Importantall workers in a sector if 51% are already covered (type 3)

Ireland 1. Voluntary2. Registered Employment Agreements (type 3) 48 44 *90% 1.Marginal3. Employment Regulation Orders (type 3) Min. rates F, I 2,3 23% of

employees

Italy 1. Common practice/voluntary (type 1) 44 64 High2. Jurisprudence, based on Article 39 of Min. S, I

Constitution erga omnes (type 2) rates Important3. Voluntary adhesion by employers (type 3)

Luxembourg 1. Agreements binding on non-unionised 43 93 Near 1.workers (legal provision – type 1) 100%, Important

2. Agreements declared generally binding by All S, F 2.way of Regulation grand-ducal (type 3) Marginal

1. Important

Netherlands 1. Agreements binding on non-unionised All 1.workers (legal provision – type 1) Important

2 Algemeen-Verbindend Verklaring 2. few(Agreements declared generally binding) by the Min. 24 >80 89% (about 500 000

Government at the request of rates S, F workers

one or more of the parties – type 3 concerned)

3. ‘Regulations on employment conditions’ by public law organisations of business and industry All



Portugal 1. Agreements binding on non-unionised 26 <25 Higherworkers (legal provision – type 1) than

2. Portario de extensão (extension directives) 2/3% Importantby the Ministry of Employment Sand Social affairs – type 3

Spain Provided that they comply with legal All 18 47 83% Importantrequirements, collective agreements apply S, F, Ito all workers of their potential scope (type 3)

Sweden 1. Voluntary adhesion by employers 97 75 75-95% 2. Union pressures (type 2) S, F 3. Agreements binding on non-unionised All Sometimes

workers (voluntary /type 1)

United Some agreements may be binding on - 32 48 25%, MarginalKingdom non-unionised workers (type 1) F

* Trade union density rates; source: ILO, (1997) Le travail dans le monde. Relations professionnelles, démocratie etcohésion sociale, Genève, Bureau International du Travail.

** Number of salaried employees in member companies of organisations negotiating collective agreements in theprivate sector. Estimates from Spineux (dir), Walthéry (1998), Les organisations de partenaires sociaux enEurope et leur représentativité, Rapport de recherche pour la Direction Générale Emploi et Affaires Sociales de laCommission des Communautés Européennes, Louvain-la-Neuve.http://www.trav.ucl.ac.be/partners/default.html. A variable proportion of workers, corresponding to socialsecurity activities, has been removed from the original figure in order to reflect private sector rates moreappropriately. All these figures, however, must be treated with the greatest caution, given the scarcity and lackof accuracy of available data.

*** Estimated average rate of coverage by collective agreements. These figures have to be treated with caution givendifferences in the method of calculation, especially whether or not company agreements are included.

Main collective bargaining level: I – Interprofessional (cross-industry) national, S – National at Sector level, O –Occupational, C – Company


The structure

of the players

in the social dialogue


The structure of the players of the social dialogue

Introduction

This chapter looks at the structure of the players inthe European social dialogue, particularly atsectoral level. This construction is based onnational organisations' membership of Europeanstructures. This underlies developments ininstitutions and social practices without reducingemployment diversity, both national and sectoral.

Studying the representativeness of the Europeansocial dialogue means simultaneously taking onboard the logic of the Europeanisation ofemployment and of industrial relations in Europethrough a tension between national and Europeanrepresentativeness in training and transformation.Each Member State of the European Union has itsspecific characteristics: historically identifiabletraining of its players, methods for organising andlegitimising their agreement-based relations anddealing with conflicts, etc.

On "representativeness"

To represent someone means to represent thatperson's interests vis à vis another private orpublic representative. It therefore meansdefending the interests of that person. But the"representatives" are negotiating on contraryinterests, which involves compromise. It isthrough their capacity to negotiatecompromises that "representatives" validatetheir representativeness and the legitimacy ofthe agreements they conclude. One couldtherefore say that the substance of legitimaterepresentativeness is that capacity toencompass and overcome vested interests inconflicts.

Structuring themselves at European level, the socialpartner organisations at the same time define theiroperating rules and rules for cooperation betweentheir members. The main question here concernshow decisions are made, and how decisions madeat European level are made binding on nationalmembers.

The representativeness of European and nationalplayers is examined in this chapter in relation tothe specific economic characteristics of the varioussectors, without which neither the employmentproblems nor the constraints on the players in thesocial dialogue can be understood.

The European approach to representativeness

At European level, the representativeness oforganisations is primordial in so far as itestablishes their right to be consulted by theCommission under the terms of Article 138 ofthe Treaty, and thus to participate in anynegotiations.

The Commission, in its Communication of 1993(COM(93)600 final), taken up by that of 1998(COM(98)322 final), defined three criteria for therepresentativeness of organisations: "(theyshould) be cross-industry or relate to specificsectors or categories and be organised at Euro-pean level; consist of organisations which arethemselves an integral and recognised part ofMember States' social partner structures and withthe capacity to negotiate agreements, and whichare representative of all Member States, as far aspossible; have adequate structures to ensure theireffective participation in the consultationprocess".

The Commission has chosen to support therepresentativeness of the European playerswithin national recognition mechanisms, thustaking account of the wide diversity of practicesin place. The European social partners"recognised" by the Commission for partic-ipation in the consultation laid down in Article138 of the Treaty comprise national organ-isations themselves recognised by nationalprovisions. It should be noted that thisrecognition relates only to that provision of theTreaty as the Commission consults regularly onan informal basis with a large number of playersin civil society.

A list of organisations meeting the criteria forrepresentativeness has been drawn up by theCommission and is given in Annex 1 to theCommunication of 1998. This list is updatedregularly on the basis of results from an ongoingstudy. Currently, the study of the repre-sentativeness of cross-industry organisations andmanagement (Eurocadres and CEC) has beencompleted. It is continuing at sectoral level.

The following chapter summarises data5

gathered for banking, insurance, road trans-port, sea transport, air transport, trade, cons-truction, and textile and clothing. Furtherinformation may be found at the followingaddress: http://www.trav.ucl.ac.be/

5 Data on representativeness are extracted from a study by the IST of theUniversité Catholique de Louvain combined with data from experts. TheEuropean Commission cannot guarantee the reliability of these data.


The structure of the players of the social dialogue

This analysis cannot be separated from anexamination of the economic situation in thesectors in question. While recent times have beenfairly favourable to employment following thereturn to growth, it is still true that the varioussectors with which we are concerned here havedeveloped in different ways.

Two sectors of widely differing significance interms of total employment (textiles and clothingand sea transport) have seen significant losses;overall, the others have gained jobs. But therelative weight and structure of these jobs differdepending on the sectors and on countries.

The feminisation of employment, which is in-creasing in all service sectors, can show significantnational differences (for instance banking andinsurance, but also the transport sector, whereGermany is seeing an exceptional feminisation ofjobs). In general, the south of the European Unionis seeing a relatively lower feminisation of theworkforce (with the exception of Portugal, where itexceeds the European average), and the north isapproaching parity, although no Member State hasreached 50%.

This relative heterogeneity is repeated with regardto other criteria. For instance, the distribution ofemployment in terms of the size of enterprisesshows a diversity which is more than the typicalNorth-South divide.

Temporary work (which is on the increase every-where) is developing at different rates in differentcountries and sectors.

These diverse situations can be explained by acombination of several factors. The Member Stateshave different historical and societal employmenthistories (industrial relations statutes and me-thods). And the sectors are structured differentlyand exposed to constraints from competition andthe perils of the economy.

We have tried to trace the recent main economictrends in the various sectors, with a return togrowth and more jobs, but also with an economymore subject to the constraints of internationalcompetition and the changes affecting employ-ment and work status.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Watertransport

Insurance Banking Construction0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

19952000

% total employed

Airtransport

Textiles& clothing

Landtransport

Commerce

Employment by sector in the EU, 1995-2000


270

10

20

30

40

50

60

I E EL L IRL B EU NL D A UK F P DK FIN S0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% total employed

Share of women in employment in the Union, 2000


29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EL I E P L IRL B DK F A EU NL S D FIN UK0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+% total

Distribution of employment by size of enterprise, 1996

Source: Eurostat, SME database

30

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Clothing

Water transport

Insurance

Banking

Distribution

Construction

Total

Hotels, restaurants

Land transport

Air transport

Annual % change

Change in employment by sector, 1995-2000


28


Banking industry

Banking industry

Industry characteristics

The European banking market is made up ofcommercial banks, co-operative banks, savingsbanks, and other credit institutions (such asmortgage banks or building societies, municipalbanks, postbanks and specialised credit instituti-ons).

We refer to financial services (NACE 65,) encom-passing all financial intermediation, except ins-urance and pension funding.

Whilst banks in Europe have a minor share in totalemployment, their contribution to total addedvalue is much larger and they control a major shareof assets in the economy.

Comparison of assets (balance sheet totals) held byEuropean credit institutions with the US and Japa-nese commercial banks show a prominence ofcredit institutions in the European financialsystem. The ‘disintermediation’ process – the shiftof financial services away from credit institutionstowards other financial or non-financial inter-mediaries or markets – has progressed faster in theUSA; in contrast, Europe banks are increasinglyactive in businesses with faster growth rates like lifeinsurance, mutual funds etc Next to traditionalbanking there are a number of promising segmentsfor banks to play a role of importance: financialintermediation and advisory services, investmentmanagement, insurance, fee-based operationalservices, trading, and merchant banking and equityinvestment.

Banking and insurance are characterized by largeenterprises, as in auxiliary activities, in contrast,more than 8 persons out of 10 work in an SME,28% of which are self employed.

Financial services are increasingly globalised.Indeed the substantial expansion of internationalactivities is due to deregulation and the revolutionin the communication technology. Probably themost significant source of change in the EU hasbeen the creation of the Single Market in financialservices that culminated in January 1999 with theintroduction of the Euro.

The banking-insurance sector has been declining(data for the period 1994-1996), affecting both thenumber of SMEs and large companies and the sizeof the workforce (-10 % in SMEs, -0,5 % in largeenterprises). Between 1995 and 1996, the turnoveralso decreased for SMEs (- 9.8 %), but that of largeenterprises rose in the Euro-zone.

The total number of credit institutions has beendeclining steadily during the period 1994-1997,falling from 9125 in 1994 to 8225 in 1997 (adecline of 9.9 %) mainly due to mergers of smallerentities. The highest relative drop was recorded inFrance (-22.2 %). Against this general trend, Irelandregistered a significant increase in the number ofcredit institutions. The wave of mergers andacquisitions can be explained by the increaseddemands of competitiveness, the Asian crisis andthe anticipation of the single currency.

Inside Europe, the degree of concentration of themarket is very different depending on the MemberState. Germany counts 3578 credit institutions in1997 (87.9 % are savings banks and small co-operative enterprises). This is over three timeshigher than France, Austria and Italy.

The financial services branch in general and thebanking sector in particular contribute to the totalvalue added in the economies more than theirweight as employers would suggest. In the majorityof EU Member States, the financial services branchrepresents more than 4 % of total value added (datafor 1997). However, in Luxembourg the share is 18%. Next come Austria, with a share of 8 %.

The EU-banks produce 16.4 % of the turnoverrealized by EU-enterprises (data for 1996). Togetherwith the turnover realised by insurance enterprises(4.3 %) and auxiliary services (2.4 %), the financialintermediation sector is good for a share of 23.1 %in the total turnover realized by EU-enterprises.Germany is the main European player in thebanking sector, followed by France and the UnitedKingdom.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FIN D B S DK EU UK F P E NL0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% total

EL, IRL, I, L, A no data

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+

Employment in banking by size of enterprise


31


Banking industry

Employment characteristics

Around 5.3 million people worked in the financialservices sector in 2000. This represents 3.5% of thetotal employment in the EU. Of these, around 65%worked in banking and some 22% in insurance.

The share in total employment and even moreclearly the occupational structure are significantlydifferent between the EU countries, even if oneexcludes Luxembourg from the comparison.

Employment in both banking and insuranceincreased by less than the total for the economy asa whole between 1995 and 200 (by 0.5% and a yearand 0.2% a year, respectively).

Women are well represented in this activity,accounting for just under half of the totalemployed in both banking and insurance in 2000,though women are proportionately moreimportant in the north of the Union than in thesouth.

The social partners of the European banking industry

Workers interests in the banking sector arerepresented by the finance trade section of UNI-Europa.

20 trade unions of 9 countries, which are notaffiliated to UNI-Europa, engage in CB for thesector, but – where the data are available - theirmembership in a particular country is considerablylower than that of the UNI-Europa affiliates for thesector in the same country. In any case, there is noother European organisation which could threatenthe position of UNI-Europa in the sector. TheEuropean categorial trade union CEC has only 2indirect members in the banking sector, one inFrance (SNB-CGC) and one in Italy(Federdirigenticredito). The CESI has two directmembers in the sector, one in Belgium (CGSLB)and one in Germany (DBB Tarifunion).

Half of the trade unions in the sector not affiliatedto UNI-Europa, are affiliated indirectly to theETUC; the LCGB from Luxembourg is a directmember.

A last remark in relation to the membership ofUNI-Europa in the banking sector is the strongpresence of horizontal white collar trade unionsand the presence of some public sector tradeunions (such as in Denmark and Germany).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

S P FIN EL E F N I EU D UK DK B A IRL L0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Self-employedEmployees

% total employed

Employment in banking in Member States, 2000


32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

E I P B NL L EL F DK A EU D UK IRL S FIN0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80% total employed

Women employed in banking in Member States, 2000


34

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

L A IRL B I UK GR DK FR EU FIN NL D S E P0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

% total

Temporary employees in banking, 2000


33


Banking industry

Map 1 Employment in banking, 2000

Source: Eurostat, LabourForce Survey


Banking industry

The employers’ interests in the banking sector arerepresented by three different organisations,reflecting the different philosophy behind threedifferent banking structures and interests, andtherefore they cannot be seen as concurrentorganisations:

- for the commercial banks, the Banking Fede-ration of the European Union (FBE).

- for the savings banks, the European SavingsBanks Group (ESBG)

- for the co-operative banks, the European Asso-ciation of Co-operative banks (EACB).

To overcome the lack of social competence ofcertain of its members, the FBE has set up theBanking Committee for European social affairs,composed not only of the FBE-members withcompetence in (European) social issues, but also ofemployers’ organisations with CB-competence onthe national level, although not member of theFBE.

The social partners for the banking industry areengaged in a social dialogue since 1990. Initiallystructured as an informal working party, thedialogue takes now place in a sectoral dialoguecommittee.

Although there is a real will for a dialogue betweenthe parties in the committee, on the employers’side the organisations did not get a CB-mandate oftheir national members. This has to be related tothe importance among their membership of tradeassociations – representing a purely economicinterest.

The social dialogue in the sector has focused onimportant issues for the sector, such as the mergersand acquisitions in the sector, the privatisation, thecall-centers, the EU-enlargement, etc. Certain ofthese issues have resulted in a joint opinion. In

November 1999 the banking industry socialpartners discussed a study on non-bankcompetition, a phenomenon which could have avery significant impact on employment andworking conditions in the sector.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

UK D F NL E A L B IRL S FIN DK I EL P0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% of union members in total employment

Banking: Trade union density (%)

Source: Report on the representativeness of European social partnersorganisations, part 2, IST, Univ. Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, 2001

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E IRL DK UK A EL L D F B I NL P FIN S0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% of total

Banking: Employers' organisations - Represented employment


36


Banking industry

Source: Report on the representativeness of European social partners organisations, part 2, IST, Univ. Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, 2001

EMPLOYEES

UNI Europa Finance/Banking

BankingFederation

of the European Union - FBE

Nationalorganisations nonaffiliated to UNIinvolved in CB

DAG (D) HBV (D)

GPA (A)

CNE (B)SETCa (B)LBC-NVK (B)

FF (DK)DFsF (DK)

COMFIA (E) FES (E)FETA-ELA/STV (E)

SUORA (FIN)

CFDT Banques(F)CFTC (F)UCC (F)FEC (F)

OTOE (EL)

IBOA (IRL)Mandate (IRL)

FISAC (I)FIBA (I)UILCA (I)FABI (I)FALCRI (I)

OGB-L (L)ALEBA (L)FEP-FIT Cadres (L)

FNV Bondgenoten(NL)CNVDienstenbond(NL)De Unie (NL)

SBSI (P)SBN (P)SBC (P)

UNIFI (UK)PCS (UK)

Finansförbundet(S)

STMF (S)

OTV (D)DBV (D)DHV (D)DBB Tarifunion (DB)

CGSLB (B)

CSICA (E)FITC (E)

CGT secteurs financiers (F)

SNB-CGC (F)

MSF (IRL)

SIPTU (IRL)

Federdirigenticredito (I)SINFUB (I)

LCGB (L)

SNQTB (P)

Fastighetsanställdas (S)HRF (S)JUSEK (S)CF (S)Civilekonomerna (S)

European Savings Banks Group - ESBG

European Association of Cooperative Banks - EACB

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

BANKING

The social partners of the European banking industry 37

AB (D)BDB (D)

VÖBB (A)

ABB (B)

FA (DK)FDPF (DK)

AEB (E)

PT (FIN)FBA (FIN)

AFB (F)

HBA (EL)

IBF (IRL)

ABI (I)

ABBL (L)

WGVB (NL)NVB (NL)

APB (P)

BBA (UK)

BAO (S)SBA (S)

DSGV (D)

ÖSV (A)

BSRB (B)

3 S GROUP (DK)

CECA (E)

Suomen Säästöpankkiliitto (FIN)

CENCEP (F)

Greek Post Office (EL)

TSB Bank (IRL)

ACRI (I)

BCEE (L)

SNS Reaal (NL)

BCE (P)

Lloyds TSB Group (UK)

Föreningssparbanken (S)

BVR (D)

ÖGB (A)ÖRV (A)

Crédit Professionel (B)

Danske Andelkassers (DK)

BCE (E)UNACC (E)

OKOBANK (FIN)

FNCA (F)GBP (F)CCBP (F)CNCM (F)CNCA (F)CCCC (F)

ACBC (EL)

ACC Bank (IRL)ILCU (IRL)

FEDERCASSE (I)ANBP (I)

Caisse Raiffeisen (L)

Rabobank(NL)

FENACAM (P)

Cooperative BAnk (UK)

Landshypotek (S)


Insurance industry

Insurance industry


Much alike the banking sector, the insurance sectorhas a limited contribution to global employment –except for Luxembourg-, and a notable contribu-tion to most economies added value: in the Euro-zone average is of 6.4 %, while the share ranks from3.1 % in Finland to 18.5 % in Luxembourg; apartfrom Austria (8 %) and Ireland (6.4 %), thecontribution to the national value added isrelatively homogeneous (4 à 5 %).

Turnover for insurance companies (understood asgross premiums written) range from 3.9 % of theGDP in Finland to 47.3 % in Luxembourg (EU-average of 8.5 %). The business written by theseenterprises has been increasing steadily over theperiod 1995-1997; premiums on life insuranceshowed more progress than those of non-lifeinsurance. The sector’s contribution to the grossdomestic product has generally been strengthened.In relation to the breakdown of the total grosspremiums written by all insurance enterprises inthe European Union: three countries hold over 70% of the EU market share in 1997: Germany (25.4%), the UK (24.9 %) and France (almost 21 %).There is a considerable gap with Italy (7.7 %), theNetherlands (5.1 %) and Spain (4.1 %). All othercountries have a market share smaller than 2.5 %.

However, as in 1993, average gross direct premiumswritten per capita in the EEA remain in 1997 wellbelow the American and Japanese levels, leaving intheory large scope for growth in the Member States.

The benefits of the economic growth in the late90’s have partly been offset by the race to com-petition brought up by the single insurance marketIn an increasingly competitive market enterpriseshave tried to save on administrative costs. Mergersand acquisitions are used to foster good results.

For the period 1994-1996, the number ofenterprises in the sector decreased from around16.300 in 1994 to 12.700 in 1996 (-22 %). Thistrend shows a high degree of diversity betweencountries. There were 624 large enterprises in thesector in 1996 and 12.065 SMEs. The UK registersaround 20 % of active insurance enterprises in theEU; followed by Germany and France.

In 1998 and early 1999 a further wave of mergersand acquisitions has been flooding Europe.Although most merger activities remain withinnational boundaries, in some cases they are pan-European. In the insurance sector, famous mergersat national level are Commercial Union andGeneral Accident (UK), Generali and AMB (I).Considering cross- border mergers, AXA, secondnon-life insurer in the French market took over theBritish company Guardian Royal Exchange,number six of the UK market, in early 1999, and,before that, in 1998, Allianz (D) acquired AGF (F).There are also transatlantic transactions, such asthe Dutch group Aegon acquiring TransamericaCorp in 1999. Another trend is the increasinginvolvement of private insurance companies inactivities formerly exclusively managed by publicauthorities, such as pension funding and socialsecurity services.


Both banking and insurance have seen suchactivities develop inside each industry, but alsocombined with one another to create a new sector:"bancassurance" (e.g. Toro Assicurazioni and Bancadi Roma in Italy).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E P FIN DK NL B UK EU F D0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% total

EL, IRL, I, L, A, S no data

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+

Employment in insurance by size of enterprise, 1996


38

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

P UK FIN EL I S E EU F B DK D NL L IRL A0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4Employees Self-employed% total employed

Employment in insurance in Member States, 2000


39


Insurance industry

In 2000, there were just over 1.2 million peopleemployed in the insurance sector (NACE 66).

Between 1995 and 2000, there was comparativelylittle growth in employment in the Union in thesector (only 0.2% a year).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

L IRL B A UK DK S FR FIN GR I EU D NL E P0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% total

Temporary employees in insurance, 2000


40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

A P B NL L I E D EU UK EL IRL DK F S FIN0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80% total

Women employed in insurance, 2000


41

Map 2 Employment in insurance, 2000



Insurance industry

The social partners of the European insurance industry

Workers interests in the insurance sector arerepresented by the finance trade section of UNI-Europa.

UNI-Europa Finance/Insurance has 35 members inthe EU, of which 4 do not engage in CB for theinsurance sector. The members of UNI-Europaengaged in CB represent around 181.000 workers(figure for the UK not known). Even without takingthese trade unions into consideration, UNI-EuropaFinance/Insurance has at least one member inevery Member State.

The members of UNI-Europa in the sector whichengage in CB represent around 20 % ofemployment in the sector (without taking theemployment in the UK into consideration).However, the average density of the members ofUNI-Europa in the sector is around 46 % (again theUK is not taken into consideration). Nevertheless,huge differences between the density of UNI-Europe affiliates in the sector exist between thecountries, going from around 4 % in France toalmost 100 % in Luxembourg.

10 trade unions of 8 different countries which arenot affiliated to UNI-Europa engage in CB in theinsurance sector, but – where the data are available-their membership in a particular country isconsiderably lower than that of the UNI-Europaaffiliates for the sector in the same country, exceptin Italy.

In any case, there is no other European organ-isation which could threaten the position of UNI-Europa in the sector. Just as in the banking sector,the European categorial trade union CEC has only2 indirect members in the insurance sector, one inFrance (the CGC affiliate FNCATA) and one in Italy(FIDIA). The CESI has one direct members in thesector, the Belgian CGSLB.

The employers’ interests in the insurance sector arerepresented by three different organisations,reflecting the different interests in the sector: • For the insurance enterprises sensu lato, the

European Insurance Committee (CEA);• for the insurance agents or intermediaries, the

International Association of Insurance andReinsurance Intermediaries (BIPAR);

• for the mutual and co-operative insuranceenterprises, the Association of European Co-opera-tive and Mutual Insurance Companies (ACME).

The 3 organisations, with affiliated organisations inall Member States (except for ACME, which has noaffiliate in Luxembourg), have a common charac-teristic: the important presence of members whichdo not engage in CB for the sector.

The CEA is, unlike the ACME, only composed oforganisations, not of insurance companies. Of its15 member organisations, one in every MemberState, 9 are engaged in CB for the sector. It isestimated that the CEA represents more than900.000 workers of the insurance sector. Thenegotiating members represent around 300.000workers or around 24 % of the total employment inthe sector.

It is estimated that the ACME represents more than80.000 workers of the insurance sector (the figuresfor the affiliated enterprises in Germany and Spainare not known; the figure for Austria is incom-plete). It is represented in all Member States, exceptin Luxembourg.

The BIPAR represents the interests of the insuranceagents and intermediaries in the sectoral dialoguecommittee. It is represented in all Member Statesthrough 28 affiliated organisations. It is estimatedthat the BIPAR represents at least 155.000 workers(the data for 11 of its member-organisations are notavailable). This is a considerable amount when

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F E D UK EL NL A B DK P FIN IRL S I L0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Insurance: Trade unions density (%)


42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

UK NL IRL I B E A DK D FIN S F L P EL0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% of total

UK: IncompleteEL:Estimate

Insurance: Employers' organisations - Represented employment


43

The social partners of the European insurance industry


Insurance industry

44

EMPLOYEES

UNI Europa Finance/Insurance

European Insurance

Committee CEA

CGSLB (B)

FASGA-SPS (E)

FNCATA (F)

SIPTU (IRL)

UILCA (I)SNFIA (I)FIDIA (I)

LCGB (L)

BBV (NL)

GMB (UK)

Association ofEuropean Cooperativeand Mutual Insurance

Companies - ACME

Nationalorganisations nonaffiliated to UNIinvolved in CB

InternationalAssociation ofInsurance andReinsurance

Intermediaries - BIPAR

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

INSURANCE

seen in relation to the estimates that there arebetween 75.000 and 100.000 independent insu-rance agents and intermediaries in the EuropeanUnion, which represent an employment of around300.000 workers.

The social partners for the insurance industry areengaged in a social dialogue since 1987. Initiallystructured as an informal working party, the socialdialogue takes now place in a sectoral dialoguecommittee.

The social dialogue in the sector has focused onimportant issues for the sector, such as theintegration and the collaboration with thecountries which are to accede to the EU, vocationaltraining, qualifications and the access to theprofession for insurance intermediaries, and thechanges in the work organisation (working time,especially in relation to ‘call centers’).

The ECA‘s attempt to set up an InsuranceCommittee for European social affairs, after theexample of the ETF in the banking sector, failed;although the BIPAR has such a committee, it hasno CB-mandate, seen the nature of theorganisation’s membership (cf. infra). The BIPARmerely wants to represent the specific interests ofthe sub-sector of the insurance intermediaries, inwhich major changes have taken place.

DAG (D) OSAE (EL)HBV (D)

MSF (IRL)GPA (A)

FISAC (I)CNE (B) FIBA (I)SETCa (B) FNA (I)LBC-NVK (B)

OGB-L (L)CDA (DK) ALEBA (L)DFL (DK) FEP-FIT Cadres(L)DFsF (DK)

FNV Bondgenoten (NL)

COMFIA (E) De Unie (NL)FeS (E)ELA/STV (E) STAS (P)

SINAPSA (P)VvL (FIN)

MSF (UK) feS (F)FEC (F) UNIFI (UK)FECTAM (F) Fédération CGT(F)UCC (F)

FF (S)FTF (S)JUSEK (S)

GDV (D)

VVÖ (A)

UPEA (B)

F&P (DK)

UNESPA (E)

SVK (FIN)

FFSA (F)

EAEE (EL)

IIF (IRL)

ANIA (I)

ACA (L)

VV (NL)

APS (P)

BIIC (UK)

SF (S)

RV (D)

ÖBV (A)Wiener Stadtische (A)

APRA Group (B)Les AP Assurances (B)P&V Assurances (B)

ALKA (DK)AP Pension (DK)LB Group (DK)

Seguros Lagun Aro (E)

Local Insurance (FIN)TAPIOLA (FIN)

GEMA (F)FNMF (F)EURESA (F)

Syneteristiki Insurance (EL)

ECCU (IRL)

UNIPOL (I)CATTOLICA (I)Fondazione Caesar (I)

DELA (NL)SNS Reaal (NL)

EURESAP (P)Mutua dos Pescadores (P)

CIS (UK)Sunderland Marine (UK)

FOLKSAM (S)KP Pension & Försäkring (S)

BVK (D)VGA (D)BDVM (D)

BVV (A)VÖV (A)

FEPRABEL (B)UPCA (B)

FMF (DK)F-B (DK)

ANACSE (E)ADECOSE (E)Consejo General (E)

FIBA (FIN)

FCA (F)SFAC (F)AGEA (F)

HIBA (EL)

IBA (IRL)

AIBI (I)SNA (I)UEA (I)

ALUPASS (L)

NVA (NL)NBVA (NL)

APROSE (P)

BIBA (UK)The IFA (UK)

SIBA (S)


Land transport

Land Transport


There were approximately 4.410.000 peopleworking in rail and road transport together in2000. Women employment in land transport isaround 20 % in the EU with the exception ofGermany where it reaches more than 40 % of thesectoral labour force ok. Temporary employment isunder 10% for most countries. An employmentfeature of the sector is the very high rate of self-employment and long working hours in roadtransport.

There are around 624.000 enterprises operating inrail and road transport in 1995; in 1996 around780.000 enterprises are operating in the landtransport sector (however, these figures also takethe – small amount of – enterprises operatingpipelines into consideration).

Land transport makes up the largest share oftransport activities in most Member States, and canaccount for up to two-thirds of the value addedgenerated in transport activities. However, in e.g.Germany and Belgium, it is only one-third due tothe large size of the auxiliary transport servicesbranch. On average, land transport represented in1995 68 % of the employment in the sector, 86 %of the number of enterprises and 44 % of theturnover of the sector.

The sector is of considerable importance in theEuropean Union, accounting for 2.8% of total em-ployment in 2000.

Land transport enterprises are among the smallestin Europe (together with enterprises in theconstruction sector): they employ only 5 personson average; 63,6 % of the enterprises have noemployees, and account for 16,2 % of the totalemployment in the sector – NACE 60/61/62/63

taken as a whole - in 1996 16.9% in 1996 NACE 60only. However, it is clear that this situation has tobe put on the account of road transport; railtransport is (still) dominated by a few largeenterprises. Nevertheless, also inside the roadtransport sector very different agents are operating,ranging from independent lorry or taxi drivers tovery large metropolitan transport companies.

Road Transport is by far the most commonmeans of transport. It represented in 1996 morethan 87% of passenger transport and close to three-quarters of total freight transport inside the EU,excluding sea transport (44,5 % including it). In allcountries it is the main carrier of goods; in theNetherlands, the largest carriers are the inlandwaterways, in Luxembourg, the trains.

The growth rate of road transport has out-performed any other transport means to exceed 1.3thousand billion tonne-kilometres in 1999, aprogression of 41 % compared to 1990. Apart froman increased mobility and flexibility, theexplanation is that the competitiveness of roadcompared to other freight transport modes haslargely benefited from liberalisation in Europe; of

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DK E S D FIN EU P NL F I UK B0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+% total

EL, IRL, L, A no data

DK road only

Employment in land transport by size of enterprise, 1996


45

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

EL E UK NL S DK EU P D FIN I F IRL B A L0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8


Employment in rail transport in Member States, 1995


46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

D IRL UK P EU I FIN E A S EL B F DK NL L0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4Employees Self-employed% total employed

Employment in road transport in Member States, 1995


47


Land transport

course, road transport has a competitive edgecompared to other transport modes because of thepossibility of door-to-door deliveries.

Road transport represents the major share ofenterprises in the transport sector (86 %) and themajor share of employment (around 50%.). Itaccounted for over 620.000 enterprises and around2.600.000 workers in the EU in 1995.

This represents some 3,5 % of all EU-enterprisesand some 2% of total EU employment.

As said, the sector covers passenger transport aswell as road haulage and own-account transport.The latter is the largest in terms of employment,with passenger transport being the smallest.

0

5

10

15

20

25

L IRL B DK UK A I D FIN GR EU FR NL P S E0

5

10

15

20

25

% total

Temporary employees in land transport, 2000


48

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EL B FIN I E L IRL S F A DK P NL EU UK D0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45% total

Women employed in land transport in Member States, 2000


49

Employment in land transport, 2000

Eurostat, Labour Force Survey


Land transport

The social partners of the European road transport sector

The European Transport Workers Federation (ETF)has 40 members in the road transport sector. Theorganisation is represented in all Member States,except Portugal (although the affiliation of theFESTRU is ongoing).

Although it is very difficult to determine theemployment represented by the ETF in the sector, itcan be said that it lies between around 320.000 and420.000, around 9 and 12 % of the employment inthe sector.

There are important differences in unionisationbetween public passenger transport and privatisedpassenger transport performed by former state-owned companies (e.g. Ireland). There can also be atransition period in which the members of publictrade unions in privatised companies continue to berepresented (partly) by public trade unions, althoughthe take over by private trade unions is to beexpected (e.g. the Netherlands).

In general, the density in ‘public’ transport is high,due to the larger size of the companies and the statusof (former) public company.

In the taxi and private bus sub-sector one finds acompletely different situation, because of the highlevel of self-employed workers.

Also the trade union density in the road haulageindustry is in general quite low, due in part to thehigh number of small businesses in this sector.

20 trade unions in 9 countries which are notaffiliated to ETF engage in CB for the sector, butthere is no other European organisation which couldthreaten the position of ETF in the sector. In Italy thevery high density of FENDAC, the managers tradeunion for the transport sector, affiliated indirectly –through the intermediary of CIDA - to CEC, has tobe pointed out.

Almost all trade unions active in CB for the sector areindirectly affiliated to the ETUC (exceptions inBelgium and Italy). Most trade unions are directlyaffiliated to the International transport workers’Federation (ITF) on the international level.The employers are represented in the sectoraldialogue committee by the International RoadTransport Union (IRU) EU liaison Committee.

The ‘Union International des transports publics’(UITP) European Union Committee has concluded acooperation agreement with the IRU to guaranteethe representation of the urban and intercity publictransport.

The IRU (EU liaison Committee) has 51 members inthe EU, at least one in every Member State. However,31 of them do not engage in CB for the sector in 5Member States (Denmark, Spain, Finland, Ireland,and the UK). In three of these (Denmark, Spain andFinland) indirect members of IRU are engaged in CBfor the sector.

The members of IRU in the sector which engage inCB represent 1.500.000 workers or around 44% ofthe employment in the sector. No estimate can begiven of the employment represented by themember organisations which are not engaged in CB,but it is clear that in some Member States theseorganisations represent a considerable number ofworkers.

28 employers’ organisations (and some of theirmembers) from 10 countries which are not memberof IRU - not even indirectly – engage in CB for thesector.

Part of them are affiliated to another verticalEuropean organisation, the ‘Union International destransports publics’ (UITP), and more specifically toits European Union Committee.

UITP is estimated to represent 1200 operators ofpublic transport of persons (representing anemployment of around 0.6 million workers); around

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F E IRL I L NL B P EL D UK FIN DK S

% of union members in total employment

A: data not available

Road Transport: Trade unions density (%)

Source: Report on the representativeness of European social partnersorganisations, part 2, IST, Univ. Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, 2001a

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F FIN D L IRL S E B DK A I P NL

% of total

EL, UK: no data available

Road Transport: Employers' organisations -Represented employment


51


Land transport

340 of them are employers’ organisations.There is a double affiliation situation in this sub-sector, and the membership of UITP must be seen inrelation with that of IRU and CEEP.

As refers the double affiliations between IRU andUITP, of the 213.000 workers represented by UITP,more than 59.300 are also represented by IRU. Itseems, however, that UITP is sufficiently stronglyrooted in this subsector to be representative.

As for the double affiliations between CEEP andUITP, 2 organisations are affiliated at the same timeto CEEP and UITP. The French UTP is indirectlyaffiliated to CEEP (through MEDEF) and the SwedishKFF is directly affiliated to CEEP.

In Germany, some public transport organisationswithin the members of UITP are active in othertransport sub-sectors, such as rail transport, andconsider the CEEP as more representative of theirinterests than the IRU. The consequence of thissituation is that the representativeness of UITP isprimarily contested by CEEP.

EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

ROAD TRANSPORT


European Transport WorkersFederation- ETF

Community of EuropeanRailways - CER

Union International des Transports

Publics - UITP EUCommittee

Organisationsnon affiliated

to ETF involved in CB

Organisations nonaffiliated involved

in CB

DAG (D)ÖTV (D)

GPA (A)

SETCA (B)LBC (B)SLFP (B)CNE (B)CGSLB (B)

TF (DK)

POYPA (EL) POSEM (EL)

TEEU (IRL)AEEU (IRL)ATGWU (IRL)

FENDAC (I)FNT (I)

ABVAKABO (NL)

SITRA (P)FESTRU (P)

BSL (D) VKA (D)AVN (D) VDV (D)

FS (A) FA (A)Fachverband der Spediteure (A)

UBTCUR (B) SAV (B)Déménagement (B) UPTR (B) ATL (DK) TA(DK)RA (DK) STA (DK)DTA (DK)

FENEBUS(E)ASINTRA(E)CETM (E) FEDEM (E)

UFT (F) UTP (F)GNTC (F) CSNSA (F)CSD (F) SYLOVAL(F)

ATL (FIN) VWOV(NL)

Metro Lisboa (P) LTB (UK)

FENIT (I) AUSITRA(I)Ancotat AGCI (I) CASA (I)CLAAI (I) ANCST (I)Federtransporti (I) FITA (I)Confartigianato-Transporti (I)Federlavoro e Servizi (I)

IBEC (IRL) ISME (IRL)

Fédération des Patrons louersde Taxis (L)

Bua (S) KFF (S)

52The social partners of the European road transport sector

GdED (D) OYPAE (EL)

GDG (A) FETCOMAR (E) GHTV (A) FETCM-UGT (E)GdEÖ (A) ELA/STV (E)

Transport-CVD (B) AKT (FIN)CGSP (B) ERTO (FIN)CCSP (B) RL (FIN)UBOT-BTB (B)

HK (DK) UNCP (F)SiD (DK) FGTE-CFDT (F)DM (DK) CGT Transport (F) RBF (DK)

OGB-FNCTTFEL (L) FILT (I) SPYROLUX(L) FIT (I)LCGB (L) UIL TRANSPORTI (I)

FNV Bondgenoten (NL) CNV Bedrijvenbond(NL)

SIPTU (IRL) NBRU (IRL)TSSA (IRL)

TGWU (UK) URTU (UK)ASLEF (UK) USDAW (UK)NUMAST (UK)

SEKO (S) TF (S)SK (S) HTF (S)LEDARNA (S)

BGL (D) BDO (D)AISTV (D) BZP (D)

FG (A) GSEAE (EL)

FBAA (B) LA (FIN) GTL (B) STL (FIN)FEBETRA (B) SKAL (FIN)

DB (DK) KNV (NL)DTF (DK) TLN (NL)DTL (DK) NIWO (NL) ITD (DK) EVO (NL)ASTIC (E) IRHA (IRL)CTC (E) LET (IRL)

FNTV (F) SNET (F)FNAT (F) FNET (F) CSNERT (F) UNIRT (F)AFTRI (F) FNTR (F)AUTF (F)

FTA (UK) RHA (UK)CPT (UK) LTDA (UK)

BA (S) BR (S)STF (S) SA (S)

ANTRAM (P) ANTROP (P)ANTRAL (P)

ANAC (I)Assotransporti (I)CONFETRA (I) FAI (I)UICCIAA (I)

FLEAA (L) GroupementTransport (L)

N° of of UITPmembers percountry

Germany - 62

Austria - 14

Belgium - 13

Denmark - 16

Spain - 21

Finland - 10

France - 75

Greece - 4

Ireland - 1

Italy - 38

Luxembourg - 3

Netherlands - 14

Portugal - 15

United Kingdom -30

Sweden - 20

Total-336


Land transport

The social partners of the European rail transport sector

The rail section of the European Transport WorkersFederation (ETF) has 37 members in the railtransport sector of which 8 do not engage in CB.

It is present in all Member States and it representsat least 300.000 workers or around one third of theemployment in the sector.

The average density of the rail section of the ETFfor the 9 Member States for which the data arecomplete lies around 73 %. This result can giveonly an indication of the fact that the trade uniondensity in the rail transport sector is extremelyhigh, even in countries like France and Spain whereit is traditionally low. This can be partly attributedto the traditional predominance of State owner-ship, which still lingers on.

The representativeness of the rail section of the ETFis not contested by any organisation on theEuropean level despite the fact that 24 trade unionsin 10 Member States (the information for the UK isnot available) are involved in CB in the sector,without being affiliated to the rail section of theETF. They represent an employment of at least66.000 workers.

A closer look to these trade unions shows that inthe majority of cases it concerns categorial andoften also autonomous trade unions. On thecontrary, the member unions of the rail section ofthe ETF are mostly also affiliated to the ITF – theInternational Transport Workers’ Federation.

The situation in the United Kingdom - the onlycountry with a full privatisation process in thesector, shows that trade union membershipremains high for certain categories of workers, suchas engine drivers; however, it is declining amongstother occupations. This can be explained by thefact that certain occupational groups, such asengine drivers, have a considerable bargaining

power, and thus have more incentive to organise. Ithas to be reminded that the trade unionmembership in the sector is divided over a largenumber of trade unions. The presence ofoccupational and independent unions is almostgeneral.

On the employers' side, the Community ofEuropean Railways (CER) has 20 members in 14Member States. In the UK only 2 trade associationsare present in the rail transport sector – the RailwayForum and the ATOC – which have no industrialrelations role. The members of the CER are railwaycompanies and infrastructure managers. Thismeans that these companies are either involved inCB themselves or are member of a governmentalagency which engages in CB. Due to themonopolistic situation of the sector, the ratio ofthe employment represented by these enterprisesin relation to the employment in the sector comesclose to 100 % in most Member States. This is a firstexplanation for the uncontested representativenessof the CER in this sub-sector.

The second explanation is that no verticalemployers’ organisation on the European levelorganises the enterprises or employers’ organi-sations engaged in CB which are no members ofthe CER.

This situation is to be monitored to verify that theCER continues to represent on the one hand thetraditional operators, and on the other hand, newoperators and infrastructure managers, whoseinterest may not always coincide with those of thetraditional railways operators.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

I P F L U N S A E D IRL EL FIN


B. D. no data available

The social partners of the Europeanroad transport sector


53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

00

P E D EL S B DK F IRL I L NL A FIN

% of total

UK: no data available

Rail Transport: Employers' organisations -Represented employment


54


Land transport

55

EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

RAIL TRANSPORT


European Transport WorkersFederation- ETF

Community of European Railways - CER

Organisations non affiliated to ETF involved in CB Other organisationsinvolved in CB

TGM (D)

Sud-Rail (F)

DJ (DK)Jernbaneföreningen (DK)Tl (DK)MF (DK)KAD (DK)AC (DK)

VVMC (NL) VHS (NL)

VR-AKAVA (FIN) SNTSF (P) SAMQ (P)

MSF (IRL)AEEU (IRL)

FISAFS (I)SMA (I)FNT (I)

SEMAF (E)CGT (E)

TEEU (IRL)ATGWU (IRL)

AGVDE (D)

FSB (E)

PA (DK)

FEVE (E)FGC (E)FGV (E)EUSKO TREN (E)

EATSS (FIN)

SAMERA (F)GERF (F)

ERGOSE (EL)

ALLIANSEN (S)AGV (S)

CGB (D)DBB (D)MB (D)

CGSBL (B)

FF (DK)

CSI-CSIF (E)FASGA (E)

CISAL (I)CISAS (I)CONFILL (I)CONFSAL (I)USPPI (I)

FGFC (L)

ALECIFFFPE

CGT Cheminots (F) UNSA (F) CGT Union Locale (F)FO Equipements (F)FO Cheminots (F)FGTE/CFDT (F)

SIPTU (IRL)TSSA (IRL)

FNCTTFEL (L)FCPT-Syprolux (L)

SINDEFER (P)FESMAR (P)

The social partners of the European rail transport sector

GdED (D) ÖTV (D)

GdE (A)HTV (A)

CGSP (B)SCCC (B)

HK/Stat(DK)SiD transport (DK)DM (DK)StK (DK)

FETCOMAR-CCOO (E) FETCM-UGT (E)ELA/STV (E)

RL (FIN)VL (FIN)Rautativirkamilitto (FIN)FJ (FIN)

POS (EL)

FILT (I)FIT (I)UIL TRANSPORTI (I)

FNV Bondgenoten (NL)CNV bedrijvenbond (NL)

SEKO (S)ST (S)

ASLEF (UK)RMT (UK)TSSA (UK)TGWU (UK)

DB AG (D)

ÖBB(A)

SNBC (B)

BS (DK)DSB (DK)

RENFE (E)

RHK (FIN)VR-Ythymä (FIN)

SNCF (F)Eurotunnel (F)RFF (F)

OSE (EL)

IE (IRL)

FS (I)

CFL (L)

NS (NL)

CP (P)REFER (P)

ATOC (UK)

SJ (S)BV (S)


Water Transport

Water Transport


The water transport sector (maritime transport andinland navigation) accounts for only a very smallshare of the European economy (0,08 % of thenumber of enterprises, 0,1 % of employment and0,2 % of turnover (in the non-agricultural marketsector) in 1996).

Maritime transport

The maritime transport sector (NACE 61.1)accounted for around 4959 enterprises and 146.000workers in 1995. This represented 0,03 % of all EU-enterprises, 0,1 % of the EU-employment and 0,2% of the EU-turnover (in the non-agriculturalmarket sector). It is the second smallest transportsector in terms of employment (only 2,7 % of thetransport workers work on board of a sea-ship), butit represents around 7 % of the turnover in thesector.

However, the share of the European Unionmaritime transport sector in the total world fleet isconstantly declining, and it currently accounts forno more than 10 % - 15 % of the world market.

Together with increasing concentration andderegulation in the sector in an attempt to staycompetitive, there has also been a substantialdecline in the number of employees. Smallerproviders try to survive through specialisation.

According to Lloyd’s figures, no less than 60 % ofthe total fleet controlled by owners from EEAcountries fly a third country flag; thus, the realtonnage of EEA-controlled ships would instead of16 % be well over a third of the world fleet. If it isestimated that since 1980 the number of EUnationals working in the sector has declined bynearly 130000, this is mainly a result of the moveby ship owners and operators to non-EU "flags ofconvenience", and of less rigorous conditions and

cheaper rates under second registers. Employers areto apply the labour conditions and taxationlegislation of the country in which the ship isregistered (shown by the flag). By registering a shipin countries without a maritime tradition or simplywith lower standards (e.g. Luxembourg), one canavoid a more stringent taxation and labourlegislation.

In several Member States (e.g. the Netherlands andGermany) one has tried to convert this trend by –above all, deregulatory – measures, such as thelowering of standards with regard to the requiredqualifications, the recognition of foreign qual-ifications and tax reforms. Germany introduced thepossibility to employ foreign seamen under thesame conditions as in their countries of origin.

The resulting employment increase has mainlybenefited non-EU workers, due to a shortfall in thelevel of recruitment and training. Studies haveshown that there is a recruitment crisis at the sametime as there is set to be an increase in sea-bornetrade.

This is confirmed when one looks at the growthrates in sea borne transport. One usually makes adistinction between deep-sea transport that refersto shipping on long sea routes and short-seashipping, that covers transport of passengers and

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NL D B EU F E I S UK DK0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% total

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+EL, IRL, L, A, P, FIN no data

Employment in water transport by size of enterprise, 1996


56

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

L A F P D NL B E UK EU IRL I S FIN DK EL0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


Employment in water transport in Member States, 2000


57

0

10

20

30

40

50

B A EL P I EU IRL E NL D S UK F DK FIN L

0

10

20

30

40

50% total

Women employed in water transport in member States, 2000


58


Water Transport

goods between national and European ports.However, there is a considerable growth for both ofthem. Short-sea shipping was in 1997 the secondmost important freight transport mode in the EU(only slightly below road transport).

Inland Navigation

The inland navigation transport sector accountedfor around 10.700 enterprises and 37500 workers in1995 (There were some 239.000 people employedin water transport as a whole in 2000.) Thisrepresented 0,06 % of all EU-enterprises, 0,03 % ofthe EU-employment and 0,02 % of the EU-turnover(in the non-agricultural market sector). It isobviously the smallest transport sector in terms ofemployment (only 0,7 % of the transport workerswork on board of an inland navigation vessel).

Inland navigation accounts for around 6.8 % of thetotal volume of goods transported in the EU in1999 (i.e. half the level of rail transport and a tenthof road transport), however its importance is verydifferent among Member States. In the Netherlandsit accounts for a remarkably high share of almost42 %; also in Belgium, Luxembourg and Germanyinland shipping accounts for a considerable part oftotal freight transport, i.e. between 10 and 13 %. Employment in the sector is tending to declineover time.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

B A IRL S L I FR D UK EU GR P FIN DK NL E

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35% total

Temporary employees in water transport, 2000


59

Map 4 Employment in water transport, 2000



Water Transport

The social partners of the European maritime transport

The maritime transport section of the EuropeanTransport Workers Federation (ETF) has 40 membertrade unions, representing at least 140.000 workers,i.e. around 65 % of the employment in the sector.

The representativeness of the maritime transportsection of the ETF is not contested. It can be

remarked that there are trade unions which engagein CB in the sea transport sector and which are notaffiliated to the maritime transport section of theETF. However, these trade unions represent alimited number of workers in the sector in relationto the ETF and no other European verticalorganisation is present in the sector.

On the international level, the majority of themembers of the maritime transport section of theETF (and some of the trade unions which are not)are affiliated to the International TransportWorkers’ Federation (ITF). NUMAST (UK) and

SFBF (S) are also affiliated to the InternationalMaritime Organisation (IMO). SFBF is also affiliatedto the International Federation of ShipmastersAssociation (IFSMA).

On the employers' side, the European CommunityShipowners Association (ECSA) represents theinterests of the ship owners on the European level.It has 17 members, employers’ organisations; onein every Member State, two in Finland and Italy. Itrepresents an employment of at least 155.000workers.

The majority of its members engage in CB for thesector. In Ireland and the United Kingdom aChamber of Shipping is member of the ECSA.These are trade associations for ship owners andship managers, no employers’ organisations. Theirkey role is to provide the enterprises withinformation on developments that could affecttheir ability to run their businesses and to promotetheir interests to government and other relevantbodies.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

P I UK D A EL S EU F E DK FIN B NL IRL L0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


Water Transport: Employers' organisations -Represented employment


61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

D UK NL E EL IRL DK F S I FIN


B, L, A, P: no data available

Water Transport: Trade unions density (%)


60


Water Transport

62


The social partners of the European maritime transport

EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

MARITIME TRANSPORT

ZDS (D)

BR (DK)Rederiforeningen af mindre skibe(DK)Rederiforeningen 1895 (DK)

UPACCIM (F)UNIM (F)FFPP (F)

EEP (EL)EEA (EL)PUCCVS (EL)SUMCV (EL)

Assologistica (I)

VWH (NL)SMW (NL)NEMEA (NL)

SH (S)

DAG (D) LCGB (A)

SUI (IRL) STMM (E)ATGWU (IRL)

MMF (DK)RF (DK)DF (DK)

FNDAI (IT)FEDERMAR (IT)

European TransportWorkers

Federation- ETF

EuropeanCommunityShipowners

Association - ECSA

Organisations nonaffiliated to ETF

involved in CB

Organisations nonaffiliated to ECSA

involved in CB

GdED (D) SIPTU (IRL)ÖTV (D) TSSA (IRL)

CVD (B) BTB (B)SCCC (B) SETCA (B)UBOT (B)

HK/Service(DK) DN (DK)SiD (DK) DsR (DK)DM (DK)

FETCOMAR (E) ELA/STV (E)FETM-UGT (E)

SMU (FIN) SLPL (FIN)SKL (FIN)

PNO (EL)

FNSM (F) FO Equip. (F)SOMM (F) UM (F)

FILT (I) FIT (I)UIL TRANSPORTI (I)

FNCTTFEL (L) FCPT-Syprolux (L)

FSM (P) SOEMM (P)FESMAR(P) OFICIAISMAR (P)

FWZ (NL) CNV (NL)

SEKO (S) TF (S)SFBF (S) HTF (S)

RMT (UK) NUMAST (UK)

VDR (D)

ASA (A)

BSA (B)DR (DK)

ANAVE (E)

FSA (FIN)ASA (FIN)

EEE (EL)

CCAF (F) ICS (IRL)

CONFITARMA (I)FEDARLINEA (I)

UAL (L)

AAMC (P)

KVNR (NL) CNV (NL)

CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (UK)

SR (S)


Air Transport

Air Transport


Up until the latter part of 2001, air transport hadwitnessed strong growth in traffic over a number ofyears. Between 1993 and 1999, for example, thenumber of passengers travelling between EUairports increased by an average of 8% a year, whilethe volume of freight carried within the EUincreased by around 3_% a year (though thevolume of freight entering EU airports in total,including from countries outside the EU, grew by6% a year).

Despite the small number of enterprises (around3000), the civil aviation sector – excluding militaryair traffic - accounted for just under 6 % ofemployment in the transport sector (or around 420thousand workers) in 2000 and 12% of turnover in1995. The former represented around 0.3% of totalEU-employment.

The average size of enterprise is, therefore,relatively large. However, in comparison with theUS and Asia the industry is still very fragmented.The dominant trend observed in recent years hasbeen the formation of very large alliances ofairlines combining their networks, in response toincreased competition caused in part by progressiveliberalisation of the market and privatisation ofstate-owned companies.

Nevertheless, despite rationalisation, employmentincreased by an average of 4% a year between 1995and 2000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B UK E I S D EU P F NL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% total

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+

DK, EL, IRL, L, FIN, A no data

Employment in air transport by size of enterprise, 1996


63

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

P I UK D A EL S EU F E DK FIN B NL IRL L0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


Employment in air transport in member States, 2000


64

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DK A S IRL L UK FR B D P NL FIN EU GR I E

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35% total

Temporary employees in air transport, 2000


65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

L NL B I DK EU E F UK P D FI EL IRL S A0

10

20

30

40

50

60% total

Women employed in air transport in Member States, 2000


66


Air Transport

The social partners of the European civil aviation

The civil aviation sector is the only transport sectorin which different trade unions represent theinterests of different categories of workers atEuropean level. The two main categories are theflying staff and the ground staff. Amongst theflying staff one has to distinguish between thecockpit personnel and the cabin crew; the cockpitpersonnel can be further divided into pilots andflight engineers. Amongst the ground staff, the airtraffic controllers have to be singled out.

This diversity is reflected at European level in theexistence of two trade unions and five employers'organisations.

In the sectoral dialogue committee, the civilaviation section of the European Transport Workers

Federation (ETF) and the European CockpitAssociation (ECA) represent workers’ interests.

The civil aviation section of the ETF gathers tradeunions which represent the cabin crew, the groundstaff and the air traffic management workers. It had established relations with the Air Traffic UnionsCoordination (ATCEUC), which gathers categorialtrade unions of air traffic controllers at EU level.

The ETF has 46 direct members and 3 indirectmembers in Denmark, which engage in CB for thesector. It is represented by several organisations inevery Member State. Although data are veryapproximate and incomplete, the civil aviationsection of the ETF seems to represent at least154.000 workers, i.e. at least 35 % of theemployment in the civil aviation sector taken as awhole.

Map 5 Employment in air transport, 2000



Air Transport

While its representativeness is not contested by theECA, which has another field of organisation, thecivil aviation section of the ETF finds itself with aconsiderable number of national trade unionsoperating in its field of organisation which are notaffiliated to it. However, even in the countrieswhere such a situation occurs, the civil aviationsection of the ETF represents by far the mostworkers. Moreover, no other European verticalorganisation organises a considerable part of theseorganisations.

As said above, the relation between the civilaviation section of the ETF and the ATCEUC is notso clear-cut. Inside the civil aviation section of ETFthe Joint Air Traffic Management working grouprepresents the interests of the air traffic controllersand those of workers in air traffic management.The ATCEUC participated through an agreementsigned in 1997 to the ATM group of the civilaviation section of the ETF. However, it hasdemanded, by the intermediary of the ATM group,its own representation in the sectoral dialoguecommittee.

The ECA gathers categorial trade unions of pilotsand flight engineers. It has 16 members, categorialtrade unions for pilots and flight engineers, in all Member States. The ECA represents around 31.000 pilots and flightengineers, which is around 7 % of the employmentin the civil aviation sector taken as a whole.

Only 4 trade unions, members of the ECA, areindirectly affiliated to the ETUC; the others are notaffiliated to a horizontal trade union on thenational level. Most of the affiliates of the ECA areaffiliated on the international level to theInternational Federation of Airlines PilotsAssociation (IFALPA).

Three employers’ organisations represent theinterests of the air carriers.

The Association of European Airlines (AEA)

represents the interests of the airline companiesengaged in considerable passenger or cargooperations. This is evaluated on the basis of thetransport capacity of the airline companies - at least3000 places, or, for smaller airline companies, onthe basis of the place of the company in thenational civil aviation sector.

AEA has 17 members, at least one in each MemberStates (two in Luxembourg and the UnitedKingdom). It represents an employment of 309.000workers or around 70 % of the total employment inthe civil aviation sector.

The second employers’ organisation, the EuropeanRegion Airlines Association (ERA), represents theinterests of the airline companies engaged ininternal European regional traffic on scheduledbasis. It has 63 affiliates in the 15 Member States.

The companies member of ERA represent anemployment of 36.000 workers or around 8 % ofthe total employment in the sector.

Just as is the case for AEA, its members are airlinecompanies and they all engage in enterprise-CB.

The third employers’ organisation, the Interna-tional Air Carrier Association (IACA) represents theinterests of the airline companies engaged inleisure flights, including charter flights.

IACA has 32 members, in 12 Member States (nonein Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal). It representsan employment of roughly 104.000 workers oraround 24 % of the total employment in the civilaviation sector. Just as is the case for ERA and AEA,its members are airline companies, and most ofthem seem to engage in enterprise-CB (not e.g. theSpanish members).

As regards the European airports, these arerepresented by the European Region of the AirportsCouncil International-Europe (ACI-Europe). This

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F E D I NL UK P L S FIN IRL DK EL A


B: no data available

Air Transport: Trade unions density


670

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

I F E B UK P D EL IRL A NL FIN DK L S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% of total

Air Transport: Employers' organisations -Represented employment


68


Air Transport

69

organisation has 108 members spread over the 15Member States. ACI-Europe's representativeness isnot contested as it is the only organisation whichrepresents these interests on the European level.

Finally, the interests of air traffic control are

represented by the Civil Air Navigation ServicesOrganisation (CANSO). This organisation plays aspecific role in the working group of Air TrafficManagement


The social partners of the European civil aviation

EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

AIR TRANSPORT

European Transport Workers Federation- ETF

European CockpitAssociation - ECA

European Regional Airlines Association - ERAAssociation of European Airlines - AEAInternational Air Carrier Association - IACAEuropean Region of the Airports Council International Europe - ACI EuropeCivil Air Navigation Services Organisation - CANSO

ERAGERMANY: Augsburg Airways, Contact Air, Deutsche BA, Eurowings,Lufthansa City Line, Sky Team Luftfarhtunternehmen, European AirExpress. AUSTRIA: Rheintalflug, Tyrolean Airways, Welcome Air.BELGIUM: Delta Air Transport, VLM. DENMARK: Cimber Air, SASCommuter. SPAIN: Air Nostrum, Binter Canarias, European RegionalAirlines. FINLAND: Air Botnia. FRANCE: Air Jet, Air Littoral, BritAir,Europe Continental Airways, Flandre Air, Regional Airlines. GREECE:Aegen Airlines, Olympic Aviatiaon. IRELAND: Aer Arann, City Jet. ITALY:Air Dolomiti, Alitalia Express, Azzurra Air, Gandalf Airlines, Meridiana,Minerva Airlines. LUXEMBOURG: Luxair Commuter. NETHERLANDS:Base Airlines, Denim Airlines, KLM Cityhopper, KLM exel, SchreinerAirways, Trans Travel Airlines. PORTUGAL: ATA, PGA Portugalia, SATAAir Açores. UNITED KINGDOM: Bristish European, British MidlandCommuter, British Regional Airways, British World Airlines, BrymonAirways, Channel Express, Cityflyer Express, Eastern Airways, EmeraldAirways, European Aviation Air Charter, Fightline Limited, Fly EuropeanAirlines, Gill Airways, KLM UK, Titan Airways. SWEDEN: Falcon Air,Highland Air, Skyways, West Air Sweden.

AEAGERMANY: Lufthansa. AUSTRIA: Austrian Airlines. BELGIUM: Sabena.DENMARK: SAS Denmark. SPAIN: Iberia. FINLAND: Finnair. FRANCE: AirFrance. GREECE: Olympic Airways. IRELAND: Aer Lingus. ITALY: Alitalia.LUXEMBOURG:Cargolux, Luxair. NETHERLANDS: KLM. PORTUGAL:TAP. UNITED KINGDOM: British Airways, British Midland. SWEDEN:SAS.

IACAGERMANY: Air Berlin, Germania Flug, Deutsche BA, Aero Lloyd, CondorFlugdienst, Hapag Lloyd Flug, LTU International. AUSTRIA: Lauda Air.BELGIUM: Air Belgium, Virgin Express. DENMARK: Maersk Air, Premair,Sterling European. SPAIN: Spanair, Air Europa, Futura. FINLAND: FinnairLeisure Flights. FRANCE: Corsair. IRELAND: City Jet, Aer Arann. ITALY:Air Europe SpA, Eurofly. NETHERLANDS: Air Holland, Transavia,Martinair. UNITED KINGDOM: British Airways, Britannia Airways, Air2000, Airtours international, JMC, Monarch Airlines. SWEDEN: SASBraathens.

Air Traffic UnionCoordination - ATCEUC

USCA (E) SNCTA (F)

GATCA (EL) TUEM (NL)

ATC IMPACT (IRL)

ANPCAT (I) LICTA (I)

SINCTA (P)

IPMS ATCO’s branch (UK)

GdED (D) AEEU (UK)ÖTV (D) MSF (UK)

TGWU (UK)GHTV (A)

CGSP (B) CCSP (B)SCCC (B) SETCA (B)CMB (B) CCMB (B)

HK/Service(DK) FPU (DK)SiD (DK) CAU (DK)DM (DK) MAK (DK)

FETCOMAR (E) ELA/STV (E)FETCM-UGT (E)

IAU (FIN) FT (FIN)TLSTL (FIN)

OSPA (EL) OPXAE (EL)

SNPNC (F) FO Equip. (F)UNSA (F) FGTE/CFDT(F)

SIPTU (IRL) TSSA (IRL)

FILT (I) FIT (I)UIL TRANSPORTI (I)

FNCTTFEL (L) OGB-L (L)FCPT-Syprolux (L)

SITAVA (P) SNPVAC (P)SITEMA (P) SQAC (P)

FNV (NL) CNV (NL)VNC (NL)

SEKO (S) TF (S)ST (S) HTF (S)

VC (D) ACA (A)

BeCa (B) SEPLA (E)

FPU (DK) SLL (FIN)MAP (DK)Syndicats SNPL (F)d’entreprises (DK)

HALPA (EL) IALPA (IRL)

ANPAC (I) ALPL (L)

VNV (NL) SPAC (P)

BALPA (UK)


Commerce

Commerce


The commerce industry includes the followingactivities: motor trade, wholesale, retail andcommission trade.

It comprises around 5 million enterprises, which isaround one third of all European enterprises.

As far as the size of the enterprises is concerned, theabsolute predominance of small enterprises in thisbranch of industry is striking: on the basis of themost recent figures for the breakdown ofemployment according to the size of the enterprisearound 95% of all enterprises in the sector employbetween 0 and 9 employees. According to the mostrecent figures almost all enterprises in the sectorare SMEs. When comparing the different sub-sectors in the commerce industry it becomes clearthat the highest proportion of small enterprisesone finds in the retail trade sector, followed by themotor trade sector and the wholesale trade sector.With regard to the proportion of large enterprises,also the retail trade sector comes first, followed bythe wholesale trade sector and the motor tradesector.

A more significant measure for industrial relationspurposes is the concentration of employees on thedifferent classes of firm sizes. In 1996, the share ofsmall enterprises in employment was 46% indistribution in 1996 for enterprises with under 10employees, significantly higher than the 34% forthe economy as a whole. A difference between thesub-sectors can be observed: in the retail tradesector the large enterprises represent a larger shareof the employment than in the wholesale tradesector (27,5% as to 16%); the opposite goes formedium- sized enterprises (5% for the retail tradesector as to 17% for the wholesale trade sector). If

we had more recent data, we would probably see adecrease of the share of employment representedby the SMEs and an increase in the share ofemployment represented by the large enterprises.

The underlying explanation is that the increasedinternationalisation of the market and the conse-quential economic pressure has caused thereduction of profit margins and a deep techno-logical innovation. As a result, the sector has seena considerable concentration movement (andpressures for deregulation), and, on the employ-ment side, a significant reduction of employment.At the same time, it explains the increase of self-employed workers and part-time work. It is clearthat new technology, such as self-scanning andelectronic commerce, just starting of, will have aprofound influence on employment in the longterm; new skilled jobs will be created in databasemanagement and marketing, and traditional jobswill be redefined. Also the geographical location ofwork, working time and the professional and paystructure of employment in the sector are likely toundergo a transformation.

However, there is scope for employment creationin the sector, as the comparison with the US shows.Employment in the commerce sector is 9 % of theworking-age population in Europe, while it is 12 %in the US. This means that there is potential workfor 3 % of the working-age group in distribution.There is scope for development especially in theMediterranean countries.

The considerable differences within the branch ofindustry, according to the sub-sectors, explains thehigh degree of ‘dispersion’ with regard to thenumber of employer organisations and with regardto the conclusion of CLA’s (the extent of thebargaining unit). At the same time, the importanceof the employment in small enterprises explainsthe rather low trade union density rates (and thecalculation in some Member States of density inrelation to the ‘approachable’ potential members,e.g. Germany). Density figures are also influencedby the fact that in several Member States workersorganisations not affiliated to UNI-Europa (some-times affiliated to other European sector organi-sations of the ETUC) are organised in subsectorssuch as the technical workers in the car repair. Insome Member States commerce trade unions areintegrated in bigger unions.


Around 23.5 million were employed in commercein the EU 2000, almost 15% of total employment.The number employed in the sector increased byjust 1% a year between 1995 and 2000, slightly lessthan the overall employment growth in the EU.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P I E B FR S DK EU NL A FIN D UK0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+

% total EL, IRL, L no data

Employment in commerce by size of enterprise, 1996


70

The share of self-employment in the sector isconsiderably higher than in the Europeaneconomy taken as a whole (23,5%, compared to14.5 % in 2000). In the Southern economies (Italy,Greece, Spain and Portugal), a large proportion ofthe total work force in the sector is self-employed.


Commerce

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

I EL P B FIN S L E F EU IRL D DK NL UK A0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


Employment in commerce in member States, 2000


71

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

L UK IRL A B I GR DK D EU FR FIN S NL P E0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35% total

Temporary employees in commerce, 2000


72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

I EL NL P E F L DK S IRL EU B FIN UK D A0

10

20

30

40

50

60% total

Women employed in commerce in Member States, 2000


73

Map 6 Employment in commerce, 2000



Commerce

The social partners of the European commerce sector

On the workers’ side, the main vertical organ-isation for the commerce industry at Europeanlevel is UNI-Europa. UNI-Europa is the Europeanregional organisation of Union NetworkInternational (UNI), an International TradeSecretariat (ITS). Until the end of 1999 the role ofUNI-Europa had been taken up by Euro-FIET, theEuropean branch of the International Federation ofCommercial, Clerical Professional and TechnicalEmployees (ITS-FIET).

At the end of 1999, a merger involving FIET tookplace between a number of International TradeSecretariats in related sectors (mirroring thedevelopments at national level in many countries).Together with Communications International (CI),the International Graphical Federation (IGF), andthe Media and Entertainment International (MEI),UNI was formed. As a consequence, the workers ofthe European commerce industry now affiliated toUNI-Europe through their national organisationsform one section of an organisation with a muchlarger membership.

As it was the case with Euro-FIET, UNI-Europa is amember of the ETUC and it is the regionalorganisation of UNI. UNI-Europa commerce is asection within UNI-Europa with a conference and asteering group responsible for European socialdialogue in commerce.

There are 37 trade unions in the EU-Member Statesaffiliated to UNI-Europa involved in CB for thecommerce industry, at least one in each MemberState.

However, in most Member States there are alsotrade unions involved in CB for the commerceindustry, which are not affiliated to UNI-Europa.

Nevertheless, the members of UNI-Europa have the

highest density in the sector in almost all theMember States. An exception is Portugal, where thevertical organisations for the sector of CGTP-IN,member of ETUC, are not affiliated to UNI-Europa.

In any case, there is no other European verticalorganisation for the sector which could threatenthe position of UNI-Europe. Apart from Eurocadres,whose members are also affiliated to ETUC, onlyCESI and CEC have some member organisationswhich are involved in CB in the commerceindustry.

According to different estimates, UNI-Europarepresents between 1,6 million and 1,8 millionworkers in the EU or 7% of the total employmentin the sector. The density of CESI is marginal.

A general remark which can be made about thedensity figures for the trade unions in thecommerce sector is that they are generally low. Thiscan be explained by the employment structure ofthe sector, and more specifically by the relativelyhigh share of small enterprises in employment.

On the employers’ side, the main verticalorganisation on the European level for thecommerce industry is Eurocommerce.

28 employers’ organisations involved in CB for thecommerce industry in the EU-Member States areaffiliated to Eurocommerce. With the exception of

Ireland, there is at least one in each Member State.

Eurocommerce roughly represents more than 16,2million workers, around 93 % of the totaldependent employment in the sector, i.e. 12% ofthe total dependent employment in the EU (1999data) and 58% of the enterprises in the sector. Somelarger European retailers have an associatedmembership of Eurocommerce.

In some Member States there are also employers’

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

EL F P E UK NL IRL D I A B DK L FIN S0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Commerce: Trade unions density (%)

Source: Report on the representativeness of European social partnersorganisations, part 2, IST, Univ. Catholique de Louvain la Neuve,2001

74

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P B E S EL FIN NL IRL UK A I D DK F

% of total

L: data not available

Commerce: Employers' organisations - Represented employment

Source: Report on the representativeness of European social partnersorganisations, part 2, IST, Univ. Catholique de Louvain la Neuve,2001

75


Commerce

organisations not affiliated to Eurocommerceinvolved in CB for the commerce industry, butthere is not any other vertical European organ-isation which could threaten the position ofEurocommerce.

Uni-Europa (previously Euro-FIET) and Euro-commerce participate in the sectoral dialoguecommittee for the commerce industry since 1998(since 1985 they had been working together insidethe structure of an informal working party for thecommerce industry). The commerce industry is thelargest branch of industry in which a sectoral social dialogue exists.

The social dialogue in the commerce sector is activeand is focusing on the key themes of the 4 ‘pillars’outlined in the EU Employment Guidelines, themodernisation of the organisation of work,fundamental rights at work, CSR, electroniccommerce, training and enlargement. The socialpartners have signed on 26/04/2001 an agreementon guidelines for telework and on 6/08/1999 anagreement on fundamental rights and principles atwork. They concluded at the end of 2001 thenegotiations on an agreement on voluntaryguidelines supporting the employment of matureworkers. The signature of the agreement isscheduled early 2002. Social partners are alsoconsidering to invest more in the implementationof the agreements at national and company level.

The social partners of the European commerce sector 76


EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

COMMERCE

DHV (D)

GHTV (A)

CM-FGTB (B)CCM-CSC (B)CGSLB/ACLVB (B)

FASGA (E)FETICO (E)

Section Fédérale FOCommerce (F)FNECS-CFE-OGC (F)

Auto…(FIN)Fa…(FIN)

SEA (EL)

SIPTU (IRL)

UGL Commercio (I)FENASALC (I)FESICA (I)FENDAC (I)

LGOB (L)

VHP (NL)CESP (NL)

TGWU (UK)

UNI Europa (Euro-Fiet until 1999) Eurocommerce

Chambre syndicale du commerce automobile de Belgique (B)Fédération royale des garagistes de Belgique (B)Fédération nationale des Unions des classes moyennes-UCM (B)Chambre syndicale de l'industrie du deux roues (B)Groupement des vendeurs- réparateurs de tracteurs et machines agricoles de Belgique(B)Groupement des marchands de fer deBelgique (B)Fédération Belge de la distribution et de l’équipement ménager et électronique (B)Confédération belge de la boulangerie-pâtisserie-chocolaterie-glacerie (B)Office des pharmacies coopératives de Belgique (B)Association nationale des grossistes répar-titeurs en spécialités pharmaceutiques (B)

COPIME (E)

Apteekkien Työnantajaliitto (FIN)

GSEVEE (EL)

CVAH (NL)

IBEC (IRL) IRNA (IRL)SFA (IRL) NFRN (IRL)RGDATA (IRL) SIMI (IRL)

CONFESERCENTI (I)CONFCOOPERATIVE (I)LEGACOOP (I)

National organisationsnon affiliated to UNI

involved in CB

National organisations nonaffiliated to Eurocommerce

involved in CB

HBV (D) MANDATE (IRL)

DAG (D) FILCAMS (I)FISASCAT (I)UILTuCS (I)

GPA (A)

CCAS (B)CNE-CSC (B) DEP-OGB-L (L)LBC-NVK (B) FEP-FIT (L)SETCa (B)

FNV Bondgenoten(NL)HK (DK) CNV Dienstenbond

(NL)DK (DK) De Unie 5NL)

FETESE-UGT (E) SITESE (P) FECO-CCOO (E) SERS (P)ELA/STV (E) SPBC (P)

LA (FI) GMB (UK)MSF (UK)

FdS-CFDT (F) PCS (UK)FEC-FO (F) USDAW (UK)FCSFV-CFTC (F)FGTA-FO (F) HANDELS (S) UCC-CFDT (F) HTF (S)FPCDS-CGT (F)

OIYE (EL)

BAG (D)BFS (D)BGA (D)HDE (D)

BAWÖ (A)BHWÖ (A)

FEDIS (B)NCMV (B)

DSH (DK)AHTS (DK)

ANGED (E)ASENDIS(E)CEC (E)

FFC (FIN)

CGI (F)CNC (F)FCD (F)UCV (F)

ACCI (EL)ATA (EL)ESEE (EL)

CONFCOMMERCIO(I)FAID (I)

CCL (L)

MKB (NL)NVG (NL)Raad NDH(NL)VGL (NL)

APED (P)CCP (NL)

BRC (UK)NFRN (NL)

SvenskHandel (S)


Construction industry



The construction industry (NACE 45) includes thefollowing activities: site preparation (demolition,embanking, digging and boring), the building ofcomplete constructions or parts thereof and civilengineering (timbering, scaffolding, carriagewayfluvial and maritime works), building installation(electricity, insulation, plumbing), finishing works(plastering, woodwork, walls and grounds, painting,glaziery, others) and the renting of construction ordemolition equipment with operator.

With well over 2 million enterprises and over 12million persons employed (in 1999), is theconstruction industry a significant part of theEuropean economy. In terms of employment, it is thesecond biggest sector in the industry (in contrast toservices), after the manufacturing sector. One has alsoto point out that the European construction sector isa key sector in terms of employment creation: the so-called direct jobs in the construction sector have amultiplier effect in generating indirect jobs in thebuilding materials and product sector and in othersupplier sectors. It is estimated that the sector -understood as direct and indirect jobs - representsaround 20 % of the total workforce in the EuropeanUnion.

The sector is highly dependent upon economicgrowth rates and the level of public expenditure. Afterthe industry was hit by a recession during the first halfof the 90’s, the European construction industry endedthe 1990’s with an employment growth. In relativeterms, however, its share in the total employment ofthe Union decreased from 9,1 % in 1994 to 7.7 % in1999. The volume of construction output in theUnion, a measure of economic performance, has beenin decline since 1994; this is reflected in the

continuing decline in employment in theconstruction industry in a limited number ofcountries (especially D, F, I). It is highly uncertain howthe sector will develop in the future. The competitionin the sector is increasing, making the European socialdialogue particularly important.

Construction is mainly a local activity, with only a fewlarge firms: 92 % of all the enterprises in the sectoremploy between 0 and 9 people (1999).


Even more telling is the enterprise structure of thesector: small enterprises (0-9 employees) accounted forjust over 49% of employment in the industry in 1996(compared with a figure of 34% for all sectorscombined. In Italy, this figure was 66% and in the UK68 %! Medium-sized and large enterprises are of minorimportance in terms of employment, enterprisesemploying 50-249 accounting for around 12.5% oftotal employment and those of 250 and over for justover 11%.

However, by virtue of subcontracting small firms areoften dependent on large firms. Many workers areemployed on temporary contracts or contracts withlimited duration (14 % in 1997, the average for thewhole of the European economy is 10%) or as self-employed workers (around 23 % in 2000, the averagefor the whole of the European economy is 14%).

Female employment is particularly low in theconstruction sector (around 8.5% of the Europeanaverage). Temporary employment, although impor-tant, is variable according to the various countries.

The influx of non-EU nationals working in theshadows of the market is increasingly posing aproblem.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

S EL I B NL UK F FIN DK EU IRL D A L E P0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Employment in construction in Member States, 2000


77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

I IRL B E L EU D F EL UK DK P NL A FIN S0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+%total

Employment in construction by size of enterprise, 1996


78



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DK UK IRL L A I B P D FR FIN GR NL EU S E0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40% total

Temporary employees in construction, 2000


79

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

EL P IRL E B I FIN L DK EU A UK F NL S D0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14% total

Women employed in construction in Member States, 2000


80

Map 7 Employment in construction, 2000




The social partners of the European construction industry

On the workers’ side, the main vertical organisationon the European level for the construction industry isEFBWW (European Federation of Building and WoodWorkers), a European Industry Federation affiliated tothe ETUC.

EFBWW started as an informal contact group withinthe International Federation of Building and WoodWorkers, and it acquired its autonomy in 1974. ETUCofficially recognised it in 1984.

With some exceptions, the organisation directly orindirectly gathers the totality of building trade unionsin EU Member States with CB power. It is not presentin Greece only.

On the employers’ side, the main vertical organisationon the European level for the construction industry isFIEC (the European Construction IndustryFederation), which is indirectly related to UNICE (i.e.through the national horizontal organisations towhich a lot of its members are affiliated). Its majorcontestant for representativeness is EBC (the EuropeanBuilders Confederation), which collaborates withUEAPME.

FIEC is the most representative sectoral employers’organisation for the construction sector in terms of itspresence in the Member

It is present in 14 Member States (except in the UK;although in this country the ConstructionConfederation is about to become affiliated again; inE a situation of double affiliation to ECB exists).However, it is the most representative organisation interms of represented enterprises in only 7 of them.

In the 6 Member States where another Europeansectoral employers’ organisation for the constructionsector, EBC, has members, EBC is the mostrepresentative organisation in terms of representedenterprises, except in B (E, F, I, L, UK).

FIEC and EFBWW work together inside the sectoraldialogue committee for the construction industrysince 1999 (since 1992 they had been workingtogether inside the structure of an informal workingparty for the construction industry).

Vocational training has been a priority in thedialogue, because of its importance for employmentcreation (skills shortages) and its importance inrelation to health and safety issues. Construction is asector with characteristics that do not encourageinvestment in vocational training – such as the factthat the majority of the undertakings are SMEs andthe existence of subcontracting relationships, coupled

with the temporary and mobile nature of worksitesand the high level of mobility in the sector. TheEuropean social dialogue makes an importantcontribution in that it organises an exchange ofinformation about the innovative measures in respectof vocational training undertaken by the sector’ssocial partners. On the other hand, the social partnersat European level can promote new methods ofvalidating skills acquired and increase thetransparency of vocational qualifications between theMember States.

Another problem raised by the increasing level ofgeographical mobility in the sector is the issue of thesocial protection of the workers posted acrossnational frontiers. While the Directive on theposting of workers in the framework of the provisionof services (96/71/EC) of 1997 requires theapplication to the posted workers of the terms of thecollective agreements and regulations on minimumwages of the host country, the European socialpartners have adopted a joint opinion whichrecommends, in addition, the establishment of someco-ordinating principles at the European level inorder to guarantee social protection for postedworkers.

The construction sector is the second biggest sectorof the European economy in which a social dialogueexists (after the commerce sector).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E UK F P D I A IRL EL NL L S DK B FIN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Construction: Trade union density (%)


81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E L NL A B FIN F UK IRL S I

% of total

DK, D, EL, P: data not available

Construction: Employers' organisations -Represented employment


82



The social partners of the European construction industry 83


EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

CONSTRUCTION

GPA (A)CIG (E)OOSEE (EL)AEEU (IRL)ATGWU (IRL)BATU (IRL)MPGWU (IRL)OPATSI (IRL)NUSMW (IRL)TEEU (IRL)UCATT (IRL)S.N.C.T.B.T.P. - CFE-CGC (F)UGL (I)Het Zwarte Corps (NL)De Unie (NL)VHP (NL)FNSCMMMC (P)AEEU (UK)

BYG (DK)ELFO (DK)Dansk VVS (DK)DM (DK)GiD (DK)

BTP-SCOP (F)FNEE-FFB (F)

PESEDE (EL)STEHT (EL)SATE (EL)

ANIEM (I)FIAE (I)FEDERABITAZIONE (I)ANCAB (I)AICA (I)ANCEA (I)FEDERCASA/ANIACAP (I)

FAANB (NL)

CC (UK)

SSIF (S)Tif (S)PLR (S)VVS (S)ME (S)EIO (S)Glasmästeriförbundet (S)Malaremästarnas Riksföreningen (S)

European Federation Of Building and Wood Workers - EFBWW

European Construction Industry Federation - FIEC

European Builders Confederation -

EBC

Organisations nonaffiliated to

EFBWW involved in CB

Otherorganisationsinvolved in CB

FO-BTP (F) FNCB CFDT (F) CGT – FTC CGT (F)BATI…(F)

BATI-MAT TP-CFTC (F)

SIPTU (IRL)

LCGB (L)OGBL (L)

UCATT (UK)TGWU (UK)GMB (UK)MSF (UK)

IG BAU (D) GHK (D)

GBH (A)

FGTB (B)CSSC (B)

1(DK)2(DK)3 (DK)4 (DK)5 (DK)6 (DK)7 (DK)

FECOMA-CCOO (E) FEMCA-UGT (E)ELA/STV (E)

Rakennusliitto (FIN)PELI (FIN)SAR (FIN)

FILLEA-CGIL (I)FILCA-CISL (I)FENEAL-UIL (I)FAILEA-CISAL (I)

Bouw-en H FNV (NL)Hout-en B CNV (NL)

SB (S)SST (S)SEF (S)Malareförbundet (S)SBP (S)SIF (S)

SETACCOP. (P)

HDB (D)ZDB (D)

FVB (A)BIB (A)

CNC (B)

DE (DK)

SEOPAN-CNC (E)ANCOP-CNC (E)

RTK (FIN)

FFB (F)FNTP (F)

PEDMEDE (EL)

CIF (IRL)

ANCE (I)AGI (I)

GEBTP (L)

AVBB (NL)

AECOPS (P)AICCOPN (P)

Byggentreprörerna(S)

NACEBO (B)

CNC (E)

CAPEB (F)

ANAEPA (I)ASSOEDILI/ANSE (I)

FLECGC (L)


Textiles/Clothing industry



Textiles and clothing, together with footwear,employed some 2.8 million in the EU in 2000, justunder 2% of total employment.

The industry is strongly exposed to internationalcompetition, which means growing tradepenetration (a large share of the produce isdestined for export), but also a tendency towardsthe relocation of production plants to low-wageeconomies. The latter goes especially for theclothing sub-sector which is labour intensive.

Competition from outside the EU andtechnological advances have caused a decline inthe number of firms (economic concentration andclosures; except e.g. in Sweden), and the – in somecountries, sharp - decrease in the number ofworkers. Nevertheless, the value of output hasincreased, indicating increased productivity.

Textile and clothing are very different industriesthough their subcontracting relations are funct-ional: the clothing industry uses materialsproduced in the textile industry. Sub-sectors areinternally characterised by a high degree ofspecialisation (a single firm provides only one orfew functions requested by the production pro-cess). In the clothing sub-sector the specialisationof functions (and sub-contracting) is the mainorganisational model.

The textiles and clothing sub-sectors have,however, a very different production process: whilethe first is very capital intensive, the seconddemands more investment in manpower.


There were more than 500,000 job losses in thesector over the period 1995 to 2000, a decline ofalmost 3.5% a year. Italy accounts for 30% ofemployment in the textiles-clothing sector in theEU.

Share of employment by women is larger (above60% in average in the EU), with the exception ofthree countries, Luxembourg, the Netherlands andSweden.

The situation of productive specialisation ischaracterised by the predominance of SMEs, andeven of small firms. There are very few largecompanies (to be found in the first stages ofproduction, i.e. more in the textiles sub-sector thanin the clothing sub-sector). The large enterprisesrepresent 29 % of the total employment in thesector in the textiles sub-sector and 20 % in theclothing sub-sector; in comparison, they represent34 % of the total employment in the non-agricultural market sector taken as a whole (data for1996).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

S I E NL FIN EU F P B D UK A0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% total

< 10 10-49 50-249 250+DK, EL, IRL, L no data

Employment in textiles and clothing by size of enterprise, 1996


84

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

L S NL DK FIN IRL D UK F A B EU E EL I P0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Employment in textiles and clothing in Member States, 2000


85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

L NL S B UK IRL F EL E I D EU A DK P FIN0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90% total

Women employed in textiles and clothing in Member States, 2000


86



The vast majority of workers engaged in theseindustries are dependent workers. Moreover, onehas to draw the attention to the particularity of aconsiderable number of home workers, possiblypaid on a piece-work basis, especially to be foundin the production of wearing apparel andaccessories (NACE 18.2). The high fragmentation ofthe firms’ structure, especially in the clothing sub-sector, is one of the reasons for the importantpresence of hidden activities.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DK UK IRL L A I B P D FR FIN GR NL EU S E0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40% total

Temporary employees in textiles and clothing, 2000


87

Map 8 Employment in textiles and clothing, 2000




The social partners of the European textile industry

The European Trade Union Federation: Textiles,Clothing and Leather (ETUF:TCL) represents theworkers’ side in the sectoral dialogue committee.

It is a European Industry Federation affiliated to theEuropean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). Itworks closely together with the sector’s Inter-national Trade Secretariat, the InternationalTextile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation(ITGLWF), associated with the InternationalConfederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), andwith the International Federation Textile andClothing, affiliated to the Christian-oriented WorldConfederation of Labour (WCL).

It has 28 member trade unions, in all MemberStates except Luxembourg (where the activitiesunder consideration are quasi non-existent). All ofthem engage in CB, except the Bask IGEKO(affiliated to ELA-STV). In practice, some of itsmembers act as a cartel when engaging in CB.

According to this organisation, it represents morethan 1.5 million workers across the EuropeanUnion, but this estimate might be misleading. Aconsiderable amount of trade unions members ofthe ETUF:TCL have members working in othersectors. White-collar trade unions or unionrepresenting managerial staff are mostly horizon-tally organised. Furthermore, a merger trend can bediscerned of trade unions rooted in this sector withtrade unions with a more broad membership basis.

However, from a very rough estimation it followsthat the ETUF:TCL represents around 885.000workers in the sector, or around 44 % of theemployment in the sector (estimated at 2 millionworkers).

EURATEX is the organisation federating theEuropean employers of the textiles and clothing

sector. It has stressed its willingness as organisationto participate in the Social Dialogue processthrough the sectoral committee.

19 national organisation are members of EURATEX,either sectoral organisations or 'negotiation cartels'grouping sectoral or sub-sectoral organisations intoone single association. It is present in all MemberStates except Luxembourg.

Although the number of employers’ organisationsengaged in CB for the textile sub-sector isincreasing in some Member States, there is ageneral recognition of the legitimacy of EURATEXto represent employers' interests in the sector.

ETUF:TCL and Euratex made in 1999 a jointrequest for the establishment of a sectoral dialoguecommittee; it replaced the informal working groupin which they previously participated. At thismoment, no other organisation has requested to beinvolved in the working of the sectoral dialoguecommittee. As achievements of the sectoral socialdialogue in the Textiles/Clothing industry deserveto be highlighted:

• the signing of a European Code of Conduct on 22September 1997 concerning the application of sixinternational labour agreements; the Code laysdown an annual follow-up process to monitoradherence to it, within the framework of thesectoral social dialogue. The signatories hadcalled upon their members to include the code ofconduct in sectoral and company-levelagreements and the social partners of severalMember States have incorporated the Code intheir national CLA’s.

• the joint declaration of 20 December 1999supporting the setting up of a European Obser-vatory on Industrial Change.

Guidelines on the co-ordination of CB have beenagreed by ETUF:TCL in September 1999.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EL IRL NL DK I F D P B FIN S UK E A

% of total

L: data not available

Textiles and clothing: Employers' organisations -Represented employment


89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NL UK EL E I A IRL S P FIN D

% of union members in total employment B, DK, L, F: no data available

Textiles and clothing: Trade union density (%)


88



Social partners are also actively contributing in thefollow-up of the implementation of theCommission action plan on the strengthening of

competitiveness and employment in Europeantextile and clothing.

The social partners of the European textile industry 90

EMPLOYEES

EULEVEL

NationalLEVEL

EMPLOYERS

TEXTILES/CLOTHING

European Trade Unions Federation: Textiles,Clothing and Leather - ETUF: TCL

European Apparel andTextile Organisation -

EURATEX

National organisationsnon affiliated to

EURATEX involved in CB


FVB (A)BISSWWPS (A)BTWF (A)BIK (A)BIKHG (A)BIHMS (A)BIMW (A)

ABV (B)VHV (B)

UFIH (F)FFIMB (F)FFPAPF (F)FCPAPCCM (F)FFIVM (F)FNF (F)FFMF (F)

PFGS (EL)AKA (EL)AKCING (EL)AGTI (EL)

UNIONTESSILE (I)FNM (I)ANTABB (I)AS-CAN (I)

IG Metall (D) IG Bergbau (D)

GTBL (A)

CTVD (B)CTTV (B)

SID (DK)FTIBD (DK)

FITEQA-CCOO (E) FIA-UGT (E)IGEKO (E)

TEVA (FIN)Teknisten Liito (FIN)

CFDT ACUITEX (F)FGCTH (F)FTHC (F)FSCHS (F)

OEKIDE (EL)

SIPTU (IRL)ATGWU (IRL)

FILTEA (I)FILTA (I)UILTA (I)

FNV (NL)CNV (NL)

FESETE (P)SINDETEX (P)

GMB (UK)KFAT (UK)TGWU (UK)

IF (S)

GESAMTTEXTIL (D)BBI (D)

FVT (A)FVB (A)

FEBELTEX (B)FEBELHA (B)

FDTC (DK)

CIE (E)

TL (FIN)

UIT (F)

HCIA (EL)

ITF (IRL)ICMF (IRL)WWMI (IRL)

FEDERTESSILE (I)

FENECON (NL)NVWT (NL)AWVN (NL)KRL (NL)

APIM (P)APTV (P)APIV (E)ANIVEC (E)

BATC (UK)

TEKO (S)


Industrial relations

in the candidate countries


Industrial Relations in the Candidates Countries

The aim of this chapter is to give a general over-view of social dialogue in candidate countries.Looking forward to the enlargement of the EU, it isimportant to have a first assessment of socialpartners in the candidate countries, of the currentstate of the consultation process in which they areinvolved, as well as of autonomous social dialogueand collective bargaining at more decentralisedlevels.

The development of industrial relations incandidate countries is related to the profoundchanges first brought about by the transitionprocess itself, and then in the last years partly bythe accession process itself. The opening of thesecountries to the outside world, the intensificationof trade and capital flows have already had animportant impact on these economies, andundoubtedly also influenced internal growth andeconomic and social reforms, in particular in theindustrial relations area. While the objective is toaddress here industrial relations in the 13candidate countries, we shall direct the focusaccording to information available, and also therelevance of the issues discussed, some for instancebeing more specific to Central and EasternEuropean countries.

A context of economic recovery

After a collapse of industrial output and GDP in thefirst years of reforms early 90s, the ten candidatecountries of Central and Eastern Europe havegenerally seen better results. In the most recentperiod, after a slowdown in the late 1990s, there arewelcome signs of economic recovery. GDP growthaccelerated from 2.2 per cent in 1999 toapproximately 4 per cent in 2000, a similar growthhaving taken place in the first half of 2001 andbeing expected for the second half of 2001 and for2002. Such growth over the most recent years hasbeen the most sustained in Hungary, Slovenia,

Estonia and Poland. To be noted also the betterGDP performance in 2000 in Bulgaria –it confirmsthe economic recovery since the crisis of 1995-97-and in Latvia –it over takes for the first time itslevel of 1992- that slightly compensates somehowtheir bad performance over the previous years. TheCzech Republic also seems to have overcome itsrestructuring crisis of 1996-99. Romania continuesto register poor economic results, although itsucceeded to halt in 2000 the decline in GDPregistered every year since 1996. In the South,Malta and Cyprus have seen continuous economicgrowth, although at lower rates than the mostadvanced Central and Eastern European economies(see the series of Figures 91 to 103). Turkey has aless dynamic economy although it has also hadgood economic results in the last period. Thefigures below thus show the progressiveimprovement of GDP figures in almost allcandidate countries.

Because of improved GDP figures, and thecontinuous decline in employment, productivityrates, measured by the GDP per person employed,have improved in most candidate countries. Suchmovements in productivity generally reflect thepace of rationalisation and elimination of the over-manning which was prevalent across the region.Differences between candidate countries areobserved, between for instance Hungary andPoland, where productivity has risen almostcontinuously, the Czech Republic, where itremained unchanged from 1996 to 1999 and hasjust begun to rise, and Romania, where it hastended to fall since 1996. Differentials inproductivity growth may have implications forrelative competitiveness and thereforeemployment in the longer term. In Malta andCyprus, and to a lesser extent Slovenia,employment has slightly increased and notdecreased along the growth in GDP, thus leading toproductivity growth during the whole period.

Industrial Relations in the candidate countriesIndustrial Relations in the candidate countries



80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

GDPEmployment

GDP per person employed

1992=100

GDP and employment growth in Bulgaria, 1999-2000


91

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

GDPEmployment


1992=100

GDP and employment growth in Hungary, 1999-2000


92

GDPEmployment


1992=100

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

GDP and employment growth in Czech Republic, 1999-2000


93

GDPEmployment


1992=100

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200075

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

GDP and employment growth in Lithualia, 1999-2000


94

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

GDPEmployment


1992=100

GDP and employment growth in Malta, 1999-2000


95

100

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

80

85

90

95

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

GDPEmployment

GDP per personemployed

1992=100

GDP and employment growth in Malta, 1999-2000


96

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 199980

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

GDPEmployment

GDP per personemployed

1992=100

GDP and employment growth in Cyprus, 1999-2000


97

GDPEmployment


1992=100

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200075

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

GDP and employment growth in Latvia, 1999-2000


98



80

85

9095

100

105

110

115120

125

130

135

140145

150

155

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

85

9095

100

105

110

115120

125

130

135

140145

150

155


GDPEmployment

1992=100

GDP and employment growth in Poland, 1999-2000


99


GDPEmployment

1992=100

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

GDP and employment growth in Slovenia, 1999-2000


100


GDPEmployment

1992=100

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

GDP and employment growth in Slovakia, 1999-2000


101

90

100

110

120

130

140


GDPEmployment

1992=100

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200090

100

110

120

130

140

GDP and employment growth in Turkey, 1999-2000


102

85

80

8590

95

100

105110

115

120

125130

135

140

145150

155


GDPEmployment

1992=100

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200080

90

95

100

105110

115

120

125130

135

140

145150

155

GDP and employment growth in Estonia, 1999-2000


103



Increased unemployment

In most candidate countries of Central and EasternEurope however, improved performance in termsof economic growth still has to materialise intoemployment figures. Employment has continuedto deteriorate in most of these countries, even if therate of decline has slowed down.

As for unemployment, increasing rates are alreadyabove 15 per cent in Poland and Lithuania and areapproaching the 20 per cent in Bulgaria andSlovakia. Unemployment rates have also continuedto increase in Estonia and Latvia, whilst thesituation seems to be better controlled in Hungary,the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The unem-ployment situation however cannot be analysed inisolation from participation and employment rates,which have declined in most candidate countries.The low rate of unemployment in Hungary is alsopartly due to a large fall in the participation ratethat has occurred during the transition.

The situation is stable in Cyprus and Malta becauseof their strong economic growth and the absenceof a restructuring process of the scale observed inCentral and Eastern Europe. Long-term unem-ployment however remains one characteristic ofthe Central and Eastern European countries.

Moreover, we must emphasize that the abovenational average figures do not take into accountthe importance of the informal sector in thesecountries, which often represent more than onefourth of national GDP, as in Hungary. Moreovernational average data conceal important regionaldisparities, which are much higher than within theEU. This evolving context, in terms of economicgrowth, fall in employment and increase inunemployment has profoundly challengedindustrial relations systems, as we shall see below.

Economic activity reshuffling

The structure of economic activity may also play arole, since it has been deeply modified in the firstten years of transition, with old activities closingdown whilst new activities emerged. At the sametime, the privatization and restructuring processalso have had a direct effect on industrial relations.

There has been first a shift from industrial activitiesand agriculture to services, particularly in the firstyears of transition. Since the mid-90s, the share ofservices continues to increase but at a lower speed;it remains well below the EU average. The share ofagriculture is also larger than the EU average,especially in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

Secondly, there has also been a growing share ofthe private sector vis-à-vis the public sector. Thesize of enterprises has also been modified, with thesplitting of former large state enterprises intosmaller units and the widespread creation of newsmall and very-small (micro) enterprises in theemerging private sector. Small scale enterprisesemploy more than 90 per cent of the workforce inSlovakia.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

CY HU RO CZ SI EE PL LV LT BG SK EL E P EU0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20% of labour force

TU: no data available

> 1 year < 1 year

Unemployment rates in the candidate countries by duration of

unemployment, 2000


1040

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LV LT RO PL HU EE BG SK SI CZ EL E P EU

% total employed

Left bar: 1994

Right bar: 2000

LV: 1995-00

AgricultureServicesIndustry

Distribution of employment by sector of economic activity in the CEECs,

1994 and 2000


105

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SK CY SI EE CZ PL HU LT EL E P EU

1-5 6-10 11-49 50+

% of total employment

BG, LV, RO, TU:no data available

Employment in the candidate countries by size of unit, 2000


106



These structural shifts have had direct implicationsfor collective bargaining and the importance givento the social partners. The shift away from industryand large companies has tended inevitably toreduce the importance of trade unions and made itdifficult for employers to forms associations.

Industrial relations in the reform process

At the same time, industrial relations can alsoinfluence the economic and social reform processof candidate countries. We thus present here someof the basic features and trends of their industrialrelations systems.

We shall first present the current situation ofemployer and trade union organisations, to thensystematically describe the process of consultationsand of social dialogue at national, sectoral, regionaland enterprise levels. In doing so, we shall also tryto analyse how industrial relations may influenceand be influenced by the transition process itself,as well as by other developments taking placewithin the context of EU enlargement, andespecially within the dynamics expected of trade,capital and labour.

Two specific distinctions must be kept in mind:first, Central and Eastern European countries dueto their Communist heritage and their first tenyears of transition differ in many respects from thethree Southern countries that are today candidatesfor EU accession, that is Cyprus, Malta and Turkey-which have their specific history and features.While we also present trends in the three Southerncountries, this chapter mainly focuses on the tencandidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe.Second, important differences also prevail amongthe ten Central and Eastern European countrieshere under study, which are at different stages ofinstitutional and organisational development.

Finally we must also keep in mind that socialdialogue systems as well as social partners’organisations described in the next sections are notalways consolidated, a process that will certainlyrequire many more years. A certain number oftrends however can already be observed, and bescrutinised within the prospect of EU enlargementand of industrial relations developments in currentEU Member States.

The Actors

Social dialogue is defined as a process ofcooperation and negotiations between employerand trade union representatives, while socialconcertation is a process in which the stateinvolves social partners in the policy debate andeventually decision-making.

The State

In Central and Eastern European countries, thestate has also played a crucial role in setting theframework for social dialogue and industrialrelations: firstly as a legislator, setting the legalor/and institutional framework on social issues,including the functioning of industrial relationssystems and the activities of social partners;secondly, as the main party responsible for thewhole EU accession as well as transition process;third, as an "employer" since it remains the ownerof the multitude of state enterprises still existing inthese countries.

The state has thus influenced social dialogue inmany ways, especially in the former socialistcountries characterised by a heavy legislativeactivity in the field of industrial relations.

In most Central and Eastern European countries,governments in the transition period introducedthe principles of formal institutionalrepresentation for workers in independent tradeunions, the right for the representation ofemployers, new legislation amending the oldLabour codes in conformity with InternationalLabour Standards on freedom of association, theright to strike, the right to free collectivebargaining. Negotiations for EU accession also ledgovernments of candidate countries toprogressively improve the different pieces oflegislation related to industrial relations and socialdialogue.

The right to establish trade union or employers’organisations has been enshrined in differentarticles of national Constitutions, complementedeventually by laws on Associations and specificlaws on trade unions –as they exist for instance inRomania, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia– andemployers –as in Latvia.

In almost all Central and Eastern Europeancountries however there rarely exists any law fixingrepresentativity criteria for trade union andemployer organisations, with the possibleexception of Slovenia and Poland. In the absenceof representativity criteria the participation ofsocial partners in tripartite bodies took on aparticular importance for social partners, and thusinfluenced the shaping of industrial relations alsoat more decentralised levels.

The social partners

In order to understand industrial relationsdevelopments in Central and Eastern Europe, abrief description of the main features and trends oftrade union and employers’ organisations is



necessary. Although in less detail, someinformation is also provided on social partners inthe three Mediterranean countries.

On the trade unions’ side the first years oftransition were characterised by significant rivalry

between competing organisations and a resultingfragmentation of the trade union movement.While former trade unions involved themselves ina process of democratisation and converted to afree-market economy, new trade unionsproliferated. Former-Communist trade unions

Main social partners organisations, 2001

Country Trade unions Employer organisation.

Bulgaria Confederation of Independent Trade Bulgarian Industrial Association (BIA) Unions in Bulgaria (KNSB)

Confederation of Labour PODKREPA Bulgarian Chamber of Trade and IndustryNPS Promyana Union for Private Enterprising (UPE)

Bulgarian Union of Private Employers ‘Vazrazhdane’

Cyprus Cyprus Workers Confederation (SEK) Cyprus Federation of Employers’ and Industrialists (OEB)

Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO) Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KEBE)

Democratic Labour Federation (DEOK).

Pancyprian Confederation of Public Servants (PASYDY)

Czech Czech Moravian Trade Union Union of Industry and Transport Republic Confederation (CMKOS)

Confed. of Arts and Culture (KUK) Confederation of Employers andEntrepreneurs Associations

Association of Independent Trade Unions (ASO)

Coalition of Christian Trade Unions (KOK)

Trade Union of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (OSCSM)

Estonia Association of Estonian Trade unions (EAKL) Estonian Confederation of Employers andIndustry (ETTK)

Estonian Professional Employees’ Union The Estonian Association of Small and Medium Association (TALO) Enterprises (EVEA) (joined ETTK in 1995)

Hungary Autonomous Trade Union Confederation National Federation of Consumer Cooperatives (AFEOSZ)(ASZSZ) Union of Agrarian Employers (AMSZ)Confederation of Professional Trade National Association of Industrial Unions (ESZT) Corporations – Chamber of Artisans (IPOSZ)Democratic Ligue of Free Trade Unions (FSZDL) National Federation of Traders and Caterers (KISOSZ)National Federation of Workers’ Councils (MOSZ) Confederation of Hungarian EmployersNational Confederation of Hungarian Trade and Industrialists (MGYOSZ) (biggest org.) Unions (MSZOSZ) (biggest org.) National Federation of AgriculturalForum for the Cooperation of Trade Unions (SZEF) Co-operatives and Producers (MOSZ)

Hungarian Industrial Association (OKISZ)National Association of Strategic and Public Utility Companies (STRATOSZ)National Association of Entrepreneurs (VOSZ)Confederation of Hungarian Employer Organisations for International Co-operation (CEHIC) (umbrella org. for International cooperation)



Latvia Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia (LBAS) Latvian Employers’ Confederation (LDDK)

Lithuania Lithuanian Trade Unions’ Centre (LPSC) Lithuanian Industrialists Confederation (LPK)

Lithuanian Workers’ Union (LDS) Lithuanian Business Employers Confederation (LVDK)

Lithuanian Labour Federation (LDF)

Lithuania Trade Union Unification (LPSS)

Malta General Workers Union (GWU) Federation of Industries (FOI)

Confederation of Malta Trade Unions (CMTU) Malta Employers’ Association (MEA) including the United Workers’ Union (UHM)

General Retailers and Traders’ Association (GRTU) Malta Hotels and Restaurants’ Association (MHRA)

Chamber of Commerce (CoC)

Poland Solidarity (NSZZ 'Solidarnosc') Confederation of Polish Employers (KPP)

OPZZ Polish Confederation of Private Employers (PKPP)

Romania National Confederation of Free Trade Unions The General Union of the Romanian in Romania ‘Fratia’ (CNSLR-Fratia) Industrialists (UGIR 1903)

National Trade Union Block (BNS) Employer Confederation of the Romanian Industry (CONPIROM)

Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions National Confederation of the in Romania (CSDR) Romanian Employer (CONPR)

Cartel Alfa National Council of Private Smalland Medium Enterprises (CNIPMMR)

Meridian General Union of Romanian Industrialists (UGIR)

National Union of the Romanian Employer (UNPR)

National Council of the Romanian Employers (CNPR)

Romanian National Employer (PNR)

Slovakia Confederation of Trade Unions Association of Employers’ Unions of of the Slovak Rep. (KOZ SR) the Slovak Rep. (AZZZ SR)

Confederation of Art and Culture

Independent Christian Trade Union

Slovenia Association of Free Trade Unions (ZSSS) Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GZS)

Neodvisnost-Confederation of New Trade Chamber of crafts (OZS) Unions of Slovenia (KNSS)

Confederation of trade Unions PERGAM Slovenian Employer Association (ZDS)

Confederation 90 (K-90) Small Companies and crafts Association (ZDODS)

Turkey* Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TURK-IS) Turkish Confederation of Employers Union (TISK)Confederation of Progressive Trade Union (DISK) (the only employer org.; the only one withTrade Union Confederation of Turkey (HAK-IS) collective bargaining rights)Confederation of Public workers Unions (KESK) Association of Turkish Businessmen Confederation of Civil Servants of Turkey and Industrialists (TUSIAD)(KAMUSEN) Association of Independent Businessmen

and Industrialists (MUSIAD)Civil Servants Union (MEMUR-SEN) Young Businessmen Association of Turkey (TUGIAD)

Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Maritime Tradeand Commodity Exchange of Turkey (TOBB)Confederation of Artisans and Craftsmen of Turkey (TESK)Union of Chambers of Agriculture in Turkey (TZOB)

* Data in this table have been provided by a group of experts from the Candidate Countries set up by the European Commission.



could benefit from previous structures –assets andmembers– to reform themselves, and thus rapidlyappeared as the dominating organisation forworkers’ representation, while many new tradeunions started from scratch but rapidly developedbecause of their image of new, alternative tradeunion without any links with the former regime.Recognition in tripartite bodies also representedone major challenge for former and new tradeunion organisations, since it represented the wayto gain legitimacy from the government side, butalso to potentially increase their representativityvis-à-vis individual members. Such confrontationshave been acute since many trade unions remainedvery «politicised» and needed time before gaining–and before even searching for– full autonomyfrom political parties and government policy.

Internal tensions have characterised the tradeunion movement in the years of reform forinstance in Bulgaria, where former trade unionCITUB and the new trade union PODKREPA had toco-exist, in Hungary where a myriad of differenttrade unions appeared, such as former communisttrade union MSZOSZ and other new trade unionssuch as the League of Independent Trade Unions(LIGA) and the Federation of Workers’ Councils(MOSZ), in Poland where political history markedthe trade union movement, with the presence ofSolidarnosc whose activities had been forbiddenduring the Communist regime, and the tradeunion OPZZ originally created as a counter-movement from the original communist Councilof Trade Unions.

At the same time, links with official governmentpolicies has threatened to jeopardise the tradeunions’ mandate as voluntary and strategicrepresentatives of employees’ interests. In Poland,Solidarnosc experienced tensions between its roleas a social and political movement and its role indefending workers’ interests in the workplace.

The trade union movement is also fragmentedbetween a number of different organisations, as inRomania and Hungary where respectively five andsix national trade union organisations co-exist. Incountries like the Czech and Slovak republics, andSlovenia, there are also a number of organisationsbut one major confederation succeeded indominating the scene. Bulgaria and Polandcontinue to be characterised by dual trade unionrepresentation (bipolarism).

Today, in the early 2000s, after more than ten yearsof transition, we can observe that the situation isimproving for the trade union movement, sinceformer hostility and fights have progressively beenreplaced in most cases by an acceptance of each

other, and sometimes also by first attempts ofcooperation. The question of trade union assets hasbeen generally solved in all countries, thus limitingthe sources of division. New trade unions havegenerally accepted and recognised that formertrade unions have been truly reformed, whilstformer trade unions have also accepted new tradeunions as being part of the social dialogue andcollective bargaining scene.

This had led to a new period, in which mergers canbe attempted between trade union organisations.They often represent the only possibility ofsurviving in a context of scarce financial andhuman resources and declining membership.

From the employers’ side, there was clearly notradition of employers’ organisations in the formerregimes. There were only employers appointed instate-owned enterprises whilst the only employers’representatives were the chambers of Commerce.After the collapse of the Communist regimes, theemployers’ side had thus to be built from scratch.Due to the complete re-organisation of theeconomy in most countries of the region, it hasbeen easier in practice to identify the workers’ sidethan the employers’ side.

This missing side from the employers had causedproblems both at the national level -precisely whenthe governments were trying to build a tripartitepartnership- and sectoral level where employers'representatives were totally absent. This led insome cases the state to provide considerableassistance to the creation of employers’organisations, as it happened for instance inPoland, Czech and Slovak republics.

Undoubtedly, the most significant weakness ofindustrial relations since the beginning of thetransition lies in this lack of organised andrepresentative employers’ organisations at thenational and intermediary levels.

While employers’ organisations were able toparticipate in the tripartite process, in many casesthey could not guarantee the implementation oftripartite agreements, especially by non-members.

In a first transitional period, employers’ organ-isations mostly represented the interests of state-owned enterprises. As the privatization processintensified, the emergence of the private sectorcreated a great diversity of employers at the locallevel which also led –as for the trade unions– to arapid multiplication of employers’ organisations.New organisations emerged representing privateentrepreneurs’ interests, and later on of small andmedium size enterprises. Hungary and Romania for



instance have respectively nine and eight nationalemployers’ organisations.

Since this diversity is also weakening employers’positions, there have been in the recent past someattempts of mergers, as in Romania. Attempts ofcoordination also emerged, as in Hungary whereeight out of the nine employers’ organisations(IPOSZ not included) agreed to create an umbrellaorganisation for International cooperation(CEHIC), especially from the pressure of theEuropean employers’ organisation UNICE. Othercountries such as Bulgaria, and to a lesser extentLithuania, the Czech republic and Poland are alsocharacterised by pluralism in employer interests’representation.

Other candidate countries are characterised by onemajor employer organisation, as in Slovenia,Slovakia, Latvia. Similarly in Turkey, the onlyemployer organisation TISK represents not onlyprivate but also state-owned enterprises. In Latvia,legislative provisions on employer organisations’representativeness have been built in such amanner to ensure the emergence of a soleorganisation to represent employers’ interests.

It is worth mentioning that in most candidatecountries, there rarely exists an organisationspecifically representing the interests of enterprisesoperating in public services, with the possibleexception of Hungary (with Stratosz) and veryrecently Romania. Their interests are represented

by general employer organisations with widerscope, a situation that contrasts with the operationof such an actor in the European social dialogue(CEEP) as well as with the important place devotedto public services and services of general interestsin the Community acquis.

At the same time, small and medium size privateenterprises are often represented by a myriad ofnew employers’ organisations, which means thatthe representation of their interests remains ratherdispersed. In Poland as in Slovenia, small andmedium enterprises are represented by the cham-ber of crafts.

In most candidate countries, employers’ organ-sations can be formed on the basis of the verygeneral provisions that are enshrined in the lawson associations. It is therefore difficult to make thedistinction between employer organisations andassociations of entrepreneurs, except in thosecountries where a specific law has been introducedfor employer organisations, as in Poland in 1991,Latvia in 1999 and Romania in 2000. In Turkey andMalta, employers’ organisations can enjoy aspecific legislative basis.

Difficulties in organising themselves brought manyemployers’ organisations in Central and EasternEurope to build their new organisation on the basisof the former chambers of commerce and industry.This allowed them to benefit from the start frompolitical recognition as well as already existing



Legal regulations for trade union and employer organisations

For the establishment of social For representativity criteriapartners’ organisations

Bulgaria Constitution (1991), art 49 YesLabour code (2001), art. 4, 5 (Labour code, art. 34, 35)

Cyprus Constitution (1960) NoneLaw on Trade unions

Czech Republic Charter of Fundamental Rights and NoFreedoms (in Constitution), art. 27(1) ; art 27(2)Act No. 83/1990Labour Code for Trade unions’ and employers’ rights

Estonia Constitution, par. 48 and art. 29 for employees Noneand employersLaw of Trade unions (14 June 2000)No specific further law for employers

Hungary Constitution (1949, modified No general law on representativity, but:fundamentally in 1989), art. 4, 63, 70c at firm level for 1) trade unions, representativity

determined according to works’ councils electionsLaw II of 1989 on the Right to Association (at least 10 % of votes or 2/3 of workers of the same

occupational group within the enterprise; Labour Labour Code (Law XXII of 1992), art. 15 Code, art. 29-2; see also art. 33-4); 2) no specific

legislation for employers;at "higher than enterprise" level, art. 34-2 and 3;at national level: trade unions and employer org. are registered according to the Act on Association; are active in at least three sectors and ten sub-sectors; and have regional structures in at least 5 out of 20 counties; and 1) employer org. have at least 1,000 companies as members, or their affiliated companies employ at least 1,000 workers; 2) trade unions have local sections in at least 100 companies

Latvia Constitution, art. 102 Law on trade unions (1990): Not less than 50New Labour Code (2001) members or 1/2 of workforceLaw on Trade unions (Dec. 1990) Law on employers’ organisations: Law on Employers’ organisations (April 1999) Association uniting most employers

Lithuania Constitution, art. 50 No specific regulation (except art. 7 ofLaw on trade unions (1991) Law on collective agreements)For employers: Law on associations (1996)

Malta Constitution (Chapters II (7,12-16), Yes: Industrial Relations Act (1976)IV (32,35,42), XI (120). The Malta Council for Economic and Social Conditions of Employment (Regulation) Act 1952 (under review) Development Act (2001)Industrial Relations Act 1976 (under review)The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development Act (2001)

Poland Constitution (1997) No representativity criteriaLaw on trade unions (1991) Representativity criteria only for trade unions forLaw on employers’ organisations (1991) purpose of collective agreements in supra-enterprise Amendments of Labour Law in 2000 concerning level collective agreements (Labour Code, art 241-17) andcollective agreements for enterprise level collective agreements (art.241-25a)

Romania For trade unions: Constitution, art. 37-1 and Yesart. 27-2, Law on Trade Unions No. 54/1991For employers: Law No. 21/1924, Gov. ordinance 26/2000 on associations; Law 130/1996 on collective labour contracts; Employers' organisation Law No 356/2001For the public sector, Govern. Decision No. 1086/2001 on parity committees

Slovakia Constitution, art. 37-1 None

Slovenia Constitution, art. 75 on the right of the workers Law on trade unions’ representativity to participate in the administration of No Law for employers’ organisationsorganisations and of economic institutions; (but the idea is under discussion)and art. 76 on trade union freedom; and art. 74 on economic initiative

Turkey Constitution Trade unions have the right to sign collective Law No. 2821 on Trade unions and Law No.2822 agreements at enterprise level underon collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, two conditions: 1) that they obtainwith amendments provided to both laws in 2001 more than 50 per cent of membersLaw on Public Employee’s Trade .in the enterprise; and Unions of June 2001 2) at least 10 per cent of workers in the sector concerned



institutional resources, in terms of offices,personnel and members.The most obvious case is represented by Slovenia,where the chamber of commerce remained formost transition years the only representativeemployers’ organisation; later on it helped createnew employers’ organisations on its previousstructures, but it continues to play a dominant role.This is the reason why the distinction betweenemployers’ organisations and chambers ofcommerce is generally much more difficult to bemade in Central and Eastern Europe than in EUcountries. In Cyprus, the chamber of commerce isalso present in the field of industrial relations.

Respective membership

In terms of number of members, the represen-tativeness of employer organisations in candidatecountries would represent on average 30-40 percent of industrial enterprises or between 2 and 5per cent of total number of enterprises .

Entrepreneurs in Central and Eastern Europe preferto follow individual strategies, they thus favourdirect contacts with the government or directrelationship and collective bargaining with thetrade unions or workers’ representatives atenterprise level. In particular, there is a lack ofinterest of new private (including foreign)employers for employers’ confederations. They alsocomplain about the priority given by nationalemployer organisation to tripartite bodies ratherthan to the services delivered to their individualmembers.

Employers’ organisations also face extremedifficulties in attracting sufficient membership feesand thus general resources for their operations.

As a result, while most employers’ organisations incandidate countries benefit today from structuresand activities rather similar to the EU, they remainextremely vulnerable.

On the trade union side, the fall in membership isa common feature to all candidate countries. Inmost Central and Eastern European countries, tradeunionisation was at the end of the year 2000generally below 30 per cent of the labour force. Thefall seems to have been particularly strong inEstonia, down to 18 per cent, but also in Polandand Hungary, with 20 per cent trade unionmembership. At the same time, the figuresucceeded to remain higher in the Slovak Republic.The highest figure is registered in Slovenia, a resultwhich is however due to the specific systemdeveloped in this country, where the signature of

collective agreements is obligatory.

Obviously, the fall in trade union membership wasunavoidable from the 100 per cent rates that wereregistered in the previous regimes. At the same timehowever, the fall could have been expected to stopafter the first years of transition if a number offactors had not combined to provoke an evenfurther and continuous decrease.

One explanation is the falling living standards inthe first years of transition –which stopped only inthe late 90s for most countries in the region– andthe growing unemployment rates. This trend hasoften pushed workers to follow individualstrategies, such as cumulating second and thirdjobs in the informal sector, rather than following orsupporting collective action.

Privatization has also automatically led to thedecline in trade union membership, privatizationand restructuring being often accompanied by thesplitting of previously large state-owned companiesin a series of smaller establishments where previoustrade union structures were destroyed without newones being created. Sectoral shifts also took placefor many enterprises in front of which trade unionsgenerally remained without any sensible answer.Trade unions succeeded however to remain presentin many privatised enterprises. By contrast, theirpresence is often not recognised and accepted byemployers in the new private enterprises, especiallysmall units. The absence of trade unions in verysmall and medium size enterprises remains in factone major weakness of trade unions and of socialdialogue in candidate countries of Central andEastern Europe. Trade unions still have to find theright strategy to increase their presence in this typeof enterprises, while the workers themselves,especially those of younger age, do not seem tobelieve much in trade unions to defend theirinterests.

The fall in trade union membership has directfinancial implications for the trade unions, interms of membership fees, which weakens themfinancially but also institutionally and politically.

Continuous decline in membership and increasedabsence at enterprise level could seriouslyundermine trade unions’ capacity to survive in thelong run, both at local and national levels.

Representativeness

Because social partners were needed in the firstyears of reforms to share the responsibility ofdifficult and unpopular reforms, they were given



political legitimacy irrespectively of membership.This legitimacy was given by the nationalgovernments but also indirectly by Internationalorganisations as the ILO, and also European socialpartners such as ETUC and to a lesser extent UNICEand CEEP.

Governments' first steps consisted in regulatingcollective bargaining and providing a definition ofboth the labour and the management side. Sectoralrepresentativeness for instance was generallydescribed in the provisions of the labour code withregard to the signature of collective agreements. Atnational level however, representativeness did notrespect clear criteria; instead social partners builtapparent representativeness through their partic-ipation in the fora for tripartite social dialogue.Although such participation and respective seatswere decided by the government, they weregenerally enshrined into the labour code, and thusconverted as « de facto » criteria for represen-tativeness. In Latvia, the tripartite agreement thatserved as the basis for the tripartite council clearlystipulates that the trade union LBAS is the onlyrepresentative trade union at national level. Bycontrast in Poland, there are no formal criteria forparticipating in the tripartite Commission. InSlovenia the chamber of commerce and thechamber of crafts are allowed to sit at the tripartitecouncil, and are thus legitimised as beingrepresentatives and even key actors in the country’seconomic and social life.

After reaching a certain stage of industrial relations,the question of legitimacy could be raised in thetrue sense, with many countries entering into asecond phase. Most of them decided to enshrine inlaw clear criteria –generally on the basis ofrespective membership- for the representativenessof both trade unions’ and employers’ associationswhich operate at national level (see Table above).

However tensions continue to prevail between thetwo types of representativeness (respectively rootedin political legitimacy and membership).

In fact, many new representativeness criteriaremain rather broad, and in some cases they seemto have been introduced not to select organisationsbut rather to confirm already existingorganisations, as it seems to be the case in Polandand Lithuania. On the other hand, restrictivecriteria for both employer and trade unionorganisations prevail in Bulgaria and Romania,through checking by a competent court, andrespective decision by the government.

The question of the representativeness of tradeunions at enterprise level has also become a hotissue. This may be the reason why the conditions

for creating a trade union are so different from onecountry to the other. While it is rather easy tocreate a trade union in Hungary or in the CzechRepublic, a number of restrictive conditions haveto be met at enterprise level in countries likeLithuania and Latvia.

The conditions for allowing a trade union to sign acollective agreement are also very different. InPoland, Czech and Slovak Republics, a trade unioncan be allowed to conclude a collective agreementonly if it has the support of at least 50 per cent ofthe employees. In Hungary a rather detailedregulation has been introduced allowing all tradeunions to enter into bargaining while represen-tativeness –measured by the results at works'councils elections– is taken into considerationwhen disagreement occurs among them.

In most candidate countries, the right of tradeunions to sign collective agreements at sectorallevel also depends generally on the threshold ofmembers requested in the respective sector, whichis generally 10 per cent.

It has to be emphasized that while the existence ofclear representativeness criteria can help topromote collective bargaining, too strict criteriacan, on the opposite, seriously reduce it. In Turkeyfor instance, the existence of two basic conditionsfor allowing trade unions to sign a collectiveagreement at enterprise level –that is to have morethan 50 per cent of members in the enterprise andrepresent at least 10 per cent of the workers in thesector concerned– has seriously limited thesignature of collective agreements, which takesplace today in less than 10 per cent of enterprises.

Collective disputes

The number of collective disputes is generally animportant sign of the situation of industrialrelations, as well as more generally of the economicand social situation of a country. We must distin-guish between general demonstrations organised atnational level, that reflect the population’sdiscontent, and more focused collective action, atwork place, in one specific enterprise or sector ofactivity, and generally related to collectivebargaining.

We can observe that there has been over the pastdecade a very limited number of collective actionsin Cyprus and Malta, whilst more strikes have beenorganised in Turkey.

With regard to the ten candidate countries fromCentral and Eastern Europe, two main featuresseem to characterise the situation.



First, the number and depth of collective actions intheir first years of transition has not reflected thegravity of the social situation and the burden of thetransition for the workers as well as for thepopulations; in particular the sharp fall in realwages in the first years of reforms and the use ofthe minimum wage to control both wage increasesand social benefits have not led to major actionand to a multiplication of strikes. The massiverestructuring process, with closures and layoffsneither. The number of days lost due to strike hasremained low. The number of strikes and othercollective actions has even decreased over mostrecent years. Very few major nationaldemonstrations have been organised.

This can be explained by a series of factors: 1) weaktrade unions’ structures and low mobilisationcapacity; 2) the absence -with the exception ofPoland- of a culture of massive demonstration; 3)the difficulty to protest against a policy that hasbeen widely supported and generally agreedthrough tripartite agreements; 4) the general beliefthat restrictive reforms would bring improvedliving standards; 5) fears that collective action maycontribute to bring into power less democraticauthorities; 6) the uncertain economic growth anda global need for restructuring that seriouslylimited the room for manoeuvre of trade unions; inparticular, fears to lose their job or experiencefurther wage cuts represented serious disincentivesfor workers to embark on strong trade unions’claims and action.

Second, despite a poor national average, strikes arevery much concentrated in a small number ofsectors or specific types of enterprise. Thediscontent in these sectors and activities however isvery high. A majority of strikes –as in the EU (ECIndustrial Relations Report 2000)- intervened inthe public sector, especially among teachers,doctors, nurses, judges and public administrationin general. The main reason for such strikes was thepoor evolution of wage scales, continuously relatedto the minimum wage that remained under strictcontrol of the authorities. In some countries, therestrictions to call a strike for certain categories ofemployees of public administration even limitedthe multiplication of such strikes. Whilst this is asituation often met in Central and EasternEuropean countries, the most extreme case amongcandidate countries is represented by Turkey whereimportant restrictions to the right to strike and tocollective bargaining continue to prevail for almostall public employees.

At the same time, most major strikes also tookplace in large public enterprises, such as railways oraviation. Major strikes were organised in railwaysin Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic and

particularly in Hungary, where a long strike tookplace in the year 2000. There was also a long strikein the national airlines company MALEV inHungary in 2000, and among traffic controllers inSlovenia. These conflicts often reflect the absenceof autonomous social dialogue and collectivebargaining in these public enterprises. Strikes alsointervened in sectors characterised by harshrestructuring, such as in mining and energy inEstonia and Bulgaria, or textile in Slovenia.

Generally, all candidate countries have adopted alaw or specific provisions on the right to strike.Strikes in a majority of CEE countries are onlypossible at the moment of the renewal of thecollective agreements. If an agreement is signed,workers and their representatives are not allowedto go on strike with regard the contents of thecollective agreement, as in Hungary, CzechRepublic or Poland, although they can call it forother reasons.

In this regard, it must be underlined that a peculiarprovision continues to prevail in some Central andEastern European countries with regard therenewal of collective agreements. In practice thecurrent agreement, even if terminated, continuesto be valid until a new agreement is concluded, asin Poland, and until recently Bulgaria (before thiswas modified by the new labour code in 2000). Thishas proved to represent a strong incentive for oneof the parties –in general the trade union– not torenew the agreement in order to keep the bindingprovisions of the previous one, something againstwhich employers have protested, as it happenedrecently in Poland. The right for employers to lockout is enshrined in the legislation of a fewcandidate countries only, such as the CzechRepublic, Slovakia and Estonia.



Right to strike and lockout – Major strikes, 1990-2001

Country Trade union right to strike/ Strike Categories Main Major strikesemployer right to lockout announcement excluded sectors

(strikes forbidden)

Bulgaria Right to strike Trade unions Limited actions in public Public sector, Teachers, mining,in the Constitution (Art. 50); services (according to the especially in military-industrial Limitations for certain categories Employees’ Law for civil servants of education; complex in 1999-in the Law for settlement of representatives 1999); forbidden strikes Public 2001Collective labour Disputes (1990) in defence, interior affairs, enterprises, Major strike inand in the Law for civil servants for troops, court, prosecutors such as in 2000 and 2001

and investigation. energy, mining, in the companyNo right to lockout Also forbidden in health, steel, military- Balkan Airlines,

communications, energy, and industrial complex, hastily privatised some other public utilities chemicals and later on

declared bankrupted and closed early 2001

Cyprus Right to strike Trade unions Limited actionin public services

Right to lockout

Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights Trade unions only Judges, procurators, Public Railways, Republic and Freedoms (in Constitution), armed forces, police administration, February 1997

art. 27(4) Public sector Public demonstrationCollective Bargaining Act in 1997 against( No. 2/1991) for strikes concerning government the conclusion of collective agreements Public sector, 1998Law allowing lockouts Mass Media:

strike of employees of public Czech television in January 2001

Estonia Art. 29 of the Constitution Trade unions Teachers, nurses Teachers’ strike (28 June 1992) (warning strikes), in 1992Collective Labour Dispute Resolution Employee mining workers, Metal workersAct (5 May 1993) representatives in one enterpriseRight to lockout (trustee) in 1999

Mining and energy (power plants) in June 2000

Hungary Constitution (Act XX of 1949 Group of workers Administrative organs Railways, Strikes in railwaysmodified fundamentally in or/and trade unions of justice, Health sector every year,1989), art. 70c (2) Act VII Solidarity strike armed forces, except in 1996of 1989 on the right to strike can only be and the police and 1997;

announced by (Act VII of 1989, most significantNo right to lockout trade unions art 3 (2) strike took place

(Act VII of 1989, in February 2000, art. 1 (4) Right to strike jointly organisedIn public admini- in state by the threenistration only administration representative those trade unions dependent on trade unions: that have signed agreement with it lasted 329the agreement with the Council hours andthe government on of Ministers and involved 10-12the right to strike the trade unions thousandfor civil servants concerned workers each day.

(Act VII of 1989, art 3 (2)) (above Health sector:agreement signed major actiononly in 1994) took place in

December 2000, and included 3 demonstrations in 3 different cities and 27 warning strikes all overthe country



Latvia Art. 108 of the Trade unions Public Public sectors Teachers in 1999Constitution Elected employees’ administration, (teachers, Law on strike (1998) representatives police force, scientists)

judgesNo right to lockout

Lithuania Art. 51 of the Constitution Trade unions Railways, power Public sectors, EducationHeavy procedures as in engineering, especially education sector in 2000Art. 9-22 of the Law on public utilities and 2001 for Collective Disputes (water, food etc.), wage payment delays

public administration Agriculture in 2000- No right to lockout

Malta Both rights (to strike and lockout) Trade Unions only Employees providing Public sector and 1998-2000:guaranteed under the Industrial essential services state owned strike at a state-Relations Act (1976)* (special appendix enterprises owned construction

to Industrial companyConditions of Employment Regulation Relations Act)Act (1952)* Strike at Malta Freeport

in 1998 in protest against higher costs ofpublic utilities

Strike at Malta's International Airport in 1999 as a result of inter-union recognition dispute

Poland Law of 1991 on settlement Trade unions only Public administration, Public sectors Railways in 1998 and of collective disputes security and armed (health, education, 2000

forces, police, culture), industry, Doctors in 1998fire brigade, penitentiary transports Nurses in 2000

No right to lockout services, courts, prosecutors

Romania Constitution, art. 27-1; Trade unions Services crucial toart. 40 and workers society, armed forcesLaw No. 168/1999 regarding the solving of labour disputes

Slovakia Constitution, art. 37-4 Trade unions only Civil servants in highAct No.2/1991 on collective positions, in defence, bargaining health and life

protection (firemen,Right to lockout soldiers etc.)(Law on coll. bargaining)

Slovenia Law on basic Rights Trade unions only Police, defence Public sectors Metal and electrical of Employment Relations (1989) (doctors, teachers, equipment, textile,Law on strikes (1991) judges), textile, in 1994-97

construction, wood, Doctors, metal and electrical teachers in 1996 equipment Railways in 1997

(10 days)Traffic controllers in 2000

Turkey Law No. 2822 on Collective Trade unions only Rights to collective Public sectors, Demonstration againstbargaining, Strikes and Lockouts bargaining and strike textile, transport, new Law inLaw No. 3318 on Strikes forbidden in public food, mining public sector inand lock-outs and mediation sector (according 'Petroleum, 2000 and 2001on free trade zones to new Law of 2001) chemicals and Examples in

rubber', metal 1999 (34 strikes):9 strikes in transport, 6 in textile (88,000 work-days lost), 5 in 'Petroleum, chemicals and rubber' (71,000), 2 in food and2 in mining + others

* these laws are currently under review.



National level: the predominant role of tripartite partnership

All candidate countries have promoted socialdialogue through tripartite structures, notably bycreating tripartite national councils, in whichemployers’ and trade unions’ representatives areinvited in discussions on a number of economicand social issues. This situation contrasts strikinglywith industrial relations in Western Europe, whereformal tripartism is rarely found and consultation/concertation at national level take place in a moreinformal way. Although tripartite partnership hasevolved in a different political and economicenvironment in the Central and Eastern Europeancandidate countries and the three Southerncandidate countries, its role has become equallydecisive in industrial relations systems.

Different factors can explain the prevalence of suchstructures in Central and Eastern Europeancountries. First, after the collapse of theCommunist regimes, there was no real culture and

practice of autonomous industrial relations, andthe dominance of the state in all economic andsocial matters was such that this form of dialoguebecame the natural and inherited form ofdemocratisation of policy-making after decades ofcentralisation and totalitarism.

Tripartite bodies emerged at different points intime and in different forms according to thecountries. Hungary was the first country to startsuch tripartite dialogue already in 1988, which ledto the institutionalisation of the first tripartitebody, the Council for the Reconciliation ofInterests. In former Czechoslovakia, a nationaltripartite Council –the Council for Economic andSocial Agreement– was formed in October 1990, atfederal and republic levels, before giving birth, afterthe 1993 split of Czechoslovakia, into the Czechand Slovak National Councils. Other countries inthe region introduced formalised tripartite dialoguelater on, such as Bulgaria and Romania in 1993,Poland and Slovenia in 1994, whilst others likeLatvia and Estonia waited until the late 1990s (seetable below).

Tripartite bodies in candidate countriesCountry Main tripartite Body(ies) * Date Institutional/legal basis Composition * Sub-committees

Bulgaria Tripartite Commission for 1991 Agreement Employers: 4 Yescoordinating interests Trade Unions: 2

National Council for 1993 Labour code Employers: 4 Yestripartite cooperation Trade Unions: 2

National Economic April 2001 Law Multipartiteand Social Council

Cyprus Labour Advisory Body 1960 Administrative arrangement Employers: 2 YesTrade Unions: 4 Yes

Economic Consultative 1999 Administrative arrangementCommittee

Advisory Committee 1960 Law No on Commerce and Industry

Social Insurance Fund Counci No

Different tripartite training institutes

Czech Republic** Council for Social Agreement 1990-1992 Tripartite agreement Employers: 2 NoTrade Unions: 2

Council for Economic 1992-1995 and Social Agreement

Council for Social Dialogue 1995-1997

Council for Economic Since 1997 and Social Agreement

Estonia National Economic and Since 1998 Coll. Agreement Act of April Employers: 1 YesSocial Council (NESC) 1993, Law on the establish- Trade Unions: 2

ment of the NESC of 1998 (on a rotation basis)Council for the ILO Since 1992 Law of Health Insurance

Hungary Interest Reconciliation Council 1990-1998 Government decree, Employ.:9 Yesbacked by a Trade unions: 6Tripartite agreement ***

National Labour Council Since April 1999 Government Decree Employ.:9 YesTrade unions: 6

Economic Council Since April 1999 Government Decree Multipartite Yes (from end 2001)

Council for ILO Affairs since May 1999 Government Decree Employ.:9 NoTrade unions: 6

Council for European Integration since June 1999 Government Decree Multipartite No

Latvia National Tripartite Since 1998 Tripartite agreement Employers: 1 YesCooperation Council (30 October 1998) (art. 1) Trade Unions: 1

Lithuania Tripartite Council of Since 1995 Tripartite agreement Employers: 2 Yesthe Republic of Lithuania (5 May 1995) Trade Unions: 4

Commission of Labour Law on State Labour Protection protection

State Social Insurance CouncilLaw on State Social

Committee on EU accession Insurance

Malta Malta Council for Economic Since 1988 Tripartite agreement Employers: 6 YesDevelopment Trade unions: 2

Malta Council for Economic since June 2001 Law (Malta Council Multipartite Yesand Social Development for Economic and

Social Development Act XV)

Poland Tripartite Commission for 1994-2001 Government decree. Employers: 1 YesEconomic and Social Issues Trade Unions: 9

since July 2001 Law on Tripartite Employers: 2 YesCommission and voivodship Trade unions: 9social dialogue commissions

Romania Tripartite Secretariat 1993-1997 Under Phare project Employers: 8 Yesfor Social Dialogue Trade Unions: 5

Economic and Social Council 1997 Law on the ESC(No. 109/1997)

Social dialogue committees 2001 Government Decision within each Ministry No. 314/2001

Slovakia** Council for Economic and Since 1990 Tripartite agreement in Employers: 1 YesSocial Agreement 1990-1997 Trade Unions: 1

Law on Tripartism since May 1999

Slovenia Social and Economic Council 1994 Tripartite agreement Employers: 3 No(Law under discussion since 1998) Trade Unions: 4

National Council Multipartite

Turkey National Labour Council - Tripartite agreement Not effective No

Minimum Wage Board - Employers: 1 NoTrade Unions: 1

Other tripartite bodies (social Nosecurity; and unemployment boards; productivity Centre etc.) April 2001 Law Multipartite

Economic and Social Council Working boards possible



* organisations represented in the tripartite bodies; does not mean there are no other organisations; for comparison see table on social partners.** In former Czechoslovakia (before the splitting into the two separate Czech and Slovak republics in the end of 1992), there were three tripartite bodies, one

for the Federation and two for the Czech and Slovak parts).*** Government Decree 3240/1990 in an internal, albeit not confidential governmental document. It includes obligations related only to the Government



For some analysts, there were no specific cond-itions for tripartism to occur in CEE, but ithappened mainly because it was in the interest offirst democratic governments.

In a context of economic and social crisis, with acombination of adverse phenomena such as thecollapse of production, restructuring, emergingunemployment and very low and decreasing livingstandards, no doubt such tripartite partnership wasa pre-condition for governments’ survival. Policy-makers needed the consent of social partners oneconomic reforms and wanted to share with themthe responsibility for the sacrifices that suchreforms were expected to represent for thepopulation.

This is the period during which most governmentsin the region looked for the signature of nationalagreements on economic and social policies withthe social partners. As an example, it was inJanuary 1991 that an Annual General Agreementwas introduced in former Czechoslovakia, as aforum for a social compromise package for low-wage and low-unemployment policy. In othercountries, the signature of a tripartite agreementeven preceded the formalisation of a tripartitebody, as in Poland, where the TripartiteCommission on Socio-Economic Issues was createdin February 1994 as a follow-up of the tripartitepact signed one year earlier, in February 1993, onState Enterprises in Transformation. Aimed atovercoming resistance to privatization and free-market measures, this pact illustrates well thecompromise pursued in the region in the earlyyears of transition, between guaranteeingminimum security and carrying out the economicreforms. It was also in this period, in 1994-95, thatsome attempts were made to sign a global socialpact in Hungary. Nevertheless, even if agreementswere not always reached, tripartism helped socialpartners to legitimate their position, and thegovernments to share the responsibility ofunpopular decisions.

Such tripartite agreements were thus generallymotivated by political interests, in particular fromthe government, to overcome internal difficultiesor to respond to strong external pressure. InBulgaria for instance it is the signature of theAssociation Agreement that gave the opportunityto social partners to impose social dialogue as aprecondition, with a similar trend also occurring inRomania. Later on, the tripartite process waseffectively used in Bulgaria when it became clearthat the introduction of the currency board in 1997would not be possible without popular consent.This agreement was sought through social partners,who were consulted by the representatives of theInternational Monetary Fund. It ensured the

acceptance of the Currency Board, and itsconsequent very restrictive aspects, among theBulgarian population.

In the early transition, governments from Centraland Eastern Europe have also been influenced bythe International Labour Organisation, whichencouraged the development of tripartitestructures, as new institutions of stability anddemocracy, particularly needed to overcome socialunrest in the transition.

Another factor explaining the success of tripartismin Central and Eastern Europe comes from thesocial partners themselves. Both for trade unionsand employers’ organisations, tripartism wasessential: it was the necessary step for confirmingtheir existence and their role in the new society.Especially since no criteria for representativity hadbeen developed, obtaining a seat in the tripartiteCouncil represented the best possible way to lookrepresentative, and therefore to consolidate aposition among old and potentially-new members.

Tripartism in transition: a successful way to avoid social conflicts

No doubt that tripartism, despite its rather formalstructures, helped to avoid major conflicts in aperiod of economic crisis. In countries where fordecades all decisions were taken unilaterally,tripartism was a positive development. In mostcountries in the region, tripartite bodies have hadthe task of proposing and preparing legislativeamendments, an action that continues, especiallyalong the current process of amendments to thelabour code in which most countries are stillinvolved. Most tripartite councils have also createdsub-committees to address particular issues, such asemployment, wages and social protection (seeTable).

In most countries in the region, tripartite councilsworked on the basis of a tripartite agreementconcluded between the three sides. Progressively,tripartite structures have also been given a legalbasis for their operations, as it was done inRomania in 1997, in Estonia in 1998, in Slovakia in1999, in Poland in 2001. Similar laws are underpreparation in other countries as in Slovenia.

The participation of trade unions in the tripartiteprocess clearly contributed to relatively peacefulindustrial relations. In some cases, tripartism evenhelped solving certain conflicts, as it happened inHungary during the taxi and lorry drivers’ blockadein October 1990.

Moreover, whilst all Central and Eastern Europeancountries have seen many political, institutional



and economic changes, it is quite significant toobserve that tripartite structures remained in placesince their existence. They thus represent animportant feature of social partnership in Centraland Eastern Europe that survives political changes.

More recently, some governments have also set uptripartite Councils for discussing ILO matters, as inEstonia and Hungary, or for addressing preparatorysteps to EU accession, as in Lithuania and Hungarywhere special Councils for European Integrationwere created.

It can also be observed that tripartism is very muchdeveloped in Southern candidate countries such asCyprus and Malta. Malta is characterised by apredominant role of the state in economic andsocial life. Tripartism there has been promotedsince 1988, and was also given legal status in theyear 2001. Cyprus has also a very comprehensiveand historical tradition of tripartism, with socialpartners being involved in a great number oftripartite bodies, such as on social insurance,training and employment. Tripartism is less rootedin the Turkish industrial relations systems, since ithas been promoted more recently, only from 1995.

At the same time, however, there are a number ofdrawbacks that can be identified in the functioningof tripartite mechanisms in candidate countries.

A merely consultative and rather formal process

As it has been repeatedly emphasised, thesecountries have mainly promoted tripartitestructures where formal discussions are heldbetween the state and social partners. Thesestructures have not always proved to be veryeffective. The lack of social partners’ implication sofar on issues such as the budget, privatization,incomes policy but also EU negotiations are ratherillustrative of the limits of such concertationmechanisms. For instance the very restrictiveincome policies followed by CEE countries in thefirst period of the reforms did not leave much spaceto social partners and social dialogue.

Moreover, they remained fora for consultation andrarely led to negotiation in which social partnerscould really be part of the decision-making process,and influence policy outcome. As shown in theGraph 1, even in a country like Hungary, where theoriginal tripartite council became the forum forgenuine negotiations in a number of areas, itremained crystallised around the determination ofthe minimum wage and recommendations onwage increases, and did not cover other economicissues. Moreover, such negotiating power onminimum wages was progressively watered down

from 1998, to be officially converted by thegovernment at the end of the year 2000 into apurely consultative process. Involvement of socialpartners in other areas, such as social security, wasalso progressively reduced. In other countries, thetripartite discussions have been covering such alarge number of issues, from wage to employmentpolicies, including social protection andprivatization, that they finally did not lead to realco-decision making. In the last period, the tripartiteprocess has been inactive in countries like Poland,because of political conflicts, or in Bulgaria wherethe currency board concretely did not leave muchroom to social partners. Attempts have beenrecently made to revitalize the process in countrieslike Romania (with the signature of a new tripartitepact in 2000) but also Lithuania, Estonia, the CzechRepublic and Slovakia.

Moreover one of the most striking features of thetripartite process in most Central and EasternEurope is that it does not create any linkagebetween what is discussed or agreed at nationallevel and decentralised levels of social dialogue andcollective bargaining. It thus has no muchinfluence on decentralised issues. Only in Slovenia,the process seems to have been characterised by astrong linkage between the various levels.Nevertheless, we must also underline that this alsoreflects the strong centralized feature of thissystem, where agreements take place at nationallevel, whilst collective bargaining and collectiveagreements continue to be obligatory at thesectoral level.

As a result, after ten years of transition, theassessment of tripartite bodies is rather mitigated.Of course they represented a way of consultingsocial partners, but for most of them, theirfunctioning remained rather formal.



A process dominated by the State

Despite tripartite structures are a constant featurein the region, their use has been directly dependenton the willingness of the governments to makethem really work, and they even became in somecases a policy instrument. In 1995, the name of thetripartite Council was changed (see table), and itsscope was narrowed considerably; it is only from1997 that the original name of the Council was re-established, and with it, its original scope. Thearrival of a new government in 1998 marked themore regular usage of tripartite consultations.Similarly in Hungary, the evolution of the tripartiteprocess closely followed the willingness of the

government to use it or not. The interest intripartite negotiations seemed to have started todecrease already in 1996-97, but it is mainly thearrival of the new liberal government in 1998which marked a period of change and restructuringof tripartite institutions, under the belief thatdecisions at national level should be taken by thestate alone, and social dialogue between socialpartners being decentralised at local level; thename of the previous tripartite Council wasconsequently modified in 1998 (see Table) and itscompetences restricted to purely « labour » issues,while a new body –the Economic Council– wascreated for addressing economic issues –such asprivatization, budget, macroeconomics previously

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CONSULTATION

NEG

OTI

ATIO

N

BU

CY

MALTLV

PL

RO

HU

SK

TUCZ

SL

ES

DominantNegligeable

Dominant

Some informative elements on the extent of tripartite consultation/negotiations in candidate countries 107

* NB: These figures are just aimed at giving indicative situations and trends, on the basis of information available and experts'estimates, in the absence of comparative research.

1 the position of the countries reflects their situation in the late 1990s; the arrows represent latest trends in 2000-2001

2 the importance of negotiations has been measured by the following elements:- Decision-making and conclusion of agreements: are the social partners involved in the decision-making, and does the councilconsequently have the authorisation to conclude agreements or not? Number of tripartite agreements or pacts agreed, theirscope and effective coverage.- Contents: If so, in what areas (concerning minimum wages or incomes policy, or broader areas such as employment, budget,etc.)?- Frequency: Are these rights regularly used? And are agreements regularly concluded?

3 the importance of consultations is measured by the following factors:- Frequency: Are social partners consulted on a regular basis?- Contents: If so, what is the range of the issues subject to consultations?- Influence: are these consultations allowing social partners to influence the final outcome (number of opinions issued by theCouncil, or other forms of outputs have been analysed).

We can note for instance that compared to Slovenia, the position of other candidate countries is rather low. The position ofHungary was high (even in terms of negotiating rights) but has been decreasing over past few years. Tripartite bodies seem to havea limited scope and extent in countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, while other candidate countries are more in anintermediary position.



covered by the tripartite council– with a muchlarger range of participants, not only socialpartners but also other economic actors.

It is quite significant to observe that the changes inthe format of the tripartite councils operated in theCzech Republic and in Hungary at the end of the90s have been made unilaterally by thegovernment, without the consent of socialpartners. Similar developments in one way oranother were observed in other countries:tripartism effectiveness often depends on the placethat the government wants to give to socialpartnership in its political programme andconsequently in the decision-making process.

It is probably to avoid these political interferencesthat the social partners in many countries havemade pressure in the late 90s for giving a legal basisto the tripartite bodies. Many governmentsaccepted to provide such legal basis to the tripartitestructures as mentioned above. Nevertheless, thisdoes not seem to have much influence on theeffectiveness of the consultations process. The legalanchor introduced in Romania and Slovakia doesnot seem to have changed much the nature of thediscussions and final outcome; by contrast,experiences of tripartism in Hungary in the early90s have shown that it is possible to have apartnership with social partners, and reach

consensus in this way, even without a legal basis.Similarly in the Czech Republic, there is no legalbasis, but tripartite mechanisms have been givenmore attention in the most recent period mainlydue to the change of Government. Moreover, it isnot because tripartite structures are given a legalstatus, that the agreements reached and concludedwithin them acquire a binding character; theirenforcement will continue to depend on thewillingness of the three sides to make themeffective, as well as on the representativity of thesocial partners among their members to make themoperational at local level.

As such, the structures of social dialogue andconsultation do exist in CEE, their political usage isthe question.

In this regard, the disappearance of tripartiteagreements for a period of more than six years(between 1993 and 1999) in most CEE countries isstriking. Table below shows that in the first years ofreforms (1990-94) there was a strong pressure onthe governments to seek tripartite consensus onreforms. It is in this period that most social pacts oragreements were signed, with for instance twobasic social peace agreements in Bulgaria, a socialpact in Poland, annual wage policy agreements andgeneral social pacts in Slovenia.



Tripartite agreements/pacts in candidate countries, 1990-2001

Country Signature Title of agreement/pact and contents

Bulgaria 1990 First tripartite agreement (March)

1991 Agreement for social peace

1997 Charter for Social Cooperation (consensus for the introduction of Currency Board ; October) including a memorandum for Common Priority Action

Cyprus 1977 Industrial Relations Code

Agreements on specific issues: reduction of working hours; declaration for health and safety etc.

Czech 1991-1994 General Tripartite agreement (annual)Republic 1999 General Tripartite agreement

2000 General Tripartite agreement2001 On-going discussions for the conclusion of a long-term social stability pact

Estonia Tripartite agreements on the minimum wage fixing- in 1996 and 1997 Agreements on industrial democracy

Hungary Since 1989, Annual agreements on the national minimum wageexcept in 2000

Attempts to conclude an economic and social pact in 1994 and a price-wage agreement in 1995Tripartite consensus achieved on certain aspects of the state budget, law on taxation, social security contributions etc.

Latvia 1996 Agreement on social partnership1997, 1998, Minimum wages 1999, Training in labour safety 1997

Lithuania 1995 Agreement for solving social, economic and politicalproblems and for social peace

1999 Agreement on tripartite cooperation

Malta 1990 National Agreement on Industrial Relations (incorporating a National Incomes Policy Agreement)

Poland 1993 Pact on state-owned enterprises in the course of transformation(gave birth to the tripartite Committee)

1995 Pact on package for social guarantees for citizens1995 Regional pact for Silesia or contract for voivodship of Katowice1996 Regional agreement in voivodship of Zielona Gora

Romania From 1992 Unique National (inter-professional) collective labour agreements(yearly) but they are bilateral

2000 Social Pact

Slovakia 1990, 1991, General agreements1992 Agreement for 2000 covers four policy areas: (Czechoslovakia) economy, employment, incomes and social affairs1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000 (Slovakia)

Slovenia 1994 Agreement on wage policy1995 General agreement on social policy1996 General agreement 1999 Agreement on wage policy for 1999-20002000 Agreement on pension and disability reform2001 General agreement on employment2001 Agreement on wage policy

General social agreement (in preparation)

Turkey No agreement



It seems as the need to associate the social partnersin the following years was viewed as less crucial. Inthis regard the trend in Central and Eastern Europehas been going in the opposite direction to whatwas happening in the EU, where a process ofcoming back and of a renewed legitimation oftripartite agreements was observed (EC IndustrialRelations Report, 2000).

In the last period however, agreements seem to beon the rise again also in candidate countries, aprocess that can be explained by the increasingpressure put by the forthcoming EU enlargementfor carrying out a number of preparatory steps. InFebruary 2001, the Romanian government andsocial partners signed a general tripartite pactaimed at ensuring social peace and a stableeconomic framework in order to favour long-terminvestment. This agreement covers a wide numberof issues such as wages, employment, the taxsystem, safety at workplace and objectivesconcerning the grey economy. Similarly, in 2001Slovenia made a return to incomes policyagreements and a more general pact was expectedto be signed late 2001.

Last attempts of tripartite agreements in candidatecountries of Central and Eastern Europe are ratherdifferent from the first generation agreements.Whilst in the early 90s social partners had a realimpact on the contents of the agreements, andbenefited some flexibility and openings in thenegotiations and in the final outcome, the latestpacts or agreements appear to be more clearlysettled within a strategy decided by the gover-nment.

Notably in the issues related to the EU accessionnegotiations, the governments of the region havepreserved their prerogatives, although the help ofthe social partners in the implementation of theCommunity acquis would be of benefit. No singlesocial pact has for instance been signed on theprocess to EU accession. The actors within thetripartite systems continue to be unequal, tradeunions remain weak and employers yet have toconsolidate their presence.

In Cyprus and Malta, despite the presence of manytripartite bodies, such tripartite partnership doesnot lead to concrete national tripartite agreementsor pacts. In Malta, implicit understandings areoften reached such as on the Cost of LivingAdjustments (the so-called COLA agreements) butthere has not been any National Agreement since1990. A similar process takes place in Cyprus, onspecific issues such as working time or health andsafety, without national agreement beingconcluded on a wider number of policy issues.

However effective their role and their basicmotivations, it is likely that these tripartitestructures will remain a basic feature of industrialrelations in candidate countries, an element thatshould be given appropriate consideration.

At the same time, we can notice the appearance ofmultilateral bodies, with the participation of otheractors together with social partners. The EconomicCouncil in Hungary for instance involvesrepresentatives from the chambers of commerce aswell as from the Central bank and of foreigninvestors; similarly in Bulgaria, the NationalEconomic and Social Council involves represen-tatives of foreign multinational companies. Thenew Economic and Social Committee in Turkeyand the new Malta Council for Economic andSocial Development are also of a multilateralnature.

Whilst this process permits to involve new actors inthe consultative process, it has also for effect toweaken social partners’ role who loose theirprevious privileged statute. The EuropeanCommission in the negotiation process hasemphasized that whilst the involvement of newactors should be seen as a dynamic movement itshould complement and not substitute theprevious tripartite consultative process, in whichsocial partners should remain privileged partners,as it is the case in the social dialogue that takesplace at EU level.

Autonomous social dialogue at intermediary levels

At the same time, autonomous social dialogue andfree collective bargaining are relatively poorlydeveloped in candidate countries. This means thattripartite consultations are not supported by strongbipartite relationship between employer and workerrepresentatives at decentralised levels. Nor that theycreate incentives or frames for decentralisedbargaining, as it was mentioned earlier.

In this regard, while social partners in candidatecountries must insist for having tripartiteinstitutions and mechanisms made more effective,they should undoubtedly focus their attention onthe promotion of social dialogue at all possiblelevels, and collective bargaining directly betweenemployers and trade unions’ representatives.Intermediary levels of social dialogue representessential elements to develop a coherent system ofindustrial relations and ensure a bridge between thedecisions taken at national level, also withintripartite fora, and the employers’ decisions atenterprise level.

In this regard, it must be emphasized that Central



and Eastern European countries have carried outsignificant reforms in the first years of transition,and also adopted very detailed packages of laws andregulations on industrial relations. Last period hasbrought considerable modifications and simplif-ication of the labour code, which have also for aimto leave more space to social partners. Candidatecountries have also started to promote sectoralsocial dialogue, especially considering sectoraldialogue at EU level, in which their social partnerswill have to play a role. Nevertheless, the sectoraland regional social dialogue continues to be poorlydeveloped.

Sectoral dialogue or the missing level

- The very few number of collective agreements atsectoral level in almost all candidate countries isone significant sign of the weaknesses of socialpartners and their structures at intermediary levelsof collective bargaining. As shown in the tablebelow, there are less than an average of 10 sectoralagreements in almost all the 10 Central and EasternEuropean countries. The number of sectoralagreements has even gone down in the Czech

Republic, from 35 in 1995 to 12 in 2001. The samedownward trend is observed in Hungary, with anumber of sectoral agreements that fell from 24 in1992 to 14 in 1998, and slightly increased to 19 in1999. Their coverage has decreased by more than 30per cent in respect of employers and by 75 per centin respect of employees. 19 sectoral agreementswere registered in 1999, but would cover only 10per cent of employees.

As shown in Graph 2, most collective agreements incandidate countries are signed at enterprise and notat sectoral level. The only exception is Sloveniawhere all sectors of activity are covered by collectiveagreements, due to the obligatory nature ofcollective bargaining. Enterprises of Sloveniaobligatorily belong to the chamber of commercewhich concludes (now in cooperation with theemployers’ organisation ZDS) sectoral collectiveagreements with the respective trade unionorganisations. Despite repetitive attempts from theGovernment to remove this system since 1995,there is still no system of voluntary collectiveagreements in Slovenia.

Some informative elements on sectoral collective agreements in candidate countries

Number of multi- Number of sectoral Procedure of extentionemployer (higher collective agreements than enterprise) agreements

Bulgaria 14 industry sectoral agreements Yes, under and 46 branch collective Ministerial decision agreements (2000) but with (Labour code April 2001) no full coverage

Cyprus - 2000: 12 -

Czech Republic 1998: 25 1997:172001: 12 -

Estonia 2001: 10 ' 1999: 14 Yes, since act of June 2000sub-sectoral agreements' 2000: 16

2001: 7

Hungary 1998: 48 1998: 14 Yes, applicable according to art 341999: 52 1999: 19 of the Labour code but not used

Latvia 1999: 10

Lithuania - - -

Malta None None None

Poland 2000: 136 2000: 20 Yes (under decision of the Ministry of Labour upon request of social partners) (according to new legislation in 2000)

Romania - 2001: 19 Yes, provisions apply to all workers in the sector

Slovakia - 1993: 29 Possible under1998: 55 decision of the Ministry2000: 29 of Labour

Slovenia - 2000: 38 Yes (under decision100% (by obligation) of Ministry of Labour)

Turkey - Very limited, with poor contents None



Attempts are made in the recent period by countrieslike Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Balticcountries to promote collective bargaining atsectoral level, a trend that must be encouraged notonly by the governments but also by the socialpartners themselves.Sectoral agreements, especially with the coveragethat we find in most EU countries, are thereforemore the exception rather than the rule incandidate countries.

The fact that there is hardly any data on thenumber of collective agreements at the sectorallevel is also a sign of the weakness of this level ofbargaining.

In many EU countries, the coverage of collectivebargaining, including sectoral collective bargainingis much higher. For instance in France, since 1988,there is a constant number of sectoral agreementsand additional clauses of 600 per year. The coveragerate of collective agreements is close to 90 per cent

108Some informative elements on main levels of collective bargaining in candidate countries

* NB: These figures are just aimed at giving indicative situations and tendencies, on the basis of information available andexperts' estimates, in the absence of comparative research.

1: the position of the countries reflects their situation in the late 90s; the arrows represent latest tendencies in 2000-20012: the respective importance of the enterprise or the sectoral (or multi-employer) level has been measured by:

- the coverage ratio of collective bargaining at the two respective levels;- the number (and %) of sectoral agreements;- the number (and %) of enterprise agreements;- contents of agreements could not be taken into account because of insufficient information.

ENTERPRISE

SECT

ORA

L

SL

HUCYRO

MAESLT

BU

LV

SK

CZ

PL

LowLow

High

High

TU

of the labour force. In Belgium, there were morethan 400 sectoral agreements in 2000 covering amajority of workers in the sectors concerned. Thecoverage rate is about 50 per cent in Germany (2/3of employees in Western part and 1/3 in theEastern part).

In many candidate countries, sectoral agreementswhen concluded are anyway very general, and justreproduce the possibilities offered by the law (itselfrather detailed and comprehensive); in such cases,the collective agreements are not much differentfrom one sector to the other, and do not show anysign of progress on the different issues covered. InSlovakia for instance, many sectors are covered bya collective agreement whose contents howeverremain very general, all issues relevant for theworkers being discussed and negotiated atenterprise level. More precise provisions are

provided only on wages. Similarly in Turkey, whilethere are collective agreements signed in a fewsectors, they do not lead to a negotiation processbetween social partners and just carry over thegeneral principles already indicated in the previousagreement and also in the law.

Moreover, even when such an agreement isconcluded, its contents are generally not veryextended; it is often confined to wage issues(determining for instance a sectoral minimumwage floor, annual wage increases or wage scales)and does not cover employment issues and otherworking conditions.In this regard, it is significant to observe that inmany countries of Central and Eastern Europe, thelaw, generally the labour code, does not evenmention or specify the "sectoral level", but ratherrefers to other concepts, such as "multi-employer"



agreements, or "higher-level" (than enterprise)agreements as in the Czech Republic, Hungary andSlovakia.

There are many of such multi-employeragreements signed between different employersworking in the same activity, whilst only a few ofthem can be considered as representing the wholesector. In Hungary, more than 50 such agreementshad been signed in 1999; similarly, 56 suchagreements had been registered in 1999 inSlovakia, compared to 136 agreements in Poland in2000.

In a context in which sectoral agreements are sofew, or are not fully representative of the sectors asa whole, the extention clause, that is the possibilityto extend the provisions in the agreement to otheremployers - who were not represented- in the samesector takes a particular importance. However, asshown in table above, such extension procedure isbarely used. In the Czech Republic, its practice haseven decreased: while in 1993 the coverage ofagreements was extended to 191 employers beyondthe scope of relevant employers’ federations, by1995, this had been reduced to only 12, and by1996, the practice was entirely abandoned. It waskept only in some specific sectors such as inconstruction and textile, under the decision of theMinistry of Labour. Such prerogative from thegovernment also exists in other countries,something however that has not been used muchso far. In Hungary this procedure is regulated bylabour law.

Nevertheless, the use of such extension proceduresmay well increase after the decision of a number ofcountries, for example Estonia and Poland in 2000and Bulgaria in 2001, to adopt new legislation inthis area and through this favour an increase in thecoverage of binding collective agreements.Employers’ representatives however are generallyopposed to such an extension mechanism, thatthey find inadapted to the variety of enterpriseswithin one single sector that can be found in thesecountries. In Romania, branch collectiveagreements are expected to apply to all workers andenterprises of the branch. The signature of a'Unique Collective Labour Contract at nationallevel' in 2001 was also aimed at providingprovisions for all enterprises.

There are various factors explaining the absence ofcollective bargaining at sectoral level; in the case ofCentral and Eastern Europe, the following can bementioned:1) The restructuring in enterprises’ property andorganisational forms, with three major combiningfactors,

- the extreme diversity of enterprises within thesame sectors: the restructuring and privatizationprocess have led to profound changes in theorganizational structure, size and property formsof enterprises. This makes it difficult to regroupenterprises in one unique sector considering themajor economic, social and organisationaldifferentials that prevail between them;

- the growth of private small enterprises: thespectacular growth of small private firms makesdifficult any attempt to organize a wholeindustry or branch. The fact that trade unions arenot well represented in the sectors dominated bySMEs contributes to this situation.

- the behaviour of foreign enterprises: new foreigninvestors also prefer to limit collective bargainingto company-specific economic and financialconditions, and to technological and workorganisation.

2) The structures and strategies of social partners;the development of such bargaining level alsodepends to a large extent on the existence of well-structured organisations on both sides of anindustry; this is however, not yet common inCentral and Eastern European countries. Theintermediate level is a completely new area for thesocial partners, where they have first to find theircounterparts and then to learn the ways and meansof bargaining. While trade unions are often readyto enter into collective bargaining, the employersgenerally are not. They prefer the conclusion ofindividual arrangements at enterprise orestablishment level. They often do not allowemployers’ federations to conclude sectoralcollective agreements on their behalf as in theCzech republic and also can threaten them towithdraw the organisation if they attempt to do soas in Poland. Employers also do not have thestructures to carry out social dialogue at sectorallevel. Contrary to employers, trade unionsgenerally enjoy from previous structures andmembership at sectoral as well as at regional level.From the trade unions, it is more the existence ofseveral organisations –as in Hungary, Romania andLithuania- that represents an obstacle in individualsectors.

3) Finally, in a period of economic recession, theroom for manoeuvre is limited, and makes itdifficult to conduct meaningful bargaining at morethan one level. Especially since, in general, theprinciple applied is similar to the one applied inmost EU countries: that is, what is determined in acollective agreement at the sectoral or regionallevel is automatically applied at enterprise level,under similar or more advantageous – and in nocase less advantageous – conditions. It must also beemphasized that the different policies imple-mented by the governments in the first years of



reforms for instance on wages and incomes(through the tax-based income policy) did notleave much space to free collective bargaining onwages and incomes. Too much tripartism also doesnot leave much room for decentralised bargaining.

As indicated earlier, sectoral social dialogue is notvery much developed in Malta, Cyprus and Turkey.Whilst the absence of sectoral dialogue may beexplained by the relatively small size of theeconomy and the industry in the first twoMediterranean countries, it would be moreexplained by the centralization and by insufficientdevelopment of free collective bargaining inTurkey.

The absence of social dialogue in the public sector

The experience in the region also shows that thereis usually no collective bargaining for civil servantsand employees in the public sectors. Negotiationshardly take place at all in such sectors as health,education, transport, communications, and scienceand research. This leads to general demotivation onthe part of civil servants and public employees,whose working conditions, especially in terms ofwages, are becoming less and less favourable incomparison with those prevailing in the privatesector. It is in these sectors that most contests andstrikes are concentrating.

Moreover, there exists a series of legal restrictionsand limitations on civil servants’ exercising of theright to strike, a situation which is the source ofserious social tensions. In Turkey for instance, thenew law on public sector trade unions adopted inJune 2001 contains a number of provisions whichentail restrictive provisions on the right to strikeand to collective bargaining in the public sector.

Practices in regional social dialogue

There are some signs of social dialogue at regionallevel in some candidate countries. This is the casefor Poland or Bulgaria. In Poland, the restructuringprocess has been carried out through tripartitecommittees between the employers’ and tradeunions’ representatives and local authorities. Thenew law of 6 July 2001 creates social dialoguecommissions at voivodship level, which will workhowever on a tripartite (with local authoritiesinvolved) rather than only bilateral basis. Regionalsocial dialogue has also been developing inBulgaria. In Romania, social dialogue commissions,with consultative power, were established in 2001at sectoral and territorial levels. There are someattempts to promote regional social dialogue inother candidate countries.

Industrial relations at enterprise level

Among candidate countries, those from Central andEastern Europe are those that have known the mostradical changes in labour-management relationspractices at enterprise level. The collapse of theCommunist regime led to large scale privatization,deep restructuring and the birth of a myriad of newprivate enterprises.

This brought a general decline in trade unionmembership. There is also little formal institut-ionalisation of labour relations in terms of tradeunion recognition and of signing of collectiveagreements in newly-created private enterprises; therapid growth of small and medium size enterprises–for example in services- has also found trade unionsin difficulty of mustering an appropriate response.This is a trend in a context in which 50-60 per centof all employees in candidate countries work forsmall units with less than 50 employees. In Slovakia,more than 97 per cent of workers are in units withless than 50 employees; among them, more than 80per cent work for a micro enterprise with less than 10employees.

Significant differences have also started to appearbetween property forms with regard to the contentsof collective agreements. Private enterprises havebeen found to be signing fewer collectiveagreements, which in addition are less likely to coverparticular issues, such as task assignment, jobmobility, and work organisation.

Many foreign investors are not in favour of collectiveagreements. Considering the weight of foreigninvestment in the economies of candidate countries,especially those from Central and Eastern Europe–above 4 per cent of GDP in countries like Hungary,the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia- but also in smallSouthern countries like Malta and Cyprus, their im-pact on industrial relations practices is not negligible.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

TU LT SI RO BG SK PL HU CZ LV EE EL E P0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1995-19971997-1999

% GDP in recipient country CY: no data available

Foreign Direct Investment flows from the EU to the candidate countries, 1995-99

Source: Eurostat, FDI

109



Their influence has also been important in theeconomic and social reforms, in countries such asHungary, Poland and the Czech Republic wherethey have been most important so far in the region.

Foreign investment seems to be particularlyimportant in certain sectors, such as textiles andclothing in the Czech Republic and Slovenia, food,drinks and tobacco in Bulgaria and Lithuania,chemicals in Estonia, Metal and mechanicalengineering in Slovakia, vehicles in Poland,Slovenia, Czech Republic and Hungary. Their goodperformance in terms of exports could help

candidate countries to reach a better trade balancewith EU countries, which remains negative for thetime being (see below). At the same time, arelatively high proportion of foreign investment isin the service sector rather than in the trade sector,which suggests that a large part of it is directed atsupplying the domestic market.

In terms of employment and economic growth,new private small and medium companies alsoconstitute an important engine of economicdevelopment. Their performance in terms ofindustrial relations however are so far notsatisfactory. Not only they generally do not adoptcollective agreements, but they were also found, incountries like Bulgaria or Romania, not to provideworkers with individual labour contracts on asignificant scale. This tendency can be witnessed inmany other Central and Eastern Europeancountries.

Finally, the high proportion of self-employedpeople and the growth of a large informal sectoralso escape trade union control and state welfareregulations, and therefore operate in the samedirection. More generally, the number of collectiveagreements signed at the enterprise level is verylow, even in countries where collective bargainingis most prevalent, such as Hungary and Poland.

Compared to enterprises in the EU, ownershipstructures are also much more complicated, with amuch greater variety of property forms, a situationthat contributed to the instability of industrialrelations at the enterprise level. There can be acombination of public capital, domestic privatecapital, foreign investment, employee share-ownership, and sometimes even vouchers ownedby either citizens of investment funds. Sometimesthe management does not know which employers’organisation it should belong to for the purpose ofcollective bargaining. In such a context, dominatedby multiple owners, trade unions have alsodifficulty in elaborating a clear strategy. This

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

LT BG SI EE LV SK RO TU HU CZ PL0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1995-971997-99

% Total EU FDI to candidates CY: no data available

Distribution of EU foreign direct investment flows to candidate

countries, 1995-1999


110

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BG CZ EE LV LT PL SI SK0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% FDI in manufacturing

Vehicles, other transport equipElectrical engineering, Radio, TVMetal, mechanical engineeringChemicals, petrol, plasticsFood, drink, tobaccoTextiles, clothing, misc manufactures

Distribution of EU foreign direct investment flows to candidate countries, 1995-1999


111

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% FDI inservicesBusiness services, leasingBanking, insuranceTransport, communicationsHORECA, other basic servicesDistributive trades

Division of FDI in services by sector, 1995-99


112

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% FDI inservicesBusiness services, leasingBanking, insuranceTransport, communicationsHORECA, other basic servicesDistributive trades

Trade flows between the EU and central and eastern Europe, 1992-2000

Source: Eurostat, External Trade

113



situation is even more complicated where works’councils are in place.

Trade unions remain vulnerable with regard theirpresence in small and medium enterprises,although this category represents more than 90 percent of enterprises in the ten CEE applicantcountries. Although many EU Member States arealso characterised by a large proportion of SMEs,their industrial relations’ culture and humanresources’ management are better established thanin these new market economies, where this processcan thus be much more detrimental for workingand employment conditions. It is a feature thatshould also be seen in the light of the absence ofsectoral agreement and mechanisms and practicesof extension. As a result, the percentage ofemployees covered by a collective agreement,either at sectoral or enterprise level, is rather low incandidate countries. This is also the case inSouthern countries like Malta or Turkey wherecollective agreements would be covering less than20 per cent of the labour force.

Finally, the above trends of collective bargainingcasts some doubts on the ability of social partnersto participate in the implementation in SMEs ofcertain elements of the acquis, such as health andsafety or other technical requirements. that directlydepends on management decision.

This sheds light on the necessary developments offorms of workers’ participation.

Workers’ participation

At the moment, works’ councils do not exist incandidate countries, with the exception ofHungary and Slovenia that introduced themfollowing the German model. They are thus theonly countries yet to be characterised by a dualsystem of workers’ representation, indirect throughthe trade unions, and direct through works’councils. In Poland, works’ councils continued tooperate only in state-owned enterprises.

Although the operation of ‘enterprise councils’(which represented more a form of jointmanagement) was a common practice in CEEenterprises under the previous regime, they weredismantled in most countries after the beginningof the transition, either because they wereconsidered – as in former Czechoslovakia- a ‘relic ofsocialism’, or because they met with strongopposition from local trade unions –as in Poland.Trade unions are thus the only instancerepresenting workers’ interests, also for thefunction of information and consultation. Thissituation differs from practices within enterprisesin several EU countries.

As a consequence, there is a clear lack of workers’interest representation in those companies wheretrade unions do not exist, whose number is rapidlygrowing since trade unions have difficulties as wesaw to operate in the new small private enterprises.This leads to a situation where a majority ofcandidate countries are facing the impossibility toensure the information and consultation ofworkers, although it is enshrined in their nationallegislation and it represents an important elementof the Community acquis. In some countries, likein the Czech Republic, the employers themselveshave been creating unilaterally a sort of workscouncils, a trend however that can lead to clearabuses and ensures poor guarantee of basicworkers’ rights in this field.

A number of countries are envisaging the adoptionof appropriate law to ensure the existence of works’councils, as it happened in the year 2000 both inthe Czech and the Slovak republics. Progressremains slow however in other countries, and evenwhere such law is adopted, it must be seen howsuch new bodies of workers’ representation will fitinto the national industrial relations systems. InHungary the fact that works’ councils have beenallowed to sign collective agreement in case oftrade unions’ absence in the enterprise has beenstrongly criticized by the trade unions, since it canlead employers to reject trade unions’ presence inorder to deal instead with a works council,generally more conciliatory and which does notenjoy the right to strike. By contrast, the new lawin the Czech republic clearly distinguishes the roleof the trade unions on collective bargaining andthe role of works’ councils for helping workers toexercise their right to information and consul-tation. More steps forward in the field of infor-mation and consultation are needed in candidatecountries, especially in the private sector. In fact,most small and medium private enterprisescumulate the absence of trade unions with theabsence of other forms of workers’ participation orinformation/consultation.

In tandem with the privatization process, however,a number of encouraging results have emerged inrespect of other forms of worker participation.

All countries in the region – with the exception ofthe Czech Republic- have widely developedemployee ownership as a privatization form, and incountries such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary,Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, a verysignificant proportion of shares has beensuccessfully distributed among employees.Employee share-ownership –by involvingemployees more directly in the growth of theirenterprise– has also helped to promote collective



bargaining at enterprise level. This property formwas found neither to reduce trade union influencenor to limit collective bargaining. Employee share-ownership also appears to have in some casespromoted economic performance and the adoptionof interesting restructuring practices as alternativesto massive layoffs at the enterprise level. However,this form of property seems to be progressivelydisappearing due to a combination of factors: thedifficult economic context that pushes manyworkers to sell their shares for immediate cash, theabsence of strategy from the trade unions to helpthe workers to remain shareholders, the lack ofauthorities’ incentives in this field, in a number ofareas, such as the access to banking loans, or theprovision of tax incentives. Such progressive

dilution of employee share-ownership which doesnot seem to be taking place on the ground ofefficiency, means that the original development ofone form of workers’ involvement in candidatecountries may progressively disappear.

In the prospect of EU enlargement and increasingcapital movements, the development of Europeanworks councils takes a particular importance.

According to the following figure for eight Centraland Eastern European countries, a significantproportion of multinational companies that arecovered by the scope of the directive and have asubsidiary in one of these countries haveimplemented a European Works Council.

Forms of workers’ participation in candidate countries

Country Presence of Law on works Type of workers Works councils works councils councils interest can sign

representation collective (through trade unions agreements and direct workers’ participation)

Bulgaria No No Single No

Cyprus No No Single No

Czech Republic No Accepted in 2000 Single, No, even in new Law ; started operating rights limited to in January 2001 information and

consultation

Estonia No No SingleJust law on Shop Stewards of 1993, amended in March 2000

Hungary Yes Labour Code Dual Yes, in case (Act XXII of 1992) of absence

of trade unions

Latvia No No Single No

Lithuania No No, attempts not Single Nomaterialised yet

Malta No – only single worker No Multi union No director on a few public representativesenterprises

Poland Weak, and in decline; Law of 1981 on Single Noonly in state-owned self-management enterprises of state-owned enterprises

Romania No No Single No

Slovakia No Accepted in 2000 Single No

Slovenia Yes Law on co- Dual Nodetermination from 1993 ; works’ councilsin firms with more

than 20 employees

Turkey No No Single No



More than 73 per cent of companies covered by theEU directive in Romania and Bulgaria areeffectively enjoying such form of transnationalworkers’ representation, a percentage which isslightly lower but represents a much larger numberof companies in Poland, the Czech Republic andHungary. Although these are encouraging resultsthat should further improve as date of accession forthese countries grows closer, it can be observed thatthe participation of workers’ representatives fromcandidate countries in these European Workscouncils remains very small. Less than one fifth ofEuropean works councils present in companies thatoperate in applicant countries have taken on boardlocal workers' representatives, either as observers orfull members. In Poland where there is the greatestnumber of companies with European workscouncils, 206 enterprises in total, in only 23 ofthem, that is less than 12 per cent, are localrepresentatives allowed to participate.

We observe that the greatest number of companieshaving at least one seat for representatives from aCentral and Eastern European country, are in themetal sector, followed by chemicals and servicescommerce.

Concluding remarks

This chapter has tried to provide as muchinformation as possible on industrial relations inthe candidate countries, taking into account thelimited availability of information and data. Thereare no systematic studies of trade unionisation,strikes, collective agreements, and practices at locallevels. There is very little information on currentdevelopments of industrial relations and forms ofparticipation at enterprise level. It is to counter thisabsence of information on industrial relations -which is both the result and the cause of littlecollective bargaining and social dialogue- that theEuropean Commission has insisted in the RegularReports that governments of candidate countriesprogressively strengthen their administrativecapacity on social dialogue. This should allow themto co-ordinate and promote social dialogue, andalso to better monitor and register developments ofcollective bargaining and social dialogue. Moresystematic and comparative data collection as wellas research should start in the candidate countries.European and International organisations alsohave a role to play in this exercise.

It is a contrasted picture that emerges from this firstattempt at assessment. On the one hand, cleardrawbacks seem to prevail in current industrialrelations systems in the candidate countries.Particularly worrying is the absence of collectivebargaining in the growing private sector, and thelimited scope of collective bargaining in general.The attention given to tripartite structures has notbeen accompanied by similar efforts to developautonomous social dialogue. At the same time, it isimportant to note that tripartite structures,whatever their insufficiencies, seem to havefulfilled one basic aim in the first years oftransition: to avoid conflicts despite difficult andpainful reforms. At the same time, it is promisingto observe that all candidate countries are involvedin an intense modification of their labour law fortransposing the Community acquis. In mostcountries, the basis already exists for promotingsocial dialogue at all levels and developing freecollective bargaining and forms of workers’participation. Modern democratic industrialrelations could now be progressively built.

The role of the social partners in this process isessential, they should be more active andstrengthen their structures and capacities at alllevels. The significant activities carried out by theircounterparts from EU Member States as well as byEuropean social partners will provide them anessential support. They will have to respond to adouble challenge, intensify their activities at theEuropean level in order to influence theenlargement process, while consolidating their

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

PL CZ HU SK EE SI RO BG0

5

10

15

20

25

30CoveredHaving an EWC% having a seat in the EWC

Multinationals having at least one subsidiary in a central or eastern European country

EWCs in companies covered by Directive 94/45/EC and 97/45/EC

Source: ETUI

114

TextileFinancial sector

Metal sector

Chemical sectorOther services

Services &commerce

Food, hotel,catering,

agriculture

Building &woodwork

Multinationals having at least one subsidiary in a CEEC and at least one seat for representants from aCEEC

Sector breakdown of the CEEC members in EWCs

Source: ETUI

115



organisations’ structures to carry out an effectivesocial dialogue process on domestic issues.

The path that candidate countries will take for theirindustrial relations systems however will continueto be dependent on economic and financialdevelopments. Along this way, they certainlyshould keep in mind that the catching up processmight require time.

The figures we present here on the possiblecatching-up processes of candidate countriesaccording to different scenarios –of one or threepercentage growth above the EU average– areinstructive. They show that convergence of GDPcould not take place for most candidate countries,even in the best imaginable scenario, before ten tothirty years. During this period, candidatecountries may well yield to the temptation toconcentrate on economic variables whileconsidering social issues –including industrialrelations– to be of marginal importance. Further,they may even be induced to modify socialelements downward in order to gain competitiveadvantages and accelerate the catching-up process.

This would contrast with the objectives that the EUhas clearly fixed at the Lisbon Summit, to reconcileeconomic and social interests to gain incompetitiveness in the long term and evolve into asuccessful knowledge society. To achieve thisobjective, industrial relations have a significantrole to play.

In this sense it is more from lowering unit labourcosts (wage/productivity) and improving workingconditions rather than keeping downward wagelevels that the performance of candidate countriescould come in the future. For the time being, poorproductivity performance in candidate countriesclearly limit (see Graph below), and in somecountries even cancel, the advantage of lowerlabour costs.

A rapid productivity growth is thus what is mainlyrequired in these countries, that a better qualityand usage of human resources could definitely helpto boost.

Experiences in EU Member States have shown thatthose countries with the most comprehensivepolicies of social protection and social partnershiphave been by far the most successful in economicterms. The fulfilment of the economic criteria ofMaastricht has led most current Member States notto reject but rather to move towards greater use ofsocial partnership and tripartite pacts to improvecompetitiveness in a context of globalisation andEconomic and Monetary Union. Far from reducingthe scope of collective bargaining, they have triedto extend it while reinforcing the linkage withnational level partnership and the fulfilment ofmacroeconomic objectives. Candidate countrieswould need to reinforce and improve the coverageof their industrial relations systems so that theywould become more effective and contribute to theachievement of economic, technological and socialobjectives. This could help candidate countries toimplement the Community acquis at local level,and also to improve their performance in theprospect of accession. At the microeconomic levelof the enterprise, sound industrial relations maycontribute to improve the social climate whileensuring a proper and less costly implementationof the Community acquis. By contributing toproductivity and competitivity, it can only help toreduce unit labour costs, and to position candidatecountries in higher-value segments of productionand improve exports and macroeconomicperformance. Sound industrial relations, byallowing a balance between economic and socialconsiderations to be reached by all relevant actors,thus represent an essential element for candidatecountries, that could facilitate their economiccatching-up, while ensuring their integration ofbasic values and features of the European socialmodel.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

CZ H LT SK S PL E EL P DK WD FNL FIN

Unit labour costs in the CEECs and EU member states, 1996


116



0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1995 2000 2010 2020 20300

25

50

75

100

125

150Growth 1% a year abovethe EU average

GDP per head in PPs as % EU average

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Slovenia

Convergence of GDP per head in Cyprus, Czech Republic and Slovenia

relative to EU average assuming 1% growth, 2000-2030


117

0

20

40

60

80

100

1995 2000 2010 2020 20300

20

40

60

80

100GDP per head in PPs as % EU average

Romania

Latvia

Bulgaria

Growth 1% a year above the EU averageGrowth 3% a year above the EU average

Romania, Latvia and Bulgaria assuming different rates of growth


118

0

25

50

75

100

125

1995 2000 2010 2020 20300

25

50

75

100

125



Poland

Lithuania

Turkey

Poland, Lithuania and Turkey assuming different rates of growth


119

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

1995 2000 2010 2020 20300

25

50

75

100

125

150

175



Hungary

Slovakia

Estonia

Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia assuming different rates of growth


120



ANNEX

The social partners in the candidate countriesINDICATIVE DATA

Main social partners organisations, 2001

Bulgaria

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (KNSB): 410,000 members (2000), 46 member org.

Confederation of Labour PODKREPA: 150,000 members (2000), 32 Sectoral org. + 36 regional org.

NPS Promyana: 7,800 members (1998).

Bulgarian Industrial Association (BIA): 14,000 companies, 58 sectoral org. + 27 reg.org.

Bulgarian Chamber of Trade and Industry

Union for Private Enterprising (UPE)

Bulgarian Union of Private Employers ‘Vazrazhdane’

Cyprus

Cyprus Workers Confederation (SEK): 64,000 members.

Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO): 67,000 members.

Democratic Labour Federation (DEOK).

Pancyprian Confederation of Public Servants (PASYDY): 15,000 member.

Cyprus Federation of Employers’ and Industrialists (OEB): 2,500 companies.

Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KEBE)

Czech Republic

Czech Moravian Trade Union Confederation (CMKOS): 80% of trade union members; 1,180 00., 30 sectoral org.

Confed. Of Arts and Culture (KUK): 100,000 members, 16 sectoral org.

Association of Independent Trade Unions (ASO)

Coalition of Christian Trade Unions (KOK): 10,000 members.

Trade Union of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (OSCSM): 50,000 members.

Union of Industry and Transport: 1,700 enterprises, with 900,000 employees, 31 sectoral org.

Confederation of Employers and Entrepreneurs Associations: 1,300 000 employees, 7 national confederations.

Estonia

Association of Estonian Trade unions (EAKL): 65,000 members (65%), 27 industry unions + civil servants.

Estonian Professional Employees’ Union Association (TALO): 40,000 members, 14 member org.

Estonian Confederation of Employers and Industry (ETTK): 600 companies (34 per cent of employers) with 200,000employees, 29 industry unions and associations.

The Estonian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (EVEA) (joined ETTK in 1995)

Latvia

Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia (LBAS): 207,000 members (30% of Labour force), 24 branch org. + 3 nationalorg. + 25 regional centres.

Latvian Employers’ Confederation (LDDK): 96 employers’ organisations, 458,000 emp., 19 branch org.



Lithuania

Lithuanian Trade Unions’ Centre (LPSC): 110,000 members, 14 sect. Fed.

Lithuanian Workers’ Union (LDS): 52,000 members, 11 sect.fed.+ 25 region.

Lithuanian Labour Federation (LDF): 15,000 members, sect + reg. (NA)

Lithuania Trade Union Unification (LPSS): 41,000 members, 11 sect. Fed.

Lithuanian Business Employers Confederation (LVDK): 450 enterprises, 200,000 employees, 20 regional sections and 30-40small sectoral associations.

Lithuanian Industrialists Confederation (LPK): 2,500 enterprises, 24 ind. + 8 region.

Hungary

Autonomous Trade Union Confederation (ASZSZ): 120,000 members, 30 sectoral/professional org.

Confederation of Professional Trade Unions (ESZT): 40,000 members.

Democratic Ligue of Free Trade Unions (FSZDL): 90,000 members, 60 sectoral/ professional org.

National Federation of Workers’ Councils (MOSZ): 30,000 members, 12 sectoral org.

National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ) (biggest org.): 235,000 members, 42 sectoral/ professional org.

Forum for the Cooperation of Trade Unions (SZEF): 300,000 members, 34 sectoral/ professional org.

National Federation of Consumer Cooperatives (AFEOSZ)

Union of Agrarian Employers (AMSZ)

National Association of Industrial Corporations – Chamber of Artisans (IPOSZ): 100,000 enterprises employing 500,000workers, 40 professional org. and 20 regional org.

National Federation of Traders and Caterers (KISOSZ): 10% of employers and 20% of small shopkeepers, 22 member assoc.(19 regional, 2 in Budapest + 1 for shows and entertainment traders).

Confederation of Hungarian Employers and Industrialists (MGYOSZ) (biggest org.): 6,000 enterprises with 1,2 millionworkers (1/5 of working population), 51 sectoral/professional org. + 17 regional assoc.

National Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives and Producers (MOSZ): 20 regional and 9 sectoral assoc.

Hungarian Industrial Association (OKISZ):

National Association of Strategic and Public Utility Companies (STRATOSZ): 50 large enterprises in public utilities.

National Association of Entrepreneurs (VOSZ): 6,000 enterprises employing 500,000 workers, 40 sectoral/professional org.

Confederation of Hungarian Employer Organisations for International Co-operation (CEHIC) (umbrella org. forInternational cooperation)

Malta

General Workers Union (GWU): 48,278 members (56.1% of total Union membership), 11 sectoral and prof. sections.

Confereration of Malta Trade Unions (CMTU) including the United Workers’ Union (UHM): 6,247 members (42.1% oftotal union membership; it includes UHM). CMTU 11 affiliated sectoral and prof. trade unions, UHM: 7 sectoral and prof.sections.

Federation of Industries (FOI): 300 companies.

Malta Employers’ Association (MEA): 242companies.

General Retailers and Traders’ Association (GRTU): 5,763 companies.

Malta Hotels and Restaurants’ Association (MHRA): 158 companies.

Chamber of Commerce (CoC): 70% of companies.



Poland

Solidarity (NSZZ 'Solidarnosc'): 1 million members, and 6.7 per cent of labour force, 16 sectoral organisations.

OPZZ: 1,6 million members, and 10.7 per cent of labour force. 110 branch unions, such as for teachers, metalworkers,miners, construction..

Confederation of Polish Employers (KPP): Approximately 2 million employees, with 51 employer organisations (bothstate-owned and private), and 1,500 enterprises, including the big ones. 26 sectoral organisations.

Polish Confederation of Private Employers (PKPP): Approximately. 450,000 employees, with 2,276 enterprises, mostprivate and of small and medium size. 18 sectoral organisations, associating 756 firms and covering 275,000 employees.

Romania

National Confederation of Free Trade Unions in Romania ‘Fratia’ (CNSLR-Fratia): 875,000 members.

National Trade Union Block (BNS): 375,000 members.

Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions in Romania (CSDR): 345,000 members.

Cartel Alfa: 325,000 members.

Meridian: 170,000 members.

The General Union of the Romanian Industrialists (UGIR 1903): 4,160 enterprises, 1.8 million employees.

Employer Confederation of the Romanian Industry (CONPIROM): 2,5 million employees, 79 org. with 18 sectoral org.

National Confederation of the Romanian Employer (CONPR): 1 million employees.

National Council of Private Small and Medium Enterprises (CNIPMMR): 35,000 members.

General Union of Romanian Industrialists (UGIR)

National Union of the Romanian Employer (UNPR): 52 federations.

National Council of the Romanian Employers (CNPR): 1 million employees, 15 sectoral org.

Romanian National Employer (PNR)

Slovakia

Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Rep. (KOZ SR): 750,000 members (90% of memb.), 40 sectoral org.

Confederation of Art and Culture: 2,000 members.

Independent Christian Trade Union: 10,000 members.

Association of Employers’ Unions of the Slovak Rep. (AZZZ SR): 60% enterprises, 37 org. (19 sectoral).



Slovenia

Association of Free Trade Unions (ZSSS): 50 % of trade union membership; 180,000 members, 20 sectoral org. and 19regional org.

Neodvisnost-Confederation of New Trade Unions of Slovenia (KNSS): 10,000-20,000 members, 14 sectoral organisations.

Confederation of trade Unions PERGAM: 10,000-20,000 members.

Confederation 90 (K-90): 10,000 members.

Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GZS): 100% of the labour force.

Chamber of crafts (OZS):

Slovenian Employer Association (ZDS): 12 branch org.

Small Companies and crafts Association (ZDODS): 3,700 enterprises, 30 sectoral/professional org.

Turkey*

Confederation of Turkish Trade Unions (TURK-IS): Mainly in public enterprises; 2,245,000 members, 33 affiliated tradeunion sections.

Confederation of Progressive Trade Union (DISK): Mainly in private sector; 380,000 members, 22 affiliated trade unionsections.

Trade Union Confederation of Turkey (HAK-IS): 377,000 members, 8 affiliated trade union sections (7 in Turkey and 1in Northern Cyprus).

Confederation of Public workers Unions (KESK): 500,000 civil servants, 19 affiliated trade union sections.

Confederation of Civil Servants of Turkey (KAMUSEN): 50,000 civil servants, 11 affiliated trade union sections.

Civil Servants Union (MEMUR-SEN): 50,000 civil servants, 8 affiliated trade union sections.

Turkish Confederation of Employers Union (TISK) (the only employer org.; the only one with collective bargainingrights): 18 affiliated sectoral trade union sections.

Association of Turkish Businessmen and Industrialists (TUSIAD): 470 industrialists.

Association of Independent Businessmen and Industrialists (MUSIAD): 3,000 members, 28 affiliated branch trade unionsections.

Young Businessmen Association of Turkey (TUGIAD): 700 members.

Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Maritime Trade and Commodity Exchange of Turkey (TOBB): All employers(obligatory membership), 326 chambers represented.

Confederation of Artisans and Craftsmen of Turkey (TESK): (obligatory membership), 11 prof. federations, 81 artisan andcraftsman unions, 3,255 trade chambers.

Union of Chambers of Agriculture in Turkey (TZOB): 110 affiliated companies; approx. 6 million farmers.

* Data provided by a group of experts set up by the European Commission


Annexes

Joint opinion, joint declaration: text adopted jointly by the social partners in which they express anopinion or intention on a Commission initiative or, more generally, on a Community policy.

Framework agreement: regulatory text adopted by the social partners. It is implemented throughtransposal at national level or through adoption of a European legal instrument.

Adaptability: one of the four pillars of the European employment strategy. It designates the ability toadapt to a new working environment and acquire new knowledge, qualifications and skills in order tomeet the changing demands of the economy.

Code of conduct: commitment negotiated at company or industry level to ensure compliance withfundamental labour standards. It is not binding and may be drawn up on the initiative of companies,negotiated bilaterally by the social partners, or by companies and NGOs and trade union organisations.Codes of conduct may also be drawn up on a tripartite basis, thus involving governments.

Advisory Committees: comprise representatives of the Commission, the Member States and the cross-industry social partners; they have the task of advising the Commission on the preparation of specificpolicies and contributing to their implementation. There are six advisory committees on: equalopportunities for men and women, safety, hygiene and health protection at work, vocational training,freedom of movement for workers, the European Social Fund and social security for migrant workers.

Social Dialogue Committee: set up in 1992, the Committee is a standing forum for the expression ofindependent views by the cross-industry social partners. It has three working parties on: macroeconomics,the labour market, and education and training. The meetings are chaired by the Commission and assembleall the European cross-industry organisations (UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP, ETUC/CEC/Eurocadresmanagement staff liaison committee).

Sectoral social dialogue committees: set up from 1 January 1999, they have replaced the former jointcommittees and informal working parties. They are established at the joint request of the representativesectoral organisations wishing to undertake independent social dialogue.

Concertation: method of managing labour, social and economic issues by means of consultation andsocial concertation between the public authorities and bodies representing employees and employers.

Consultation: a process of discussion and debate, usually distinguished from collective bargaining andnegotiation in that it does not imply a process of bargaining, compromise and joint agreement.

"Val Duchesse" social dialogue: cross-industry social dialogue launched in 1985 at the Val Duchessesocial dialogue summit. Through this forum for dialogue the social partners are informed aboutCommunity initiatives and discuss the independent measures they intend to take.

Sectoral social dialogue: dialogue involving the social partners of a given sector of economic activity.It proceeds in the different sectoral social dialogue committees which have made numerous contributionsin the form of joint texts.

Macroeconomic dialogue: set up by the Cologne European Council in 1999, it involves the socialpartners in the coordination of economic policy and improves interaction between developments in wagesand monetary, budgetary and fiscal policies. Regular meetings are held twice a year at technical andpolitical level between the social partners and the economics and finance ministers, the employment andsocial affairs ministers, the Commission and the European Central Bank.Green Paper: Commission document designed to provide food for thought and stimulate debate atEuropean level.


Glossary

GlossaryGlossary


Glossary

White Paper: Commission document which draws conclusions from consultation and containsproposals for action.

Open method of coordination: method launched by the Lisbon European Council. It involves fixingguidelines combined with timetables for implementation, establishing quantitative and qualitativeindicators and benchmarks to compare best practice, translating European guidelines into national andregional policies and organising on a regular basis monitoring, evaluation and peer review. The Europeanemployment strategy constitutes the first example of the method. It has since been extended to socialinclusion and pensions.

Negotiation: a process enabling the social partners to develop an independent bargaining area. It givesthe social partners the option, when consulted by the Commission, or on their own initiative, to decideto negotiate jointly an agreement on any matter falling within their responsibilities.

Resolution: text adopted jointly by the social partners, requesting the European institutions to takeinitiatives in a given area.

Synthesis report: document adopted by the Commission and presented to the spring European Council;it takes stock of progress achieved in implementing the strategy defined in Lisbon. It summarises progresson employment, social policy, structural policies and the broad economic policy guidelines. The firstreport of this kind was presented to the Stockholm European Council.

Social dialogue summit: high-level meeting which gives fresh impetus at regular intervals to the socialdialogue. Assembling the cross-industry social partners under the chairmanship of the CommissionPresident and attended by the Member of the Commission with special responsibility for social affairs andemployment, the summits can take two different forms. They may be plenary meetings withrepresentatives of all member organisations at national level (for example, the 1997 Summit at the Palaisd’Egmont) or restricted meetings or mini-summits.The Nice and Laeken European Councils requested the social partners to hold an annual meeting beforeeach spring European Council to take stock of implementation of the Lisbon strategy. The informalmeeting held in Stockholm in March 2001 was the first of this kind. It was followed by the Laeken SocialSummit on 13 December 2001.

European employment strategy: process launched at the Luxembourg European Council which aimsto coordinate at European level the Member States’ employment policies on the basis of four pillars:entrepreneurship, employability, adaptability and equal opportunities. It is the first example of the openmethod of coordination launched by the Lisbon European Council.


European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)*Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE)

European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation andof Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP)

13 December 2001

JOINT CONTRIBUTION BY THE SOCIAL PARTNERS TO THE LAEKEN EUROPEAN COUNCIL

1. Introduction

The conclusion of the 31 October 1991 agreement and its incorporation in articles 138 and 139 of thesocial chapter of the Treaty marked an essential step in development of the European social dialogue.Ten years later, and on the eve of the Laeken European Council, UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUCwould like to reposition the role of the social partners in the light of the challenges posed by:• the debate on Europe’s future and governance,• the future enlargement of the European Union to encompass the candidate countries in central,

eastern and southern Europe,• completion of economic and monetary union and the associated development of coordination of

economic, employment and social policies.

Concerned to play their role to the full in tomorrow’s Europe, ETUC, CEEP and UNICE/UEAPME believeit necessary to reaffirm:• the specific role of the social partners,• the distinction between bipartite social dialogue and tripartite concertation,• the need better to articulate tripartite concertation around the different aspects of the Lisbon strategy,• their wish to develop a work programme for a more autonomous social dialogue.

The European social partners will flesh out the avenues for reflection identified below with a view tomaking proposals during the Danish Presidency.

2. Specific role of the social partners in European governance

Last July the Commission published a white paper on European governance which highlights fiveprinciples (openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence) and proposes increasedparticipation by the various players, and in particular civil society.

CEEP, UNICE/UEAPME and ETUC fully support the five principles proposed by the Commission. However,it is important during the implementation to fully take account of the specificities of the social dialogue.The nature of the responsibilities of the social partners, their legitimacy and their representativenesstogether with their capacity to negotiate agreements places the social dialogue in a special position.

In their capacity as European social partners, often underlined by the European Council and recognisedby the Treaty, UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC ask to be associated as observers with the Conventionwhich will prepare the next Treaty revision and to be able, in due course, to express their point of viewon the subjects which concern enterprises and workers.

3. Distinguish bipartite social dialogue from tripartite concertation

CEEP, UNICE/UEAPME and ETUC applaud the fact that incorporation of the essence of the provisionsof the 31 October 1991 agreement in the Treaty has led to development of consultation of the European

Social partners declarationsSocial partners declarations

* with the Liaison Committee Eurocadres/CEC


Social partners declaration

social partners by the European institutions and has created a contractual area which has already beengiven concrete form in three European framework agreements.Since 1991, the areas for concertation between the social partners and the European institutions havemultiplied. In addition, the term "social dialogue" has progressively been used to designate any type ofactivity involving the social partners. UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC insist on the importance of making a clear distinction between threedifferent types of activities involving the social partners:• tripartite concertation to designate exchanges between the social partners and European public

authorities,• consultation of the social partners to designate the activities of advisory committees and official

consultations in the spirit of article 137 of the Treaty,• social dialogue to designate bipartite work by the social partners, whether or not prompted by the

Commission’s official consultations based on article 137 and 138 of the Treaty.

This distinction should already be promoted in the accession candidate countries where the confusionbetween tripartite concertation and bipartite social dialogue is undermining development ofautonomous social dialogue.

4. Articulate tripartite concertation on the Lisbon strategy in a single forum

New Community methods for policy action have developed over the last five years. Incorporation inthe Treaty of the employment chapter and the resulting process further to the decisions of theLuxembourg European Council together with the Cardiff process on structural reform and the Cologneprocess for macro-economic dialogue, in particular with finance ministers and ECB, have led to variedand uneven venues and times for concertation.

In Lisbon, Heads of State and Government decided to bring together the whole approach to economic,structural and employment initiatives in the spring European Council.

Reform of the Standing Committee on Employment has not led to a similar integration of tripartiteconcertation. The Standing Committee on Employment does not meet the need for coherence andsynergy between the various processes in which the social partners are involved.

ETUC, UNICE/UEAPME and CEEP propose that SCE be replaced by a tripartite concertation committeefor growth and employment which would be the forum for concertation between the social partners andthe public authorities on the overall European strategy defined in Lisbon.

In addition to its specific work on the broad economic policy guidelines or the employment guidelinesand structural reforms, with the various formations of the Council concerned, this committee wouldexamine the Community’s overall economic and social strategy ahead of the spring European Council.

UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC will make specific proposals on how they believe its work should beorganised.

5. Developing a work programme for a more autonomous social dialogue

The European social partners are extremely attached to the procedures laid down in articles 137 and 138of the Treaty. They fully recognise the European Commission’s right of initiative and the essential roleof the European institutions in development of a coherent European strategy for growth andemployment.

While pursuing work in progress on lifelong learning and the negotiations opened recently on tele-working, ETUC, UNICE/UEAPME and CEEP are reflecting on the best way of developing a moreautonomous social dialogue.

Conscious that development of the European social dialogue presupposes strong involvement ofnational employer and trade union leaders, CEEP, UNICE/UEAPME and ETUC will discuss what concretemeasures should be taken to better organise the work of the social dialogue in a work programme,defined by a social dialogue summit.



This work programme would be built on a spectrum of diversified instruments (various types ofEuropean framework agreement, opinions, recommendations, statements, exchanges of experience,awareness-raising campaigns, open debates, etc.) and would comprise a balanced range of themes ofcommon interest for employers and workers. Its implementation would presuppose regular socialdialogue meetings and/or summits.

Although decided and implemented in complete autonomy, the social partners will be concerned thattheir work programme should make a useful contribution to European strategy for growth andemployment as well as to preparing for enlargement of the European Union.

The European social partners draw the European public authorities’ attention to the urgent need todevelop, with the help of the European social partners, a genuinely integrated technical assistanceprogramme for the social partners in the candidate countries in order to foster the development ofstrong and autonomous trade union and employer organisations capable of engaging fully in theEuropean social dialogue as soon as their countries accede to the European Union.

On their side, ETUC, UNICE/UEAPME and CEEP will involve employer and trade union organisationsin the candidate countries in preparation of the proposals they plan to present to the Council under theDanish Presidency.



ETUC/UEAPME"The social dialogue as a tool to meet the economic

and social challenges of Small Enterprises"

1 The ETUC and UEAPME declare their full support for the objectives of the Lisbon European summitto strengthen the co-ordination and synergies between the Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologneprocesses in order to improve growth and create full employment via well-coordinated economicpolicies and improvements in the operation of the labour market.

2 The Lisbon Summit emphasised the role of SMEs in the new European Union drive for employmentand for a competitive economic area based on innovation, knowledge, social cohesion and regionaldevelopment. Referring to this role, the Charter for Small Enterprises ", included in the conclusionsof the European Summit in Santa Maria da Feira, points out the specific needs of small enterprises.

3 The ETUC and UEAPME call upon the public authorities and policy decision-makers at all levels toestablish and maintain an administrative, fiscal, social and economic environment, which supportsthe creation, maintenance and growth of small enterprises and employment.

4 The ETUC and UEAPME are ready to contribute to the success of these objectives within their ownareas of responsibility, and stress the importance of social dialogue between employers andrepresentative trade unions as an essential factor in the new context of Lisbon and in the follow upof the Charter. This dialogue must be considered as a precondition for balancing the need offlexibility, which is necessary for job creation and economic growth, with the need for security in agood working environment and in organising the necessary changes.

5 UEAPME and the ETUC stress the need to take into account the specific characteristics of, andparticular situation in which, craft and small enterprises are working and developing in order toidentify appropriate ways of establishing good employment conditions particularly as regardsprofessional training, qualifications, health and safety in the workplace, and the organisation of workensuring conditions of adaptability for both, workers and businesses.

6 Social dialogue can provide tailor-made answers for small enterprises. The economic, educational andsocial development of small enterprises can be promoted by further developments of networks, co-operations and joint measures, for example those for flexibility and adaptability as well as forprofessional training and health and safety organised at inter-sectoral, sectoral, branch andregional/local level, or within an enterprise.

7 Therefore, the ETUC and UEAPME underline the role and the benefits of social dialogue betweenemployers and workers and their representative organisations at all levels on modernising theorganisation of work. The UEAPME and ETUC jointly recognise the specificity and quality of theworking environment and working relations in the small enterprises, and recognise the consequencesof these characteristics for the organisation and structure of staff representation.

8 As well as their shared readiness to contribute to the quality of the social dialogue betweenUNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and the ETUC, the two organisations hope to bring added value throughdeveloping the dialogue on specific issues concerning small enterprises and their workers as it hasbeen initiated through the UEAPME Futurisme Project and the ETUC’s initiatives. The results of theseefforts show that co-operation and joint actions on different levels can improve the adaptability ofworking conditions in small enterprises, including the responds to the challenges of enlargement.

9 The ETUC and UEAPME invite their members to improve and develop such co-operations in theirnational context.

27.04.2001 (version 13)

JOINT DECLARATION



Orig. Fr –15th June 2000

Proposal for a Charter for Services of General Interest

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the European Centre of Enterprises with PublicParticipation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP),

whereas:

there is the necessity to build a European Union balanced between its economic, social andenvironmental dimensions, and the development of democracy and European citizenship,

many of the fundamental rights of citizens are ensured by services of general interest,

services of general interest contribute to people's quality of life and that achieving the best possiblequality of life is an essential aim of the European Union,

services of general interest have an essential role in the sustainable development of our society,

solidarity and combating exclusion constitute essential social advances, also based on services ofgeneral interest,

services of general interest are a cement for social and territorial cohesion,

high quality services of general interest support economic development and have a strong job-creation potential,

one of the fundamental responsibilities of public authorities in charge of a territory is to define andensure the quality of services of general interest,

the social partners and social dialogue in services of general interest are important, whatever theactivity or operator,

the quality of information, consultation and participation of workers and their representatives play arole in providing modern and effective services of general interest,

the resolution of the European Parliament on the Intergovernmental Conference stressed "theimportance of the nature and meaning of the social market economy",

it is valuable in this respect to assist accession candidate countries,the new Intergovernmental Conference presents an opportunity,

the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council and notably the mandate given to the EuropeanCommission to update its 1996 communication on services of general economic interest while takingfull account of the Treaty provisions,

ask the European institutions to adopt a Charter for Services of General Interest, based on theirattached joint proposal, by granting it the status of a Protocol annexed to the Treaty of the EuropeanUnion.

Done at Brussels, 15th June 2000.



CONFERENCE ON THE SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN THE CANDIDIATE COUNTRIES ETUC/CEEP/UNICE-UEAPME*

Bratislava, 16-17 March 2001Press Statement

The Social Partners Conference on the social dialogue in the candidate countries held in Bratislava on16 and 17 March 2001 has highlighted the major role that the social partners can play in managingsocial and economic change and in contributing to the European enlargement process.The Conference was a joint initiative undertaken with the support of the European Commission. Itshowed the need to support and strengthen the various forms of social dialogue in the candidatecountries. Working papers on tripartite consultation and bilateral social dialogue between employers’organisations and trade unions served as a basis for discussion.The role of trade unions and employers’ organisations in managing change in a way that is sociallyjust and economically efficient was emphasised. The Conference identified four factors that influence the way in which social partners can play theirrole. These factors, which are valid both for candidate countries and EU member states even if theyinteract differently in each national context, are the following:• The willingness of employers and workers to join and mandate organisations to represent their

interests, which is a precondition for building representative structures;• The ability to fulfil this mandate by developing an institutional and material capacity to act

effectively;• The proper articulation and distribution of responsibilities between the different levels for action

(national, sectoral, territorial or company)• The development of autonomy of the social partners and a space where they can fully exercise their

responsibilities

By way of conclusion the social partners propose to:1. Deepen exchanges on specific themes of relevance to the social partners such as:

- managing industrial and technological change- analysing different collective bargaining systems (using the support of EIRO)- looking at the respective roles of chambers of commerce and employers’ organisations- integrating the specific issues related to SMEs in social partner activities- distinguishing between the role of State as Government and its role as stakeholder in public

company- promoting the role of social partners in developing quality services of general interest which are

essential for social cohesion.2. Widen such exchanges to include comparisons between candidate countries and EU member states.3. Organise enlarged Social Dialogue Committee meetings to include representatives from the

candidate countries.

UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC also stressed the importance of underpinning and strengtheningthe role of the social partners in the integration process.

The European Commission also has a role to play in monitoring the development of the socialdialogue as a part of the acquis communautaire.

Some two hundred participants took part in the Conference from all of the thirteen candidatecountries and from all the European Union organisations.

A full report of the Conference will be available later. Bratislava, 17th March 2001

*The interprofessional European Social Partners are ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation) representing also theLiaison Committee of Eurocadres/CEC, UNICE-UEAPME (Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europewith the Union of European Craft and Small and Medium Size Enterprises) and CEEP (European Center of Enterprises withPublic Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest).

The European Councils and the social partners, 2000-2001The European Councils and the social partners, 2000-2001


Special meeting, Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000

The Union set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade:to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainableeconomic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

Introduction of a new open method of coordination at all levels, based on the preparation, atCommunity level, of guidelines for employment and their incorporation into national action plans foremployees. The social partners need to be more closely involved in drawing up, implementing andfollowing up the appropriate guidelines.

Emphasis placed on education and lifelong learning, an indispensable part of the European socialmodel, notably by "encouraging agreements between the social partners on innovation and lifelonglearning".

European Council, Feira, 19 and 20 June 2000

Follow-up to Lisbon: the European Council welcomed the joint declaration presented by the socialpartners which set out constructive positions on temporary work, telework and lifelong learning, andprovisions for joint monitoring of industrial change.

Employment policy: the social partners were invited to play a more prominent role in defining,implementing and evaluating the employment guidelines which depend on them, focusing above all onmodernising work organisation, lifelong learning and increasing the employment rate, particularly forwomen.

European Council, Nice, 7, 8 and 9 December 2000

The European Council approved the European Social Agenda which defined, in accordance with theLisbon European Council conclusions and on the basis of the Commission communication, specificpriorities for action for the next five years around six strategic guidelines in all social policy areas.

The European Council invited the social partners, especially, to play their full part in implementing andmonitoring it, particularly at an annual meeting to be held before the spring European Council meeting.

Agreement was reached on the social policy aspects of the European company.

European employment strategy: the social partners were requested to:– make full use of the scope offered by the Treaty for relations based on agreements and joint actions

and to make known, before each spring European Council, the joint actions undertaken or planned;– pursue the social dialogue on problems connected with work organisation and new forms of

employment;– launch debates which might lead to negotiations on shared responsibility between undertakings and

workers as regards the employability and adaptability of the workforce, in particular from theperspective of mobility.

Emphasis was placed on support for the social dialogue with the aim of supporting economic and socialprogress in an enlarged Union.


European Council, Stockholm, 23 and 24 March 2001

Attention was drawn to the importance of the social partners’ contribution and commitment on theoccasion of an exchange of views with the troika on 22 March.

Role of the social partners in managing change: the committed and active involvement of the socialpartners is essential not only for assessing progress towards the Union’s strategic goal, but also inimplementing the ongoing reform, the success of which requires commitment from employers andworkers at the grass roots.

To contribute to this aim, the European Council endorsed the setting-up as soon as possible of theEuropean Observatory for Industrial Change as part of the Dublin Foundation.

The European Council hoped for a positive outcome to current negotiations between the social partnerson temporary agency work and teleworking.

European Council, Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001

Following the Stockholm European Council, progress was achieved on the different aspects of the Lisbonstrategy.

Employment: at the summit on 13 December 2001, the social partners expressed their willingness toboost the social dialogue by drawing up jointly a multiannual work programme before the EuropeanCouncil in 2002. They also insisted on the need to develop and improve the organisation of tripartiteconcertation on the various aspects of the Lisbon strategy. It was agreed that a social summit wouldhenceforth be held before each spring European Council.

Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union: in order to pave the way for the nextIntergovernmental Conference as broadly and openly as possible, the European Council decided toconvene a Convention composed of the main parties involved in the debate on the future of theUnion. Three representatives of the Economic and Social Committee and three representatives of theEuropean social partners will be invited to attend as observers.


Table of figures

Figure 1 Growth of labour productivity, 1985-90, 1990-94 and 1994-2000 5Figure 2 Change in labour costs per employee, 1985-90, 1990-94 and 1994-2000 5Figure 3 Change in wage share per unit of GDP, 1985-90, 1990-94 and 1994-2000 5Figure 4 Number of working days lost from strikes per 100,000 days worked, 1986-90, 1991-94 and 1995-99 6Figure 5 Unemployment rates of men aged 25-39 by nationality, 2000 6Figure 6 Unemployment rates of women aged 25-39 by nationality, 2000 6Figure 7 Education attainment levels of men and women aged 25-59 in Member States, 2000 6Figure 8 Education attainment levels of men by age group, 2000 7Figure 9 Education attainment levels of women by age group, 2000 7Figure 10 Proportion of employed men and women aged 25-49 7

who received training over previous year in Member States, 1998 7Figure 11 Proportion of employed men and women aged 50-64

who received vocational training over previous year in Member States, 1998Figure 12 Employment rates of men and women aged 25-59 with a high level of education, 2000 7Figure 13 Employment rates of men aged 25-59 with a medium level of education, 2000 8Figure 14 Employment rates of men and women aged 25-59 with a low level of education, 2000 8Figure 15 Job quality indicators 8Figure 16 Share of employees in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent ones, 1995 and 2000 8Figure 17 Total employed aged 25-64 working <15 hours a week in 1990, 1994 and 2000 8Figure 18 Women employed aged 25-64 working <15 hours a week in 1990, 1994 and 2000 9Figure 19 Men employed working 50+ hours per week, 1990, 1994 9Figure 20 Women employed working 50+ hours per week, 1990, 1994 and 2000 9Figure 21 Usual weekly hours worked by top and bottom third of employees 9

in industry and services ranked by hours worked, 2000Figure 22 Composite index of labour mobility 10Figure 23 People in employment one year after being unemployed, LFS data, 1999-2000 10Figure 25 Retirement age of men in Member States, 2000 10Figure 26 Coverage of collective agreements, 2000 45Figure 27 Employment by sector in the EU, 1995-2000 51Figure 28 Change in employment by sector, 1995-2000 51Figure 29 Share of women in employment in the Union, 2000 51Figure 30 Distribution of employment by size of enterprise, 1996 51Figure 31 Employment in banking by size of enterprise 52Figure 32 Employment in banking in Member States, 2000 53Figure 33 Temporary employees in banking, 2000 53Figure 34 Women employed in banking in Member States, 2000 53Figure 35 Banking: Trade union density (%) 55Figure 36 Banking: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 55Figure 37 The social partners of the European banking industry 56Figure 38 Employment in insurance by size of enterprise, 1996 57Figure 39 Employment in insurance in Member States, 2000 57Figure 40 Temporary employees in insurance, 2000 58Figure 41 Women employed in insurance, 2000 58Figure 42 Insurance: Trade unions density (%) 59Figure 43 Insurance: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 59Figure 44 The social partners of the European insurance industry 60Figure 45 Employment in land transport by size of enterprise, 1996 61Figure 46 Employment in rail transport in Member States, 1995 61Figure 47 Employment in road transport in Member States, 1995 61Figure 48 Temporary employees in land transport, 2000 62Figure 49 Women employed in land transport in Member States, 2000 62Figure 50 Road Transport: Trade unions density (%) 63Figure 51 Road Transport: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 63Figure 52 The social partners of the European road transport sector 64Figure 53 Rail Transport: Trade unions density (%) 65Figure 54 Rail Transport: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 65Figure 55 The social partners of the European rail transport sector 66Figure 56 Employment in water transport by size of enterprise, 1996 67Figure 57 Employment in water transport in Member States, 2000 67Figure 58 Women employed in water transport in member States, 2000 67Figure 59 Temporary employees in water transport, 2000 68Figure 60 Water Transport: Trade unions density (%) 69Figure 61 Water Transport: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 69Figure 62 The social partners of the European maritime transport 70Figure 63 Employment in air transport by size of enterprise, 1996 71Figure 64 Employment in air transport in member States, 2000 71Figure 65 Temporary employees in air transport, 2000 71Figure 66 Women employed in air transport in Member States, 2000 71Figure 67 Air Transport: Trade unions density (%) 73Figure 68 Air Transport: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 73Figure 69 The social partners of the European civil aviation 74


Table of figures and maps

Figure 70 Employment in commerce by size of enterprise, 1996 75Figure 71 Employment in commerce in member States, 2000 76Figure 72 Temporary employees in commerce, 2000 76Figure 73 Women employed in commerce in Member States, 2000 76Figure 74 Commerce: Trade unions density (%) 77Figure 75 Commerce: Employers' organisations - Represented employment 77Figure 76 The social partners of the European commerce sector 78Figure 77 Employment in construction in Member States, 2000 79Figure 78 Employment in construction by size of enterprise, 1996 79Figure 79 Temporary employees in construction, 2000 80Figure 80 Women employed in construction in Member States, 2000 80Figure 81 Construction: Trade union density (%) 81Figure 82 Construction: Employers' organisations -Represented employment 81Figure 83 The social partners of the European construction industry 82Figure 84 Employment in textiles and clothing by size of enterprise, 1996 83Figure 85 Employment in textiles and clothing in Member States, 2000 83Figure 86 Women employed in textiles and clothing in Member States, 2000 83Figure 87 Temporary employees in textiles and clothing, 2000 84Figure 88 Textiles and clothing: Trade union density (%) 85Figure 89 Textiles and clothing: Employers' organisations -Represented employment 85Figure 90 The social partners of the European textile industry 86Figure 91 GDP and employment growth in Bulgaria, 1999-2000 89Figure 92 GDP and employment growth in Hungary, 1999-2000 89Figure 93 GDP and employment growth in Czech Republic, 1999-2000 89Figure 94 GDP and employment growth in Lithuania, 1999-2000 89Figure 95 GDP and employment growth in Malta, 1999-2000 89Figure 96 GDP and employment growth in Romania, 1999-2000 89Figure 97 GDP and employment growth in Cyprus, 1999-2000 89Figure 98 GDP and employment growth in Latvia, 1999-2000 89Figure 99 GDP and employment growth in Poland, 1999-2000 89Figure 100 GDP and employment growth in Slovenia, 1999-2000 90Figure 101 GDP and employment growth in Slovakia, 1999-2000 90Figure 102 GDP and employment growth in Turkey, 1999-2000 90Figure 103 GDP and employment growth in Estonia, 1999-2000 90Figure 104 Unemployment rates in the candidate countries by duration of unemployment, 2000 91Figure 105 Distribution of employment by sector of economic activity in the CEECs, 1994 and 2000 91Figure 106 Employment in the candidate countries by size of unit, 2000 91Figure 107 Some informative elements on the extent of tripartite consultation/negotiations in candidate countries 107Figure 108 Some informative elements on main levels of collective bargaining in candidate countries 112Figure 109 Foreign Direct Investment flows from the EU to the candidate countries, 1995-99 114Figure 110 Distribution of EU foreign direct investment flows to candidate countries, 1995-1999 115Figure 111 Division of FDI In manufacturing by industry, 1995-99 115Figure 112 Division of FDI in services by sector, 1995-99 115Figure 113 Trade flows between the EU and central and eastern Europe, 1992-2000 115Figure 114 EWCs in companies covered by Directive 94/45/EC and 97/45/EC 118Figure 115 Sector breakdown of the CEEC members in EWCs 118Figure 116 Unit labour costs in the CEECs and EU member states, 1996 119Figure 117 Convergence of GDP per head in Cyprus, Czech Republic 120

and Slovenia relative to EU average assuming 1% growth, 2000-2030Figure 118 Romania, Latvia and Bulgaria assuming different rates of growth 120Figure 119 Poland, Lithuania and Turkey assuming different rates of growth 120Figure 120 Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia assuming different rates of growth 120

TABLE OF MAPS

Map 1 Employment in banking, 2000 54Map 2 Employment in insurance, 2000 58Map 3 Employment in land transport, 2000 62Map 4 Employment in water transport, 2000 68Map 5 Employment in air transport, 2000 72Map 6 Employment in commerce, 2000 76Map 7 Employment in construction, 2000 80Map 8 Employment in textiles and clothing, 2000 84



European Commission

Industrial Relations in Europe 2002

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2002 — 137 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN ????

European Commission


OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg

5 4K

E-39-01-287-E

N-C



Ind

ustria

l Re

latio

ns in

Eu

rop

e 2

00

2

Indu

stria

l rel

atio

ns &

indu

stria

l cha

nge

Cover definitive 28/10/02 9:18 Page 1

Documents

in Europe Relations - Unictcsdle.lex.unict.it/Archive/LW/Data reports and studies/Reports and communication from...PRINCIPAL ADVANCES IN LABOUR RELATIONS IN EUROPE 11 Involvement of