|
| |
IR Notes 78 – 21 June 2017
www.irshare.eu
|
|
|
| |
| |
Who we are?
IR
Share is a provider that shares information,
documentation and expertise for HR managers and employee
representatives. The IR Share agency operates by way of online
publications, working groups, training devoted to relevant topics and a
network of experts.
The
team This issue was produced by
Frédéric Turlan. Find out more about the IR Share
team on our website
Subscribe to IR
Notes Via the IR
Share website or by calling us on: +33 (0)6 81 41 53 95 or
E-mail: frederic.t@irshare.eu
|
|
|
 |
| |
Interview
Andrea Garnero, economist in the Employment and Income Division of the
OECD
The
survey of collective bargaining published in the OECD
Employment Outlook 2017 highlights the shift to more
decentralised bargaining at company level. Have you been
able to determine whether decentralisation is effective in
terms of economic performance? The
chapter on collective bargaining does not answer this question
directly. It is more descriptive and seeks to show how the systems
of industrial relations function in the different member countries.
For decision-makers planning reforms in particular, the study draws
attention to how different these systems are. Strictly speaking, no
one system is like another. There may be is a desire to decentralise
collective bargaining to a level as close as possible to the
workplace, but here too, there are many possible ways of achieving
this.
How
you nevertheless detected one model that appears more
effective? The study identifies three
major models of industrial relations: the first model, which is
prevalent in Mediterranean countries and France, is based on a
fairly strong centralisation of collective bargaining at national
and/or sectoral level, with mechanisms for extending collective
agreements so as to cover all employers and employees in the sector.
The second model is one typical of Anglo-Saxon countries where,
unlike the first model, everything takes place at company level,
(virtually) without sectoral involvement. In these countries,
firm-level negotiation exists particularly in the largest companies,
and the share of workers covered by collective agreement is low. The
third model is that of “organised decentralisation”, where
firm-level negotiation plays a key role while at the same time being
more or less strictly controlled by tools such as sectoral
agreements which authorise derogations or opt-outs, in particular
when the company is facing economic difficulties. This model is
found in Germany, but also in Nordic countries such as Denmark or
Sweden, where the social partners define the hierarchy between the
collective agreements, which cover a large proportion of employees.
While offering high collective bargaining coverage, the agreements
enable terms to be renegotiated at company level by authorising
flexibility in relation to the provisions of the standard set by the
sector.
And
of these models, does any particular one produce better
results? On first sight, but this has
still to be confirmed, the third model appears satisfactory because
it provides good results in terms of inclusivity (because of good
collective bargaining coverage) and flexibility. For it to function
at its best, this model also presupposes a high level of
coordination between the social partners and a capacity for dialogue
to permit objectives to be drawn up and implemented, especially in
time of crisis. However, there is no one copyable template. The
German model is often highlighted because of Germany’s economic
performance, but the number of employees benefiting from a
collective agreement has been found to be falling. Finally, the
study takes a favourable view of collective bargaining because of
its capacity to meet a variety of challenges when it is executed in
the least confrontational manner possible and in a coordinated
fashion in most people’s interest.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
IR Notes is a
fortnightly newsletter produced by IR Share and
its network of experts, and is available in several European languages. It
offers Europe-wide monitoring of employment law, labour relations and
employment policy. It is available by subscription for 15 euros per month
(excluding tax), via the IR
Share website. IR Share is a privately-
owned, independent, apolitical company whose aim is to inform and assist all
players involved in social dialogue within and outside Europe. It has been
the correspondent organisation for France and Luxembourg of the Dublin
Foundation since 2009 and for Bulgaria since 2014.
|
|
|
Lead
story
The European
Commission wishes to regulate the right to strike in civil aviation
The European Commission has aroused the wrath of the European trade union movement by
presenting, on 8 June, a series of measures for civil aviation which aim “to
safeguard competition and connectivity in aviation, facilitate investments in
European airlines and enhance the efficiency and connectivity of European skies”
(see press
release). The package is intended to deliver on two priorities of the
aviation strategy for Europe adopted by the Commission in 2015: to act to maintain
the leading international position occupied by European aviation, and to eliminate
the obstacles to growth in European airspace. In the area of industrial relations,
the Commission focuses particularly on strike action in the air traffic control
sector. “Of all the causes of air traffic disruption, industrial action in the form
of strikes poses the most complex challenges”, the Commission states, because
strikes “usually result in many flight cancellations and delays, leaving passengers
stranded at airports”. Such actions severely disrupt the functioning of the internal
market: from 2005 to 2016, 243,660 flights were cancelled as a result of air traffic
management strikes, affecting an estimated 27 million passengers. Delays caused by
strikes alone have cost airlines more than € 1 billion. While the Commission
recognises that “the right to strike is a fundamental right” which “is today
governed in essence by national law”, it is treading on shaky ground since, under
the treaty, it does not have legislative power in this area. This is the reason why
it refers in its communication
to “guidelines” which it outlines in a working document relating to practices to
support the continuity of air traffic services. To begin with, the Commission
recalls that some of these practices are “applied already today in various member
states”. Among the approaches it suggests, the Commission encourages the member
states to adopt the following practices: 1/ To promote “a sound and efficient social
dialogue” in order to reduce “the probability of strikes through better social
dialogue”. 2/ To arrange for “unions to provide early notification of strikes” (of
at least 14 days) in order to prepare “mitigation plans ahead of industrial action”.
3/ To arrange for all staff members to indicate in advance (e.g. 72 hours
beforehand) whether they will be participating in the industrial action. 4/ To
ensure 100% continuity of service for flights crossing the airspace of
strike-affected member states by enlisting the air traffic control services of
bordering countries. 5/ To protect air traffic during peak periods of the day and
peak periods of the year by avoiding strikes at these times. Needless to say, the
Commission’s initiative is highly controversial (see the reactions of the social
partners below), and is perceived as an encroachment on the right to strike,
interpreted as a right to damage economic interests. As in the case of its “Europe
on the move” initiative for the road transport sector (see IR
Notes 77), the Commission is no longer hesitant about revising certain
social rights, or suggesting to the member states that they should reconsider these
in cases where it has no competence, in the name of the competitiveness of the
European economy.
|
1. European
Union
Legislative
proposal
|
Social
update
Reactions of the European social partners to
the regulation of air traffic controllers’ right to strike:
The European Commission’s proposals (see lead story above), have provoked the anger
of the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) which “strongly deplores this
attempt to limit indirectly” the right to strike (see press
release). The European Trade Union Confederation has demanded that the
Commission “removes all references to restricting the right to strike from its
initiative” (see press
release). ATCEUC, the trade union organisation that represents air traffic
controllers, is also up in arms (see press
release). The tone from employers’ organisations, such as the new, A4E
association bringing together the largest mainstream carriers, is very different:
“Limiting the impact of air traffic management strikes on travellers and business,
without questioning controllers’ fundamental right to strike, is a key objective of
A4E,” declared Thomas Reynaert, managing director of A4E. “We now need courageous
policy-makers in Europe to help implement these best practices” (see press
release). For its part, the IACA, whose members are low-cost airlines, is
also in favour of practices that ensure service continuity in order to reduce
strikes (see press
release).
- Discussion of atypical employment in the
air transport sector: The European ministers responsible
for transport held a debate on 8 June, during a meeting of the Transport
Council, on the development of atypical employment in the civil aviation sector
and its consequences in relation to safety. The discussion was triggered by the
Netherlands, which had sent an information
note to their colleagues in which they asked the European Commission to
look more closely at “pay to fly” schemes – which, for certain airlines, mean
using co-pilots to fly who do not cost them anything since they pay for the
chance to gain flight hours and experience – as well as the use of temporary
agency personnel. According to the outcome
of the Council meeting, the Commission has indicated that an evaluation
is ongoing, “that atypical forms of employment should not lead to abuse” and
that it is “waiting for a major ruling by the European Court of Justice
regarding the legal situation of air crews”. The pilots’ association ECA
welcomed the holding of this debate, but feels the time has come for concrete
action to stop abusive atypical employment practices (see press
release), whose risks for safety have already been shown by two studies.
- European Parliament alert to developments
in the road sector: In a resolution
on road transport in the EU, adopted on 18 May, the MEPs recall that “the
freedom to provide transport services across the EU should not justify any
violation of the fundamental rights of workers or weaken” the existing social
legislation. Opposing the Commission head on, the Parliament “rejects any
further liberalisation of cabotage, in particular unlimited cabotage operations
within a certain number of days”. Considering that the problem of fatigue has
not been sufficiently taken into account, the MEPs call on the Commission “to
run an EU-wide scientific study on the effects of driver fatigue in bus and
coach transport and freight transport by van as well as by truck”.
- Social dimension of the digitisation of
industry: The European Parliament on 1 June adopted a resolution
on digitising European companies, highlighting the associated benefits (a better
work-life balance) and risks (danger of unstable and precarious employment;
weakening of the protection of workers’ rights). The MEPs call for “the
implementation of a skills guarantee, after consultation and with participation
of the social partners” in order to avoid a “digital gap” undermining the
employability of people who work in industry.
- European Agenda for the collaborative
economy: The European Parliament on 15 June adopted a resolution
in response to the Commission communication dated 2 June 2016 entitled “A
European agenda for the collaborative economy“. The MEPs outline the
guarantees that must be provided to workers and stress the importance “of
collaborative platform workers being able to benefit from the portability of
ratings and reviews, which constitute their digital market value, and importance
of facilitating the transferability and accumulation of ratings and reviews
across different platforms (…)” (see section 43). They point out the
“possibility for unfair and arbitrary practices regarding online ratings, which
may affect the working conditions and entitlements of collaborative platform
workers and their ability to obtain jobs”. These rating mechanisms should “be
developed in a transparent way” and that “workers should be informed and
consulted”.
- Assistance from the European Globalisation
Adjustment Fund: The European Commission on 2 June
proposed to provide Spain with €1 million from the European Globalisation
Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help 339 dismissed coal miners and young people not in
employment, education or training (NEETs) in the Castile and León region to find
new jobs (see press
release).
|
2. Member
states
Germany
Agreement to support workers in the meat
industries: The German
parliament has adopted a law securing workers’ rights in the meat processing
industry (Gesetz zur Sicherung von Arbeitnehmerrechten in der
Fleischwirtschaft). “This decision is an important step in the right direction,”
stated Claus-Harald Güster, deputy president of the German food union NGG.
“Through adopting the law, the government has made it clear that the voluntary
commitment to improve working conditions given two years ago by meat-processing
employers is not sufficient”. Condemned by their competitors at European level,
German companies have exploited workers with low wages and bad working
conditions. The new law, a rarity in Germany – a country that takes a very
hands-off approach to labour relations, aims to establish fair working
conditions in this industry. The employer now has to assume liability for the
whole subcontracting chain and for the payment of social security contributions.
Moreover, he is now required to provide the clothing and tools needed for the
work free of charge. Employers are now having to record the working time of
their employees. This applies to both permanent and temporary agency staff.
Breaches of the legal provisions can result in fines of between € 30,000 and
€ 50,000 (see press releases of DGB,
NGG
and EFFAT).
|
3.
Companies
Transnational agreements
Barilla: The management of the
Italian food group Barilla, members of the European works council mandated by their
respective unions and the European trade union federation EFFAT on 31 May signed a
European convention on health and
safety. The main objective of the text is to set out the guidelines for
promoting preventive measures against psycho-social risks and stress in the
workplace. In signing this agreement, the parties seek to achieve a “zero accidents”
objective, applied across the board. The means of achieving this objective are as
follows: 1/ The adoption of a preventive approach in terms of objectives and
methods, using a comparative system between countries; 2/ The adoption of
transversal prevention plans linked to quantitative and qualitative targets; 3/
Enhanced social dialogue with EFFAT and its member organisations and better
orchestration between the levels of information and consultation; 4/ Specific
training programmes; 5/ Follow-up of the agreement by the European works council in
particular (see EFFAT press
release).
|
European
works councils
- Honda: The Japanese
car-maker Honda renewed its European works council agreement on 28 February
last. The text,
published by the European Trade
Union Institute, provides for an information and consultation procedure
in the event of exceptional circumstances to involve the representatives of the
countries concerned. The agreement opens up the possibility for the EWC to call
in an external expert, appointed by consensus with the management, who must file
their report within 15 days. An annual budget of € 50,000 is earmarked for this
purpose.
- Unilever: In a press
release, the Unilever European works council has deplored the food
group’s decision to sell off its historic margarine business, which employs more
than 1,000 people in the EU. It has drawn up a list of demands to be respected
by the future buyer to guarantee jobs and the locations affected.
|
Trade
unions
- ArcelorMittal: The
international trade union federation IndustriAll Global Union on 2 June
organised a meeting between members of the German trade union IG Metall and
representatives of Kazakh trade unions. IG Metall gave its support to the
attendance by employee representatives from Kazakhstan at meetings of the
European works council, at least as observers (see press
release).
|
4. Studies
and reports
Collective bargaining in OECD countries:
In its report “OECD employment outlook 2017”, which is always
extremely helpful in understanding the operation of the various labour markets, the
OECD offers an analysis of the industrial relations systems of its different member
states. The report
(available in English) includes a comprehensive and up‑to‑date review of collective
bargaining systems for OECD countries. It compares estimates of membership to trade
unions and employer organisations, as well as collective bargaining coverage. The
report notes a continuous decrease in trade union membership and a parallel decline
in collective bargaining coverage, as well as a trend toward more decentralised
bargaining, with firm‑level bargaining tending to expand. While underscoring the
complexity of the different models of collective bargaining and the importance of
studying the interactions between the different actors, the report does not single
out any one model as more effective than the others (see summary, other
languages).
|
|
|