social europe guide-volume 2: social dialogue

8/3/2019 Social Europe Guide-Volume 2: Social Dialogue

1/111

Volume 2

Social Dialogue

Social Europe guide

ISSN 1977-2343


2/111

Social Europe guideVolume 2

Social Dialogue

European Commission

Directorate-General or Employment, Social Aairs and Inclusion

Manuscript completed in January 2012


3/111

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

Printedonelementalchlorine-freebleachedPaPer (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.


4/1113

ForewordLszl AndorCommissioner 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 Europes

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 Europes 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

Europes 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


5/1114

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.


6/111

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


7/1116 ImageGlobe


8/1117

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 workersand 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 obipartite 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


9/1118

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 ETUCs membership is made up o83 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 ETUCs auspices is the Council o

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

the Member States. Forms osocial 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 oEU 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


10/1119

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. CEEPs 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.


11/11110

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 dialoguecommittees, 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.


12/11111

When it comes to matters oemployment 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 oorganising 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 oemployment, high-quality educa-tion, comprehensive welare andsocial protection, low levels oinequality 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-els values became ever more

frmly enshrined in successivetreaties. Social dialogue is one othese 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.


13/11112

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 1000 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 thecompanys 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 ocollective 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-


14/11113

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.


15/11114

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 othe 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 theacquis communautaire

The accumulated body o EUlaw and obligations is knownas the acquis communautaire.It comprises all the EUs 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 othe acquis communautaire,because it is promoted by theTreaty and given a specifc rolein the EUs 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.


16/11115

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 Unionseconomic 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.


17/11116

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-industrydialogue

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 oregular cross-industry collectivebargaining over pay rises andother general employment con-ditions providing a rameworkor 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


18/11117

Im

ageGlobe

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 gameor collective bargaining andother industrial relations issuesthrough basic agreements.


19/11118

Box 5. Recent examples o national bipartitecross-industry agreements

The social partners represented on Belgiums 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 omeasures 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 oEU-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-levelautonomous 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.


20/11119

Tripartite cross-industrydialogue

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--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 osocial 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.


21/11120

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 onational 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 (OT) (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)


22/11121

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

ally covering a wide range oissues. 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 otripartite 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


23/111


24/11123

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 othree 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 oa 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 Americas 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.


25/11124

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 oactions 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 olabour 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 Sgol

General Secretary o the European Trade Union Conederation (ETUC)


26/11125

(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 othe 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.


27/11126

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 SocialPartners can make to the tripartite governance othe 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.


28/11127

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


29/11128

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 EUs 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 oother 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 allactors 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 opensions 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


30/111


31/11130

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 4thautonomous 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 oMember 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


32/11131

o European integration. In this regard, it is appropriate inter aliato improve the ormat, the composition and the preparation othe 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.


33/11132 123RF


34/11133

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 industrys

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


35/11134

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-

sions 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) othe 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


36/11135

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 Agreementon 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 aCouncil decision on a proposal rom the Commission.


37/11136

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 Commissions 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 workerssecurity led to two agreements:in June 1997 on part-time workand 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


38/11137

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 oseveral new sectoral joint com-mittees and inormal workingparties. However, the Commis-sion was dissatisfed with theeectiveness o the patchworko 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 othe 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 policyopt-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.

ImageGlobe


39/11138

Box 8. The 1998 reorm o sectoral socialdialogue

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 SSDCs 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.


40/11139

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

Europes 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 programmeagreed 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 workprogramme led to a 2004 rame-work agreement on work-relatedstress, which was implementedby the signatories national mem-

bers, and to a second rameworko 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


41/11140

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 signatoriesnational 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 oEWCs, 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 othe Directive. At this stage, thesocial partners agreed a jointadvice, suggesting amend-ments to the Commissions 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 ocoverage, 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


42/11141

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.


43/11142

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 signatoriesrequest, 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 osocial 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.


44/11143

Message from the EESCStaan Nilsson

President o the European Economic and Social Committee

Social dialogue is the social partners raison dtre and is also, there-ore, a pivotal element o the EESCs work and that o many nationaleconomic and social councils, and similar structures in the EUs 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 oagreement 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.


45/11144 123RF


46/11145

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 othis 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


47/11146

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 structuresto 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


48/11147

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 tocontractual 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 partnersown 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 signatoriesnational 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 EUscompetence, 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 agreementscontent 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


49/11148

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 agreements provisions.Adoption o the directive means

that the Commission halts workon 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 Unions objectives. Ithe 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


50/11149

partners about the easibility otalks. 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 partnersautonomous dialogue takes anumber o orms, including: drawing up autonomous work

social europe guide-volume 2: social dialogue

Documents