Bulk amendment of industrial relations legislation
The Ministry of Labour, Family and Equal Opportunities (Ministerul Muncii, Familiei şi Egalităţii de Şanse, MMFES) has recently stated its intention to propose the amendment, in the same legislative package, of the collective agreement Law and the labour disputes settlement Act. The decision was prompted by the discrepancies between some of the provisions of these pieces of legislation and the confusion this has generated over the past 10 years. After six meetings of the tripartite committee appointed for this purpose, a first conclusion shared by all three parties is that the task is tremendously difficult.
Current legal framework
The legislation governing collective agreements dates back to 1996, when the collective agreement Law (Law 130) was enacted. Act 168, regarding the settlement of labour disputes, was enacted in 1999.
The provisions of these two pieces of legislation have triggered, along the years, the criticism of both trade unions and employer organisations. Moreover, in 2006, national trade union confederation lodged a complaint with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) against the Government of Romania (Guvernul României). The unions contended that the ambiguous wording of some of the provisions in the collective agreement Act might lead to the infringement of the right to strike, and to the breach of ILO Convention no. 98/1949, regarding the right to organise and to hold collective bargaining. In 2007, in response to the complaint, the ILO requested that the provisions in question be reviewed (RO0707019I).
Trade union and employer views
The unions are advocatnig a review of the collective agreement Act, in order to introduce the right to company-level negotiations for those unions that have members deriving from various employers. The unions have formulated their own draft amendments to the Act and submitted them to the Ministry of Labour Family and Equal Opportunities (Ministerul Muncii, Familiei şi Egalităţii de Şanse, MMFES). They include proposals regarding symmetrical criteria of eligibility in terms of national and sectoral representativeness, for both employee s and employer organisations, as well as liability criteria for breaches of collective agreements.
Employers, in their turn, demand that any amendments be aligned to ILO principles, and that the best practices available in the European Union (EU) Member States be adopted.
The Romanian Alliance of Employers' Confederation (Alianţa Confederaţiilor Patronale din România, ACPR) has proposed that ‘the principle of voluntary bargaining be recognised at all levels, and the compulsory nature of collective bargaining be eliminated’. The National Council of Small and Medium Sized Private Enterprises in Romania (Consiliul Naţional al Întreprinderilor Private Mici şi Mijlocii din România, CNIPMMR) has countered that, if enacted, the amendments proposed by unions would cause the bankruptcy of 5%-6% of small and medium-sized enterprises, because productivity is not high enough to compensate for wage raises.
Further, employers would like the effect of agreements to be limited to the signatory parties.
In respect of Act 168/1999, the unions have repeatedly requested that it should be amended so as to conform with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise ILO Convention 87/1948 (RO0707019I).
Government intentions
In mid-May 2008, according to the news service Mediafax, the labour minister told a press conference of the need to revise the labour dispute settlement Act 168/1999, because, ‘it is in the text of the law that the errors hide, not in the will of one person or another. There are problems that, in my opinion, generate huge difficulties for employers, for the unions, and for the courts. There is no clear-cut distinction between the powers residing with each of the parties to the social dialogue. The text of the Act contains a number of confusing or contradictory provisions that may make a dispute endless.’
Ministry spokespersons have stated that the negotiations on the amendment of the labour disputes settlement Act started concomitantly with the negotiations on the amendments to the collective agreement Act, in the tripartite committee set up for this purpose, and that the contentious issues were discussed on 10 May 2008 with an ILO delegate. The discussions with the ILO representative were taking place as the offices of the MMFES were picketed (RO0805029I), in protest against a labour dispute, the settlement of which is reportedly being rendered difficult by this Act.
Commentary
During the first half of 2008, in two of the relevant labour conflicts in the Romanian industry, the dispute had to be taken to court, and in each case the verdict was unfavourable, once to employers and once to employees, due to the different construction of the same provisions of the two Acts.
As this is an election year, it may happen that the two Acts are amended in a single package. If so, their provisions could be better correlated than if amended separately.
Luminita Chivu, Institute of National Economy, Romanian Academy