social dialogue eu

7/29/2019 Social Dialogue EU

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-dialogue-eu 1/112

Volume 2

Social Dialogue

Social Europe guide

ISSN 1977-2343



Social Europe guideVolume 2

Social Dialogue

European Commission

Directorate-General or Employment, Social Aairs and Inclusion

Manuscript completed in January 2012



This guide was written by Mark Carley and Commission sta.Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behal o the Commission may be heldresponsible or use o any inormation contained in this publication.

For any use or reproduction o photos which are not under European Union copyright,permission must be sought directly rom the copyright holder(s).

More inormation on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).Cataloguing data as well as an abstract can be ound at the end o this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Oce o the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-79-21309-0ISSN 1977-2343doi:10.2767/448

© European Union, 2012Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Printed on elemental chlorine-free bleached PaPer (ecf)

Europe Direct is a service to help youind answers to your questions about

the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access

to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.



ForewordLászló Andor Commissioner or Employment,

Social Aairs and Inclusion

Evidence over the past ve decades o European integration has shown that EU-level social

dialogue plays an essential role in advancing the European social model, delivering benets

or employers, workers, and or the economy and society as a whole. In October 2011, we

celebrated the 20th anniversary o the social partners’ agreement, which was later enshrined

in the Maastricht Treaty. It established procedures or close involvement o management and

labour in shaping and implementing EU employment and social policies.

Social dialogue has played a crucial role in building the Single Market. Today it has an irre-

placeable role in strengthening economic governance and building an economic union. It is

vital that the EU and Member States invest in strengthening social dialogue at both EU and

national levels, i we are to prevent divisions between capital and labour, a all in Europe’s

growth and employment potential, greater macroeconomic imbalances and growing eco-

nomic exclusion o certain territories or groups in the context o the current economic crisis.

We need cross-industry and sectoral dialogue, as well as dialogue within individual enter-

prises. Social dialogue is autonomous, but the social partners have an important responsibility

to address the key structural challenges acing Europe in the years ahead.

The experience o the crisis so ar has shown how social dialogue can help to alleviate the

eects o economic downturn, provide stability and resilience, and preserve or even improve

competitiveness. At national level especially, social partnership has helped to tackle the crisis

in many countries. As Chapter 5 shows, Member States with strong social dialogue mecha-

nisms have weathered the storm best. National cross-industry negotiations have developed in

response to the crisis in a number o countries with little tradition o such dialogue.

The road to Europe’s recovery consists o mutually reinorcing actions or economic modernisa-

tion, environmental improvement and social investment, as set out in the Europe 2020 Strat-

egy. EU-level social dialogue institutions, such as the Tripartite Social Summit, and the close

involvement o social partners in preparing and implementing National Reorm Programmes

are essential in ensuring that scal consolidation is carried out in a way that strengthens

Europe’s economic perormance. Social dialogue also helps to ensure that reorms o labour

markets and social protection systems are air and eective, and that Europe succeeds in its



transition to a resource-efcient, low-carbon economy. Some urgent responses to the eco-

nomic crisis, notably in countries with macroeconomic stabilisation programmes, may rus-

trate existing orms o social dialogue and collective bargaining. But i Europe is to maintain

healthy economic and social structures, and address longer term challenges, it must strive toemerge rom the crisis with more, not less, social dialogue. We will not reach the Europe 2020

targets, nor will Europe be able maintain the participatory character o its economy and soci-

ety, without strong dialogue between management and labour, and the institutional capacity

to make it work at all levels.

The reality, however, is that social dialogue remains weak in many o the Member States that

joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. There is also a tendency, in some cases, to erode, down-

grade or even eliminate tripartite structures. Undermining collective bargaining and other

social rights may orm part o implicit ‘social dumping’ strategies. Such approaches are bad orEurope and bad or the countries concerned, and they are economically and socially unsustain-

able. Trust between the participants o social dialogue may also be limited due to underdevel-

oped institutional capacity. At national level, this has in some cases translated into ailures to

develop joint bi- or tripartite responses to the crisis. At EU level, such weaknesses can reduce

the legitimacy o economic governance processes and undermine policy implementation.

This is why the Commission provides support or social partner capacity-building through the

European Social Fund and through various transnational projects. I encourage social partners

and governments to take up this assistance and to work together to oster a stronger, more

robust dialogue across the EU.



Contents

Foreword .......................................................................................3

Chapter 1 – An introduction to social dialogue .............................7

Interview with the cross-industry social partners .......................24

Chapter 2 – A brie institutional historyo EU-level social dialogue .......................................33

Message rom the EESC ..............................................................43

Chapter 3 – How EU-level social dialogue works ......................... 45

Voice rom the European Parliament ........................................... 56

Chapter 4 – What has been achieved in EU-level social dialogue? ... 59

Message rom the ILO ..................................................................76

Chapter 5 – Social dialogue and the crisis ...................................79

Chapter 6 – Future developments and challenges

The social partners and Europe 2020 .......................87

Interview with the Council Presidency ........................................92

Annexes ...................................................................99

Further inormation ...............................................103

Glossary o terms ...................................................104


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-dialogue-eu 8/1126 © ImageGlobe



Chapter 1

An introduction to social dialogue

What is social dialogue?

In the Member States o theEU, organisations representingemployers and workers togetherplay an important role, inuenc-

ing developments at the work-place, and in the wider economyand society. The nature andextent o this role varies consider-ably rom country to country (seep. 16). It includes setting pay andemployment conditions throughcollective bargaining at variouslevels, expressing opinions togovernments and other publicauthorities through consulta-tions (thereby helping to shapelaw and policy in areas such asemployment), jointly managingor overseeing areas such as socialsecurity, training or health andsaety, or simply discussing issues

o mutual interest. These pro-cesses can be ormal or inormal,and can be limited to workers’and employers’ organisations orcan also include the governmentand other public authorities.

Organisations representing emplo-yers and workers — employers’

associations and trade unions— are known in many MemberStates as the ‘social partners’. The

interactions between them, andwith the public authorities, areoten reerred to as ‘social dia-logue’. This term is sometimes usedmore widely to include dialogueat individual workplaces, whereby

employers inorm, consult andnegotiate with their employ-ees and their representatives onemployment and business-relatedissues.

The International Labour Organi-sation (ILO) defnes social dia-logue as ‘all types o negotiation,consultation or simply exchangeo inormation between, oramong, representatives o gov-ernments, employers and work-ers, on issues o common interestrelating to economic and socialpolicy’. The dialogue can ‘exist asa tripartite process, with the gov-

ernment as an ocial party tothe dialogue or it may consist o bipartite relations only betweenlabour and management (or tradeunions and employers’ organisa-tions), with or without indirectgovernment involvement’.

Social dialogue has developed

at the level o the EuropeanUnion, reecting (and linkedto) its widespread practice in



Box 1. The cross-industry social partners

The main cross-industry trade union organisation involvedin EU-level social dialogue is the European Trade Union Con-ederation (ETUC). The ETUC’s membership is made up o 83 national union conederations rom 36 countries, plus12 European trade union ederations, which bring togethernational unions operating in particular sectors. In total, theETUC represents 60 million union members across Europe.

Also operating under the ETUC’s auspices is the Council o

European Proessional and Managerial Sta (Eurocadres),which represents over fve million managerial and proessional

the Member States. Forms o social dialogue were present atthe inception o the European

Communities, and today socialdialogue is enshrined in theTreaty on the Functioning o theEuropean Union (Articles 151-155, see Chapter 2 below) andeatures across many areas o EU policy and action. This pub-lication describes this dialogue,its background, development,

operation and achievements,and the challenges it aces today.

The basics of EU-level socialdialogue

In the EU context, social dialogueinvolves a set o processes andarrangements whereby Euro-pean-level organisations, repre-senting employers and workers,conduct discussions and nego-tiations, undertake other jointwork, and are jointly involved in

EU decision- and policy-making.The dialogue takes two basicorms and occurs at two main

levels. Its orm can be either:• bipartite, involving only the

social partners (organisationsrepresenting employers andworkers); or

• tripartite, involving both thesocial partners and the EUinstitutions.

The two main levels o dialogue are:• cross-industry , which means a

dialogue whose scope coversthe whole EU economy andlabour market, and all sectors;and

• sectoral , covering one specifcindustry across the EU.

The organisations that participatein the dialogue vary dependingon the level. At cross-industrylevel (see Box 1), trade unions areprincipally represented by the



employees belonging to ETUC-aliated unions. Outside theETUC, the European Conederation o Executives and Mana-

gerial Sta (CEC) brings together 17 national organisationsrepresenting managers and proessionals rom 15 countries,plus nine ederations grouping national managerial/proes-sional unions in particular sectors. CEC represents 1.5 millionmembers. The European Commission consults both Eurocad-res and CEC as cross-industry social partners representingspecifc categories o workers, and the two organisations haveestablished a liaison committee through which they partici-pate in EU-level cross-industry negotiations, within the ETUC

delegation.

There are two general cross-industry social partners on theemployer side:• BusinessEurope has as members 41 national employers’

and industrial conederations rom 35 European countries.It represents 20 million companies o all sizes, mainly in theprivate sector.

• The European Centre o Employers and Enterprises Provid-

ing Public Services (CEEP) represents individual enterprisesand employers’ associations in public services — bothorganisations with ull or partial public ownership andthose carrying out activities o general economic interest,whatever their legal ownership/status. It has 19 nationalsections, made up o both individual employers and asso-ciations, and our aliated European-level sectoral organi-sations. CEEP’s members employ 30 % o the EU workorce.

The European Association o Crat, Small and Medium-sizedEnterprises (UEAPME) is consulted by the Commission as across-industry organisation representing certain categorieso undertakings. UEAPME brings together 40 national cross-industry ederations or SMEs and crat businesses rom 26 EUMember States, plus associate members including nationalSME organisations rom outside the EU and 29 European-level sectoral SME organisations. UEAPME represents over 12million enterprises with 55 million employees. It participates

with BusinessEurope and CEEP in the employers’ group ordialogue and negotiations with the ETUC.



European Trade Union Coned-eration (ETUC), and employers byBusinessEurope (broadly, private

sector employers), CEEP (publicservices employers) and UEAPME(small and medium-sized enter-prises). At sector level (see Box 2),the social partners are organisa-tions bringing together nationalunions and employers’ asso-ciations operating in a particularindustry across Europe.

Bipartite social dialogue — themain ocus o this publication —occurs at both cross-industry and

sector levels. Social dialogue

committees, supported by theEuropean Commission, have

been set up at cross-industry leveland in 40 sectors. In these com-mittees, the social partners can,on their own initiative, discussmatters o mutual concern, carryout joint work, and negotiateagreements and other joint texts.Further, the Commission consultsthe cross-industry and sectoral

social partners on a wide rangeo issues, and the partners candevelop joint responses throughthe social dialogue committees.

Box 2. The sectoral social partners

A total o 62 European-level employers’ bodies, represent-

ing national employers’ associations in a particular industry,are involved in EU sectoral social dialogue committees, andare consulted by the European Commission on social andemployment policy issues. These organisations range con-siderably in size and scope, with some representing all ormost o the large sectors (such as metalworking/engineeringor local/regional government) and others representing rela-tively small subsectors (such as aviation handling or potashproduction). Sectoral dialogue committees oten include two

or more employers’ organisations.

By contrast, only 17 trade union organisations participate in theEU-level sectoral dialogue and are ormally consulted by theCommission. Most o these are European trade union edera-tions aliated to the ETUC (see Box 1), such as the EuropeanMetalworkers’ Federation or the European Federation o PublicService Unions. While the sectoral union organisations vary insize, they tend to be broader in scope than the EU-level sectoral

employers’ bodies, and oten cover more than one sector, withseveral o them sitting on more than one sectoral committee.



When it comes to matters o employment and social policy, theCommission has a duty to consult

the social partners on possible EUaction (such as legislation), givingthem the opportunity to respondindividually or jointly and, i theywish, to negotiate agreements onthe issues in question, which mayin certain circumstances be givenlegal orce by an EU directive.

Tripartite dialogue occurs mainlyat cross-industry level. It involvesvarious institutions and pro-cesses that enable the socialpartners to discuss matters withthe EU institutions, and con-tribute to debate and policy inareas such as the economy andemployment (see Box 4).

The EU also has a role in promot-ing European bipartite socialdialogue in individual compa-nies. Legislation enables Euro-pean Works Councils (EWCs) tobe established in multinationalcompanies operating in the

EU, providing a orum or man-agement and employee repre-sentatives to hold a dialogue ontransnational topics (see Box 3).

Why do we need socialdialogue at EU level?

The countries o Europe have

developed a distinctive way o organising their societies andeconomies, which has become

known as the ‘European socialmodel’. There is general accept-ance that this model at least

includes sustained economicgrowth, a high and rising stand-ard o living, high levels o employment, high-quality educa-tion, comprehensive welare andsocial protection, low levels o inequality and high levels o soli-darity, and — crucially in the cur-rent context — an important role

or representatives o workersand employers, and the dialoguebetween them. Social dialogue isconsidered to be integral to theEuropean social model.

A shared belie in this model wasreected in the European Com-munities, ormed by six MemberStates in the 1950s, and the trea-ties establishing the Communi-ties. As the Communities grewand became more integratedover the next 50 years, and even-tually became the EuropeanUnion, the European social mod-el’s values became ever more

frmly enshrined in successivetreaties. Social dialogue is one o these values. Because social dia-logue plays an important role inthe Member States (especially inthe ounding Member States andthose that joined up until theend o the 20th century), it wasincluded in the institutional and

policy-making machinery andprocesses that these countriesconstructed at European level.



Box 3. European Works Councils

The main orums or European-level social dialogue withincompanies are European Works Councils (EWCs). Based onan EU Directive adopted in 1994 (and revised in 2009), EWCscan be set up — ollowing negotiations initiated by employ-ees or by management — in multinational companies with atleast 1 000 employees within the 30 European Economic Areamember states and at least 150 employees in each o at leasttwo member states.

By April 2011, according to fgures rom the European TradeUnion Institute (ETUI), 917 multinationals had EWCs. Some18 000 employee representatives sit on EWCs, representingthe interests o around 18 million workers.

The central purpose o EWCs is to provide employees withinormation and consultation on transnational matters.Details o the operation and role o EWCs are agreed individu-ally in each multinational concerned, but generally they bringtogether central management and employee representativesrom across Europe at least once a year or a dialogue on thecompany’s perormance and prospects, and matters such asemployment, restructuring and human resources policies.

Where important events occur between regular meetings,such as site closures or major redundancies, management

Social dialogue orms part o theEuropean social model, becauseit reects the democratic princi-

ple (included in Article 11 o theTreaty on European Union —TEU) that representative associa-tions should be able to expresstheir views to be consulted by,and hold dialogue with, the pub-lic authorities, as well as the viewthat it is air that workers andemployers should be involved in

decision-making on issues that

aect them closely. The Chartero Fundamental Rights o theEU also enshrines the right o

workers to inormation and con-sultation within the undertak-ing (Article 27) and the right o collective bargaining and action(Article 28). However, the Euro-pean social model also includessocial dialogue because this dia-logue brings concrete benefts,and not just or the organisa-

tions involved. The social part-



must usually inorm and consult the EWC. In some EWCs,inormation and consultation is more ongoing, oten via a

smaller select committee.While the EWCs’ main role under the Directive is as a orumor inormation and consultation, dialogue has developedurther in some cases, and management and employee rep-resentatives have negotiated on European-level matters. Inmore than 60 EWCs, agreements have been signed on topicssuch as restructuring, corporate social responsibility, equality,and health and saety.

Research indicates that, besides enhancing communicationamong employee representatives rom dierent countries,and between these representatives and central management,EWCs can have a positive impact on improving decision-mak-ing and employee understanding o management decisions,increasing trust, building a Europe-wide corporate culture,and anticipating and managing change.

Since 2004, enterprises operating in more than one Member

State have had the option o setting up as, or transormingthemselves into, a European Company (Societas Europaea, orSE) based on EU rather than national law. A Directive stipu-lates the particular arrangements or employee involvementin SEs. The details are negotiated in each SE, but involvementbasically entails transnational inormation and consultationthrough an EWC-type body, as well as board-level employeeparticipation where this orm o participation was applied inthe company or companies that ounded the SE. (Statutory

board-level employee representation exists at national levelin many Member States).

According to the ETUI, over 800 SEs had been registered byJune 2011. Many had no operations or employees, and existedmainly on paper, but in the more substantial SEs, over 70employee involvement agreements had been signed. All pro-vide or inormation and consultation through an EWC-typebody, while 34 also stipulate board-level participation. This EU-

level representation o employees on multinational companyboards is the SEs’ main contribution to social dialogue.



Box 4. Tripartite cross-industry dialogue

This publication ocuses mainly on bipartite dialoguebetween the social partners. However, tripartite dialogue —

also reerred to as concertation — among the social partnersand the EU institutions also plays an important role. It goes

ners have unrivalled knowledgeand experience o the realities o the employment and social situ-

ation ‘on the ground’, and con-sulting and listening to them canthereore improve governance inthis area. Furthermore, the socialpartners are uniquely well placedto address work-related issues —such as employment and work-ing conditions, working time,equality, health and saety, and

training — through the dialogueand negotiation processes thatcharacterise their relationship.By reaching agreements, theycan achieve compromises andbalance their interests in a waythat legislation oten cannot.

The benefts o social dialoguehave long been widely recog-nised — i to varying degrees— in the Member States. As theEuropean economy and labourmarket have become more inte-grated, and the EU has devel-oped an enhanced employmentand social policy role, the EU

institutions and Member Stateshave increasingly taken theview that similar benefts can

be achieved through social dia-logue at European level.

Social dialogue and the‘acquis communautaire’

The accumulated body o EUlaw and obligations is knownas the ‘acquis communautaire’ .It comprises all the EU’s treaties,legislation, declarations, resolutions,international agreements, European

Court o Justice rulings and so on.When new countries want to jointhe EU, they must accept andapply the acquis.

Social dialogue orms part o the acquis communautaire,because it is promoted by theTreaty and given a specifc rolein the EU’s decision-makingprocess (see Box 9). New Mem-ber States must thereore havein place social dialogue struc-tures and activities, and socialpartners able to play an eec-tive role in the EU-level dia-logue. They must also take into

account social dialogue whenincorporating the acquis intotheir national provisions.



back to a series o ‘tripartite conerences’ on employmentissues held in the 1970s, which brought together European-

level social partners, the Commission and national govern-ments. In 1970, ollowing a request rom the social partners,the Council set up a Standing Committee on Employment(SCE) to ensure continuous dialogue, joint action and con-sultation on employment policy between the EU institutions,national governments and the social partners. The SCE servedas a orum or tripartite dialogue until the early 2000s.

The social partners and the Council began debating outside

the SCE during the 1990s. EU-level cross-industry partnersstarted to meet ministers ahead o meetings o the Employ-ment and Social Aairs Council, and rom 1996 the partnersmet the ‘troika’ o current and uture Council presidencies onthe eve o European Councils.

Meanwhile, the SCEs’ useulness as a orum or consultation anddialogue was increasingly questioned by those involved. It wasreormed and streamlined in 1999 and integrated into the Euro-pean employment strategy. However, the social partners didnot fnd that the reorm led to signifcant improvements, and in2001 called or the SCE to be replaced by a tripartite committeeor concertation on the Lisbon growth and jobs strategy (as wasalready happening in practice). A Tripartite Social Summit wasormally established by a Council Decision in 2003 (replacingthe SCE), with the role o ensuring continuous dialogue amongthe Council, Commission and social partners on the Union’seconomic and social strategy (see Box 10).

Tripartite dialogue on specifc EU policy areas also beganin the mid-1990s, and today the cross-industry partners areinvolved in structured debate and consultations with the EUinstitutions and national governments, on both political andtechnical levels, over a range o issues. These include macro-economic aairs, employment policy, social protection andeducation/training. In 2011, the Commission organised thefrst ‘tripartite social orum’ to discuss matters relevant to itsagship ‘Agenda or new skills and jobs’ and, more generally,to the overall Europe 2020 strategy.



Social dialogue in theMember States

Social dialogue takes place inall the 27 EU Member States,though its importance variesconsiderably rom country tocountry. It takes many orms,both bipartite and tripartite(or a combination o the two),and happens at cross-industryand sectoral level. The varying

national patterns o dialoguereect the countries’ dierenthistories and economic andpolitical situations. A notabledistinction is that in most west-ern European countries, currentorms o dialogue are largelybased on those that developedater the Second World War,while in most central and east-ern European Member States,they began to emerge aterthe political change o the late1980s and early 1990s.

Here we provide a brie snapshoto the current situation across

the EU. It should be noted, how-ever, that dialogue arrangementsand processes are rarely static,and have undergone continu-ous change in many countriesover the years. For example, thecurrent economic and fnancialcrisis has stimulated social dia-logue in some Member States,

while causing existing arrange-ments to break down in others(see p. 79).

Bipartite cross-industry dialogue

Bipartite social dialogue betweennational cross-industry tradeunion and employers’ coned-erations exists in many MemberStates, though it generally playsa more important role in indus-trial relations in the countries that

joined the EU prior to 2004 than inthe more recent Member States.

In the pre-2004 ‘EU-15’ coun-tries, dialogue in the orm o regular cross-industry collectivebargaining over pay rises andother general employment con-ditions — providing a ramework or bargaining at sector and/orcompany levels — currently takesplace only in Belgium, Greece andSpain, though it was normal prac-tice until recently in Ireland andFinland, and eatured in the pastin other countries. In the newMember States, national bipar-tite agreements o this type havebeen signed mainly in Romania

(though the practice ended in2011) and, to some extent, Slove-nia. In both Bulgaria and Hungary,the cross-industry social partnershave (in some years) agreed non-binding general recommenda-tions on pay rises.

Aside rom regular national bar-

gaining, cross-industry agree-ments on specifc issues — suchas training, employment, health



© I m

a g e G l o b e

and saety, and bargaining rules— are a eature o industrialrelations in a number o ‘EU-

15’ countries, namely Belgium,Finland, France, Italy, Luxem-bourg, the Netherlands, Portu-gal, Spain and Sweden. In somecases, dialogue on these issuesis initiated by the government,and the agreements reachedcan be given legal orce (thusblurring the line between bipar-

tite and tripartite dialogue). Inparticular circumstances, thecross-industry partners in othercountries may take ad hoc jointaction. For example, during therecent economic downturn, thepartners in countries such asAustria, Denmark and Germanymade joint recommendationson changes to short-time work-ing schemes.

In Belgium and the Nether-lands especially, bipartite cross-

industry dialogue is deeplyembedded. Here, national struc-tures bring unions and employ-

ers’ organisations together orongoing debate and to negoti-ate o agreements. They also actas advisory/consultative bodiesto the government. France has adistinctive system whereby thesocial partners, jointly and largelyautonomously, manage impor-tant areas such as social security,

unemployment insurance andvocational training.

A particular orm o highly auton-omous bipartite cross-industrydialogue exists in Denmark andSweden, and to some extentFinland. Here, national socialpartner organisations, ratherthan legislation, set many o theprocedural ‘rules o the game’or collective bargaining andother industrial relations issuesthrough ‘basic agreements’.



Box 5. Recent examples o national bipartitecross-industry agreements

• The social partners represented on Belgium’s bipartiteNational Labour Council reached an agreement in April2009, obliging employers to introduce preventive drugsand alcohol policies. It sets out the principles or such poli-cies and contains rules on matters such as testing employ-ees, inormation, consultation and training.

• Between April and July 2011, French social partner organi-sations signed a series o our agreements on the employ-ment o young people. The accords set out joint actions andcommitments in areas such as promoting access to jobs,

combined work and training schemes, work placementsand housing.• In 2010, the social partners in Spain (as has been their

practice or most o the period since 2002) signed a cross-industry ramework agreement providing guidelines orsector- and company-level bargaining. The main purposeo this three-year agreement is to protect and create jobs.It recommends moderate pay increases and a range o measures to avoid and mitigate job losses, promote open-

ended employment, develop workorce exibility, deal withrestructuring and improve training.

Bipartite agreements on specifcthemes are not widespread in thenew Member States. The prac-

tice has developed in Bulgariaand, with regard to the nationalminimum wage, in Estonia, whilethere are a ew examples in coun-tries such as Cyprus and Latvia.Moreover, the current economiccrisis prompted the frst bipar-tite cross-industry agreement inPoland (see Box 14).

Since the 1990s, the growth o EU-level bipartite cross-industry

social dialogue has contributedto the development o nationalbipartite dialogue in some coun-

tries where it was previouslylargely unknown or limited.The need or the national socialpartners to implement EU-level‘autonomous’ agreements (seeBox 13) has led them, in a mannerthat is largely unprecedented, toengage in bipartite dialogue andreach novel orms o agreement

or other joint approaches incountries such as Cyprus, Latviaand the UK.



Tripartite cross-industry dialogue

A majority o Member States(and almost all those that joinedthe EU in 2004 and 2007) havein place a ormal national insti-tution in which representativeso employers, trade unions andthe government (and some-times other interest groups)can discuss general economic

and social matters. The role andpowers o these bodies varieswidely, but they usually havean advisory and consultativerole on drat legislation andpolicies, especially in employ-ment-related areas, and cansometimes provide a orum orthe negotiation o agreements.In addition, many countriesalso have tripartite bodies thatdeal with specifc issues, suchas social security, employment,training, and health and saety.These can be standalone bod-ies or sub-units o the mainnational tripartite institution.

In the ‘EU-15’ countries, someorm o national economic andsocial orum with social partnerrepresentation exists in Austria,France, Greece, Ireland, Italy,Luxembourg, the Netherlands,Portugal and Spain, while Fin-land has a orum that deals only

with economic issues. In thecase o France, Greece, Ireland,Italy, Portugal and Spain, the

social partners are representedin these bodies alongside civilsociety in general. Luxembourg

and Portugal also have morespecifc national tripartite con-certation bodies. In Belgium, thenational bipartite institutionsplay a consultative role vis-à-visthe government.

The borders between tripar-tite and bipartite dialogue can

be hard to defne exactly. Forexample, in France, the socialpartners have to be consultedby the government on any leg-islative or policy proposals relat-ing to individual and collectiveemployment relations, employ-ment and vocational training.They are given a chance to nego-tiate cross-industry agreementson the issues at stake, and theseprovide a ramework or any pro-posed legislation on the topic inquestion. The government drawsup the agenda or this orm o social dialogue.

Important national tripartiteagreements have been signedduring the past decade onissues such as overall economicand social development, socialwelare, pensions, labour mar-ket/law reorm, training, healthand saety, pensions, minimumwages and responses to the eco-

nomic crisis in the ‘EU-15’ coun-tries such as Ireland, Italy, theNetherlands, Portugal and Spain.



Tripartism is arguably weakest orleast visible in northern Europe.In Denmark, Finland and Swe-

den, there has traditionally beena clear divide between the areaso competence o the social part-ners, and o the public authori-ties. This has meant little scopeor tripartite institutions and akey role or bipartite dialogue.However, there has been someblurring o the dividing line in

recent years and an increas-ing tendency towards tripartitecooperation on particular issuesin Denmark and Finland. Ger-many too has no ormal national

tripartite (or bipartite) institu-tions, but mainly inormal and/orad hoc cooperation between the

government and social partners.The UK has little in the way o national social dialogue.

Among the post-2004 Mem-ber States, tripartite dialogue isgenerally the main or only ormo cross-industry dialogue. Gen-eral economic and social orums

with social partner representa-tion exist in all these countriesexcept Cyprus. In most cases,these are purely tripartite bod-ies without wider civil society

Box 6. Main national tripartite dialogue orumsin the new Member States• Bulgaria — Economic and Social Council (ESC) and National

Council or Tripartite Cooperation (NCTC)• Czech Republic — Council o Economic and Social Agree-

ment (RHSD)• Estonia — Economic and Social Council (SM)• Hungary — Economic and Social Council (GSZT) and

National Interest Reconciliation Council (OÉT) (soon to be

merged as the National Economic and Social Council, NGTT)• Latvia — National Tripartite Cooperation Council (NTSP)• Lithuania — Tripartite Council (LRTT)• Malta — Council or Economic and Social Development

(MCESD)• Poland — Tripartite Commission or Social and Economic

Aairs (TK)• Romania — Economic and Social Council (CES) and National

Tripartite Council or Social Dialogue (CNTDS)

• Slovakia — Economic and Social Council (HSR)• Slovenia — Economic and Social Council (ESSS)



representation, and they havea clear consultative and some-times negotiating role, gener-

ally covering a wide range o issues. Bulgaria and Romania,which have economic and socialorums that include civil soci-ety, have additional national tri-partite social dialogue bodies.Hungary is currently merginga specifc tripartite body witha wider orum also involving

other interests, creating a struc-ture without any governmentrepresentation and with ewerpowers than previously. Despitethe prevalence o tripartite insti-tutions, it seems that the socialpartners commonly complainthat their views expressed duringconsultations are not sucientlytaken account o by government(though this is not restricted tothe new Member States).

With regard to the outcomes o tripartite dialogue in the newMember States, agreementshave been reached, since 2000, in

countries such as Bulgaria, Esto-nia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.These have covered matters suchas: overall economic and socialdevelopment in Bulgaria andSlovenia; dealing with the cur-rent economic crisis in Bulgaria,the Czech Republic, Estonia,

Latvia and Lithuania; minimumwage increases in Romania; andgeneral pay policy in Slovenia.

Sectoral dialogue

Bipartite sectoral social dialogue,

in the orm o regular collec-tive bargaining between tradeunions and employers’ organisa-tions over pay and conditions, isa key eature o industrial rela-tions in many Member States,especially those in continentalwestern Europe.

In the ‘EU-15’ countries, sectoralbargaining covers a high pro-portion o economic sectors inAustria, Belgium, Denmark, Fin-land, France, Germany, Greece,Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal,Spain and Sweden, while it existsin a more limited orm in Ire-land, Luxembourg and the UK.The regular sectoral agreementsreached sometimes set actualpay and conditions or employ-ees in the sector concerned, butmore typically (and increasingly)provide a minimum oor and aramework or subsequent bar-gaining at company level.

In Ireland, Luxembourg andthe UK, collective bargainingis largely decentralised to thecompany level. Decentralisationis also now taking place in manyo the ‘EU-15’ countries withhigh sectoral bargaining cover-age, driven largely by employ-

ers’ wishes or greater exibilityat company level in setting payand conditions. While there are



instances o employers simplywithdrawing rom or ceasingto negotiate sectoral collective

agreements, a more commonapproach has been to retainsectoral bargaining but allowgreater scope or company-levelexibility. This has happenedin countries such as Denmark,Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,Spain and Sweden.

In many o the new MemberStates (where overall bargain-ing coverage is generally lowerthan in the ‘EU-15’), sectoral col-lective bargaining is limited toew industries or non-existent.It is relatively widespread onlyin Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakiaand Slovenia, and also presentto a lesser extent in Cyprus, theCzech Republic, Hungary andPoland. A common eature o industrial relations in the new

Member States is the requentabsence o sectoral bargaining,and o the broader sectoral dia-

logue linked to such bargain-ing, unlike the situation in manyo the ‘EU-15’ countries.

Where sectoral bargainingexists in the new MemberStates, it can be subject tothe same decentralising pres-sures that apply in the ‘EU-15’.

For example, some employ-ers in the Czech Republic andSlovakia have in recent yearswithdrawn rom or ceasednegotiating sectoral agree-ments. On the other hand,sectoral bargaining has spreador started to emerge morerecently in countries such asBulgaria and Estonia.

Collective bargaining aside,bipartite dialogue occurs in at

© 1 2 3 R F



least some sectors in countriessuch as Bulgaria, Hungary, Roma-nia and Slovakia. In a number o

cases, this reects recent eortsthat have been put into build-ing bipartite sectoral dialoguein new Member States, andthe capacity o the (requentlyunder-resourced and sometimesabsent) sectoral social partners.For example, an EU-unded pro-

ject has helped to set up sectoral

social dialogue committees inmany industries in Hungary.

International comparison

On average, nearly two out o three workers in the EU are cov-ered by a collective agreement,compared to nearly one in fvein Japan and one in eight in theUS. While union membershiphas been declining in all theseregions, the dierence in Europeis that unions and employersoten negotiate above the levelo the frm, usually on a sectorallevel, and sometimes even on a

national (cross-sectoral) basis.This allows or the inclusion o a ar greater number o employ-ees, such as those working insmall and medium-sized frmswho would otherwise be unrep-resented. It also helps to explain

the important role o social dia-logue within the EU.

In combining its market-buildingagenda with a social agenda thatincludes emerging transnationalindustrial relations arrange-ments, the EU is ahead o othereconomic powers and regionalintegration organisations, and issometimes seen as an exampleor model or the development

o a regional social dialogue.Although collective bargainingand pay determination — coreissues o industrial relations —remain nationally specifc, theEU promotes social partnershipand cooperation by setting mini-mum standards or employeerepresentation in national andcross-border frms, by consultingEU-level social partners on policyinitiatives and by enabling theirEU-level agreements to be trans-posed into legislation. In respecto other regional organisations,Mercosur, South America’s lead-ing trading bloc, is probably near-

est to the EU in its industrial setup and social policy ambitions,while the role o social dialogue inthe NAFTA (North American FreeTrade Agreement) and ASEAN(Association o Southeast AsianNations) is weaker.



Interview with

the cross-industry social partners

European Social Dialogue really came into its own

with the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. What do youthink are the main achievements o autonomousEuropean social dialogue since then?

PdB: The European social dialogue achieved a lot both beore andater the Amsterdam Treaty. The social partners have been at theoreront o innovation, such as the adoption o a ramework o actions or lielong learning in 2002, and the frst agreement to beimplemented by the social partners themselves: the agreement ontelework. We have also made progress towards a more autonomoussocial dialogue as reected in the adoption o multiannual work pro-grammes since 2003. With these, we are able to structure and con-solidate our dialogue and identiy and act upon the main challengesacing European labour markets, rather than reacting to EuropeanCommission proposals. Finally, let me mention the joint analysis o labour markets in 2007, which was an important document, pavingthe way or the adoption o exicurity principles at EU level.

BS: European bipartite social dialogue was eectively launched in1985 by Jacques Delors, President o the Commission, by bringing to-gether employers and union representatives. The years that ollowedwere a ormative period, with the partners having to get to know, un-derstand and trust each other. The second phase, on the other hand,commencing with the signing o an agreement between the socialpartners on 31 October 1991 (appended to the Maastricht Treatythe same year, and then integrated into the Treaty o Amsterdam in1997), launched the idea o the social partners opening up a nego-

tiated regulatory space — dialogue took on a contractual dimen-sion. Ater three ramework agreements implemented by directives

Philippe de Buck

Director General o BUSINESSEUROPE

Bernadette Ségol

General Secretary o the European Trade Union Conederation (ETUC)



(parental leave, part-time work and fxed-term contracts, between1996 and 1999), the social partners then entered into a new genera-tion o ‘autonomous’ agreements, which are implemented at national

level by the social partners themselves (teleworking, stress at work,harassment/violence at work and inclusive labour markets, between2002 and 2010). To these should be added two rameworks or ac-tion, other ‘tools’ o social dialogue (lielong development o skills andqualifcations, and gender equality; 2002 and 2005) and around sixty

joint reports, recommendations, declarations, opinions and compi-lations o good practice. The act that the social partners have beenable to negotiate dicult matters at European level testifes to thedevelopment, both quantitative and qualitative, o the dialogue since

1985, and more especially since the early 1990s. This evaluation wouldbe incomplete i we did not mention the remarkable development o the sectoral social dialogue, which now includes some orty commit-tees which have produced over six hundred documents — even i thisis less directly connected with the Treaty o Amsterdam.

How do you assess the current situationo autonomous European social dialogue?

PdB: The route taken so ar has not been without bumps and socialdialogue will certainly encounter diculties again. Nevertheless, ithas chalked up around sixty joint initiatives on important issues. Ithas indisputably shown that a constructive relationship has beencreated on which we need to build urther.

The European social dialogue adds value to the national socialdialogues: by putting new issues on the national agenda (e.g. tel-

ework, stress), by providing a ramework or mutual learning or byreinorcing the capacity o social partners, or example ater the en-largement to Eastern and Central European countries in 2004.

Looking orward, with the negotiations on working time, we havethe chance to demonstrate the added value o the European so-cial dialogue — that we can succeed where other orms o decisionmaking ailed. BUSINESSEUROPE has engaged in these negotiationsin good aith with a view to addressing the adverse eects and legal

uncertainty created by several rulings o the European Court o Jus-tice or both employers and employees.



Finally, it is clear that the current debate on the EU macro-economic governance will have repercussions on social dialogueat European as well as at national level.

BS: Though European social dialogue has undeniably made signif-cant progress, the joint (employers and trade unions) evaluation,carried out by Eckhard Voss o Wilke, Maack und Partner in May2011, shows that the European social partners are nonethelessparticularly concerned about ‘recent developments, at both Euro-pean and Member State levels, which undermine the role o so-cial dialogue in governmental policy and decision making … Theyurthermore regret that there is in some countries a serious lack

o acceptance, trust and reliability regarding the dialogue, whichnaturally undermines and prevents appropriate implementationo European social dialogue and particularly o its autonomous ac-tions. The trade unions’ own evaluation, carried out by the Euro-pean Social Observatory (early 2011), was even harsher, noting acertain dissatisaction among workers’ representatives with whatthey perceived to be a real weakening — in terms o both contentand implementation — o the texts adopted in recent years, withinthe ramework o social dialogue.

The act that the socio-economic and political context has changeddoes not explain everything. That said, despite the rustration, thetrade unions still have a strong desire to improve cross-industrysocial dialogue, as was shown by the discussions on the subjectheld at the 12th Congress o the ETUC (European Trade Union Con-ederation) in Athens in May 2011.

The Europe 2020 strategy requires that all theactors play their role i it is to achieve its objectives— Commission, Member States, social partners.What is the contribution that European Social Partners can make to the tripartite governance o the Europe2020 strategy?

PdB: The European social partners have discussed the conditions orgrowth as well as how to improve governance in our joint statement

on the EU2020 strategy.



Employers believe that reorms are more likely to be implementedand to bring positive results to the economy i social partners takeownership o the measures that are put in place. Thereore, we sup-

port a strong involvement o social partners at all levels (European,national, regional and local levels) in the design and in the moni-toring o both European and national reorms strategies.

At the same time, we need to recognise that governments willhave to take their own responsibilities i social dialogue ails. Thisdoes not undermine the autonomy o social partners.

Since the adoption o Europe2020, other important measures have

been taken and new ones might still have to be taken to improvethe EU economic governance and stem the sovereign debt crisis.Personally, I am convinced that social partners have a role to playin a properly unctioning monetary union as long as they agree toreorm the social systems in place in order to make them sustain-able. But it will require a sense o collective responsibility and aclimate o trust and confdence between European employers, theETUC and policy makers.

BS: The ETUC has been disappointed by the implementation o theLisbon strategy. Taking stock ater 10 years makes it clear that ewo the many grand targets set have been achieved. And not all theblame can be laid at the door o the 2008 fnancial crisis. Regret-tably, the Europe 2020 strategy does not suciently address theour actors that will dominate developments in the Union in theoreseeable uture: unemployment; climate change; fscal austerityand population change. Similarly, the strategy contains no innova-

tive thinking about the social dimension and social policy.

How, other than with a blind austerity policy, can the EU addressthe tricky issue o getting out o high levels o public defcit, with-out aggravating the current recession and causing urther increas-es in unemployment and inequality? Within a European context,how should we commit ourselves to quality employment? On 4June 2010, the social partners adopted a joint declaration on thestrategy. They particularly stressed the need to ‘move the Euro-

pean economy orward at the levels o innovation, technology



and productivity. … Social cohesion should also be considered aprerequisite or a dynamic and sustainable economy. … Support-ing new ways o fnancing investment and fghting poverty and

inequality would be criteria or the EU’s success. … Insucientinvestment in continuing education only exacerbates economicproblems. Comprehensive lielong learning strategies are neces-sary. A avourable public environment and access to high-quality,aordable and ecient public services are necessary …’. Althoughsome o these messages are directed at the Member States and/orthe Commission/Parliament, it is clear that the social partners havea partial or global contribution to make to the achievement o other priorities. Implementation o the 2012-14 work programme

should enable the social partners to take responsibility and active-ly participate in achieving the above objectives.

Similarly, the current crisis also requires all actors to pull together in a tripartite approach.What is the challenge or European social dialogueand or social dialogue in Member States in thecurrent crisis?

PdB: The main challenge ahead or the European social dialogueis to ind eective ways to promote employment. Higher employ-ment participation is the answer to many problems we ace. Itbroadens the tax base, thereby contributing to higher tax reve-nues and iscal stability. It provides workers with an income deriv-ing rom their own work instead o being dependent on beneits.It is the only way to ensure the sustainability and adequacy o pensions systems.

The current crisis leaves us no choice: we need to redress publicinances and restore growth simultaneously. Our capacity to growdepends essentially on our ability to undertake structural reorms.Without a consensus on the need to engage in structural reorms,we will have great diiculties to achieve any results in the socialdialogue — European or national.

BS: Unortunately, the current crisis and the orm o economic

governance now imposed, principally by two Member States and



the Commission, are used by others as a pretext or pursuing apolicy o ‘drastic cuts’ which these leaders have been unable orunwilling to pursue at national level. We are witnessing a real chal-

lenge to, and unravelling o, a series o social advances and o the‘European social model’ in general. What is more, the autonomy o the social partners is being seriously undermined at every level.Since the beginning o monetary union, the ETUC has argued thata single European currency and a European central bank neededto be complemented by closer coordination o national (macro)economic, iscal and social policies. The European trade unionmovement is also aware o the seriousness o the crisis: it is imper-ative to go back to balanced budgets. However, the ‘blind’ auster-

ity ‘recommended’ within the EU is only compounding the situa-tion. Everyone knows this austerity is killing o the ragile growthexperienced by some countries, because governance orces Mem-ber States to rig a systematic reduction in demand, and to pursuepolicies o non-cooperation — in other words, dumping. It is nowonder then that the population increasingly reject everythingthat comes out o ‘Brussels’, no wonder that populism is on therise, nationalism is making a comeback.

There is an urgent need or the social partners to deend a ‘dier-ent Europe’ on all ronts. European construction must again be-come synonymous with progress and hope. And in this contextmore than ever, social dialogue must be not only a key elementand pillar o the European Social Model, but also a vector o in-novation and implementation o reorm.

What could be the uture o the European social

dialogue?

PdB: The social dialogue is a central element o our social systems.One o the key ingredients or us to achieve results will derive romour capacity to agree on priorities and on a realistic while ambitiousapproach.

The priority now is clearly to contribute to growth and jobs in

order to reduce unemployment. I the European social partners



agree on necessary economic and social reorms, I have no doubtthat social partnership will remain at the heart o the decisionmaking process.

BS: European social dialogue is now in its mature phase; it isthereore necessary to opt or an even more qualitative approach.

In the short term, negotiation o the European social partners’ 4th‘autonomous work programme’ (2012-2014) must bring about last-ing solutions to the real problems aced by workers and citizens.The priority must be employment, especially that o young people.The Union now has over fve million jobless young people; their

unemployment rate is twice that o other adults. Europe cannotsacrifce a generation. Strengthening European social dialogue isundoubtedly the best way o fnding the right balance betweenthe challenges acing the European labour market at a quantitativelevel — more jobs — and qualitative level — better jobs. Lielongdevelopment o skills and qualifcations is another topic the ETUCplans to put orward or the work programme. Another challengeis the renegotiation o the Working Time Directive, ater the break-down o fve years o negotiations between the Council and theParliament.

In the medium term, it will be necessary to clariy the ‘rights andobligations’ associated with each tool o the dialogue rom thepoint o view o its implementation, monitoring and evaluation.Transposition o ‘autonomous’ agreements by negotiations can-not lead to the creation o a two (or more) speed Europe. A high-quality social dialogue will also happen through greater synergies

between its various levels — cross-industry, sectoral, business;these levels need to be articulated and coordinated better. Thereis still a need or urther joint capacity-building across a range o Member States. Finally, with regard to monetary union, and rapidlydeveloping economic governance, it is vital that the approach beconsistent with the social and environmental dimensions. Actionmust be taken within a common European ramework, and Euro-pean social dialogue must be strengthened in order to develop aEuropean tool which does not simply ape the respective national

systems, but which tackles the challenges posed by the process



o European integration. In this regard, it is appropriate inter alia to improve the ormat, the composition and the preparation o the Tripartite Social Summit, in order to strengthen its role in eco-

nomic governance; the same applies to the macro-economic dia-logue. In conclusion: the social partners must raise the standardo their dialogue to meet the challenges — unprecedented sincethe Second World War — aced by the EU i they want Europe toexit this crisis with its head held high, and not dragging its eet asis now the case.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-dialogue-eu 34/11232 © 123RF



1952-1984: The early years

The frst European Communitywas the European Coal and SteelCommunity (ECSC), establishedin 1952 by six countries. Social

dialogue was built into the ECSCthrough a Consultative Com-mittee, made up o representa-tives o coal and steel producers,workers, consumers and dealers.

When, in 1958, the six ound-ing Member States proceededto set up a more wide-rangingEuropean Economic Commu-nity (EEC), they again enshrinedsocial dialogue through anadvisory Economic and SocialCommittee, consisting o rep-resentatives o the various cat-egories o economic and socialactivity. The Committee, today

known as the European Eco-nomic and Social Committee,continues to act as an importantsocial dialogue orum. Its mem-bers are divided into groups rep-resenting employers, employeesand ‘various interests’. Membersare representatives o nationaltrade unions, employers’ associa-

tions and other interest organi-sations, nominated by nationalgovernments.

Soon ater the ECSC was estab-lished, it set about developinga common mining policy, lead-ing to the ormation o a specifc

joint advisory committee, rep-resenting the mining industry’s

employers and workers. Aterthe EEC was ormed, commonpolicies were drawn up duringthe 1960s and 1970s or agricul-ture, fsheries and various modeso transport. The European Com-mission created joint commit-tees in these sectors to advise onsocial and employment aspectso these policies.

Forms o EU-level cross-industrydialogue started to emerge in1970, and were essentially o atripartite nature (see Box 4).

1985-1992: The birth of

bipartite cross-industrydialogue

While cross-industry dialogueduring the 1970s was largelytripartite, in the early 1980s theidea o promoting more bipar-tite dialogue between the socialpartners started to develop in

the Community institutions. Itsaim was to respond to the eco-nomic recession o the time, and

Chapter 2

A brief institutional history

of EU-level social dialogue



to reach European-level agree-ments addressing the social andeconomic issues arising in the

context o the European internalmarket. (The internal market pro-gramme was launched in 1985.)

The Commission met repre-sentatives o the cross-industrysocial partners (ETUC, CEEP andUNICE, which later became Busi-nessEurope) in January 1985 at

Val Duchesse, a castle outsideBrussels, to discuss the economicand social situation. At a secondmeeting in November 1985, theparties set up two working par-ties, composed o social part-ner representatives and chairedby the Commission, to discussgrowth, employment and invest-ment, and the role o socialdialogue in introducing newtechnologies.

Discussions in the macroeco-nomics working party led to thecross-industry partners agreeinga joint opinion on the Commis-

sion’s ‘cooperative growth strat-egy’ in November 1986. This wasthe frst ormal joint text to mate-rialise rom the Val Duchessedialogue, and was ollowed byurther joint opinions on macro-economic and new technologyissues in 1987.

In 1987, the Single European Actcame into orce, amending theEEC Treaty and giving EU-level

social dialogue its frst Treatyrecognition. Article 118(b) o the amended Treaty obliged the

Commission to ‘endeavour todevelop the dialogue betweenmanagement and labour at Euro-pean level which could, i the twosides consider it desirable, lead torelations based on agreement’.

With the new Treaty in place,and the single market moving

towards completion (accompa-nied by increasing pressure tocreate a genuine social dimen-sion), the Val Duchesse dialoguewas strengthened in 1989. It wasgiven a more ormal structurewith the establishment o a steer-ing committee, while workinggroups were set up to discusseducation/training and the emer-gence o a European labour mar-ket. These groups agreed various

joint opinions over 1990-1993.

At sector level, the 1985-1992period saw new joint committeesestablished in sectors aected by

Community policies such as civilaviation and telecommunications.The Commission also began topromote a new type o sectoral dia-logue, and set up inormal work-ing parties in areas such as sugar,commerce and insurance, which insome cases agreed joint texts.

In October 1991, the cross-industry social partners reachedtheir frst agreement — a joint



contribution on the role o socialdialogue, addressed to the Inter-governmental Conerence that

was preparing the Treaty onEuropean Union (TEU), signedin Maastricht in 1992. The agree-ment called or a much strongerrole or the social partners inormulating and implementingCommunity social and employ-ment policy, and proposeda specifc consultation and

negotiation procedure or them.The partners’ agreement wasincorporated almost unchanged

into the Protocol and Agree-ment on Social Policy appendedto the TEU (see Box 7), whichenabled 11 o the 12 MemberStates at the time to adopt newemployment and social leg-islation that excluded the UK,which had ‘opted out’ o this newmechanism.

Box 7. Social dialogue in the 1992 Agreement on Social Policy (ASP)

Article 3 o the ASP gave the Commission the task o promot-ing the consultation o management and labour at Commu-nity level and taking ‘any relevant measure to acilitate theirdialogue by ensuring balanced support or the parties’. Beore

submitting proposals in the social policy feld, the Commis-sion was to consult management and labour on the possibledirection o Community action. I, ater this consultation, theCommission considered Community action advisable, it was toconsult management and labour on the content o the envis-aged proposal. Management and labour were to orward to theCommission an opinion or, where appropriate, a recommenda-tion, and could inorm the Commission o their wish to initiatea negotiating process. The negotiations could not exceed nine

months, unless the ‘management and labour concerned’ andthe Commission decided jointly to extend this period.

Article 4 o the ASP stated that, should management andlabour so desire, their Community-level dialogue could leadto ‘contractual relations, including agreements’. Community-level agreements would be implemented either ‘in accordancewith the procedures and practices specifc to managementand labour and the Member States’ or, in matters covered by

the ASP and at the joint request o the signatory parties, by a‘Council decision’ on a proposal rom the Commission.



1993-2000: Twin-tracksocial dialogue begins

The Maastricht Treaty and ASPcame into orce in November1993, giving the European-levelsocial partners a stronger rolein raming and applying Com-munity social policy, and greaterlegitimacy through their newright to be consulted on pro-posed Community action.

To adapt their dialogue to thenew institutional ramework, thecross-industry partners created aSocial Dialogue Committee to actas the main central body or dis-cussions, adoption o joint textsand planning. In 1993, the Euro-pean Commission also adoptedadditional ormal procedures,deciding on which social part-ner organisations to involve, andestablishing the practical aspectso Treaty-based consultations andnegotiations (see p. 47).

Once the Maastricht Treaty and

ASP were in orce, cross-indus-try dialogue took two distinctcourses. On the one hand, thesocial partners ollowed theirown autonomous agenda; onthe other, consultations basedon the Commission’s legislativeagenda shaped much o thepartners’ dialogue.

With regard to autonomous dia-logue, the cross-industry part-

ners continued to agree jointopinions on aspects o Commu-nity employment and economic

policy. They also signed addi-tional ‘ree-standing’ joint textssuch as a declaration on theemployment o people with dis-abilities in 1999.

As or the second orm o dia-logue, the Commission consultedthe cross-industry partners on

numerous issues where it wasconsidering Community actionover the 1993-2000 period. Twoo these consultations led to thepartners negotiating and signingEuropean ramework agreements.Consultations on the reconcili-ation o proessional and amilylie resulted in an agreement onparental leave in December 1995— the frst substantive accordsigned by the cross-industry part-ners. Consultations on exibilityin working time and workers’security led to two agreements:in June 1997 on part-time work and in March 1999 on fxed-term

work. In all three cases, the socialpartners requested the Commis-sion to submit the agreements tothe Council or a decision to maketheir requirements binding in theMember States, and the Com-mission proposed directives thatwere adopted by the Council.

Turning to sectoral social dia-logue, the entry into orce o theASP meant that the Commission



began to ormally consult socialpartners, which it had identifedas representative in particular

industries, on planned actionin the employment and socialfeld. Consultations led in somecases to negotiations among thesocial partners on sector-specifcissues. For example, agreementson working time were reached inthe sea transport and civil avia-tion joint committees which, at

the partners’ request, were imple-mented by Council directives.

The 1990s saw the creation o several new sectoral joint com-mittees and inormal workingparties. However, the Commis-sion was dissatisfed with theeectiveness o the patchwork o joint committees and work-ing parties that had grown upsince the 1950s. It concluded in1998 that a more harmonised

approach was needed, to ensurea more equitable treatment o the various sectors and to enable

all sectors to contribute eec-tively to the development o therelevant Community policies. Itthereore decided to replace allexisting sectoral structures withnew sectoral social dialoguecommittees (see Box 8).

An important institutional

change occurred in 1999, whenthe Treaty o Amsterdam cameinto orce, amending the exist-ing treaties. The UK had decidedto reverse its earlier social policy‘opt-out’, thereby restoring uni-fed Community decision-mak-ing on social and employmentpolicy. The Amsterdam Treatyincorporated the ASP into theTreaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity (TEC), as Articles 138and 139.

©

I m a g e G l o b e



Box 8. The 1998 reorm o sectoral social dialogue

In a Decision issued in May 1998, the European Commissionreplaced existing sectoral dialogue structures with sectoralsocial dialogue committees (SSDCs), with eect rom 1999.SSDCs can be set up in sectors where the social partners

jointly request dialogue at European level, and where employ-ers’ and workers’ organisations:• relate to specifc sectors or categories and are organised at

European level;

• consist o organisations that are themselves an ‘integral andrecognised part o Member States’ social partner structures’,have the capacity to negotiate agreements and are repre-sentative o several Member States; and

• have adequate structures to ensure their ‘eective partici-pation’ in the committees’ work.

SSDCs are consulted in a timely and substantial way on devel-opments at Community level with social implications or their

sectors, and also have the task o developing and promotingsocial dialogue. They are composed o equal numbers o rep-resentatives o employers and workers, invited by the Com-mission on the basis o a proposal rom the social partnersthat requested the SSDC’s creation. SSDCs must meet at leastonce a year, and the Commission provides secretarial servicesand technical back-up or meetings.

Initially 21 SSDCs were created in 1999, in industries ormerlycovered by joint committees and working parties. Since 1999,the number o SSDCs has grown by an average o around twoa year, and in 2011 there were 40 committees (see Annex 1).They cover industries that employ some 145 million workers,three-quarters o the EU workorce.



Since 2001: Greater socialpartner autonomy

The cross-industry social part-ners (which now include UEAPMEand CEC/Eurocadres) announcedin 2001 (in a joint contributionto a European Council held inLaeken) that they wanted toreposition their dialogue totake account o challenges suchas EU enlargement, debate on

Europe’s uture governance andthe introduction o the singlecurrency. The partners decidedto make their bipartite dialogue(whether or not triggered by o-cial consultations) better organ-ised and more autonomous, andbase it on a work programmethat, while drawn up and imple-mented independently, wouldcontribute to the EU growth andemployment strategy and toenlargement.

The partners’ more autonomousapproach was expressed in2002 in a new type o joint text,

a ‘ramework o actions’ or thelielong development o compe-tencies and qualifcations. Thisestablished priorities, guide-lines and proposed actions, tobe promoted at national levelby the member organisationso the signatories (see p. 68).Furthermore, ollowing consul-

tations by the Commission, thesocial partners signed a rame-work agreement on teleworking

in July 2002. In contrast to ear-lier cross-industry agreements,the partners did not ask or the

teleworking agreement to beimplemented by a directive.Instead, the agreement was tobe implemented by the signa-tories’ national member organi-sations, ‘in accordance with theprocedures and practices spe-cifc to management and labourin the Member States’.

The frst cross-industry multi-

annual work programme agreed by the social partnerscovered the 2003-2005 period.It had three priorities — employ-ment, mobility and enlargement— and contained a mixtureo proposed instruments andactivities, mostly initiated auton-omously, but in some casesinstigated at least partly by Com-mission consultations. The work programme led to a 2004 rame-work agreement on work-relatedstress, which was implementedby the signatories’ national mem-

bers, and to a second ramework o actions on gender equality,in 2005.

The cross-industry partnerssubsequently agreed work pro-grammes or 2006-2008 and2009-2010. The 2006-2008 pro-gramme led to an agreement

on harassment and violence atwork in 2007, which was imple-mented ‘in accordance with the



procedures and practices spe-cifc to management and labour’,as well as a 2007 joint analysis o

European labour market chal-lenges. The most signifcantoutput o the 2009-2010 pro-gramme was an agreement oninclusive labour markets, againimplemented by the signatories’national member organisations.

Alongside the autonomous work

o the cross-industry social part-ners, their dialogue continued tobe strongly inuenced by Com-mission consultations. Whilemany consultations did not pro-duce negotiations, several did so.As well as the 2010 agreement oninclusive labour markets (basedin part on earlier consultations),the main outcome was a rame-work agreement reached in2009 to amend the 1995 accord

on parental leave. The revisedagreement was implemented bya directive.

The social partners also devel-oped a new way o jointlyinuencing EU legislation.In 2004-2005, the Commis-sion consulted on measures toenhance the eectiveness o EWCs, including possible revi-sion o the 1994 Directive. The

cross-industry partners did notseek to negotiate an agree-ment. In 2008, the Commissionproposed a ‘recast’ version o the Directive. At this stage, thesocial partners agreed a ‘jointadvice’, suggesting amend-ments to the Commission’s text.The Council and Parliamentaccepted most o these sug-gestions in the recast Directiveadopted in 2009.

Box 9. The social dialogue and EU enlargement

The EU grew rom six Member States to nine in 1973, 10

in 1981, 12 in 1986 and 15 in 1995. These enlargementsinvolved western European countries that were airlyhomogeneous in some important aspects o their socialdialogue arrangements. For example, most had: independ-ent and relatively representative social partner organisa-tions; a collective bargaining system with a high degree o coverage, usually based on sector-level agreements; and arange o bipartite and/or tripartite consultative arrange-

ments at various levels. When these countries joined theEU, their social partners were able to take their place in



European-level dialogue with little diiculty, and play theirrole in implementing the employment and social ‘acquis

communautaire’ (see p. 14) at national level.The enlargement o the EU in 2004 and 2007 to include12 new Member States to the south and east — Bulgaria, theCzech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary,Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia — involvedchallenges. Given their histories, many o these countrieshad relatively weak social partner organisations, little tradi-tion o independent bipartite dialogue and bargaining, and

low bargaining coverage, especially with regard to sectoralagreements. This presented problems or implementing theacquis communautaire and participating in EU-level socialdialogue. In the run-up to accession, the European Com-mission thereore ran a number o projects providing fnan-cial and technical assistance aimed at strengthening socialdialogue at cross-industry and sectoral levels, encouragingthe development o independent and representative socialpartner organisations, and building their capacity to act.

For their part, the EU-level cross-industry social partners alsoprovided support, advice and encouragement or social part-ner capacity-building and the development o social dialoguein the new Member States. In many sectors, the EU-level part-ners took similar initiatives and made eorts to engage therelevant national organisations rom the new Member Statesin their dialogue.

Today, the new Member States generally have stronger social

dialogue arrangements than beore enlargement, thoughnot uniormly so. The EU-level social partner organisationsat cross-industry and sectoral levels have all integrated ali-ates rom the new Member States. Almost all sectoral socialdialogue committees include representatives rom new Mem-ber States, though the extent varies considerably. While parto this variation reects the relative importance o particularsectors in the new Member States, it may in some sectors alsoarise rom diculties in identiying social partner organisa-tions in these countries.



Besides responding to legisla-tive consultations by the Com-mission, the cross-industry

partners also made a numbero joint contributions to widerEU debates over the 2001-2011period, such as on treatychanges, and employment andeconomic policy.

This period saw no basic insti-tutional change in the structure

o the sectoral social dialogue,apart rom the consolidationand spread o the SSDCs (seeBox 8). Several agreements werereached in response to ormalCommission consultations andimplemented, at the signatories’request, by Council directives(see p. 53). A number o othersectoral agreements, usuallynegotiated ollowing Commis-sion consultations on relatedthemes, were implemented bythe signatories’ national memberorganisations (see Box 12).

The consultative role o the

SSDCs was strengthened in2009, when the Commissionintroduced new guidelines or

the impact assessments that itconducts or all its initiatives.The relevant SSDC must now be

consulted on these assessmentswhen the initiative in questionhas social implications or itsindustry.

The Lisbon Treaty came intoorce in December 2009,amending the TEU and replac-ing the TEC with the Treaty on

the Functioning o the Euro-pean Union (TFEU). In terms o social dialogue, the provisionson social partner consultationsand negotiations (ormerly con-tained in Articles 138 and 139o the TEC) have been retainedvirtually unchanged in the TFEU,in Articles 154 and 155 (whichare examined in detail onpp. 45-54). The main change isthat the TFEU contains a newArticle 152, stating that theUnion ‘recognises and promotesthe role o the social partnersat its level, taking into accountthe diversity o national systems’

and ‘shall acilitate dialoguebetween the social partners,respecting their autonomy’.



Message from the EESCStaan Nilsson

President o the European Economic and Social Committee

Social dialogue is the social partners’ raison d’être and is also, there-ore, a pivotal element o the EESC’s work and that o many nationaleconomic and social councils, and similar structures in the EU’s Mem-ber States. Social dialogue may not be as ascinating as the dailyarguments between ‘real’ politicians, and certainly does not get asmuch media attention. However, in some ways social dialogue is a

more interesting kind o politics, since social partners, oten startingrom very dierent positions, always have to come to some sort o agreement in the end. It is never a case o ‘the winner takes it all’. Inact, social dialogue is the very basis o our European societies. With-out it there can be no economic and social progress or stability. It isthrough social dialogue that the demands o workers are reconciledwith those o employers and other economic interests, hopeullybenefting all o us.

In times o crisis, thereore, social partners and all civil society play-ers must also be part o reorm processes. The EU Treaty obliges allEU institutions to engage in structured dialogue with civil society.The EESC, with more than hal a century o experience in consensus-building, is well prepared or the challenge and ready to help. Wechampion the view that properly designed social and labour mar-ket policies — which always involve social dialogue — are a positiveorce, not only in terms o social justice, but also in terms o overall

economic perormance. Only with social partners and civil society onboard can the Europe 2020 strategy deliver concrete results and abetter lie to all Europeans.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-dialogue-eu 46/11244 © 123RF



Chapter 3

How EU-level social dialogue worksEU-level social dialogue, atboth cross-industry and sec-tor levels, has two main ele-ments — action in response toconsultations by the EuropeanCommission, and independent

work on issues identiied bythe social partners themselves

(though these may be designedto eed into EU debate and pol-icy). Treaty-based consultationsby the Commission are com-mon to both the cross-industryand sector dialogue, and we

look irst at the mechanics o this process.

Consultation and negotiation procedure under Articles 154 and 155

Social Partners

OpinionsNegotiations

max. 9 months

max. 9 months

success

success

failure

failure

request

Autonomous agreement:Implementation by national social

partners in all Member States

Assessment

Legislative proposal

(with agreement in annex)

Legislative proposal

Second consultation

on the content of the

envisaged proposal

Discussion,

amendments and

adoption as EU law

Adoption as EU law(or rejection)Council only

First consultation on

the possible direction

of Community action

Agreement

OpinionsNegotiations

Commission Council / Parliament

2 possibilities forimplementation2 possibilities forimplementation

ChoiceChoice

ChoiceChoice



Consultation on socialpolicy proposals

On the basis o Article 154 o theTFEU, beore submitting propos-als in the social and employmentpolicy feld, the Commission isrequired to consult manage-ment and labour on the possibledirection o Union action. Thesocial partner organisations thatit consults are those that:• are cross-industry, or relate to

specifc sectors or categories,and are organised at Europeanlevel;

• consist o organisations thatare themselves ‘an integral andrecognised part o MemberStates’ social partner struc-tures’, have the capacity tonegotiate agreements and arerepresentative o all MemberStates, as ar as possible; and

• have ‘adequate structures’to ensure their eective par-ticipation in the consultationprocess.

The Commission maintains andupdates a list o organisations con-sidered to meet these criteria orconsultation. The current list (repro-duced in Annex 1) consists o:• three general cross-industry

organisations (BusinessEurope,CEEP and the ETUC);

• three cross-industry organisations

representing certain categorieso workers or undertakings (Euro-cadres, UEAPME and CEC);

• one ‘specifc organisation’(Eurochambres — the Euro-pean Association o Chambers

o Commerce and Industry);• 62 sectoral organisations rep-

resenting employers; and• 17 sectoral European trade

union organisations.

These organisations have sixweeks to respond to the initialconsultation, which normally

describes the issues concernedand raises general questionsabout possible action. The Com-mission asks the social partnersor their views on both the sub-stantive matter and whetherUnion action is required (andi so, what sort o action), andenquires whether they mightconsider initiating a dialogue.

I, ater this frst consultation,the Commission considers EUaction advisable, it consults thesocial partner organisations onits list a second time, this timeon the content o the envisaged

proposal. Again the social part-ners have six weeks to respond.The second-stage consultationdocument typically summarisesresponses to the initial consulta-tion and sets out more concreteoptions or EU action. It asks thepartners or their views on theoptions and whether they are

willing to enter into negotia-tions on all or some o the issuesraised. The social partners can, in



response, send the Commissionan opinion or recommendationon the issues raised.

In response to either a frst- orsecond-stage consultation, thesocial partners can decide jointlyto launch EU-level negotiationson the issue in question.

Treaty-based negotiations

between the social partnersArticle 155 o the TFEU stipu-lates that dialogue betweenmanagement and labour at EUlevel may, i they so wish, lead to‘contractual relations’, includingagreements.

I the social partners decideto negotiate ollowing a con-sultation by the Commissionon a proposal or EU actionin the social policy ield, theymust inorm the Commission,which then temporarily sus-pends work on the proposal.The partners then have nine

months to reach an agreement,unless they agree jointly withthe Commission to extend thisperiod. I the negotiations arisepurely on the social partners’own initiative, there is no suchdeadline or their talks.

Where the social partners reach

an EU-level agreement, theyhave two options or implement-ing the agreement:

• in all cases, the partners candecide to implement theaccord ‘in accordance with

the procedures and prac-tices specifc to managementand labour and the MemberStates’ — in other words, theagreement will be imple-mented by the signatories’national member organisa-tions, in ways consistent withthe industrial relations sys-

tems in each Member State; or• where the agreement deals

with employment/social mat-ters which all within the EU’scompetence, the social part-ners have the option o askingthe Commission to propose adecision (in practice, a direc-tive) to be adopted by theCouncil, giving the agreementlegal orce across the EU.

Where the social partners ask theCommission to propose a direc-tive to the Council to implementan agreement reached ollowingArticle 154 consultations, the

Commission frst conducts anassessment. It checks the repre-sentative status o the signatoryorganisations, their mandate andthe legality o the agreement’scontent in relation to EU law, aswell as the provisions regardingSMEs. (The Treaty provides thatemployment legislation must

avoid imposing administrative,fnancial and legal constraintsthat would hamper the creation



and development o SMEs.) Onlyi it is satisfed does the Commis-sion drat a directive. The direc-

tive makes the agreement inquestion legally binding acrossthe EU and the agreement isattached as an annex. The Coun-cil decides only whether or notto adopt the directive; it does nothave the opportunity to amendthe agreement’s provisions.Adoption o the directive means

that the Commission halts work on its proposal in the specifcareas covered by the agreement.

Where the social partners reachan agreement ollowing Article154 consultations, and decideto implement it in accordancewith the procedures and prac-tices speciic to managementand labour and the MemberStates, the Commission con-ducts an assessment in thesame way as or agreementsthat are to be implementedby a directive. While the Com-mission will halt work on the

speciic issues dealt with, italso monitors the EU-wideimplementation o the agree-ment, evaluating the extent towhich it contributes to achiev-ing the Union’s objectives. I the Commission decides thatthe agreement does not meetthese objectives, it can at any

time resume work on the issuein question and, i necessary,propose legislation.

As to the choice between imple-mentation by a directive or bythe signatories’ themselves o

EU-level agreements, reachedollowing ormal consulta-tions, the general rule is thatpreerence should be given toimplementation by a directivewhen agreements deal withundamental rights or impor-tant political issues, or whereit is important that rules must

be applied uniormly and com-pletely across the EU, or wherethe aim is to amend an existingdirective.

Functioning of cross-industry social dialogue

The main orum or bipartitecross-industry dialogue is theSocial Dialogue Committee(SDC). Established in 1992, theSDC is made up o 32 representa-tives o trade unions (ETUC, withEurocadres and CEC as part o itsdelegation) and 32 representa-tives o employers (Business-

Europe, CEEP and UEAPME),and is chaired by the EuropeanCommission. It normally meetsthree times a year and may setup working groups to deal withspecifc issues.

In the case o an Article 154 con-sultation, where one or more o

the partners is in avour o nego-tiating on the issue in question,they usually sound out the other



partners about the easibility o talks. When the partners decideto negotiate, the trade union and

employer sides draw up theirrespective mandates, which mustbe approved by the decision-making bodies o each o the EU-level social partner organisationsconcerned. The two sides thenappoint negotiating teams, andnegotiations start, presided overby an independent mediator. The

negotiations must be completedwithin nine months, unless thepartners agree an extension withthe Commission.

The cross-industry partners’autonomous dialogue takes anumber o orms, including:• drawing up autonomous work

programmes (over the 2003-2010 period, the partners’

joint activities were based ona series o three multi-yearprogrammes; a ourth, cover-ing the 2012-2014 period, is

expected to be adopted in thefrst quarter o 2012);

• identiying themes or autono-

mous negotiations, and thenholding talks that can resultin agreements or other jointcommitments, such as rame-works o actions;

• discussing the employmentand social implications o EUpolices and strategies, andoten drawing up joint opin-

ions, statements and similartexts, addressed to the EUinstitutions;

• conducting joint transnationalprojects to promote exchangeo views and best practice, re-quently resulting in the jointpublication o guides and simi-lar documents;

• holding joint seminars andconerences;

• ollowing up the implementa-tion at national level o earlieragreements and rameworkso actions.

Box 10. The Tripartite Social Summit

The Tripartite Social Summit or Growth and Employment wasormally established by a Council Decision (2003/174/EC) in2003, and was recognised and given the role o contributingto social dialogue by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Its role is toensure continuous dialogue between the Council, the Euro-pean Commission and the EU-level social partners, enablingthe latter to contribute to the various components o the EU’s

integrated economic and social strategy, including its sustain-able development dimension. The Summit draws on the work



o the various specialised tripartite concertation orums oneconomic, social and employment matters (see Box 4).

The Summit brings together high-level representatives o thecurrent Council Presidency and two subsequent Presidencies(including ministers responsible or labour and social aairs,plus other ministers depending on the agenda), the Commis-sion and the social partners. Workers and employers are eachrepresented by a 10-member delegation (with a balancedparticipation between men and women) made up o repre-sentatives o EU-level cross-industry social partner organisa-

tions. The workers’ delegation is coordinated by the ETUC andthe employers’ delegation by BusinessEurope, both ensuringthat specifc and sectoral organisations have their views ullytaken into account and, where appropriate, have representa-tives included in the delegations.

The Summit’s agenda is determined jointly by the CouncilPresidency, the Commission and cross-industry social part-ners. The topics on the agenda are also discussed by theEmployment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer AairsCouncil.

The Summit has met twice a year since its inception in 2003.It is chaired jointly by the Presidents o the European Council,the Council o the EU and the Commission.

The Summit has allowed the social partners to make an inputinto the EU’s Lisbon Strategy or Growth and Jobs, and laterthe Europe 2020 Strategy. For example, they presented their

cross-industry agreement on inclusive labour markets (seep. 64) to the Summit in March 2010 as a contribution toEurope 2020’s inclusive growth agenda, and a joint analysis o key challenges acing European labour markets to the Octo-ber 2007 Summit as an input to the EU debate on exicurity.During the economic crisis, the Summit has, in particular, pro-vided a orum or the social partners to give their views onhow to deal with the crisis and its employment implications,and return to growth.



© I m a g e G l o b e

Functioning of sectoralsocial dialogue

The recognised sectoral socialpartners are consulted by theEuropean Commission on socialand employment policy pro-posals, in the same way as thecross-industry partners (underthe procedure laid down inArticle 154 o the TFEU). Wherethe issue under consideration

is speciic to one sector, or hasparticular implications in asector, the sectoral social part-ners may decide to negotiatea European-level agreementon the matter. Agreementsreached can be implementedby the national members o the signatory organisations or,at the signatories’ request, bymeans o a directive.

While SSDCs may provide theorum or negotiations basedon Article 154 consultations, it

is the individual social partnerorganisations, rather than theSSDCs, that the Commissionconsults under this procedure.The SSDCs have their own spe-ciic consultative role relatingto EU-level developments inields other than social policy,which have social implications

in their sector. The variousEuropean Commission depart-ments are required to veriywhether proposed initiativeswill have social implicationsor any sectors, and i so toconsult the relevant SSDC. Forexample, when drawing up themandatory impact assessmentsthat precede its legislative ini-tiatives, the Commission must



consult SSDCs in the indus-tries concerned, analysing theissue in question, the policy

options and their potentialsocial and employment impact.In response, SSDCs can, andrelatively oten do, agree jointopinions, positions or state-ments as a contribution to theCommission’s policy-making.

Only part o the work o the

SSDCs is driven by EuropeanCommission consultations. Their

role also includes developingand promoting an autonomousbipartite social dialogue in their

sector. SSDCs draw up theirown rules o procedure, and inmost cases produce work pro-grammes that guide their activi-ties or a period o one or severalyears. These programmes usu-ally identiy a number o keythemes or work over the periodin question, which are typically

handled by ad hoc or perma-nent working parties. The social

Social dialogue texts

Agreements

establishingstandards (Article

155(2) TFEU)

Framework

agreements ImplementationAutonomousagreements

Recommendationson standards

and principles(process-oriented

texts)

Frameworks o action

Follow-up atnational level

Guidelines and codeso conduct

Policy orientations

Exchange o inormation

Joint opinions

Inormationdiusion

Declarations

Tools



partners may conduct or com-mission research on the themesin question, hold conerences

and seminars, exchange bestpractice and conduct other

joint project work, oten with adegree o unding under Com-mission social dialogue budg-ets. In some cases, this leads tothe signing o an agreement orother joint text.

Instruments

The joint texts, or ‘instruments’,agreed by the social partnerstake a variety o orms, depend-ing on the origin o the initia-tive, the issue in question, andthe objectives and capacity o the signatories. They can bebroadly classiied as ollows:• agreements;• ‘process-oriented’ texts;• joint opinions and tools;• procedural texts.

Agreements

EU-level agreements establishminimum standards to applyacross the EU and lay downcertain commitments to beimplemented by a deadline. Asexplained on p. 45, they can betriggered by ormal consulta-tions o the social partners underArticle 154 o the TFEU, or result

rom negotiations launchedon the initiative o the socialpartners. Agreements can be

implemented in one o the twoways, as set out in Article 155:• by a Council directive pro-

posed by the European Com-mission, at the joint requesto the signatories, whichmakes the agreement legallybinding across the EU; or

• in accordance with the proce-

dures and practices speciicto management and labourand the Member States — inother words, by the nationalmember organisations o thesignatories.

Responsibility or ensuring thetransposition o agreementsimplemented by a directivelies with the Member States,and responsibility or monitor-ing implementation lies pri-marily with the Commission.By contrast, responsibility orimplementing ‘autonomous’agreements and monitoring

their implementation lies withthe social partners. However,especially where such agree-ments were negotiated ollow-ing Article 154 consultations,the signatories are obliged toimplement them and exertinluence on their memberorganisations to do so.



Process-oriented texts

Some joint texts signed by

the social partners provideor implementation, as agree-ments do, but are implementedin a more incremental andprocess-oriented way. Thesetexts set out recommendationsrom the EU-level partners totheir members or ollow-up,and speciy regular evaluation

o the progress made towardsachieving their objectives. Pro-cess-oriented texts all into theollowing categories:• Frameworks of action iden-

tiy policy priorities, towardswhich the national memberorganisations o the signato-ries make a commitment towork. These priorities act asbenchmarks, and the socialpartners report regularly onthe action taken to ollowthem up.

• Guidelines and codes of

conduct set out recom-mendations and/or pro-

vide guidelines rom thesignatories to national mem-ber organisations concerningthe establishment o stand-ards or principles.

• Policy orientations are texts inwhich the signatories take anactive approach to promot-ing particular policies among

their members, explaininghow this should be done (or

example, through the collec-tion and exchange o goodpractices, or awareness-rais-

ing activities) and setting outhow the social partners willassess the ollow-up and itsimpact.

Joint opinions and tools

Some joint texts essentiallycontribute to the provision or

exchange o inormation, eitherupwards rom the social part-ners to the EU institutions and/or national public authorities,or downwards, by explainingthe implications o EU policiesto the social partners’ nationalmembers. These instrumentsdo not entail any implementa-tion, monitoring or ollow-up.They all into three types:• Joint opinions (and state-

ments) generally intend toprovide input to the EU insti-tutions and/or national publicauthorities. These texts can:respond to an EU consulta-

tion (such as Green or WhitePapers and consultation doc-uments); express a joint posi-tion on a specifc EU policy; orask the Commission to take aparticular stance or action.

• Declarations are usuallydirected at the social partnersthemselves, outlining uture

work and activities whichthey intend to undertake.



• Tools developed by thesocial partners, oten withthe assistance o EU grants,

include guides and manualsproviding practical advice toemployees and companies,or example explaining theimplications o EU legislationon particular topics, or pro-moting exchanges o goodpractice.

Procedural texts

The social partners have also

signed a number o joints textsthat do not have any substan-tive content but lay down therules or their bipartite dialogue.Most texts o this type are therules o procedure agreed bythe partners or the sectoralsocial dialogue committees.



Voice from the European ParliamentThomas Mann

Member o the European Parliament (EPP)

As an MEP, what is your view o European social dialogue as a bipartite autonomous process?

I am a strong supporter o the social dialogue! These regular meet-ings between the representatives o the European trade unions andemployers’ organisations have a long and impressive tradition. These

partners cover, at the moment, 145 million workers in the EuropeanUnion. To my mind a cooperative and consensual relation betweensocial partners is a corner stone o the EU social model.

Turning to the tripartite dimension, what contributioncan European Social Partners make in your view, to theimplementation o the Europe 2020 strategy?

The European Social Partners are essential or the success o theEurope 2020 strategy. The reason is simple: they are at a maximumdegree close to the everyday lie o workers and employers. There-ore, Europe 2020 can be implemented more successully when theSocial Partners support its aims and actions. Communication is animportant instrument they can contribute. Europe 2020 is complexand must be explained; otherwise we are in danger that it will be notunderstood. For MEPs this is a daily job!

Articles 154-155 o the TFEU provide or regulation by social partners or social partners. Do you believe that social partners should make the most o their capacity to negotiate agreements in view o better regulation inthe feld o employment and social policy?

I am convinced that social partners should make the most o theircapacity. A look into EU history shows that there is no example or anegative outcome o social partner agreements — they are a story

o success! Both sides proft rom a win-win situation. The high and



growing number o sectoral social dialogue committees is a clearindicator or the attractiveness and benefts o the related politicalinstruments.

Do you see a role or European social dialogue in thecurrent crisis? What orm could this take?

The dialogue between enterprises, workers and the EuropeanUnion helped and helps to realise decision or the current crisis.Social partners in the Member States started a process o negotia-tions to reduce the consequences o the crisis. Many agreementshave been signed on national level, especially in the feld o work-

ing time, to avoid a massive rising in unemployment.

At the moment the countries with the strongest social partnershipfnd better solutions or the crisis.

What role and main challenges do you see or social dialogue in Member States in the context o theeconomic crisis and Europe 2020?

The crisis is a big impactor in economic and social history in Europe.It put massive pressure on antagonism. Social dialogue during thecrisis increased the level o trust between employers and trade un-ions, as mass unemployment has been avoided in many MemberStates. Now social partners should proceed on this way o strongcooperation. More advances must be made, particularly in terms o creating wealth and reducing inequalities.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-dialogue-eu 60/11258 © ImageGlobe



Chapter 4

What has been achieved in EU-level

social dialogue?

Overview of social dialogue joint texts signed

Part o the EU-level social dia-logue’s value comes rom theprocess itsel, and the contacts,

confdence-building, exchangeso views and inormation, andexperience o joint work that itentails. Such achievements are,by their nature, hard to quantiyand evaluate. The dialogue alsoinvolves activities such as jointstudies, conerences and semi-nars, as well as capacity-buildinginitiatives in the new MemberStates. The most concrete andhigh-profle outcomes o the dia-logue are the various joint textsagreed by the social partners,and it is through these that theachievements o the dialoguecan be most readily assessed.

The European Commission main-tains a database o joint texts con-cluded by the social partners atcross-industry and sectoral level.As at October 2011 (all fguresused here reer to the contentso the database at this time), 650

joint texts have been produced by

the EU-level social dialogue. Thesedate back to 1978, but the vastmajority had been agreed since

the second hal o the 1980s, whenthe bipartite dialogue began inearnest at cross-industry leveland was launched in a substantialnumber o sectors.

O all joint texts (see Figure 1),over three-quarter are joint opin-ions and tools, while one in 10are process-oriented texts. Theremainder are procedural texts,ollow-up reports (looking at theimplementation o earlier jointtexts) and agreements (makingup only 3 % o the total).

Figure 1: EU-level social

dialogue texts, by type

Joint opinions and tools

Process-oriented texts

Procedural texts

Agreements

Follow-up reports

77 %

10 %

6 %

3 % 3 %



The subjects o agreed jointtexts give a strong indicationo what is on the agenda o the

EU-level social dialogue (seeFigure 2). The 11 most commonissues addressed (each o whichaccounts or at least 3 % o all

joint texts) are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: EU-level social

dialogue texts, by subject

Other issues less commonly cov-ered by joint texts are:

• EU enlargement, usually in the

context o the enlargementsin 2004 and 2007, ocusing onmatters such as integrating

partners rom new MemberStates into the social dialogue;

• mobility, notably dealing withsocial security or qualifcationsaspects o intra-EU mobility;

• public procurement, oten pro-moting socially-responsible orbest-value approaches to pur-chasing;

• restructuring, particularly thesocially responsible manage-ment o sectoral or companychange;

• telework, tackling topics suchas the treatment o the employ-ees involved and the practicalarrangements;

• the ageing workorce, address-ing matters such as agediversity and demographicchallenges;

• harassment, including violenceat work;

• young people, dealing withaspects o their employment orcontributing to EU policy;

• racism, seeking to preventsuch behaviour, includingxenophobia;

• undeclared work, generallyaiming to combat it in specifcsectors; and

• disability, or example pro-moting the employment andintegration o people with dis-

abilities.

Economic and/or sectoral issues

Social dialogue (e.g. procedures,

commitments to hold dialogue)

Training and lifelong learning

Health and safety

Promoting employment

Working conditions

Social aspects of EU policiesCorporate social responsibility

Working time

Gender equality

Sustainable development

Other issues

21%

12%

11%

10%8%

7%

7%

4%

3%

3%3%

11%



Key achievements:agreements implementedby Directives

The most tangible achieve-ments o the EU-level socialdialogue, rom the point o view o the everyday workinglives o employees and employ-ers, are those agreements thathave been made legally bind-ing across the Union by Council

directives. There are our suchcross-industry agreements, two

dealing with parental leave andone each with part-time work and fxed-term work (see Box 11).

These agreements have resultedin changes to legislation in manyMember States (though nationalprovisions already exceeded theagreements’ requirements insome cases), and given millionso workers new rights, result-ing in improved employmentconditions or part-time and

fxed-term workers, and workingparents.

Box 11. The our cross-industry agreements implemented by directives

• The ramework agreement o December 1995 on parentalleave gives all employees an individual, non-transerableright to at least three months’ parental leave until their childreaches a given age (to be defned at national level) o up toeight years. The accord also entitles employees to time o or urgent amily reasons. The agreement was implementedby Directive 96/34/EC that the Member States had to trans-pose by June 1998 (or by the time o accession or MemberStates that joined the EU later).

• The ramework agreement o June 1997 on part-time work

establishes the principle that part-time workers must notbe treated less avourably than comparable ull-time work-ers solely because they work part time. It was implementedby Directive 97/81/EC that had to be transposed at nationallevel by January 2000 (or by the time o accession or Mem-ber States that joined the EU later).

• The ramework agreement o March 1999 on fxed-termwork laid down the principle that fxed-term workers mustnot be treated less avourably than comparable workers

on open-ended contracts solely because they have a fxed-term contract. The accord was implemented by Directive



Five sectoral agreements havebeen implemented by directives,as ollows:• An agreement on seaarers’

working time was signed bythe sectoral social partners(ECSA and ETF) in September1998, regulating matters suchas working and rest hours orthese workers, who are not ullycovered by the EU Working TimeDirective (2003/88/ EC). Theagreement was implementedby Directive 1999/63/ EC, whichMember States had to trans-

pose by June 2002.• Similarly, an agreement on the

working time o mobile civilaviation sta, another groupnot ully covered by the Work-ing Time Directive, was signedby the sectoral partners (AEA,ETF, ECA, ERA and IACA) inMarch 2000 and implemented

by Directive 2000/79/EC,with a transposition date o December 2003.

• In January 2004, the railwaysector partners (CER and ETF)signed an agreement on theworking conditions o mobileworkers assigned to ‘interoper-able’ cross-border rail services.The agreement ocuses mainlyon rest periods/breaks and driv-ing time, with more specifc pro-visions than the Working TimeDirective. It was implementedby Directive 2005/47/ EC thatwas to be transposed nationallyby July 2008.

• An agreement signed in May

2008 by the maritime trans-port social partners dealt withthe implementation in EU lawo the Maritime Labour Con-vention, adopted in 2006 bythe ILO. The Convention laysdown minimum requirementsor seaarers’ conditions o employment, and the social

partners’ agreement sets outthe necessary changes to EUlegislation to comply with the

1999/70/EC that the Member States had to transpose byJuly 2001 (or by the time o accession or Member States

that joined the EU later).• In June 2009, the social partners signed a revised version

o their 1995 parental leave agreement. Changes includedan increase in the minimum parental leave entitlementrom three to our months per employee, with at least onemonth being non-transerable between parents. The agree-ment was implemented by Directive 2010/18/EU, repealingand replacing the 1996 Directive, which the Member Statesmust transpose by March 2012.



Convention. The agreementwas implemented by Direc-tive 2009/13/EC that Member

States had to transpose withina year o the Convention enter-ing into orce.

• In July 2009, the social part-ners (HOSPEEM and EPSU)concluded an agreement onpreventing ‘sharp injuries’ (orexample, rom needles andscalpels) in the hospital and

healthcare sector. The accordaddresses areas such as pre-vention, protection, risk assess-ment, training and inormation.It was implemented by Direc-tive 2010/32/EU, with a trans-position deadline o May 2013.

As with the cross-industry agree-ments implemented throughdirectives, these sectoral agree-ments have brought, or will soonbring, practical and legally bind-ing improvements in employ-ment and working conditionsor workers across the EU, spe-cifcally or seaarers, mobile civil

aviation workers, rail workers oninternational services and hospi-tals sta.

Key achievements:agreements implementedby the social partners

Four cross-industry agreements

have been, or are being, imple-mented by the signatories’national member organisations

‘in accordance with the proce-dures and practices specifc tomanagement and labour and

the Member States’, as ollows:• The ramework agreement o

July 2002 on telework providesthat teleworkers should havethe same employment rightsas other employees, and estab-lishes guarantees in areas suchas access, costs, health andsaety, working time and col-

lective rights. The members o the cross-industry social part-ners were to implement theagreement by July 2005.

• In October 2004, the part-ners signed a ramework agreement on work-relatedstress, which seeks to increaseawareness and understand-ing, and provide employersand workers with an ‘action-oriented ramework’ to iden-tiy and prevent or manageproblems. National memberorganisations had to imple-ment the agreement by Octo-ber 2007.

• A ramework agreement on har-assment and violence at work was signed in April 2007. It pro-motes awareness-raising andtraining, requires companies tohave clear statements and pro-cedures, and provides or appro-priate action to be taken againstperpetrators and support given

to victims. The implementationdate or national members wasApril 2010.



• The social partners signeda ramework agreement oninclusive labour markets in

March 2010, aimed at help-ing people acing dicul-ties in entering, returningto or integrating into thelabour market, or at risk o losing their job. The accordoutlines measures in areassuch as education and train-ing, recruitment and induc-

tion, individual competence

development, geographicaland occupational mobility,the promotion o workorce

diversity, awareness-raising,inormation disseminationand action plans. The agree-ment is to be implemented byMarch 2013.

Four notable sectoral agreementsalso provide or implementationby the signatories’ members in

this way — see Box 12.

Box 12. Sectoral agreements implemented inaccordance with the procedures and practices specifc to management and labour and the

Member States

• In January 2004, the railway sector social partners (CER andETF) signed an agreement on a European licence or driverson cross-border ‘interoperability’ services. This provides ora common licence, based on minimum standards, or driv-ers operating international train services in other countries.The agreement was to be implemented by CER’s membercompanies. Following the adoption o a Directive on driv-ers’ certifcation in 2007 (based in part on the earlier agree-

ment), the social partners issued a joint declaration in 2009to clariy the application o their 2004 agreement.• The social partners in 14 industries that use crystalline silica

(a hazardous substance) reached a multisectoral agreementin 2006 on protecting workers’ health through the goodhandling and use o the substance. The agreement sets outgood practices that employers, employees and employees’representatives will jointly implement at site level. Imple-mentation by national members is ongoing and being over-

seen by a joint council.



Where an EU-level agreement isput into eect through ‘the pro-cedures and practices specifcto management and labour’ ineach country, the act that theseprocedures and practices varywidely means that implementa-tion takes diverse orms and theimpact o the agreement canbe hard to judge. The evidenceon the frst two cross-industry

agreements (see Box 13) showsthat they have been imple-mented through a wide range o

binding or non-binding agree-ments, recommendations, anddeclarations, as well as by leg-islation. In both cases, the over-all eect has been to improveworkers’ protection and advanceEU objectives in most countries,but the impact has been patchy,with gaps and even a total lack o implementation in some Mem-ber States. Some countries that

joined the EU in 2004 and 2007have experienced particularproblems in this area.

• In June 2009, the sectoral partners (Coiure EU and UniEuropa) signed an agreement on the implementation o

European certifcates or hairdressers, based on commontraining standards. The signatories’ members were to imple-ment it at national level by June 2011.

• The ramework agreement o April 2011 on competenceprofles between the chemicals industry partners (ECEGand EMCEF) lays down minimum core competences orprocess operators and frst-line supervisors in the sec-tor across Europe. The signatories’ members will take theagreement into account in each country, and ECEG and

EMCEF will promote the agreement’s provisions throughtheir members at European, national, sectoral, regional,local and company levels.



Box 13. The challenge o implementingautonomous social partner agreements

The irst two cross-industry EU-level agreements to beapplied in accordance with the procedures and practicesspeciic to management and labour and the MemberStates were those on telework and work-related stress.They were to be implemented by the signatories’ memberorganisations by 2005 and 2007 respectively. Their imple-mentation has been evaluated by the social partners andthe European Commission, and the indings illustrate the

challenges o implementing agreements in this way.Given the dierences in national industrial relations andlegal systems, and the varying amounts o change requiredto comply with the agreements, implementation in theMember States has taken a variety o orms (and more thanone in some countries). Implementing one or both agree-ments has involved:

• national cross-industry collective agreements (e.g. inBelgium, France, Greece, Iceland , Italy, Luxembourg andRomania);

• sectoral collective agreements (e.g. in Denmark and theNetherlands);

• guidelines or recommendations addressed by thecross-industry partners to lower bargaining levels and/or to individual companies and workers (e.g. in Austria,the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Swedenand the UK);• model agreements or tools drawn up by the social part-

ners (e.g. in Austria, Germany, Ireland, and the UK);• joint declarations issued by the national social partners

(e.g. in Cyprus, Germany, Poland and Slovenia); and• legislation (e.g. in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy,

Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia), drawnup with varying degrees o social partner input.



At the time o the Commission’s evaluations (2008 or tele-work, 2011 or stress), neither agreement had been reported

as implemented in Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Malta. Thesituation was similar with regard to the telework agreement inCyprus and Romania.

The Commission concluded, in respect o the telework agree-ment, that the implementation instruments chosen, and thelevel o protection and guidance provided, were adequatein most countries, and that its objectives had largely beenachieved. However, it identifed problems in various coun-

tries, such as the lack o any implementation (or a lack o joint,rather than unilateral, implementation) or only partial imple-mentation, and raised questions as to whether national socialpartners’ recommendations were taken up at lower bargain-ing levels.

With regard to the stress agreement, the Commission oundthat it had contributed to raising awareness, promoting a seto principles and rules, and building consensus within the EU.However, it identifed a number o shortcomings in terms o the coverage and impact o measures. Some countries hadnot implemented the agreement, while the social partnersin others had chosen non-binding instruments or unilateralaction that did not cover all workers, or that had not been ol-lowed up ully. The Commission stated that there were per-sistent discrepancies in the levels o protection rom stressavailable across the Member States, and that it was not possi-ble to conclude that a minimum level o protection had been

established throughout the EU.Particular implementation problems apply in some o the newMember States, where the social partners have little experi-ence o autonomous negotiations, and where social dialoguestructures are underdeveloped and the coverage o dialogueis low. The latter problem also applies in some other MemberStates, as does the challenge that not all the national memberorganisations o the EU-level social partners have a direct col-lective bargaining role or authority over their aliates.



Key achievements:process-oriented texts

Frameworks o actions

The cross-industry social part-ners have signed two rame-works o action:• A ramework o action or the

lielong development o com-petencies and qualifcations,signed in February 2002,

which identifed our prioritiesor action: identifcation andanticipation o competen-cies and qualifcations needs;recognition and validation o competencies and qualifca-tions; inormation, supportand guidance; and mobilisa-tion o resources. These priori-ties were to be implementedat national level through dia-logue and partnership, over aour-year timerame.

• A ramework o action on gen-der equality, agreed in March2005, which identifed thechallenges in this area and set

out our priorities or nationalsocial partner action: address-ing gender roles; promotingwomen in decision-making;supporting work-lie balance;and tackling the gender paygap. Implementation was tooccur over a fve-year period.

The cross-industry partnersassessed the implementationo the two rameworks on an

annual basis and then at theend o their timerames, in 2006and 2009 respectively. In both

cases they concluded that therameworks had delivered a‘clear message’ and a ‘sense o ocus’ to national social part-ners in most countries. They hadcreated impetus, or acted as aninstrument or change, sup-ported pre-existing social part-ner actions, and helped bring

about new concrete actions.The rameworks contributedto a range o developments atEuropean, national, sectoraland company levels. The evalu-ations indicate that the impacto the rameworks was some-what uneven across sectorsand countries (notably, therewere diculties in assessingollow-up in some new MemberStates).

The ‘ramework o action’approach has not yet beentaken up signifcantly at sec-toral level. Rare examples are:

a ramework on recruitmentand retention adopted by thesocial partners in hospitals andhealthcare (EPSU and HOS-PEEM) in December 2010, withthe aim o addressing currentand uture sta shortages andskills needs, and a ramework o action on gender equality,

adopted by the social partnersin the audiovisual sector inOctober 2011.



Guidelines and codeso conduct

Agreement on guidelines andcodes o conduct is confned tothe sectoral social partners, withno cross-industry examples todate.

Guidelines have been agreedin 16 sectors, with agriculture,electricity, telecommunications

and commerce being particu-larly active in producing thistype o text. One examples isthe joint declaration signed bythe telecommunications sec-toral partners (ETNO and UNIEuropa) in February 2011, pro-moting a set o good practiceguidelines entitled ‘Good Work — Good Health: Improving themental wellbeing o workerswithin the telecommunicationssector’.

One o the most notable multi-sectoral social dialogue ini-tiatives has taken the orm o

guidelines. In July 2010, theEU-level partners in ive sectors— local/regional government,healthcare, commerce, pri-vate security and education —agreed guidelines on tacklingthird-party violence and har-assment related to work. Theguidelines promote the intro-

duction at all workplaces o a‘results-oriented policy’ on thisproblem, and identiy practical

steps to reduce, prevent andmitigate violence and harass-ment.

The procedures or implement-ing and ollowing up guidelinesvary considerably in their scope,ranging rom merely encourag-ing members to observe theguidelines, to setting out a spe-ciic staged implementationand evaluation procedure.

Codes o conduct are also astrictly sectoral instrument,and less common than guide-lines. They have been signedin hospitals, private security,the sugar industry, woodwork-ing, hairdressing, ootwear(two examples), leather/tan-ning, commerce and textiles/clothing. Most codes are wide-ranging and deal with variousaspects o employment stand-ards or corporate social respon-sibility (or example, a code o conduct and ethics or privatesecurity signed in July 2003).

A ew codes deal with speciicissues, such as ethical cross-border recruitment and reten-tion in hospitals (2008).

Typically, codes o conductcommit their signatories toimplement them through theirnational member organisations,

and provide or reporting andevaluation o outcomes (gener-ally on an annual basis).



Policy orientations

The cross-industry social part-

ners have agreed two joint textsclassifed as policy orientations:• In October 2003, the partners

agreed ‘orientations or reer-ence in managing change andits social consequences’, basedon the lessons learnt rom anumber o case studies. Thisdocument identifes actors

that can help prevent or miti-gate restructuring’s negativeemployment and social eects.

• In April 2005, the partnersagreed a text entitled ‘Lessonslearned on European WorksCouncils’, which identifed ac-tors that help in the ecientunctioning o EWCs and prob-lems that can arise.

Neither o these texts made cleartheir exact status and expectedimpact, or contained explicitprovisions on implementation orollow-up.

At sectoral level, EU-level policyorientations have been agreedin insurance, electricity (twocases), telecommunications, rail-ways (two examples), contractcatering, construction, postalservices, hospitality, cleaning,commerce and the sugar indus-try. Some contain broad orienta-

tions on business conduct andcorporate social responsibility(CSR), such as texts dealing with

CSR in commerce (2003), hos-pitality (2004), postal services(2005), contract catering (2007),

telecommunications (2007) andelectricity (2007). Others provideorientations on specifc themes,such as a January 2006 joint rec-ommendation on the preventiono occupational stress in the con-struction sector. Sectoral policyorientations generally provideor implementation, monitoring

and ollow-up in varying degreeso detail.

Figure 3. Process-oriented texts

agreed at sectoral level, by type

Key achievements: Jointopinions/declarationsand tools

Joint opinions

Joint opinions, generally aimedat the EU institutions and/or

Guidelines

Policy orientationsCodes of conduct

Frameworks of action

17 %

59 %22 %

2%



national public authorities, areby ar the predominant outputo the EU-level social dialogue

(see Figure 4).

The 30 joint opinions agreed atcross-industry level representthe social partners’ contribu-tions to various EU debatesand policies, delivered at therequest o the EU institutions orat their own initiative. Around a

third provides the social part-ners’ input into the EU’s overallemployment and/or economicstrategy. About a ith relateto the arrangements or EU-level social dialogue, the roleo the social partners, or otherinstitutional matters (such astreaty changes). The remain-ing opinions deal with speciicpolicies or initiatives — suchas EU vocational training pro-grammes — or speciic themes,such as preventing racial dis-crimination, or training.

At sector level, joint opinions

are the dominant social dia-logue output. They have beenagreed in all sectors with anSSDC, except a small numbero those with very recentlylaunched dialogues. They areparticularly numerous in seaisheries, telecommunications,railways, civil aviation, agri-

culture and road transport.Sectoral joint opinions primar-ily deal with economic and/

or sectoral issues, or the socialaspects o EU policies. Beyondthese themes, the speciic top-

ics most commonly addressedare employment, working con-ditions, health and saety, train-ing, sustainable developmentand social dialogue.

By their nature, joint opinionsdo not require speciic imple-mentation or ollow-up, as they

essentially serve to expressviews and provide input. Theirimpact is not quantiiable, astheir inluence on relevant EUor national policies cannotreadily be measured.

Figure 4. Joint opinions as a

proportion o EU-level joint

texts

Declarations

Declarations essentially set

out what the signatories planto do in a speciic area. Thecross-industry partners have

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

All joint texts 54 %

Cross-industry joint texts 44 %

Sectoral joint texts 55 %



agreed 10 o these texts. Theyinclude the partners’ own work programmes, their contribu-

tion to the 2001 Laeken Euro-pean Council (in which theyset out their plans or a moreautonomous dialogue — seep. 39), and a number o dec-larations on how the partnerswill contribute to speciic EUinitiatives or policy areas, suchas the European year o people

with disabilities, the Europeanemployment strategy, and pro-moting social dialogue in can-didate countries. The evidencesuggests that the cross-indus-try social partners have, by andlarge, taken the action speci-ied in their declarations.

Declarations have been signedin the great majority o sec-tors with a social dialogue. Thechemicals, commerce, electric-ity, cleaning and telecommu-nications sectors appear to beparticularly attached to thisorm o text. The most common

areas or social partner actionare training/lielong learning,health and saety and social dia-logue. For instance, in Decem-ber 2009, the temporary agencywork social partners (Eurociettand Uni Europa) issued a decla-ration on joint actions to acili-tate the upgrading o skills or

agency workers.

Tools

The development o tools pro-

viding practical guidance andadvice is mainly a sectoral prac-tice, with only two cross-industryexamples. These are a 1999 com-pendium o examples o goodpractice in the employment o people with disabilities, and a2000 compendium o social part-ner Initiatives relating to the EU’s

Employment Guidelines.

At sectoral level, tools are oundin a somewhat narrower rangeo sectors than is the case o

joint opinions and declarations,but have been developed inover hal o the sectors with adialogue, oten taking the ormo toolkits, guides and collec-tions o best practice, based onEU-unded projects. The sec-tors that have gone urthestwith this approach are postalservices, private security andtelecommunications. The keythemes are health and saety

and training/lielong learning.An example is a toolkit on pre-venting third-party violencein commerce produced by thesectoral social partners (Euro-Commerce and UNI Europa) inOctober 2009, providing prac-tical guidance or companies,employees and national social

partners.



Figure 5. Joint opinions/

declarations and tools agreed

at sectoral level, by type

Failures, problems andtensions

While EU-level social dialoguehas produced a number o agreements, guidelines andother results across industriesas well as in specifc sectors, andhas made a dierence at both

European and national levels, ithas by no means been a smooth,uninterrupted or uncontentiousprocess. The participants otenhave very dierent aims andexpectations, leading to disa-greements and deadlocks, whilevarious dialogue structures haveailed and been discarded over

the years. For example, the tri-

partite Standing Committee onEmployment did not achievemost o its original ambitions,

and came to be seen as a largelyirrelevant orum or the ritualairing o positions, beore it wasfnally abolished (see Box 4 ).

The bipartite cross-industry dia-logue has experienced mixedortunes. The autonomous track o the dialogue has had periods

o reduced activity, with rela-tively little on the agenda andew joint texts produced. Thesocial partners structured theirdialogue through three work programmes rom 2003 to 2010,but arguably these becameless ambitious over time. Therehas been a gap since the thirdprogramme ended, though aprogramme or 2012-2014 isexpected to be agreed in the frstquarter o 2012. Though most o the actions specifed in the pro-grammes were carried out, somewere not, such as a joint opinionon undeclared work listed in the

20003-2005 programme. Somenegotiations have ailed, such asthose in 2009 over a joint decla-ration on measures to addressthe economic crisis (see p. 83).

With regard to the cross-industrysocial dialogue prompted byCommission consultations, issues

on which the social partners

Joint opinions

Declarations

Tools

69 %

17 %

14 %



have been unwilling or unableto negotiate ar outnumber thesuccesses represented by agree-

ments. To take a ew examples,the social partners did not nego-tiate ollowing consultations onmatters such as sexual harass-ment (1996-1997), national-levelemployee inormation and con-sultation (1997) (though, in thiscase, the partners did at leastexplore talks), employers’ insol-

vency (2000) or transerabilityo occupational pensions (2002-2003). Negotiations opened butailed on temporary agency work in 2000-2001.

On several issues, the Commis-sion made repeated eorts overa lengthy period to get the socialpartners to negotiate, but thisdid not achieve an agreement orother substantive joint text. Thiswas the case with EWCs, corporaterestructuring and possible revi-sion o the Working Time Direc-tive (2003/88/ EC). However, thesocial partners did fnally agree a

‘joint advice’ on amendments tothe EWCs Directive in 2008 (seep.39), and in December 2011 theylaunched negotiations on work-ing time. A new consultation isscheduled on restructuring.

The cross-industry partners’responses to Article 154 con-

sultations are conditioned bytheir diering views and moti-vations. Put broadly, the ETUC

is in avour o the creation o legally binding new EU-widerights and protection or work-

ers, while the employers’ bodies,especially BusinessEurope, gen-erally oppose new EU regulationo employment rights, believingthat this should occur at nationallevel, i such matters must bethe subject o legislation at all.When the Commission consultson possible action and legisla-

tive proposals seem imminent,employers may be willing tonegotiate with the ETUC on theissue concerned, as this optiongives them greater inuence onthe outcome— the negotiationo an agreement is seen as the‘lesser o two evils’. However, theETUC, although keen to have adirect inuence and underlinethe social partners’ bargainingautonomy, is unlikely to sign anagreement that provides sig-nifcantly ewer benefts or itsmembers than EU legislationwould. These tensions mean thatgenuine negotiations and agree-

ments can occur only relativelyrarely, and when all the correctcircumstances are in place.

The sectoral social dialogue hasalso experienced diculties.Like the SCE, the early sectoraldialogue structures tended tobecome over-institutionalised

and ineective, and they werereplaced in 1998 by the harmo-nised new SSDCs. The overall



picture o sectoral structuresover the past 50 or more years isthat their activity tends to vary

considerably over time, withperiods o dormancy and revival,generally in line with the devel-opment o EU policies aectingtheir industries, but also becauseo disputes between the socialpartners.

SSDCs can experience problems

o representativeness causedby the changing compositiono their sectors. The memberorganisations o the social part-ners in some countries can lack the capacity to contribute ully

to the dialogue, or to deliveragreed outcomes. Because mostEU-level sectoral social partner

organisations have only a lim-ited capacity to inuence theirnational aliates, ollow-up andimplementation o outcomescan be a problem. In some sec-tors, where large multinationalcompanies predominate (suchas steel, telecommunications,chemicals and civil aviation),

it can be dicult to negotiateagreements at EU sectoral level,because employers and workers’representatives preer to nego-tiate at company level, such aswithin EWCs.



Message from the ILO Juan Somavia,

Director-General, International Labour Organisation (ILO)

Excerpts from an address to the European Parliament, Strasbourg,

14 September 2011

Ater decades o social struggle at the end o the 19th century andbeginning o the 20th century, [the ounders o the InternationalLabour Organisation] conceived a tripartite institution to promote

social justice in order to cultivate peace through international labourstandards.

They believed that labour is not a commodity; that poverty anywhereis a threat to prosperity everywhere.

Our ounders were also practical. They understood that bringingtogether on an equal ooting, governments and representatives o workers and employers was the way to achieve results air to all.

They invented international social dialogue and gave strong supportand space to workers’ organisations and collective bargaining.

The EU and ILO share the premise that lasting peace can only besecured through regional and international cooperation or social

justice, with people’s needs guiding policy. …

Social dialogue [brings] together governments, employers and work-ers, to produce, through consensus building, policies that are legiti-mate, eective and equitable. … Within the European Union, you areacing major employment and social challenges, o working poverty,precarious work, low pay, social exclusion, long term unemployment.… Social dialogue [is] a acilitator o a well-unctioning real economy.Genuine dialogue with recognised social partners is undamental toexploring real economy options, in real enterprises, in promotingdecent work and respecting the autonomy o collective bargaining.

©

I L O P H O T O



Rebalancing the world economy … requires more attention toemployment, social protection and social dialogue. … The weight o the European Union makes it a key player in managing globalisation.

The EU must ully use its capacity to deend, sustain and advance theEuropean economic and social model to make globalisation airer.

http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/press-and-media-centre/statements-and-speeches/WCMS_162828/lang--en/index.htm



Chapter 5

Social dialogue and the crisisThe social dialogue does notexist in a vacuum. It is shapedby its wider institutional, politi-cal, economic and social envi-ronment. It is clear that since2008, the environment has been

dominated by the fnancial, eco-nomic and debt crisis that hasracked Europe. Dealing with thecrisis has been a major theme insocial dialogue in many MemberStates, and the process has illus-trated very clearly the varyingnature and capacities o nationaldialogue systems. At EU level,though, the social dialogue’sresponse to the crisis has argu-ably been less marked.

The response of nationalsocial dialogue

Across the Member States, the

social partners have expressedtheir views on the crisis to thepublic authorities and coordi-nated their responses throughthe various national advisoryand consultative processes (seep. 51). More concretely, duringthe depths o the crisis between2008 and 2010, there were eorts

in at least 16 Member Statesto reach bipartite or tripartitenational cross-industry agree-

ments on a package o measuresaimed at addressing aspects o the economic crisis.

Some orm o agreement wasreached in 11 countries —

Belgium, Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, Estonia, France, Lat-via, Lithuania, the Netherlands,Poland, Slovakia and Spain (inthe case o a bipartite agree-ment) (see Box 14 or examples).In the case o the Baltic states,the Czech Republic and Poland,these agreements representeda novel development in nationalsocial dialogue. The agreementsdealt with issues such as short-time work, wage moderation,employment-related tax/socialsecurity measures, employmentschemes and assistance orunemployed people, workplace

exibility and training/lielonglearning.

In countries, such as Austria,Denmark, Germany and Slove-nia, where no anti-crisis agree-ments were reached, the socialpartners were neverthelessheavily involved in the specifc

area o amending existing short-time working schemes (wherebyworkers temporarily reduce their



working time, with some com-pensation or loss o pay, as analternative to redundancy) or

introducing new ones.

However, existing cross-industrysocial dialogue arrangementswere not always able to dealwith the crisis. Talks over crisis-response agreements wereunsuccessul in Finland, Hungary,Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia

and Spain (in the case o a tri-partite agreement). Indeed, inIreland, Slovenia and Spain, thestresses caused by the crisis, anddierences over how to reactto it, led to a collapse (at leasttemporary) o long-standingcross-industry bipartite/tripartitearrangements. Tripartite arrange-ments also came under severepressure in countries Bulgaria.

There was little or no joint cross-industry social partner responseto the crisis in countries such asCyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal,Romania, Sweden and the UK.

The national social dialogueat sector level (where it exists— see p. 10) has also played arole in responding to the crisis.Between 2008 and 2010, therewere examples o specifc sec-toral agreements on matterssuch as short-time work, or the

inclusion, in regular collectiveagreements, o crisis-responsemeasures such as support or

redundant workers, or allowinggreater exibility and/or decen-tralisation in pay setting. These

sectoral responses were patchy,in both national and sectoralterms. Agreements were largelyrestricted to Belgium, Denmark,France, Finland, Germany, Italy,the Netherlands and Sweden,and notably absent in many o the Member States that joinedthe EU in 2004 and 2007. Agree-

ments were also much morecommon in the manuacturingindustry — and especially met-alworking — than in the servicessector.

An example o a sectoralresponse was an agreement inMarch 2009 covering all o theSwedish manuacturing sector.This deal temporarily allowed orthe introduction o short-timeworking, which is normally notpermitted in Sweden, to preventredundancies during the down-turn. The use o short-time work required a local agreement. The

employees aected received atleast 80 % o normal pay, and thelocal agreements could provideor training during the unworkedhours.

On a general level, collective bar-gaining, and social dialogue atall levels and across Europe, has

reacted to the crisis with wide-spread moderation in pay settle-ments.



Box 14. Examples o cross-industry crisis-response agreements, 2008-2010

• The Belgian social partners responded to the crisis in theircross-industry collective agreement or 2009-2010 (suchagreements are normally signed every two years), whichaimed to achieve a balance among companies’ competitive-ness, workers’ purchasing power and employment levels. Itincluded moderate increases in purchasing power, reduc-tions in taxation o income rom night and overtime work,increases in short-time work benefts and tax reductions

to encourage employers to recruit long-term unemployedpeople.

• The Bulgarian government and social partners reached a tri-partite agreement on a wide-ranging package o anti-crisismeasures in March 2010. Employment-related measuresincluded: a mechanism or increasing the minimum wage;increases in unemployment benefts; schemes to supportemployment in companies acing diculties; employmentsubsidies; and promotion o labour mobility.

• Between February and April 2010, the Czech social part-ners and government agreed on a set o short-term crisis-response measures. These included training programmes,possible greater tax harmonisation between employeesand the sel-employed, measures to address misuse o unemployment benefts, and the possibility o introducinga new short-time work scheme.

• A tripartite accord reached in Estonia in March 2009 set out

principles or maintaining employment levels, or examplethrough lielong learning and exible employment, and byproviding more eective assistance or unemployed peo-ple.

• In July 2009, the French social partners reached a nationalagreement on managing the employment consequenceso the crisis. This included: the extension o the statutoryshort-time work scheme to new groups o employees; anincrease in the duration o short-time beneft; a ramework

or ‘employee leasing’ between companies; the promotion



o employees’ geographical and occupational mobility;improved schemes to help redundant workers back into

employment; and assistance targeted at groups such as thelong-term unemployed.

• A tripartite accord concluded in June 2009 in Latvia, withthe aim o reducing the public sector defcit provided orboth revenue-raising measures and public expenditurecuts, including reductions in the public sector pay bill andin pensions and benefts

• A tripartite national agreement on economic and socialpolicies during the downturn, signed In Lithuania in Octo-

ber 2009, covered areas such as tax, public spending, pub-lic sector pay, cuts in social security benefts, public sectorreorm, economic stimulus measures, education and train-ing, and combating the illegal economy.

• In October 2008, the Dutch government and social partnersreached wide-ranging agreement on issues such as mod-erate wage demands, reduced unemployment insurancecontributions, reorm o dismissals law, assistance or low-paid and vulnerable groups, job creation and training. InMarch 2009, the bipartite Labour Foundation reached anagreement on dealing with the crisis, covering the 2009 to2010 period, which promoted employment, wage modera-tion, training, assistance or redundant workers and exibleemployment.

• In March 2009, the Polish social partners reached a bipartiteagreement on a package o anti-crisis measures, includinggreater working time exibility, the introduction o a short-

time working scheme and limits on fxed-term employ-ment, as well as the minimum wage, social security and taxmeasures.



The response of EU-levelsocial dialogue

At cross-industry level, while thesocial partners have contributedto the EU debate on tackling thecrisis, notably through the Tripar-tite Social Summit (see Box 10), their joint response has beenlimited. In 2009, the social part-ners discussed a joint declarationon measures to address the crisis,

but ailed to agree owing to majordierences in the views on thecauses o the crisis and the appro-priate response. However, they didmanage to fnd a degree o con-sensus on some aspects o deal-ing with the crisis in a June 2010

joint statement on the EU’s newEurope 2020 strategy (see p. 87).For example, the statement:• stressed that the crisis has

heightened the urgency o tackling the long-term chal-lenges acing the EU — suchas globalisation, an ageingpopulation and the transitiontowards a low-carbon econ-

omy — through a coherentand ambitious policy agenda;• called or a strategy to put

Europe on a sustained growthpath and ensure a rapid returnto more and better jobs, whileensuring fscal sustainability;

• underlined the importance o drawing the correct lessons

rom the crisis, ensuring thatpast mistakes are not repeated— this implies reorming the

global fnancial system, acingthe job crisis and restoring andimproving growth dynamics;

• argued that Europe 2020should strike the right balancebetween measures to addressthe employment impact o the crisis, and reorms aimedat addressing medium- andlong-term labour marketchallenges, notably throughmodernisation and exicurity

measures; and• stated that wage policies,

autonomously set by the socialpartners, should ensure thatreal wage developments areconsistent with productivitytrends, while non-wage labourcosts are restrained whereappropriate in order to sup-port labour demand

Moreover, the cross-industrypartners’ March 2010 agreementon inclusive labour markets (seep. 64), while not conceived as acrisis response, includes provi-sions relevant to addressing the

employment eects o the cri-sis, including measures to assistyoung people into employment.As the text states: ‘The challeng-ing economic and social climatein which this ramework agree-ment has been negotiated in2008-2009 urther strengthensthe impetus or social partners

to work together to promoteinclusive labour markets, tomaximise the ull potential o



Europe’s labour orce and toincrease employment rates andto improve job quality, including

through training and skills devel-opment.’

At sector level, some dialoguecommittees have agreed jointtexts highlighting the eects ontheir industry, and calling on theEU and national authorities ormeasures to mitigate them (see

Box 15 or examples). More sub-stantive responses have beenlargely absent — one rare exam-ple is a March 2009 joint decla-ration rom the chemicals socialpartners (ECEG and EMCEF) on(temporary) lay-os and short-time work, and similar measuresaimed at avoiding redundancies.As well as calling on the EU andnational authorities to providefnancial and other support orbusinesses and workorces, thedeclaration laid down some prin-ciples or lower-level social part-ners, recommending that:• lay-os and short-time work-

ing should be introduced onlyater consultation with theworkorce and their repre-sentatives;

• where lay-os and short-timeworking occur, every eortshould be made to use this

time or improving employ-ees’ skills through training andeducation; and

• training that takes place dur-ing lay-os and short-timework should be accredited toensure that intrinsic skills aremaintained so that, when theeconomic situation improves,

the sector does not lose vitalhuman resources or theuture.

The capacity or the EU-levelsocial dialogue to fnd wayso tackling some aspects o the crisis is to some extentunknown, but its potential doesnot yet seem to have been ullyexplored. It may be that, attimes o grave economic di-culty, trade unions and employ-ers tend to concentrate theireorts at national and companylevels, where the struggle or

jobs and economic survival is

at its sharpest and most imme-diate, and oten in a context o pressure on national dialoguearrangements.



Box 15. EU-level sectoral social dialogue joint statements on the crisis

• A ‘joint reaction’ to the economic crisis issued in December2008 by the commerce sector partners (EuroCommerce andUNI Europa) called or action to sustain consumer purchas-ing power, provide access to aordable credit, maintainemployment and boost training.

• The local and regional government social partners (CEMRand EPSU) sent a joint message to a European Council meet-ing in March 2009, seeking adequate fnancial resources to

meet heightened demands, and underlining the importanceo maintaining employment in the sector. They issued a ur-ther joint statement, reiterating their positions on the eco-nomic crisis to a European Council meeting in February 2010.

• In May 2009, the road transport social partners (ETF andIRU) made a joint statement on the impact o the crisis ontheir sector. They proposed a six-point recovery plan orconstruction, including access to credit, investment and EU-wide use o short-time working schemes.

• The social partners in the live perormance sector (EAEAand Pearle) made a joint statement in May 2009, calling ormeasures to restore consumer confdence, improve accessto fnance and credit or SMEs, sustain public unding andacilitate cross-border mobility.

• The construction social partners (EFBWW and FIEC) issued a joint declaration on the global economic crisis and its con-sequences or the sector in June 2009. It called on the EU

and national authorities to take a number o measures tohelp the industry, such as accelerating public investment.The partners issued a urther joint appeal in January 2010,asking the EU and Member States to step up action to osterthe development o a sustainable construction industry.

• Other sectoral committees adopting joint texts relating tothe crisis include those in woodworking, urniture, inlandwaterways and chemicals, while relevant discussions havealso occurred in industries such as textiles and clothing, tan-

ning and leather, and ootwear.



Fundamental to the EU’sapproach or getting throughthe crisis is the Europe 2020growth strategy, adopted in2010. The aim is to create asmart, sustainable and inclusive

European economy, with highlevels o employment, produc-tivity and social cohesion. Thestrategy contains targets onemployment (seeking an EU-wide employment rate o 75 %by 2020), research and devel-opment, greenhouse gas emis-sions and energy, education andpoverty reduction. The MemberStates have adopted their ownnational targets based on theEU targets, and national reormprogrammes to implement thestrategy. The delivery o Europe2020 is also supported by sevenEU agship initiatives, such as

the ‘Agenda or New Skills andJobs’, and the ‘Youth on the Move’initiative aimed at improving theeducation and employment o young people.

The involvement o the socialpartners is seen by the EuropeanCommission as a key element

o implementing Europe 2020.This is most clearly set out in theAgenda or New Skills and Jobs.

The Agenda or New Skills andJobs is a package o measuresaimed at modernising labourmarkets, with a view to raisingemployment levels, and help-ing people to acquire new skills.

This should enable the workorceto adapt to new conditions andpotential career shits, reduceunemployment and raise labourproductivity. To implement theAgenda, the Commission is seek-ing to strengthen the capac-ity o social partners and makeull use o the problem-solvingpotential o social dialogue atall levels (including the EU level).The Commission has involvedthe EU-level social partnersin areas such as defning andimplementing urther exicu-rity measures, and implement-ing lielong learning principles

(including consultation o thepartners on developing an initia-tive o their own in this area). Ithas also emphasised the role o social partners in delivering theYouth Opportunities Initiativelaunched in December 2011, e.g.through building up workplacelearning schemes. The Commis-

sion has established a ‘TripartiteSocial Forum’ specifcally to ena-ble the EU-level social partners

Chapter 6

Future developments and challenges

The social partners and Europe 2020



to participate in the implemen-tation o the Agenda or NewSkills and Jobs, and o the Europe

2020 Strategy more generally.

The cross-industry social part-ners made a joint statement onthe Europe 2020 strategy in June2010. The statement recom-mended policy priorities or theEU and Member States in areassuch as employment, macro-

economic policy, public fnances,investment, taxation, public ser-vices, social security, education,training and research. It calledor stronger involvement o thesocial partners at all levels inthe design and monitoring o European and national reormstrategies, and support in devel-oping the social partners’ capac-ity where needed. In particular,the social partners need to con-tribute actively to the design andimplementation o exicuritypolicies.

Flexicurity is an approach to

employment policy that com-bines exibility in labour markets,work organisation and employ-ment relations with employmentand social security. The cross-industry social partners made amajor contribution (through a

joint analysis o European labourmarket challenges) to EU-wide

principles on exicurity, adoptedby the Council in 2007, whichguide EU employment policy.

As part o their 2009-2010 work programme, the cross-industrypartners produced a joint study

on the role o social partners inimplementation o these prin-ciples. In November 2011, theCommission and social partnerstook stock o the implementa-tion o exicurity policies at astakeholder conerence. It iscounting on the social partners’contribution to and support or

uture action in this area, in thecontext o Europe 2020 and o the Employment Package to bepresented by the Commission in2012.

With regard to the environmen-tal strand o Europe 2020, thecross-industry social partnershave already conducted a frst

joint study on the employmentconsequences o climate change,and their work on this topic islikely to continue, boosted bythe creation o a consultationmechanism on climate changeinvolving various Commission

departments.

A robust dialogue thatcontinues to survivesetbacks

Since its inception over 50 yearsago, EU-level social dialogue hasgrown enormously in its scope

and in its importance in EU deci-sion- and policy-making. It isnow deeply embedded in the



Union’s treaties and institutionalarrangements. It has resultedin nine Directives and a similar

number o agreements imple-mented by the social partnersthemselves, bringing concretebenefts to millions o workersacross Europe. It has also pro-duced a wealth o other instru-ments that have helped todisseminate best practice andhigh standards across Europe.

The dialogue has enabled thevoices o Europe’s workers andemployers to be heard in thecrucial debates over the EU’sdevelopment and uture. Secto-ral dialogue has spread to indus-tries employing three-quarterso the EU workorce, and madea signifcant contribution to thedevelopment o many sector-specifc EU policies.

However, the growth andstrengthening o social dialoguehas not been a smooth or linearprocess. Over the years, as wellas successes, advances and peri-

ods o intense joint work, it hasknown lulls in activity, ailures,deadlocks and crises. This une-ven progress has resulted rom acomplex and ever-changing seto actors, including the politicaland economic environment, thediering priorities and objectiveso employers’ and workers’ rep-

resentatives, and the EU institu-tions’ agendas and approaches.Another key actor is that the

extent to which national tradeunions and employers’ organisa-tions have ‘invested’ at the Euro-

pean level has varied over time,and there have been periodswhen their main ocus has beenat the national level.

At the time o writing, the EU-level social dialogue at cross-industry level is in a transitionalphase. With regard to autono-

mous dialogue, the 2009-2010work programme was arguablysomewhat less ambitious thanits predecessors, though it hasresulted in initiatives such as theramework agreement on inclu-sive labour markets (see p. 64),

joint studies on the employmentconsequences o climate changeand on social partners’ role in theimplementation o the EU’s exi-curity principles, a joint report onsocial dialogue over the last 20years, and a joint implementationreport on the 2007 agreementon work-related harassment andviolence. Against a background

that included signifcant internalchanges in the ETUC, these jointoutcomes should not be under-estimated. Following a break inthe series o work programmesin 2011, a programme or 2012-2014 is expected to be agreed inthe frst quarter o 2012.

With regard to cross-industrynegotiations in response toArticle 154 consultations, there



were signs o renewed activityin 2011, ater something o a lullsince 2009. Following the ailure

o the Council and the EuropeanParliament to agree on a revisiono the Working Time Directive,the Commission consulted thesocial partners as to whetherthey wished to open negotia-tions. The partners announcedthat negotiations were to start inDecember 2011.

Experience indicates that thesocial dialogue is robust enoughto survive periods o relativeinactivity and setbacks. Wheredialogue ails on a specifc issue,the process continues neverthe-less. Topics can even return tothe agenda ater an earlier ail-ure o dialogue and, in more pro-pitious circumstances, the socialpartners can make a meaningulcontribution the second or eventhird time around (an exampleis EWCs and, perhaps, workingtime). The inuence that the EU-level dialogue aords the social

partners is too important tothem to let it alter or too long.

Major challenges

Challenges or the uture includethe ollowing:• The link between the EU and

national levels o social dia-

logue needs to be strength-ened. Evidence suggests thatthere is a close relationship

between the eectiveness o dialogue at the two levels, andthat each inuences the other.

• Social partner capacity andthe social dialogue structure insome countries are, and con-tinue to be, weak, especiallyin Central and Eastern Europe,making the implementation o autonomous agreements andprocess-oriented texts unevenacross the EU and unsatisac-

tory in some Member States.Implementation o such instru-ments can also depend heavilyon whether they ft with theagendas o national govern-ments.

• The link between the cross-industry and sectoral dialogueis relatively weak, and linksbetween dialogues in dierentsectors, while they exist, areunderdeveloped. Strengthen-ing these links could make thedialogue more coherent andenhance its impact.

• The outcomes o EU-levelsocial dialogue are not always

well known or understood atnational and company level.• Some social partners are con-

cerned that recent develop-ments are weakening the roleo social dialogue in policy-and decision-making (accord-ing to the fndings o researchinto national social partner

views on the social dialogue,commissioned by the EU-levelcross-industry partners in



2011). In their view, the cross-industry partners should beconsulted not only on employ-

ment and social issues, but alsoon an increasing range o EUpolicy proposals with a poten-tial employment impact, whilethe Commission is increasinglylaunching wide-ranging con-sultations o all stakeholders.

• The social partners may haveto fnd ways o tackling morecontentious issues in the

uture i the dialogue is toretain its inuence. Relatedto this, the European-levelorganisations may have totake a more active role inengaging their respectivememberships.



Interview with the Council Presidency Jolanta Fedak

Minister o Labour and Social Aairs o Poland (2007-2011)

From the point o view o From the Council Presidency,and as a Polish Minister, how do you see EuropeanSocial Dialogue?

Poland presides in the Council at a dicult time o crisis, which hasan especially negative impact on the labour market. It must be said

that at the times o crisis, it is much more dicult to win trust andcome to an agreement. It does not, however, mean that the socialdialogue is useless as regards solving the problems caused by the cri-sis. In order to cope with the new challenges we should use all ormsand platorms o the dialogue. At the European level, this relates toboth the bilateral dialogue o European Social Partners conducted onthe basis o Articles 154 and 155 o the Treaty, as well as the trilateraldialogue.

The latter can be exemplifed by the Tripartite Social Summit orGrowth and Employment, which constitutes a orum or exchange o views between the European social partners and institutions o theEuropean Union. During the Polish Presidency, an autumn meetingo the Summit was held on 17 October 2011 in Brussels. The leadingtopic o the meeting covered: ‘Enhancing trust and social dialogue tosustain (economic) recovery and structural change.’

Poland recognises the role and the need to enhance and promotethe European social dialogue as one o the tools to fght the crisis.This is because we have our own experience within the scope o anti-crisis measures negotiated by social partners in the Tripartite Com-mission or Social and Economic Aairs, which entered into orceon the basis o the so-called anti-crisis act. Thus we should supportinitiatives — both at the national and European level — that aim atestablishing an eective social dialogue between the employers andthe representatives o the employees, as well as in business entities

o supra-national structure, such as establishment o the EuropeanWorks Councils Thereore, considering the issue rom the Polish point



o view, we have to emphasise the need to create conditions, and,above all, the atmosphere o mutual trust, in order or the parties tothe dialogue to choose the right or them orm o the dialogue and

determine the thematic scope o the discussions.

The priorities o the Polish Presidency in the area o employmentand social aairs entitled ‘Solidarity between generations — towardsthe demographic uture o Europe’ covers the issue o ‘The role o social dialogue in the search or solutions to demographic challeng-es’. Another area o cooperation with the social partners and otherstakeholders includes implementation o the Europe 2020 strategythrough the so-called agship initiatives and National Reorm Pro-

grammes — given the support to the introduction o a new elemento economic coordination, the so-called ‘European semester’.

Do you think there is a role or European Social Partners in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy? In what sense?

The Europe 2020 strategy, which is a coherent platorm or actionsin the area o economy and social policy, requires — apart rom thenew economic management with the use o the so-called Europeansemester — an intensive and constructive social dialogue, both atthe national and European levels.

This mainly reers to the priority area o the strategy, under which hu-man resources play the most signifcant role, i.e. establishment o aknowledge-based economy based on high and productive employ-ment, encouraging socio-economic cohesion.

At the current times o economic crisis and growing unemployment,and increasing poverty related thereto underlying the dramatic so-cial unrest, this dialogue is especially expected and needed.

Being a tool or developing and introducing by way o ramework agreements, solutions pertaining to the labour market the Euro-pean Social Dialogue constitutes a signifcant support in designing,implementation, monitoring and assessment at the EU level and,

consequently, also the national level, o the undertaking, includingthe legislative one to implement the initiative o the Europe 2020



strategy within the scope o topics related to the labour market. Thisincludes such issues as: labour law, social security law, education andproessional training (lielong learning), proessional activation pro-

grammes, monitoring o the labour market supply and demand orskills, mobility on the labour market, saety and hygiene at work, cor-porate social responsibility, age management. In these areas, thereare still barriers to employment growth and boosting the unctioningo the EU labour markets. They can and should be removed with theuse o, or example, solutions included in the ramework agreementsdeveloped as a result o a compromise between the European SocialPartners.

Consequently these proposals, which are promoted by the nationaltrade unions and employers’ organisations in individual EU countriesand implemented to the national legislation, can be introduced intopractice by the National Reorm Programmes updated annually inline with the guidelines o the European Commission.

It needs to be remembered that the majority o the listed issues, re-maining within the range o the European social dialogue is impor-tant or the implementation o the most ecient o the past modelso the EU labour market combining social saety with employmentexibility, the so-called exicurity. Because the exicurity concept re-mains at the centre o the European Employment Strategy — whichat the times o aging o the workorce is the crucial element or thesuccess o achieving the objectives o the strategy — the signifcanceo the European social partners in the implementation o the Europe2020 strategy cannot be overestimated.

As a Minister o Labour and Social Policy, I have to stress that it is nec-essary or the EU institutions and governments o the Member Statesto be politically determined to cooperate with the European socialpartners in order or them to be able to eciently use their poten-tial to implement the economic and social renewal o the EuropeanUnion. Due to its social representativeness, the European Social Dia-logue should be recognised by both the employers, employees andgovernments o the Member States as a credible and based on realitysource o knowledge and initiatives within the scope o the labour

market, and an element ensuring shaping o the EU socio-economicpolicy in the direction guaranteeing sustainable development.



Do you believe that social partners should makethe most o their capacity to negotiate agreementswhich can be implemented by Directive in the feld

o employment and social policy, in line with the procedure set out in Articles 154 and 155 o the Treaty?

When answering the question one should start by pointing out theact that this year marks the 20th anniversary o signing the agree-ment by the European Social Partners, which on the basis o theMaastricht Protocol on Social Policy became the basis or negotia-tions aiming at concluding European agreements. The agreement o 1991 constitutes the best example o ecient European dialogue. As

a result o the active attitude o European social partners, the dia-logue conducted by them was placed in the centre o the decision-making process in the area o employment and social policy and,what is more, it obtained quasi-legislative power.

The European Commission was obliged to consult with the Euro-pean social partners on the initiatives within the scope o employ-ment and social aairs and, moreover, they acquired the recogni-tion o the right to autonomous negotiation o normative Europeanagreements. These agreements can be subsequently transerred tothe legal orders o individual Member States, in accordance with theprocedures and practices specifc to management and labour andthe Member States or, in matters covered by Article 153, at the jointrequest o the signatory parties, by a Council decision on a proposalrom the Commission. In TFEU the legal basis or this dialogue is pro-vided or in Articles 154 and 155.

This dialogue results — in the supra-sectoral dimension — in threeagreements, which were transormed into Directives, i.e. on parentalleave o 1995, part-time employment o 1997, fxed-term employmentcontracts o 1999, as well as our agreements that were implementedby the actions o social partners in the Member States, i.e. the agree-ment on telework o 2002, agreement concerning work-related stresso 2004, the agreement concerning violence and harassment at work o 2007,the agreement concerning inclusive labour market o 2010.

The achievement o the European social dialogue conducted in in-dividual sectors is also important. Due to system support o the



Commission already 40 European Sectoral Dialogue Committeeswere established (based on the Commission Decision 98/500/EC).

The increasingly more complicated economic and social processesboth on the macro and micro level, e.g. within the scope o labourmarket policy, constitute a serious challenge or the social partners.They should confrm their exceptional role in the EU decision-makingprocess in the areas or which they are co-responsible.

At times o crisis, it is much more diicult to ind an agreementbetween parties to a dialogue, which owing to their nature havevarious interests. This does not, however, mean desistance rom

cooperation between social partners on individual issues. The ex-amples o action plans established by the European social part-ners or subsequent years, or in deined areas o joint interest,provide or the developed skill o ocusing on the aspects thatunite the parties. Thus, not only the so-called hard eects o theEuropean social dialogue are important, but also the sot actionssuch as declarations, opinions, positions, recommendations, jointactions. They will contribute to the establishment o mutual trustand the joint search or compromise solutions, ensuring stableeconomic development as well as a sae environment and highlevel o employment.

Do you think that European social dialogue can provide a model and an encouragement or social dialogue in all Member States, including those where it is perhaps less established?

The Polish experience in the establishment o the social dialoguepoints to the considerable meaning o good practices and modelsor the development o the dialogue at the national level.

Although Poland already in 1919 was among the ounders o theInternational Labour Organisation, the urther historical events de-prived our country o the possibility o ree socio-economic relationsbased on international standards.

Poland, just like other countries in the region, started to catch upater 1989, and the eorts to become a member o the Community



resulted in increased interest in the European social dialogue. Firsto all, the Community legislation was implemented, e.g. pertainingto inormation and consultations with the employees, as well as the

structures o the dialogue were developed.

Another incentive covered the involvement o the representatives o the national organisations o social partners in the works o the tri-partite structures o the EU (European Economic and Social Commit-tee or agencies and committees, e.g. European Foundation or theImprovement o Living and Working Conditions, Committee on FreeMovement o Persons) or Social Dialogue Committee.

The already gained experience is currently enriched with trainingsor social partners implemented under programmes co-fnancedrom the European Social Fund.

What do you think is the uture o European social dialogue?

Today it is not easy answer to the question. Since, as was alreadyshown by the history o the European social dialogue development,the directions o this development oten change contrary to the gen-eral expectations, e.g. the development o inter-branch dialogue in1990s. On the other hand, recently the greatest activity can be ob-served in the European sectoral dialogue.

Thereore, it seems to be worthwhile to support the initiatives aimedat increasing the current number o sectoral committees coveringwith their activity almost 145 million employees. This can be ex-

emplifed by the recent actions targeted at establishing three newcommittees (in the paper, metal and education industries), or theongoing negotiations (within the scope o: occupational health andsaety in the hairdressing sector, transposition o the ILO conventionin the fsheries sector and the minimum requirements or contractsor ootballers), as well as work on new criteria or the representative-ness o social partner organisations.

However, it needs to be remembered that development o the dia-

logue at the European level results in the need to consider at leastthe ollowing issues:



• the role o the Council in the process o adopting directives basedon agreement o social partners;

• any possible commitments o the Member States to introduce leg-

islative amendments implementing such agreements o the socialpartners;

• transparency o the agreements o the social partners;• no obligation to draw up and annex such agreements to the docu-

ment concerning the impact o the regulation.

Under the crisis conditions, and in relation to the expected restruc-turing processes, we can observe signifcant activity o the EuropeanWorks Councils and other mechanisms o inormation and consulta-

tion with the employees at the supra-regional level.

The European Commission work plan or 2011 includes inormationon the start o the negotiations with the European social partnersconcerning a review o the provisions o the Directive 2001/86/ECsupplementing the Statute or a European company with regard tothe involvement o employees. The Commission points out that anylegislative amendments to the Directive will be correlated with thepossible amendment o Regulation 2001/2157/EC.

We should also appreciate the initiative o the European Commissionconcerning the establishment o the experts group on analysing theprovisions o Directives: 1998/59/EC (Block Exemptions), 2001/23/EC(transer), 2002/14/EC (inorming and consulting) covering the rightto inormation and consultation.



Annexes

Annex 1: List of Sectoral social dialogue committees

Overview o Social Dialogue Committees

SectorsEuropean social partners

Employees Employers

Cross-Industry ETUC BusinessEurope, UEAPME, CEEP

Agriculture EFFAT GEOPA/COPAAudiovisual EURO-MEI, EFJ, FIA, FIM EBU, ACT, AER, CEPI, FIAPFBanking UNI europa EBF-BCESA, ESBG,EACBCatering EFFAT FERCOChemical Industry EMCEF ECEGCentral GovernmentAdministrations

TUNED (EPSU+CESI) EUPAE

Civil Aviation ECA, ETF ACI-Europe, AEA, CANSO, ERA, IACA, IAHACommerce UNI europa EuroCommerceConstruction EFBWW FIECEducation ETUCE EFEEElectricity EPSU, EMCEF EurelectricExtractive Industries EMCEF APEP, EURACOAL, UEPG, IMA, EurominesFootwear ETUF: TCL CECFurniture EFBWW UEA, EFICGas EMCEF, EPSU EUROGASHoreca EFFAT HotrecHospitals and Healthcare EPSU HOSPEEMIndustrial Cleaning UNI europa EFCIInland Waterways ETF EBU, ESOInsurance UNI europa CEA, BIPAR, AMICELive Perormance EAEA PearleLocal and Regional Governments EPSU CEMRMaritime Transport ETF ECSAMetal EMF CEEMETPaper Industry EMCEF CEPI

Personal Services UNI europa Coiure EUPostal Services UNI europa PostEuropPrivate Security UNI europa CoESSProessional Football FIFPro EPFL, ECARailways ETF CER, EIMRoad Transport ETF IRUSea Fisheries ETF Europêche, COGECAShipbuilding EMF CESASteel EMF EuroerSugar EFFAT CEFSTanning and Leather ETUF:TCL COTANCETelecommunications UNI europa ETNOTemporary Agency Work UNI europa Eurociett

Textile and Clothing ETUF:TCL EuratexWoodworking EFBWW CEI-Bois

This list shows the current state o play — it will be regularly updated on the Commission’s websitehttp://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=522&langId=en



Annex 2: List of European social partners’ organisationsconsulted under Article 154 of the EC Treaty

1. General cross-industry organisations• BusinessEurope• European Centre o Enterprises with Public Participation and o

Enterprises o General• Economic Interest (CEEP)• European Trade Union Conederation (ETUC)

2. Cross-industry organisations representing certaincategories o workers or undertakings

• Eurocadres• European Association o Crat and Small and Medium-Sized Enter-

prises (UEAPME)• European Conederation o Executives and Managerial Sta (CEC)

3. Specifc organisationsEurochambres

4. Sectoral organisations representing employers• Association o Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)• Airports Council International — Europe (ACI-Europe)• Association o European Airlines (AEA)• Association o European Proessional Football Leagues (EPFL)• Association o European Public Postal Operators (PostEurop)• Association o European Radios (AER)• Association o Mutual Insurers and Insurance Cooperatives in

Europe (AMICE)

• Association o National Organisations o Fishing Enterprises inthe EU (EUROPECHE)• Banking Committee or European Social Aairs (EBF-BCESA)• Civil Air Navigation Services Association (CANSO)• Coiure EU• Committee o Agricultural Organisations in the European Union (COPA)• Community o European Railway and Inrastructure Companies (CER)• Community o European Shipyards’ Associations (CESA)• Conederation o European Paper Industries (CEPI)

• Conederation o National Associations o Tanners and Dresserso the European Community (COTANCE)

• Council o European Employers o the Metal, Engineering and



Technology-Based Industries (CEEMET)• Council o European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)• Employers’ Group o the Committee o Agricultural Organisations

in the European Union (GEOPA)• Euracoal• Euromines• European Aggregates Association (UEPG)• European Apparel and Textile Organisation (EURATEX)• European Association o Cooperative Banks (EACB)• European Association o Potash Producers (APEP)• European Banking Federation (FBE)• European Barge Union (EBU)• European Broadcasting Union (EBU)• European Chemical Employers Group (ECEG)• European Club Association (ECA)• European Community Shipowners Association (ECSA)• European Committee o Sugar Manuacturers (CEFS)• European Conederation o the Footwear Industry (CEC)• European Conederation o Iron and Steel Industries (Euroer)• European Conederation o Private Employment Agencies (Eurociett)• European Conederation o Woodworking Industries (CEI–Bois)• European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC)• European Coordination o Independent Producers (CEPI)• European Federation o Cleaning Industries (EFCI)• European Federation o Contract Catering Organisations (FERCO)• European Federation o Education Employers (EFEE)• European Federation o National Insurance Associations (CEA)• European Federation o Security Services (CoESS)• European Furniture Manuacturers’ Federation (EFIC)

• European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ Association (HOSPEEM)• European Industrial Minerals Association (IMA)• European Rail Inrastructure Managers (EIM)• European Regions Airline Association (ERA)• European Savings Banks Group (ESBG)• European Skippers’ Organisation (ESO)• European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO)• European Union o the Natural Gas Industry (EUROGAS)• General Committee or Agricultural Cooperation in the European

Union (COGECA)• Hotels, Restaurants and Caés in Europe (HOTREC)• International Air Carrier Association (IACA)



• International Aviation Handlers’ Association (IAHA)• International Federation o Film Producers’ Associations (FIAPF)• International Federation o Insurance Intermediaries (BIPAR)

• International Road Transport Union (IRU)• Perorming Arts Employers’ Associations League Europe (PEARLE)• Retail, Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the

EU (EuroCommerce)• Union o the Electricity Industry (EURELECTRIC)

5. Sectoral European trade union organisations• European Arts and Entertainment Alliance (EAEA)• European Conederation o Independent Trade Unions (CESI)• European Cockpit Association (ECA)• European Federation o Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW)• European Federation o Journalists (EFJ)• European Federation o Public Service Unions (EPSU)• European Federation o Trade Unions in the Food, Agriculture and

Tourism Sectors and Allied Branches (EFFAT)• European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF)• European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF)• European Trade Union Committee or Education (ETUCE)• European Trade Union Federation: Textiles, Clothing and Leather

(ETUF:TCL)• European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF)• International Federation o Actors (FIA)• International Federation o Musicians (IFM)• International Federation o Proessional Footballers’ Associations

— Division Europe (FIFPro)• Union Network International — Europe (UNI europa)

• Union Network International — Media and Entertainment Interna-tional — Europe (EUROMEI)



• Employment and Social Developments in Europe (2011), EuropeanCommissionhttp://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1137&urtherNews=yes

• Industrial Relations in Europe (2010), European Commissionhttp://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0&policyArea

=0&subCategory=0&country=0&year=0&advSearchKey=IRIE&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en

• Restructuring — website o the European Commissionhttp://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=782&langId=en

• Social Dialogue — website o the European Commissionhttp://www.ec.europa.eu/socialdialogue

• Social Dialogue — website o the International Labour Organisationhttp://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/decent-work-agenda/

social-dialogue/lang--en/index.htm• European Commission Sta Working Document on the unction-

ing and potential o European sectoral social dialogue (2010)http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=5591&langId=en

Forthcoming guides

•AgeingandPensions(June2012)•LabourLawandWorkingConditions(December2012)

•SocialEconomy(June2013)

•ESFandotherFundingInstruments(December2013)

•SocialInclusion(June2014)

Further information



Glossary of terms

Acquis communautaireThe accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions whichorm the body o EU law.

BipartiteA orm o social dialogue involving only organisations representing

management and labour (the social partners).

Collective bargainingNegotiations between social partners at national, sector, company orother level concerning pay and other employment and working con-ditions. They lead to collective agreements which may be o generalapplication in the given country, region, sector or company.

EU-level social dialogueA set o processes and arrangements whereby European-level organ-isations representing employers and workers conduct discussionsand negotiations, undertake other joint work, and are together in-volved in EU decision- and policy-making. The orm o EU-level socialdialogue can be bipartite or tripartite, and it can take place on cross-industry or sectoral levels.

European Works Councils (EWCs)

Platorms or European-level social dialogue within large multina-tional companies. EWCs typically bring together central manage-ment and employee representatives rom the countries where theenterprise operates. They enable inormation and consultation o employees on transnational matters. Sometimes they provide a or-mat or negotiations.

Flexicurity The European Union’s main approach towards the labour market,

which seeks to balance the need or labour market exibility withthe need or workers’ economic security. Its main components in-



clude exible but reliable contractual arrangements, comprehen-sive lielong learning strategies, eective active labour marketpolicies, and modern social security systems that provide adequate

income support, encourage employment and acilitate labour mar-ket mobility.

Impact assessment A process through which the European Commission assesses (usingits own expertise and input rom stakeholders) the potential eco-nomic, social and environmental consequences o new policy initia-tives under consideration, and weighs the advantages and disadvan-tages o possible policy options.

Internal/single market programme (1985-1992)Based on the Commission’s White Paper on the completion o theinternal market (June 1985), the internal market programme waslaunched with the aim o eliminating non-tari barriers such asnational regulations on products and services, rontier checkson goods and persons or dierences in indirect taxes. The con-cept o the internal market and a deadline or its completion (31December 1992) were laid down in the Single European Act o 1986, which also changed decision-making rules rom unanimityto qualiied majority voting in most areas related to the internalmarket.

Social dialogueInteractions (such as negotiation, consultation or simply exchangeo inormation) between, or among, organisations representingemployers and workers (the social partners) and public authorities

(at EU, national or other levels). The term ‘social dialogue’ is some-times used more widely to include also dialogue between manage-ment and labour at individual workplaces.

Social partnersOrganisations representing employers or workers, notably employ-ers’ associations and trade unions.

Tripartite

A orm o social dialogue involving the social partners as well aspublic authorities (such as a national government or EU institutions).



European Commission

Social Europe guide — Volume 2: Social Dialogue

Luxembourg: Publications Oce o the European Union

2012 — 105 pp. — 14,8 x 21 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-21309-0ISSN 1977-2343doi:10.2767/448

The Social Europe guide is a bi-annual publication aimed at provid-

ing an interested but not necessarily specialised audience with a con-cise overview o specifc areas o EU policy in the feld o employment,social aairs and inclusion. It illustrates the key issues and challenges,explains policy actions and instruments at EU level and provides exam-ples o best practices rom EU Member States. It also presents views onthe subject rom the Council Presidency and the European Parliament.

The second volume in this series describes the history, workings andaccomplishments o social dialogue at EU level. Negotiations, consul-tations and exchanges o inormation among organisations represent-

ing employers and workers (the social partners) and public authoritiesare an essential element o the European social model and play a keyrole in defning and implementing EU economic, employment and so-cial policy as well as sectoral policies. The volume also looks at howsocial dialogue has evolved at the level o individual Member States inresponse to the economic crisis.

The guide is available in printed ormat in English, French and German.



How to obtain EU publicationsFree publications:

• viaEUBookshop(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• attheEuropeanCommission’srepresentationsordelegations.Youcanobtain theircontactdetailsontheInternet(http://ec.europa.eu)orbysending

afaxto+3522929-42758.

Priced publications:

• viaEUBookshop(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Ofcial Journal o the European Union

and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):

• viaoneofthesalesagentsofthePublicationsOceoftheEuropeanUnion (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).



www.facebook.com/socialeurope

Are you interested in the publications o the Directorate-General

or Employment, Social Afairs and Inclusion?

I so, you can download them or take out a ree subscription at

http://ec.europa.eu/social/publications

You are also welcome to sign up to receive

the European Commission’s ree Social Europe e-newsletter at

http://ec.europa.eu/social/e-newsletter

http://ec.europa.eu/social/

K E - B C -1 1 - 0 0 2 -E N - C