Page1

WOMEN’S REPRESENTATION IN EPSU and AFFILIATES 2014

Introduction This report aims to identify areas of progress and remaining gaps in EPSU and its affiliates towards achieving gender parity since the last Congress. In 2009 EPSU, with the support of its Swedish affiliate Vision (then SKTF), carried out a survey of women’s representation in affiliates’ decision-making bodies and other structures. This compared data from 2008 and 2000 to see to what extent the position of women had changed over that period. The survey findings were published in a report that was presented to the EPSU Executive Committee in November 2009, Women’s representation in EPSU and affiliates, which can be found: www.epsu.org/a/6463 with detailed statistics here: www.epsu.org/a/9735.

The report to the Executive Committee said: “The survey shows there is still a lot of work to do for women and men to take part equally in trade union work at all levels. There are some good practices available but the general picture can be much improved.” This report updates the survey to see whether there have been any improvements in the position of women since 2009.

Main findings Traditionally, women tend to be under-represented in the decision making structures of trade unions, even in sectors where the workforce and union membership is predominantly female. Our aim is to see what improvements there have been and also collect information on what our affiliates might be doing to encourage better female representation and to evaluate the representation of women in EPSU’s statutory bodies. 55 unions in 31 countries replied to the survey, covering a total of 10.6 million workers. 67% of all the membership of the surveyed affiliates are women. The proportions range widely between 80%-90% in the health and social services sector, for some unions, to only 10-20% in public utilities. When we compare the percentage of women as union members with the percentage of women at congress or in the highest decision making bodies we see that there is still a gap. The averages mentioned here also mask a varied picture with greater improvement in some areas than in others. But on the whole some progress has been made and we are moving very much in the right direction in EPSU affiliates structures. On the whole women’s representation has improved. Women made up on average 52% of affiliates’ congress delegates this time round, compared to 49% in 2009. There is a similar rise in the percentage of women in the highest decision making bodies: now 53% up from 50% in 2009.

Page2

Overall 28 affiliates reported an increase in the percentage of women congress delegates while only six reported a decrease. The percentage was unchanged in 10 unions while 11 were unable to provide comparable data. The NTL (Norway) and CFDT (France) both said that they had taken specific measures to encourage women’s participation while the GdG-KMSfB (Austria) reported that it had changed its rules to require a proportional representation. Twenty-three affiliates reported that the proportion of women in their highest decision-making bodies had increased while there had been a fall in 10 unions. There was no change in a further 10 while 12 were unable to provide comparable figures. The proportion of women involved in collective bargaining varied considerably with several unions indicating that women made up either all or none of the officials mainly responsible for negotiations. Breaking it down into broad categories shows six affiliates where women made up less than a third of the collective bargaining team, eight where they were between a third and a half, 15 where they were between half and two-thirds and 10 where they made up over two-thirds of the team. Affiliates were asked whether there were particular obstacles that made it difficult to achieve a gender balance in representation in their organisation. The most common response was to say that the structure of the relevant sector or occupation meant their membership was by its nature male (or female) dominated and so women (or men) tended to be in the minority in the trade union structure. Some affiliates also noted a problem with a male culture within their organisations that made it more difficult to progress while it was also acknowledged that as women continue to be the main carers in a domestic relationship then it was often more difficult for them to find the time to take on trade union duties. EPSU Committees In addition to the survey evidence there is also data on representation in EPSU bodies between 2010 and 2013. Women’s representation on the EPSU Executive Committee has stayed more or less constant during this period at around 40%. In contrast, the Local and Regional Government and National and European Administration Committees have seen a dip in women’s representation although in both cases this was reversed in 2013 with both also achieving around 40% representation. The highest levels of representation are in the Women and Gender Equality Committee varying between 70% and 90% and the Heath and Social Services Committee with no so much variation in the range of 65% and 70%. The lowest level of women’s representation is on the Public Utilities Committee which has seen a fall from a peak of 20% down to 10%. EPSU Congress Women delegates made up 46% of the total at the 2014 Congress with the figures varying by constituency from 32% in South-East Europe to 58% in the Nordic constituency. In terms of participation women made up 49% of delegates who moved or spoke on the resolutions. However, women were less represented among the heads of delegations making up only 32% of the 186 total.

Page3

The ETUC 8th of March Survey The ETUC has been monitoring women’s representation in its affiliates for a number of years now and published its seventh “8th of March” survey in 2013. This provides some interesting data against which to compare developments in EPSU, with some of the main findings including:

- the 47 confederations providing information have a total of 44.4 million members, of

which 19.6 million are women (44.2%).

- te national confederations with the highest rates of female membership are STTK in Finland (75%), followed by LBAS (65%) in Latvia and EAKL (62%) in Estonia.

- The lowest percentage of female members is reported by the two Turkish confederations:

TURK-IS (13%) and HAK-IS (11%) and DEOK-Cyprus (13,7%).

- 12 confederations reported more female than male members: EAKL (Estonia), AKAVA and STTK (Finland), ICTU (Ireland), LBAS (Latvia), LPSK (Lithuania), LO and YS (Norway), CGT (Portugal), SACO and TCO (Sweden) and TUC (UK).

- 27 confederations (out of 47) have a female membership rate equal to or higher than the average of 44.2%.

The survey noted that In the majority of countries in Europe, the growth in female membership has partly compensated for the loss of male membership and so helped to slow the overall decline in union membership. The ETUC survey revealed that women are in minority in all senior positions in national confederations making up only:

- 4 out of 39 presidents - 18 out of 69 vice-presidents - 9 out of 36 general secretaries - 7 out of 20 deputy general secretaries - 9 out of 25 treasurers

- Only 7 women have a leadership position in their national confederation (47 are men).

Most of national confederations have implemented actions and/or policies ensuring the follow-up of ETUC Recommendations for improving gender balance. http://www.etuc.org/sites/www.etuc.org/files/other/files/etuc_8th_march_survey_2014_en_eh.pdf

Page4

ETUC Toolkit to promote initiatives on gender equality

A ‘toolkit’ of initiatives to promote gender equality was launched in Madrid in May 2014 in a joint initiative by European employers and trade union organisations. EPSU contributed a collection of examples to the toolkit. The European social partners – ETUC, Businesseurope, UEAPME and CEEP – signed a Framework of Actions on Gender Equality in 2005 to promote gender equality on the labour market and in the workplace. The toolkit outlines some of the successful initiatives of member organisations.

The toolkit shows the added value of the social dialogue between employers and trade unions, and highlights their commitment and key role in enhancing gender equality throughout the EU.

About 100 initiatives from 25 European countries are contained in the online toolkit accessible at: www.resourcecentre.etuc.org/gendertoolkit or www.erc-online.eu/gendertoolkit

Page5

EPSU affiliates responding to survey – total membership (10.8 million) Union Country Membership

1 HWUA Armenia 7652

2 GdG-KMSfB Austria 155000

3 TULIPSW Azerbaijan 22430

4 TUPHWB Belarus 320246

5 ACOD/CGSP Belgium 15943

6 FTU-HS CITUB Bulgaria 9000

7 HSSMS-MT Croatia 10500

8 Pasydy Cyprus 26383

9 TUSBI Czech Republic 19000

10 Transgas OSTG Czech Republic 652

11 TUHSS Czech Republic 32000

12 HKKF Denmark 4558

13 HK Denmark 60000

14 3F Denmark 32989

15 FOA Denmark 192670

16 Rotal Estonia 2400

17 Tehy Finland 157000

18 Pardia Finland 50023

19 JHL Finland 230264

20 FNME CGT France 60000

21 Interco-CFDT France 60506

22 PSSAWTUG Georgia 5289

23 HSMCTU Georgia 8370

24 Ver.di Germany 2060000

25 BSRB Iceland 20998

26 PSEU Ireland 9500

27 TUHWK Kazakhstan 290131

28 KHWU Kirghistan 2500

29 LVSADA Latvia 11977

30 Sindincomservice Moldova 18600

31 USSCG / Health Union Montenegro 2350

32 Abvakabo Netherlands 349105

33 NUMGE Norway 336355

34 NITO Norway 53100

35 AVYO (YS) Norway 22000

36 NNO Norway 74704

37 NTL Norway 50239

38 Delta Norway 65500

39 SANITAS Romania 10200

40 ALSWU Russia 897942

41 HWURF Russia 2327328

42 SOZZaSS Slovakia 5250

43 FSP-UGT Spain 56000

44 FSC CCOO Spain 230270

45 FEP-USO Spain 12820

46 ST Sweden 64308

47 VISION Sweden 122077

48 Kommunal Sweden 506912

49 SEKO Sweden 81609

50 Vårdförbundet Sweden 110015

51 VPOD SSP Switzerland 36000

52 THWU Tajikistan 3000

53 FBU UK 41916

54 UNISON UK 1370000

55 PROSPECT UK 115636

Page6

Percentage of women Congress delegates 2008 and 2012-2013

Union Country 2012-13 2008

HWUA Armenia 58 53

GdG-KMSfB Austria 50 30

TULIPSW Azerbaijan 39 36

TUPHWB Belarus 54 51

ACOD CGSP Belgium 36 15

FTU-HS_CITUB Bulgaria 73 70

HSSMS-MT Croatia 70 60

PASYDY Cyprus 31 25

Transgas OSTG Czech Republic 20 20

TUHSS Czech Republic 70 75

TUSBI Czech Republic 39 54

FOA Denmark 71 69

3F Denmark 38 40

HK Denmark - -

HKKF Denmark - -

ROTAL Estonia - 50

PARDIA Finland 35 58

THEY Finland 50 -

JHL Finland 50 -

FNME CGT France 18 20

CFDT Interco France 50 46

HPSCTU / HSMCTU Georgia 90 86

PSSAWTUG Georgia 45 32

Verdi Germany 50 50

BSRB Iceland 65 62

PSEU Ireland 43 38

TUHWK Kazakhstan 56 56

KHWU Kyrgyzstan 65 60

LVSADA Latvia - -

Sindindcomservice Moldova 63 60

USSCG / Health Union Montenegro 80 80

Abvakabo Netherlands 36 38

AVYO Norway 50 50

NITO Norway 40 35

DELTA Norway 80 79

NTL Norway 47 33

NNO Norway 100 -

NUMGE Norway 60 58

SANITAS Romania 60 -

HWURF Russia 62 59

ALSWU Russia 55 54

SOZZaSS Slovakia 70 71

FEP USO Spain 25 15

CCOO Spain 41 40

FSP UGT Spain 50 46

Kommunal Sweden 69 65

Vision Sweden 56 63

ST Sweden 54 -

SEKO Sweden 35 39

Vårdförbundet Sweden

VPOD Switzerland 37 31

THWU Tajikistan 72 82

UNISON UK 64 60

FBU UK

PROSPECT UK 14 22

Page7

Percentage of women in highest decision-making bodies 2008 and 2012-2013

Women in highest decision making bodies (%) Union Country 2012-13 2008

HWUA Armenia 45 48

GdG-KMSfB Austria 50 30

TULIPSW Azerbaijan 40 35

TUPHWB Belarus 58 59

ACOD CGSP Belgium

FTU-HS-CITUB Bulgaria 66 48

HSSMS-MT Croatia 90 90

PASYDY Cyprus 22 17

Transgas OSTG Czech Republic 20 20

TUHSS Czech Republic 60 50

TUSBI Czech Republic 36 48

FOA Denmark 63 64

3F Denmark 55 46

HK Denmark 65

HKKF Denmark

ROTAL Estonia 70 70

PARDIA Finland 48 43

THEY Finland 75

JHL Finland 60

FNME CGT France 30 26

CFDT Interco France 50 50

HSMCTU Georgia 60 71

PSSAWTUG Georgia 47 46

Verdi Germany 64 50

BSRB Iceland 41 67

PSEU Ireland 33 33

TUHWK Kazakhstan 46 44

KHWU Kyrgyzstan 64 63

LVSADA Latvia 82

Sindindcomservice Moldova 55 60

USSCG Montenegro 70 70

Abvakabo Netherlands 33

AVYO Norway 40 40

NITO Norway 46 36

DELTA Norway 70 57

NTL Norway 47 47

NNO Norway 89

NUMGE Norway 55 62

SANITAS Romania 21

HWURF Russia 65 60

ALSWU Russia 62 58

SOZZASS Slovakia 70 60

FEP USO Spain 35 20

CCOO Spain 44 44

FSP UGT Spain 45 50

Kommunal Sweden 71 85

Vision Sweden 62 50

ST Sweden 50

SEKO Sweden 44 30

Vårdförbundet Sweden 80

VPOD Switzerland 63 50

THWU Tajikistan 72 82

UNISON UK 68 64

FBU UK 13 11

PROSPECT UK 22

Page8

Comparison of Women in highest decision-making bodies between 2008 and 2012-2013 by constituency 2012-13 2008

Nordic 59 52

Ireland and UK 34 36

German-speaking 59 43

Benelux 38 38

Mediterranean 36 33

Central Europe 55 54

North East Europe 60 59

South East Europe 50 52

Russia and Central Asia 62 61

Page9

Percentage of women involved in collective bargaining % of women in collective bargaining/social dialogue unit, or

among union officials responsible for collective bargaining France CFDT 40% France CGT FNME 41.60% (5 out of 12) Armenia – TUHW 51% Austria - GdG-KMSfB 0 out of 2 – but varies between sectors (20%-80%) Azerbaijan – TULIPSW 50% Bulgaria –FTU-HS Headquarters: 100% (1 woman), Regionally: 65% Belarus – UPHWB 100% (1 Woman) Croatia - HSSMS-MT 100% Cyprus – PASYDY 0% Czech Republic – OS Transgas 100% (1 woman) Czech Republic – TUHSS 70% Germany – Ver.di 50% Denmark - 3F 40% Denmark – FOA 61% Denmark - HK/Kommunal 40% Denmark – HKKF 0% Estonia – ROTAL 75% Spain - FSC CC.OO 44% Spain - FEP-USO 50% Spain -FSP-UGT 63% - 5 out of 8 including technical support Filand – Pardia 25% Finland – They 73% (11 out of 15) Georgia - (HSMCTU 30% Georgia – PSSAWTUG 90% Iceland – BSRB 54% Ireland – PSEU 25% - 2 out of 8 Finland – JHL 57% Kazakhstan – TUHWK 50% Kyrgyztan – KHWU 72% Moldova - Sindindcomservice 40% Netherlands - AbvaKabo FNV 56% Norway – DELTA 50% Norway – NITO 33.3% Norway – NSF 55% Norway – NTL 57% Norway – NUMGE 50% Romania – SANITAS 2-3% Russia – ALSWU About 60% Russia - HWURF 60% Slovakia – SOZZASS 60% (3 women, 2 men) Sweden – Kommunal 50% Sweden - Fackförbundet ST 53% Sweden – Vision 38% Sweden – SAHP 73% - 8 out of 11 Switzerland - VPÖD/SSP No distinct service. Women make up half of the regional secretaries

who are involved in negotiations. Tajikistan - THWU 70% United Kingdom – FBU 12.5% - 1 out of 8 United Kingdom - PROSPECT We do not have these statistics. United Kingdom - UNISON 51%

Page10

Main obstacles in achieving a better balance between women and men members in the trade union Main obstacles in achieving a better balance between women and

men members in your union France – CFDT Trade union culture, masculine trade union practice but progress-

women are reluctant to engage and privilege family life the mining sector is very masculine

Austria – GdG-KMSfB Rules of the union Bulgaria – FTU-HS No obstacles Croatia – HSSMS-MT Members of TU are mostly women Cyprus – PASYDY Late entry of women in public services and slow ascent in the union

decision making bodies Czech Republic – OS Transgas High percentage of men in our sector Czech Republic – TUHSS resort - mostly women Germany – Ver.di Women are often passed over being seen as not being adequately

qualified. However, this is just a justification for not relinquishing positions of power and influence. Sometimes it is difficult to get women involved as they don’t have the confidence to think they can cope with the job and its related responsibilities.

Denmark – 3F 3F (creation: 2005) was formed with an agreement of Fair Representation. 2010: agreement on equality and diversity, focusing on fair representation according to sex, age and ethnicity.

Denmark – FOA The number of male and female members of FOA reflects the low percentage of male employees in most of the jobs covered by collective agreements negotiated by FOA. FOA has financed research/a PhD scholarship concerning men in caring occupations and how to overcome obstacles for a higher number and percentage of men in these occupations. FOA is mainstreaming gender as far as different actions are concerned, for example collective bargaining, and strive to appeal to both sexes when communicating to members and employees in the caring occupations.

Denmark – HK/Kommunal Majority of our members: women. In other smaller professions: most of the employees are men. “The main obstacle is that the Danish Labour Market is very gender split. Most women in public sector. Most men in the private sector”

Denmark – HKKF Recruitment of the armed forces Estonia – ROTAL We did not have so much female dominated workers members of TU. Spain – FSC CC.OO The lack of women, lack of willing to candidate in Trade Union election,

and the work organisation in the Trade Union. Spain – FSP-UGT Responsibility in Trade-Union take time. Spanish Women do the

housework, so they don’t have time + cut in childcare and there is a high level of male membership in the federation

Finland – Tehy More than 90% of members are female so that reflects in the balance. For the first time Tehy has a male president after 4 female presidents

Georgia – HSMCTU Mostly women in health sector Georgia – PSSAWTUG The existence of low wages Iceland – BSRB The labour market is highly gender segregated. The health care and

social services sectors are in majority occupied by women while the police force mainly constitutes of men. Many members of BSRB do work on those sectors.

Ireland – PSEU There are no institutional obstacles. There is a reluctance to become involved which we try to address through a continuous programme of encouragement and education. We have conducted a seminar on the issue of women’s participation recently with our Branch representatives. Hopefully, the output from those workshops will produce some actions for us to try and improve the level of participation. (Report of the seminar: www.pseu.ie/pdf/diversity13.pdf)

Page11

Finland – JHL “Many of the sectors we represent are predominantly female” Kazakhstan – TUHWK No obstacles Kyrgyztan – KHWU No obstacles Montenegro – TUHM More women than men in T.U of Health. Netherlands – AbvaKabo FNV “Although there is a majority of female members, there is a majority of

male members active for the union interests. In general female members take more interest in individual protection of interest rather than collective protection of interest. Therefore they are less active female members compared to the number of active male members. It is difficult to change this situation because the majority of male union activists rule the culture and structure of the union.”

Norway – NITO “We have not identified any specific obstacles. Actually the balance is acceptable compared to the balance between women and men among the members”.

Norway – NSF Most of our members are female and this is reflected in the whole organization

Norway – NTL Keeping a steady focus on gender equality, gender pay gap and recruitment of female elected representatives

Norway – NUMGE According to our rules it shall be at least 40% representation of the underrepresented gender in all elected organs. Our principle and action program, which has a separate chapter on gender equality and women’s rights.

Romania – SANITAS Women are more dedicated to family life + Women are not promoted Russia – ALSWU gender balance has been rather even so far due to nature of jobs

organized Slovakia – SOZZASS Predominance of women in health and social services area Sweden – SEKO Some branches dominates by men (energy…). None of our branches

dominated by women Switzerland – VPÖD/SSP Rules on quotas means that there more or less a balance both in

relation to membership and in the committees. The rules have required proportional representation on committees since the 1990s. In some committees this is difficult to implement because of well-known problems but basically the policy has been successful.

Tajikistan – THWU No obstacles UK – FBU The fire service is perceived as being a male dominated industry UK – UNISON Women’s caring responsibilities impacting on the time available for

trade union activity. Potential for employer discrimination against trade union activists, and refusal to grant paid facility time for trade union duties. Cuts in staffing due to government austerity measures have increased pressure on employees

Page12

Women’s representation in EPSU Statutory meetings 2010-2013 (based on participation in the EPSU Statutory Meetings (GEC, NEA, LRG, HSS, PUT, EC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2011 2012 2013

GEC

NEA

LRG

HSS

PUT

EC

Page13

Evaluation of EPSU’s 2014 Congress The composition of delegates by Constituency

Constituency Delegates Women

Nordic (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) 78 58%

UK & Ireland 34 56%

German-speaking (Austria, Germany, Switzerland) 23 48%

France and BENELUX (France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg)

39 41%

Central Europe (Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo)

38 37%

South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Turkey)

37 32%

North-Eastern Europe (Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine)

20 45%

Mediterranean (Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain)

33 36%

Russia and Central Asia (Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan)

14 50%

Overview of Speakers and Speaking Requests (number of women) Number of women Speaking requests: 42, actually speaking: 41 Movers of resolutions and speakers on podium: 18 EPSU + 2 others = 20 Total: 61 Number of men: Speaking requests: 46, actually speaking: 43 Movers of resolutions and speakers on podium: 13 EPSU + 7 others = 20 Total: 63

Page14

Women heads delegations

Country Women Heads of Delegation out of total

for each country Albania 1/2 Armenia 2/2 Austria 0/5 Azerbaijan ¼ Belarus 0/1 Belgium 1/8 Bosnia-Herzegovina 0/4 Bulgaria 4/7 Croatia 1/2 Cyprus 0/4 Czech Republic 5/10 Denmark 5/13 Estonia 1/2 Finland 3/5 France 4/9 FYR of Macedonia 1/4 Georgia 1/3 Germany 1/1 Hungary 1/3 Iceland 0/1 Ireland 0/4 Israel 0/2 Italy 1/2 Kazakhstan 1/1 Kosovo 0/1 Kyrgyzstan 0/1 Latvia 1/2 Lithuania 1/2 Moldova 1/3 Montenegro 0/3 Netherlands 2/3 Norway 2/10 Poland 1/1 Portugal 0/2 Romania 2/9 Russia 0/3 Serbia 0/6 Slovakia 1/4 Slovenia 0/1 Spain 2/5 Sweden 5/6 Switzerland 1/1 Tajikistan 1/2 Turkey 0/6 Ukraine 2/6 United Kingdom 4/8 TOTAL 60/186

Page15

Membership breakdown by union and sector (2008 and 2012-2013)

Trade union Country Constituency Sector Members 2012/2013 Members 2008

Total Women

Women as % total Total Women

Women as % total

FOA Denmark Nordic HSS 183114 166988 91

192087 177920 93 PUT 9556 1066 11

11873 1313 11

Total 192670 168054 87

203960 179233 88

KOMMUNAL Sweden Nordic HSS 375000 360000 96

380000 365000 96 LRG 50000 25000 50

50000 25000 50

PUT 82000 20000 24

85000 25000 29 Total 506912 404917 80

514983 415511 81

FTU-HS-CITUB Bulgaria South Eastern Europe HSS 9000

79

9300

70 Total 9000

79

3F Denmark Nordic LRG 26391 12404

28360 13329 NEA 6598 3101

7090 3332

Total 32989 15505 47

35450 16661

HK Denmark Nordic LRG 50000 70

HSS 10000 99

Total 60000

75

65000

Verdi Germany German-speaking HSS 350000 263000

342000 256000

LRG 236000 131000

261000 138000

Total 2060000 1040000 51

2200000 1100000 50

Page16

Transgas OSTG Czech Republic Central Europe PUT 652 193

700 157

Total 652 193 24

700 157

TUHSS Czech Republic Central Europe HSS 32000 26000 80

38000 33000 87

Total 32000

38000

ROTAL Estonia North Eastern Europe HSS 300 300

600 600

LRG 300 200

200 200

NEA 1800 500

1600 800

Total 2400 1000 42

2400 1600 72

LVSADA Latvia North Eastern Europe HSS 11977 10439

16442 14370

Total 11977

87

16442

Abvakabo Netherlands Benelux France HSS 142417 115454

145424 108696

LRG 49124 19117

52858 18155

NEA 21116 7715

21903 7337

PUT 9525 1365

10474 1373

Total 349105 190965 55

348615 179628 51

AVYO Norway Nordic NEA 22000

60

23000

60

Total 22000

60

23000

60

Vision Sweden Nordic HSS

LRG

PUT

Total 122077 88481 75

118761 87233

UNISON UK Ireland UK HSS 457116 370000

461000 368800

LRG 726184 558000

779500 585000

Page17

NEA 41742 26750

PUT 34891 17000

45500

Total 1370000 1050000 77

1354000 1098000 72

Sindindcomservice Moldova South Eastern Europe PUT 5615 1552

5809 1614

Total 18600 7003 38

25696 11744 44

HPSCTU Georgia North Eastern Europe HSS 8370 4603

20000 15403

Total 8370 4603 80

20000 15403 62

TUPHWB Belarus North Eastern Europe

Total 320246 248879 77

299186

FNME CGT France Benelux France PUT 22000 4000 19

Total 60000 9100

TUSBI Czech Republic Central Europe LRG 9858 6719

11511 7870

NEA 9142 5441

10489 6034

Total 19000 12160 64

22000 13904 63

NITO Norway Nordic HSS 5280 4070

LRG 5780 1200

NEA 5350 1570

PUT 2750 200

Total 53100 12500 24

47900

DELTA Norway Nordic HSS

LRG

NEA

Total 65500 51600

62000 49000

Page18

PARDIA Finland Nordic NEA 37436 23176

55000 32800

PUT 12587 8474

5000 2000

Total 50023 31650 63

60000 34800 57

HWURF Russia Russia and Central Asia HSS 2327328 1944642

2605090 2117893

Total 2327328 1944642 84

2605090 2117893

Health Union Montenegro South Eastern Europe HSS 2350 1570 67

2430 1620 67

Total 2350

2430

PSEU Ireland Ireland UK NEA 8700 5356

9250 5365

PUT 800 488

1250 725

Total 9500 5795 61

10500 6090 53

PASYDY Cyprus Mediterranean HSS 4719 3436

3990 2928

NEA 16099 8363

14777 7210

PUT 5565 1354

1195 397

Total 26383 13153 50

19962 10535 46

CFDT Interco France Benelux France LRG 50440

41551

NEA 5506

5591

PUT 3762

3213

Total 60506 39460 59

53078 31109 54

THEY Finland Nordic HSS

100

Total 157000 144148 92

NTL Norway Nordic

Total 50239 30619 61

47396 28574 58

NNO Norway Nordic HSS 73210 61834

66020 56715

Page19

NEA 1494 1360

1347 1256

Total 74704 68400 92

67367 61865

SANITAS Romania South Eastern Europe HSS 10200 8200 85

10200 8200 85

Total 10200 8200 85

10200 8200 85

VPOD Switzerland German-speaking HSS 14824 11310

7511 5809

LRG 3149 1779

3110 1622

PUT 3363

3523

Total 36000 18800 53

35500 16100 43

THWU Tajikistan Russia and Central Asia HSS 3000 2100 72

2500 2250 82

Total 3000 2100

3000 2250

KHWU Kirghistan Russia and Central Asia HSS 2500 2100

2300 1930

Total 2500 2100 84

2300 1930 84

FEP USO Spain Mediterranean

Total 12820 7150 56

15460 8503 55

CCOO Spain Mediterranean LRG-PUT 28189 15578

32044 17970

LRG 52959 20151

59972 20916

NEA 13504 5574

17434 7566

Total 230270 82034 36

260363 91954 33

ALSWU Russia Russia and Central Asia PUT

852049

Total 897942 461542 51

1078183 542326 50

GdG-KMSfB Austria German-speaking LRG 80000 40000

90000 40000

PUT 30000 10000

30000 10000

HSS 35000 23000

35000 23000

Page20

Total 155000 77000 49

146000 73000 49

SOZZaSS Slovakia Central Europe HSS 5250 3712

7320 5344

Total 5250 3712 71

7320 5344 73

PSSAWTUG Georgia North Eastern Europe NEA 4934 1837

6516 2014

Total 5289 2112 40

6516 2014 47

TULIPSW Azerbaijan South Eastern Europe PUT 20850 6570

20300 6500

Total 22430 6740 31

22500 6270 30

HSSMS-MT Croatia Central Europe HSS 10500

12000

Total 10500 8400 80

12000 9600 80

BSRB Iceland Nordic Total 20998 15201 69

20877 14856 70

ACOD-CGSP Belgium Benelux France NEA

Total 15943 7896 50

10244 5025 49

FBU UK Ireland UK LRG

Total 41016 2759 7

45410 2470 5

TUHWK Kazakhstan Russia and central Asia HSS

Total 290131 223902 79

244842 192114 78

HKKF Denmark Nordic NEA 4458

5003

Total 4558 260 6

5003 301 6

FSP UGT Spain Mediterranean HSS 12562

10000 5100

LRG 32000

29100 14841

NEA 9500

9000 3610

Page21

PUT 1938

7900 3318

Total 56000 31920 57

56000 27542 51

HWUA Armenia North eastern Europe HSS 7652

7500

Total 7652 6152 82

7500 6000 80

NUMGE Norway Nordic HSS 154684 138656

LRG 51277 39779

PUT 130404 89558

Total 336355 267993 80

ST Sweden Nordic NEA

PUT

Total 64308 40994 64

66809 43859 67

JHL Finland Nordic

Total 230264 160388 70

216868 156323

Prospect U.K. Ireland UK Total 115636 27146 24

21

SEKO Sweden Nordic NEA 14378 4667

16965 5073

PUT 4171 279

Total 81609 21623 26

91473 25513 30

Vårdförbundet Sweden Nordic HSS 110015

91

110453

92

Total 110015

91

110453

92