EurWORK European Observatory of Working Life

Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Ports sector

Printer-friendly version
  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • European social dialogue,
  • Representativeness,
  • Social dialogue,
  • Date of Publication: 22 February 2016



About
Author:
Georg Adam
Institution:
FORBA

This study provides information designed to aid sectoral social dialogue in the ports sector. The aim of Eurofound’s series of representativeness studies is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. Top-down and bottom-up analysis of the ports sector in the EU28 shows that ETF and IDC on the employee side and FEPORT and ESPO on the employer side ought to be regarded as the main EU-wide representatives of the sector’s workforce and businesses.

Download the full report (1.3 MB PDF) 

See also the executive summary 

Introduction

Objectives of study

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational social actors – that is, the trade unions and employer organisations – in the field of industrial relations in the ports sector, and to show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study arises from the aim of the European Commission to identify the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Hence, this study seeks to provide basic information needed to support sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of European social dialogue depends on whether its participants are sufficiently representative in terms of the sector’s relevant national actors across the EU Member States. Only associations which meet this precondition will be admitted to European social dialogue.

To accomplish these aims, the study first identifies the relevant national social partner organisations in the ports sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations and, in particular, their membership composition. This involves clarifying the unit of analysis at both the national and European level of interest representation. The study includes only organisations whose membership domain is ‘sector-related’.

Table 1: Determining the ‘sector-relatedness’ of an organisation

Scope

Question in the standardised questionnaire to all correspondents

Possible answers

Note and explanations

Domain of the organisation within the sector

Does the domain of the trade union/employer organisation potentially cover:

·      the entire ports sector, including all of its sub-activities as a whole?

Yes/No

This question refers to the economic sub-activities of the NACE code chosen. Some organisations may delimit their domain to only part of the sub-activities

·      all occupations within the ports sector among both blue-collar workers and white-collar workers?

Yes/No

Some trade unions may delimit their domain to certain occupations or categories of workers only

·      all forms and size classes of enterprises (for instance: public ownership, private ownership, multinationals, domestic companies, SMEs, etc. – of course only insofar as they exist in the sector)?

Yes/No

Some organisations may delimit their domain, for instance, to public-sector companies/employees or SMEs only

·      employees/companies, within the sector, in all regions of the country?

Yes/No

Some organisations may delimit their domain to certain regions instead of the entire territory of the country

Domain of the organisation outside the sector

·      employees/companies/business activities outside the ports sector?

Yes/No

Some organisations may enlarge their domain to other activities not included in the ports sector

Source: Standardised questionnaire sent to the Eurofound network of European correspondents (2014–2015)

At both national and European levels, many associations exist which are not considered to be social partner organisations as they do not essentially deal with industrial relations. Thus, there is a need for criteria to clearly differentiate  the social partner organisations from other associations.

As regards the national-level associations, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation implies fulfilling one of the following two criteria:

  • being a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining;
  • being a member of a ‘sector-related’ European association of business or labour that is on the Commission’s list of European social partner organisations consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU and/or participates in the sector-related European social dialogue.

Taking affiliation to a European social partner organisation as a sufficient criterion for determining a national association as a social partner does not necessarily imply that the association is involved in industrial relations in its own country. Hence, this selection criterion may seem odd at first glance. However, if a national association is a member of a European social partner organisation, it becomes involved in industrial relations matters through its membership of the European organisation – through informal communication, consultation procedures and eventually the implementation of agreements concluded by the European social partners at national level.

Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the national affiliates to the European social partner organisations are engaged in industrial relations in their respective country. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation and/or involvement in national collective bargaining are of utmost importance to the European social dialogue, since they are the two constituent mechanisms that can systematically connect the national and European levels.

For the purpose of this study, a European association is considered a relevant sector-related interest organisation if it meets the following criteria:

  • it is on the Commission’s list of interest organisations to be consulted on behalf of the sector under Article 154 TFEU;
  • it participates in the sector-related European social dialogue;
  • it has asked to be consulted under Article 154 TFEU.

In addition, this study considers any other European association with sector-related national social partner organisations – as defined above – under its umbrella.

Thus, the aim of identifying the sector-related national and European social partner organisations applies both a ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approach.

Definitions used

For the purpose of this study, the ports sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne, NACE), to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. The NACE code reflects the field of activities covered by the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee ‘Ports’ as demarcated by the social partners in agreement with the European Commission. More specifically, the ports sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev. 2) 49.50, 50.10, 50.20, 52.10 and the whole group 52.2 with the exception of class 52.23.

This includes the following activities:

NACE Rev. 2

 

49.50

Transport via pipeline

50.10

Sea and coastal passenger water transport

50.20

Sea and coastal freight water transport

52.10

Warehousing and storage

52.21

Service activities incidental to land transportation

52.22

Service activities incidental to water transportation

52.24

Cargo handling

52.29

Other transportation support activities

The domains of the trade unions and employer organisations and scope of the relevant collective agreements are likely to vary from this precise NACE definition. The study therefore includes all trade unions, employer organisations and collective agreements which are ‘sector-related’ in terms of any of the following four patterns:

  • congruence – the domain of the organisation or purview of the collective agreement is identical to the NACE demarcation;
  • sectionalism – the domain or purview covers only a certain part of the sector as demarcated by NACE classification, while no group outside the sector is covered;
  • overlap – the domain or purview covers the entire sector together with (parts of) one or more other sectors. However, it is important to note that the study does not include general associations which do not deal with sector-specific matters;
  • sectional overlap – the domain or purview covers part of the sector plus (parts of) one or more other sectors.

Figure 1: Sector-relatedness of social partner organisations: possible domain patterns

Table 2: Domain pattern and purview of the organisation’s domain

Domain pattern

Domain of organisation within the sector

Domain of organisation outside the sector

 

Does the union's/employer organisation’s domain embrace potentially all employees in the ports sector?

Does the union/employer organisation also represent potentially members outside the ports sector?

Congruence (C)

Yes

No

Sectionalism (S)

No

No

Overlap (O)

Yes

Yes

Sectional overlap (SO)

No

Yes

Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee

At European level, the Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee (SSDC) for the ports sector was set up in June 2013 in response to a joint request by the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and the International Dockworkers Council (IDC) on the employees’ side, and the Federation of European Private Port Operators (FEPORT) and the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) on the employers’ side. In line with the conceptualisation of this study as outlined above, affiliation to one of these four European organisations – ETF, IDC, FEPORT and ESPO – is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association of one of the 28 EU Member States as a relevant social partner organisation for the purpose of this study. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important, particularly in the case of ETF due to its sector-overlapping membership domain. Thus, the study will include only those affiliates to ETF whose domain relates to the ports sector, as defined earlier.

Collection of data

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential for investigating the representativeness of the social partner organisations. Unless cited otherwise, this study draws on country reports provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents – industrial relations experts in the 28 EU Member States, plus Norway. The correspondents complete a standard questionnaire by contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. The contact is generally made via telephone interviews in the first place, but might also be – in certain cases – established via email. In case of the unavailability of any representative, the national correspondents are asked to fill out the relevant questionnaire based on secondary sources, such as information given on the social partner’s website, or derived from previous research studies.

It is often difficult to find precise quantitative data. In such cases, the correspondents are requested to provide rough estimates rather than leaving a question blank, given the practical and political relevance of this study. However, if there is any doubt over the reliability of an estimate, this will be noted.

In principle, quantitative data may stem from three sources:

  • official statistics and representative survey studies;
  • administrative data, such as membership figures provided by the respective organisations, which are then used for calculating the density rate on the basis of available statistical figures on the potential membership of the organisation;
  • personal estimates made by representatives of the respective organisations.

While the data sources of the economic figures cited in the report are generally statistics, the figures regarding the organisations are usually either administrative data or estimates. Furthermore, it should be noted that several country studies also present data on trade unions and business associations that do not meet the above definition of a sector-related social partner organisation, in order to give a complete picture of the sector’s associational ‘landscape’. For the above substantive reasons, as well as for methodological reasons of cross-national comparability, such trade unions and business associations will not be considered in this overview report. However, these organisations can still be found in the national contributions available on demand.

Quality assurance

In order to ensure the quality of the information gathered, several verification procedures and feedback loops have been included in the process of drawing up this study.

  • First, the coordinators, in collaboration with Eurofound staff, check the consistency of the national contributions.
  • Second, Eurofound sends the national contributions to the national members of its Governing Board, as well as to the European-level sector-related social partner organisations. The peak-level organisations then ask their affiliates to verify the information. Feedback received from the sector-related organisations is then taken into account, if it is in line with the methodology of the study.
  • Finally, the complete study is evaluated by the European-level sectoral social partners and Eurofound’s Advisory Committee on Industrial Relations, which consists of representatives from both sides of industry, governments and the European Commission.

Structure of report

The study consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the sector’s economic background. The report then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all 28 EU Member States. The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level.

Parts two and three contain a brief introduction explaining the concept of representativeness in greater detail, followed by the study findings. As representativeness is a complex issue, it requires separate consideration at national and European level for two reasons. Firstly, the method applied by national regulations and practices to capture representativeness has to be taken into account. Secondly, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must therefore be suited to this difference.

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the research and political aspects of this study. While providing data on the representativeness of the organisations under consideration, the report does not reach any definite conclusion on whether the representativeness of the European social partner organisations and their national affiliates is sufficient for admission to the European social dialogue. The reason for this is that defining criteria for adequate representativeness is, at the end of the day, a matter for political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.

Economic and employment trends

Economic characteristics and trends

The ports sector, as defined in terms of the NACE classification system (see above) for the purpose of this study, is quite large. It covers not only ports activities in a narrow sense – that is, the operation of terminal facilities such as harbours and piers and directly related other activities, such as the operation of waterway locks, navigation, pilotage, berthing and lighthouse activities –  but also business activities of the broader transport and logistics sector which may be only indirectly related to genuine ports activities. This is because ports function as ‘central nodes in an increasingly multimodal transport system which ensures the interconnection of maritime, inland waterway, road and rail carriage’ (Portius 2013, p.9). Port operations thus impact on the entire transport chain and, as a consequence, on the economy of the Member States and the European Union (EU) as a whole. The complexity of the sector in terms of business activities makes it difficult to assess its size in terms of company and employment numbers. According to the European Commission (EC), in 2013 European maritime ports employed 1.5 million workers, and the same number were employed indirectly in the sector in the then 22 EU maritime Member States (IP/13/562). There are more than 1,200 commercial seaports operating along the EU’s coasts; this means that Europe is one of the densest port regions worldwide. The Union is highly dependent on seaports as the gateways to the European continent. 74% of all goods imported or exported are shipped through ports, and 37% of the intra-EU freight traffic transit through seaports. Moreover, according to the ESPO website, more than 400 million passengers pass through ports each year. In terms of cargo handling, around 3.7 billion tonnes of cargo transited through European ports in 2013.

According to the Portius (2013, p.140) report, European seaports are managed by a variety of organisations, among which the most important are municipalities – prevalent in northern Europe – (agencies of) the central state – prevalent in southern Europe – and commercial private businesses (which corresponds to the Anglo-Saxon model). The port industry thus comprises both the public and the private sectors. EU seaports increasingly ‘prefer to operate as landlords who manage port infrastructure but leave the provision of handling and terminal services to private operators’, often to several competing enterprises (Portius, 2013). Since the access to the port labour market is – according to the EC (COM [2013] 295 final) – relatively restricted under national law in some Member States, the EC launched two proposals for a Port Service Directive to liberalise the port labour market in the early 2000s. However, these proposals were rejected by the European Parliament.

Although the European port sector continued to be a growing industry until 2008, with a 50% increase in cargo handled in EU ports predicted by 2030 (MEMO/13/448), the 2008 recession has significantly affected the port industry. According to Eurostat statistics, the gross weight of seaborne goods handled in EU ports fell from 3.97 to 3.47 billion tonnes in the period 2007–9, with a slight recovery in 2010 (3.67 billion tonnes) and a levelling out at about 3.7 billion tonnes since then. According to survey data gathered by ESPO and published in the ESPO Port Performance Dashboard 2013, conventional general cargo and dry bulk cargo were strongly affected by the crisis and continued to remain 10% lower than 2005 levels up to 2012. In contrast,  container volumes were also affected by the recession but swiftly recovered from 2010 onwards.

Irrespective of the recent recession, the European ports sector faces a number of structural problems and challenges. One particularly pressing issue is the future shape and direction of the sector. Over the next one or two decades, EU ports are likely to experience a growth in traffic and will need to adapt to a new generation and type of ships (in particular, ultra-large container ships, new types of Ro-Ro ferries and gas carriers). Further challenges are likely to include significant developments in the energy trades (gas and renewable energy sources such as biomass). Moreover, structural problems such as the ports’ ‘insufficient connectivity to the hinterland, the lack of transparency in the use of public funds, market entry barriers, outdated governance models and excessive bureaucracy’ (COM [2013] 295 final, p.13) have to be addressed.

Employment characteristics and trends

Employment in the European ports sector is characterised by a clear prevalence of male workers. Unfortunately, Eurostat LFS data are not available for the sector as defined for the purpose of this study. However, national statistics drawn on the national reports of Eurofound’s network of European correspondents indicate that male employment numbers are at least three times as high as female numbers in most countries for which data are available. In the ports sector in a narrow sense, in particular among port workers (dockers) predominantly performing manual work, the prevalence of men is likely to be even more pronounced. Against this background, in October 2014 the SSDC in the ports sector launched a joint initiative (‘Recommendations on Women’s Employment in the Port Sector’) to promote female employment in the sector. According to this document, due to changing features of dock labour, a general trend of steadily increasing female employment rates in port work professions is observable.

Qualification and training systems in the ports sector widely vary across the EU Member States. In a joint attempt to improve the skills of port workers in the medium term, the SSDC agreed upon a work programme, Training and Qualifications. In this document, the European sectoral social partners commit themselves to developing ‘European guidelines for the establishment of training requirements that take into consideration the future training needs of the sector in the light of technological and logistical changes and changes in customer demand’ (Training and Qualifications).

Due to the irregular nature of port traffic, the demand for port labour varies over the business cycle. Therefore, to cope with this fluctuation in labour demand, in several Member States the port labour market is subject to rules that govern ‘the reservation of temporary labour for a steadily available complement (‘pool’) of registered workers who enjoy unemployment benefit or similar pay when there is no work’ (Portius 2013, p. 2). According to the Portius report, these rules frequently involve ‘restrictions on employment (including priority for registered workers or recognised workforce suppliers, closed shop situations, strict job demarcations, mandatory manning scales, restrictions on temporary agency work and on self-handling) and restrictive working practices’, which may have negative trade and competitiveness implications. By contrast, ETF fears that a relaxation of the current port labour regulations would be likely to pave the way for a further liberalisation of the port labour market which may be at odds with safety standards and with the goal of making ports more healthy workplaces. In this context, ETF points to allegedly widespread practices of ‘subcontracting part of ports operations to enterprises that do not apply the negotiated labour standards’ and deplores ‘the lack of protection for workers’ right in case of change of concessionaire’ (ETF webpage). However, the fact that port work counts as among the most dangerous occupations in the EU economy appears to be undisputed.

Table 3 and Table 4 (data provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents in Annex 1) give an overview of developments from approximately 2003 to approximately 2013, presenting figures on companies, employment and employees in the sector and in relation to the national economy, from both national sources and Eurostat. In all 13 Member States (except Denmark and Luxembourg) for which related data are available from the correspondents, the number of companies increased. However, it is uncertain whether this growth actually reflects a general expansion of the sector in these countries or just a process of fragmentation of the sector’s company structure, and/or the emergence of a cohort of self-employed workers. In some countries, such as the Czech Republic, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, the number of companies increased by more than 50% in the same ten-year period. The situation in the UK is unclear, since the data of the two reference years are not comparable.

Five of the only nine countries with available data record an increase in overall employment within the sector in the same time period, while in four countries employment fell. Losses in employment were most marked in the Czech Republic, although to such an extent that the reliability of the figures provided must be questioned. Employment figures more than doubled in the decade from 2003 to 2013 in Hungary and Slovakia. The employment data of the two reference years for the UK are again not comparable. In terms of the number of sectoral employees, four countries record a decrease during this time period, while in nine countries this indicator increased (for 15 countries no comparable data are available). In all countries with available data on both measures, the number of employees with a contractual relationship comes close to the total number of employed. One can infer from these findings that, at least in these countries, the incidence of non-standard employment arrangements in the sector is low.

Table 3 and Table 4 (Annex 1) also corroborate the finding outlined above that men make up the vast majority of workers in the ports sector. In all countries with available data, men by far outnumber female employees, representing at least 70% or 80% of the sector’s total workforce. The tables also indicate that the sector as defined for the purpose of this study is quite large in some Member States. In terms of employment share, the ports sector proved quite dynamic during the decade to the early 2010s in most countries with available data, with six countries showing an upward trend and three countries showing a downward trend in the share of sectoral employees as a proportion of the total number of employees in a national economy, while in four countries this share remained largely unchanged over the ten-year period. The ports sector’s share in the number of aggregate employees ranges from 0.2% in Luxembourg to 3.3% in Malta and 4.4% in Croatia (although the latter figure is questionable), while for 10 countries no related data for 2013 (or the most recent year for which data are available) have been reported. In terms of absolute numbers of sectoral workers, there are three countries recording more than 100,000 who were gainfully employed in the sector in the early 2010s – that is Germany, Italy and the UK. Germany records more than 600,000 workers in the sector.

The impact of the recession from 2008 onwards on the ports sector varied between countries, according to the country reports. Overall, at least in terms of employment, the ports sector appears to have suffered severely from the recession, even though a comparison in this respect with other services industries does not give a clear picture.

Figure 2 shows that, overall in the European Union, employment in the warehousing and support activities for transportation sector apparently was hard hit by the recession. Employment for the 15–64 age group abruptly declined from about 2.7 million in 2008 to about 2.4 million in 2009. In the years following up to 2012, the sectoral employment figures levelled out significantly below the pre-crisis level, at between 2.4 and 2.5 million. Pre-crisis levels were reached no earlier than 2013, with peaks of slightly more than 2.8 million in the fourth quarters of 2013 and 2014. Apart from these overall employment developments over recent years, Figure 2 does not show any cyclical development within each year of observation. Rather, the curve runs erratically within each year. This indicates that employment variations in the sector within a year are caused by indefinite economic rather than regular seasonal fluctuations. However, it is important to note that Figure 2 refers to the warehousing and support activities for the transportation sector according to NACE (Rev.2) code 52, rather than to the ports sector as demarcated for the purpose of this study. This is because Eurostat LFS statistics do not provide distinct employment data for the ports sector.

Figure 2: Overall development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during the recession in the EU28 warehousing and support activities for transportation sector, total numbers

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS), 2015

Figure 3: Member States’ development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during the recession in the warehousing and support activities for transportation sector, percentage change to Q1 of the reference year

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS), 2015, and own calculations on the basis of LFS data. No data available for Luxembourg. For a few countries, such as Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia, the data may be unreliable according to Eurostat.

Note: Since Eurostat LFS statistics are not available for the ports sector as defined for the purpose of this study, Figures 2 and 3 refer to the Warehousing and support activities for transportation division according to NACE (Rev.2) code 52, which – apart from the Service activities incidental to air transportation class according to NACE (Rev.2) code 52.23 – forms part of the ports sector. The division according to NACE (Rev.2) code 52 represents major parts of the ports sector in virtually all Member States and is thus that statistical unit with available Eurosat LFS employment data which closest corresponds to the sector under scrutiny. However, Transport via pipeline activities according to NACE (Rev.2) code 49.50, Sea and coastal passenger water transport activities according to NACE (Rev.2) code 50.10 and Sea and coastal freight water transport activities according to NACE (Rev.2) code 50.20 are left of consideration in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

In contrast to Figure 2, which gives a view of the overall development of employment in the warehousing and support activities for transportation sector for all EU28 countries on aggregate, Figure 3 provides a picture of employment changes disaggregated by country in this sector. This figure shows the annual or biennial percentage changes of sectoral employment to the first quarter of the reference year (2008 in the case of 2009 and then each previous odd-numbered year for the years 2011, 2013 and 2015) for the period 2008–2015 for each individual Member State.

Figure 3 indicates that, in all EU Member States except Austria, the sector – to at least a certain degree – declined in terms of employment in at least one of the four consecutive periods 2008–9, 2009–2011, 2011–2013 and 2013–2015. According to Figure 3, only nine of the 27 countries for which data are available recorded an increase in sectoral employment in the period 2008–2009, whereas a clear majority of 18 countries recorded a decrease. In the subsequent two-year period, 2009–2011, only a slim majority of 14 countries recorded decreases in sectoral employment, and the number of countries recording employment growths increased to 18 in the period 2011–13 and 19 in the period 2013–2015. Hence, it appears that the impact of the recession on the warehousing and support activities for the transportation sector (including major part of the ports sector) was in most countries particularly strong at the beginning of the crisis but diminished steadily over consecutive years. In only a few countries, such as Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Malta and Greece, does the crisis appear to have had a delayed effect on the sector’s labour market, in that major redundancies came into effect not earlier than 2011–2013. There is only one country – Austria – which records increases for all the four consecutive periods of observation during 2008–2015, while nine countries (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden) record increases for three periods of observation. Conversely, no country can be associated with job losses within the sector in all of the four consecutive periods of observation, while job losses in three periods within the seven-year period can be found in Belgium, Greece, Hungary and Ireland. Large-scale declines of more than 30% from one period of observation to the other can be observed in several countries, such as Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and the UK. However, the data of Croatia and partially those of Lithuania are assessed by Eurostat to be unreliable (as is also the case of the data given for Estonia and Slovenia). Moreover, increases in sectoral employment of more than 50% within only two years, as indicated in the cases of Croatia, Hungary and Lithuania, appear to be doubtful and thus in need of explanation.

Overall, Figure 3 suggests that both the impact of the recession on the sector and the timing of impact varied greatly between the EU Member States. In this context, it is not possible to link (significant) job losses to only one single cause, that is, the recent recession. Rather, it seems likely that changes in sectoral employment levels within a very short period of time are attributable to a number of causes including global economic trends and country- and sector-specific developments. 

National level of interest representation

In many Member States, the statutory regulations explicitly refer to the concept of representativeness when assigning certain rights of interest representation and public governance to trade unions and/ or employer organisations. The most important rights addressed by such regulations include:

  • formal recognition as a party to collective bargaining;
  • extension of the scope of a multi-employer collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; and
  • participation in public policy and tripartite consultation.

Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, in many countries statutory extension provisions allow for extension of collective agreements to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer association represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain.

As outlined previously, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest to this study in terms of the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in European social dialogue. Hence, the role of the national actors in collective bargaining and public policy-making constitutes another important component of representativeness. The relevance of the European sectoral social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European organisations to regulate the employment terms and influence national public policies affecting the sector.

A cross-national comparative analysis shows a generally positive correlation between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy (Traxler, 2004). Social partner organisations that are engaged in multi-employer bargaining are incorporated in state policies to a significantly greater extent than their counterparts in countries where multi-employer bargaining is lacking. This can be attributed to the fact that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms; this in turn gives governments an incentive to persistently seek the cooperation of the social partner organisations. If single-employer bargaining prevails in a country, none of the collective agreements will have a noticeable effect on the economy due to their limited scope. As a result, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be limited.

In summary, representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements:

  • membership domain and strength of the social partner organisations;
  • their role in collective bargaining; and
  • their role in public policy making.

These elements are discussed below.

Membership domain and strength

The membership domain of an organisation, as formally established by its constitution or name, distinguishes its potential members from other groups which the organisation does not claim to represent. As already explained, this study considers only organisations whose domain relates to the ports sector. However, there is insufficient room in this report to delineate the domain demarcations of all the organisations. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector-relatedness’, as specified earlier. A more detailed description of how an organisation may relate to the sector can be found in Figure 1 above.

There is a difference between strength in terms of the absolute number of members and strength in relative terms. Research usually refers to relative membership strength as the density – in other words, the ratio of actual to potential members.

A difference also arises between trade unions and employer organisations in relation to measuring membership strength. Trade union membership simply means the number of unionised persons. Measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities – companies that employ employees. In this case, there are two possible measures of membership strength – one referring to the companies themselves and the other to the employees working in the member companies of an employer organisation.

For a sector study such as this, measures of membership strength of trade unions and employer organisations generally also have to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not identical with the sector demarcation, the organisation’s total density (that is, the density referring to its overall domain) may differ from sector-specific density (that is, the organisation’s density referring to the sector).

This report first presents data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and then considers those of the employer organisations. As far as sectoral membership numbers are concerned, sectoral densities can be calculated provided the number of employees within the sector is given.

Trade unions

Table 6 presents data on trade union domains and membership strength. It lists all trade unions which meet at least one of the two criteria for classification of a sector-related social partner organisation as defined earlier.

All of the 28 Member States but the Czech Republic record at least one sector-related trade union. In total, 123 sector-related trade unions could be identified. Of these 123 unions, none have demarcated their domain in a way which is largely congruent relative to the sector definition. This is not a surprise, given that artificially defined demarcations of business activities for statistical purposes rather differ from the lines along which employees identify common interests and gather in associations.

Domain demarcations resulting in overlap relative to the sector occur in exactly 12.6% of the cases for which related information is available. Overlap, by and large, arises from two different modes of demarcation:

  • general (that is, cross-sectoral) domains (which is the case for ACLVB/CGSLB of Belgium, FNV Bondgenoten and CNV Vakmensen of the Netherlands, NSZZ Solidarnosc of Poland, SITESE of Portugal and UNITE of the UK);
  • domains covering the broader transportation and logistics sector or larger parts of or even the entire services sector (as is the case for FSC-CCOO and SMC-UGT of Spain, FGTE-CFDT of France, FIT-CISL of Italy, LJS of Lithuania, LCGB Transport of Luxembourg, SIMAMEVIP of Portugal and RMT of the UK).

Sectional overlaps prevail in the sector and occur in exactly 56.3% of the cases for which information is available. This mode usually emanates from domain demarcations which focus on certain categories of employees which are then organised across several or all sectors; moreover this mode can be found with trade unions representing employees in segments of the economy sectionalistically overlapping with the ports sector. Employee categories are specified by various parameters, such as:

  • distinct occupations (for instance: professionals and managers, see BBTK/SETCa of Belgium, FT-CFE-CGC of France and Ledarna of Sweden; graduate engineers, see MMF of Denmark, FEA of Finland and SI of Sweden; seafarers and fishery workers, see FZZMiR and KSMMiR of Poland and FESMAR of Portugal; or administrative staff and general operatives, see SIPTU and UNITE of Ireland.);
  • employment status (for instance: white-collar workers, as in the case of GPA-djp of Austria, LBC-NVK and BBTK/SETCa of Belgium, Finland’s ERTO and Pro, Sweden’s Unionen and TSSA of the UK; or blue-collar workers, as in the case of PRO-GE of Austria, ABVV-BTB/FGTB-UBT and ACV/CSC of Belgium, 3F of Denmark and Transport of Sweden.);
  • geographic region (for instance: Spain’s FGAMT-CIG, which represents Galician workers; and ELA Zerbitzuak and LAB Sindikatua both representing Basque workers.).

Other trade unions’ domains cover part of the ports sector in terms of business activities (rather than in terms of employee categories) in addition to (parts of) at least another sector. Such domains may, for instance, cover:

  • (part of) the general public sector (for instance, JHL of Finland and IMPACT of Ireland);
  • (part of) the private sector (for instance, OMEPEGE-SEK and SEGDAMELIN-PEO of Cyprus, PASENT of Greece and Unionen of Sweden);
  • the entire transport and logistics sector with the exception of, for instance, the segment which covers transport via pipelines (for instance, ver.di of Germany, AKT and PARDIA of Finland, FILT-CGIL, UIL Trasporti and FILCTEM-CGIL of Italy and WZZPGM of Poland) etc.

Last, but not least, sectionalism is also common in the sector, with a share of 31.1% of trade unions (for which related information is available) recording this mode of domain demarcation relative to the sector. Sectionalism ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions which represent – in terms of employee category – one or more particular grades/professions related to the ports sector, without any representational domain outside the sector. Such professions comprise dockers and port workers (as in the case of SLRH of Croatia, FNSM-CGT of France, DPS/IDU of Lithuania, MDU of Malta, KSPM NSZZ Solidarnosc of Poland, SETC and FNSTP of Portugal and SHF of Sweden); seafarers (as in the case of PNO of Greece, SUI of Ireland, LTFJA of Latvia, SPS of Slovenia and CETM of Spain); maritime officers (as in the case of SL of Denmark, FSU of Finland, FOMM-CGT of France and SBF of Sweden); maritime pilots (as in the case of FMPA of Finland and Lotsförbundet of Sweden); or port managers and administrative port staff (see FNCAMPD-CGC of France and OMYLE of Greece). Moreover, in some countries there are trade unions representing workers in just one port (see SSLRLP, SSLRLD, NSZRL, SSZRL, LSS, NSPLS and SSZLV of Croatia, DUPPA of Greece, STPA of Portugal and SZPD of Slovenia).

Those trade unions whose membership domain does not cover the entire ports sector have delimited their domain primarily in terms of occupations and economic activities rather than (legal) form/size of enterprise and region. The vast majority of the trade unions with a domain that is sectional or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector have a domain which does not cover either all occupations or all economic activities within the sector. Only Croatia, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain record one or more trade unions which have demarcated their membership in terms of geographic region (provinces in the case of Spain and port sites in the case of the four other countries). Trade union membership domains explicitly demarcated in terms of (legal) forms of enterprise can only be found in a few countries, such as Greece, where OMYLE organises only public-sector port workers, and Finland and Ireland, where there is one trade union each (JHL and IMPACT, respectively) representing employees of the general public sector.

The ports sector’s associational ‘landscape’ on the side of organised labour is characterised by a predominance of relatively highly specialised trade unions with a clear-cut and often narrow membership domain, mostly focusing on a particular occupational subgroup within the sector’s workforce. This is reflected by the fact that close to 90% of the sector-related trade unions for which relevant information is available record a membership domain which is sectional or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector. Such specialisation tends to foster high unionisation rates, since unions representing a homogeneous workforce are more likely to mobilise around a limited number of interests that are shared by most members (see Müller-Jentsch 1988, pp. 177–178). According to a number of national reports, in particular those from Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK, the ports sector is highly unionised, at least by their respective national standards.

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related trade unions with regard to the ports sector (N=119)

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015); percentages are rounded

Member recruitment seems to be more successful in the ports industry compared with most other sectors. This is despite the fact that many manual workers record relatively low average skill levels, in particular those dockers who perform the most dangerous work (such as cargo handling, loading and unloading activities). Moreover, the incidence of migrants among these port workers may be high in many instances. Both factors are generally deemed unfavourable to member recruitment. However, port work generally records a long tradition of trade unionism.

Moreover, as outlined earlier in this report, in many countries sector-specific laws, regulations and collective agreements have restricted access to the port labour market for a long time (Portius, 2013). In most cases, this means that a registration or ‘pool’ system is in place (providing for a particular form of employment security and unemployment benefit system) which helps perform two functions; to accommodate the fluctuations in labour demand, and ensure that the registered workforce is equipped with the appropriate knowledge and experience.

Such ‘closed shop’ arrangements, in turn, tend to foster unionisiation rates, since they set selective incentives to join a union (Olson, 1965). Apart from that, the predominance of male workers in the ports industry may also contribute to high unionisation rates, although the gender effects on union density are generally highly disputed (Schnabel, 2013). Furthermore, the large size of many port operators and the nature of the employment relationship of many workers (in some instances port workforces have the status of public sector employees since many ports are owned by the state or run as commercial semi-state companies) may also be favourable to high union densities in the sector (Schnabel, 2013).

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their sectoral domains with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the ports sector. Table 6 and Table 7 show these inter-union sectoral domain overlaps. In the pluralist trade union systems (recording more than one sector-related trade union) of Croatia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Romania and Slovakia, no case of inter-union domain overlap within the sector can be observed. In all other countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK) with more than one sector-related trade union, the sectoral domain of at least one of them overlaps with the sectoral domain of at least one other. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in competition for members. Noticeable inter-union competition for members within the sector is recorded in eight countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

The available information suggests membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all cases but one, ACV-CSC Transcom of Belgium. This union generally relies on voluntary membership; however, for some grades and functions in the ports sector, membership is obligatory in line with sector-specific closed shop provisions.

The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from more than two million (in the case of Germany’s ver.di) to only slightly more than a dozen (in the case of Croatia’s SSZLV). This considerable variation reflects differences in the size of economies and the comprehensiveness of the membership domain rather than the ability to attract members. Hence, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to a comparative analysis. (This holds true despite the fact that the density figures gathered and calculated for the purpose of this study may in some cases be unreliable.) Therefore this report considers densities referring to the sector (sectoral density), given that both a trade union’s membership within the sector and the number of employees in the sector are provided. Moreover, some tentative information (without providing figures) on the trade unions’ sectoral domain density  in relation to their overall domain density  is available for those unions with a domain (sectionally) overlapping with regard to the sector (see below). As far as sectoral density figures are provided in this section, it should be noted that these figures refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees only, rather than taking into account all union members (those in job and those who are not). This is mainly because research usually considers net union densities to be more informative than gross densities. The former measure tends to reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce quicker and more appropriately than the latter – only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action, and active members tend to pay higher membership fees than retirees, unemployed and students.

More than 60% of the trade unions with available data record a sectoral density (calculated as the ratio of the number of members within the sector to the total number of employees within the sector) lower than 5%. Sectoral density is 30% or lower in the case of 94% of the trade unions which document figures on density. There are two possible explanations for the overall very low sectoral densities of the sector-related trade unions: low densities with regard to the unions’ sectoral domain (sectoral domain densities); and their generally small size (in terms of sectoral membership domain) in relation to the sector. Whereas only tentative information is available for the former issue (see below), the latter appears to apply to many of the sector-related trade unions.

This is indicated by two interrelated facts. First, almost 90% of the unions have a membership domain which is sectionalist or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector and thus covers only part of the sector. Second, 123 sector-related trade unions could be identified, with almost all Member States recording a pluralist associational system on the side of organised labour in the sector. Sectoral densities of individual associations tend to fall with growing numbers of competitors and thus become less significant as a measure for individual organisational strength relative to the sector. In any case, overall conclusions from the available figures on sectoral density have to be drawn with the utmost caution, since clearly sectoral density data can be calculated for less than half of the 123 sector-related trade union.

Comparing the trade unions’ overall domain densities with their sectoral domain densities provides an indication of whether or not the ports sector tends to be a stronghold of those sector-related trade unions which also organise employees in sectors other than the ports industry. The correspondents were asked to give a substantiated estimate of the relationship between these two densities, if possible, without providing exact figures. Accordingly, the numbers of the trade unions (for which information is available) recording a sectoral domain density lower than and higher than their overall domain density, respectively, are almost equal. At first glance, this result is astonishing, since andecdotal evidence depicted in several national reports indicating relatively high unionisation rates would suggest a majority of unions recording a sectoral domain density higher than their overall domain density. However, first, it has to be considered that relevant information has been provided for only about one-third of the sector-related trade unions; moreover, some of the answers to this question might eventually be unreliable. Second, many of the sector-related trade unions may – apart from the ports sector – organise other parts of the strongly unionised transportation sector, such that the ports sector does not necessarily stand out against a union’s overall domain in terms of membership strength. Nevertheless, the quantitative results alone do not show that overall the ports sector could be qualified as a stronghold of those trade unions with a membership domain (sectionally) overlapping relative to the sector.

In conclusion, the study reveals that in the ports sector there are many occupational trade unions which often record relatively narrow membership domains. This may favour a particularistic representation of collective interests on behalf of small professional groups. Nevertheless, the quantitative data gathered in this study do not indicate that union density rates in the ports sector would be particularly high. This may partially ensue from the shortcomings in relation to data availability (due to the particular sector definition in terms of NACE code) and the existing data set. Contextual information drawn on the national reports, however, suggests that, at least in some Member States, densities of the sector-related unions tend to be high. Relatively high densities within the sector can be explained by a range of factors, such as a strictly regulated labour market in the sector in several countries; public sector employment relationships in some instances; a long tradition of trade unionism in the sector; the large size of many ports; and – in some circumstances – the predominance of men among the port workers.

Employer organisations

Table 8 and Table 9 (Annex 1) present the membership data for the employer/business organisations in the ports sector. Overall, 55 sector-related employer/business organisations have been identified. This is less than half of the number of sector-related trade unions. For 20 of the 28 Member States, at least one sector-related employer organisation is documented. In eight countries, all from the recently acceded Member States – Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland and Slovenia – no sector-related employer organisation has been found. In eight countries – Croatia, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and Spain – only one sector-related employer organisation matching at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (see above) has been identified. In the remaining 12 countries pluralist associational systems exist; this means that at least two sector-related employer/business organisations can be found.

Four Member States (that is, Croatia, Greece, Lithuania and Portugal) each record exactly one employer/business organisation which is not a party to collective bargaining, while the UK records two such associations (see Table 9, Annex 1). These associations not involved in sector-related collective bargaining are classified as social partner organisations in this report only due to their affiliation to at least one of the sector-related European-level employer organisations FEPORT and ESPO. Conversely, in 17 of the 20 Member States which record one or more sector-related employer/business organisations, at least one is engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations that specialise in matters other than industrial relations are commonly defined as ‘trade associations’ (see Eurofound 2004). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the ports sector. In terms of their national scope of activities, all of the associations shown in Table 9 as not involved in collective bargaining either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. Put very simply, trade associations’ main reference is the ‘product’ market (where business has interests in relation to customers and suppliers) rather than the labour market. It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to FEPORT and ESPO, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them, as a working hypothesis, the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study.

Of the 55 employer/business organisations listed in Table 8 and Table 9, six organisations belong to this group of trade associations. As outlined above, in eight of the 20 countries which record at least one sector-related employer organisation, only one single organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established. Thus, compared to the situation on the labour side, where pluralist associational systems exist in 25 of the 27 Member States recording at least one sector-related trade union, on the employer side the incidence of pluralist associational systems is significantly lower (12 of 20 countries with at least one employer organisation). This is in line with the fact that the number of sector-related trade unions across the Member States by far outweighs the number of sector-related employer/business organisations. Overall, as is the case on the trade union side, the employer/business organisations are relatively unevenly distributed among the Member States. In eight countries only one sector-related employer/business organisation is recorded, whereas in a few countries (such as Italy, Portugal and Sweden) six or more such organisations have been established.

The employer/business organisations’ membership domains tend to be even narrower than those of the sector-related trade unions. In contrast to organised labour, membership domains which are sectionalist relative to the sector clearly prevail among the employer organisations, with a share of 52.8% of the cases for which related information is available. Exactly 1.9% (just one case) and 37.7%, respectively, of the associations rest on overlapping and sectionally overlapping domains relative to the sector. The only organisation with an overlapping domain is IBEC of Ireland, and it records a cross-sectoral membership domain, including all activities of the ports sector. By contrast, sectional overlaps relative to the sector are caused by domains covering the following categories.

  • The broader defined transport and logistics sector, thus often including also the inland water transport, civil aviation and postal and courier services activities, but representing only the private sector – see WF-FE of Belgium and GT of Latvia; or not representing minor activities within the ports sector, such as transportation via pipeline activities – see TLF of France and Assologista of Italy.
  • Several or almost all sectors across the economy, but not representing particular activities within the ports sector, such as sea transport activities – see DI of Denmark; or covering only municipality-owned enterprises – see AVAINTA of Finland.
  • Sectors other than the ports industry which sectionally overlap the ports sector to a minor degree, such as the energy, chemical and petroleum industry, covering the transportation via pipeline segment – see FVMI of Austria, CE of Italy and ZCHFP SR of Slovakia.
  • Only part of the ports industry (which is nevertheless the core of the representational domain), with a focus on freight forwarding by roads – see FVSp of Austria and BA of Sweden; maritime transport – see DSA of Denmark, FSA of France and AATFL and ACOPE of Portugal; or stevedoring activities – see LJKKA of Lithuania and SAIE of Sweden; while (minor) other activities lie outside the ports sector, including transport consulting, inland water transport, fishing, training and education, research and off-shore activities.

Sectionalism, the prevailing domain pattern in the ports sector among the sector-related employer/business organisations, is caused by domain demarcations that focus on a particular sub-segment of the ports industry, without covering areas of business activity outside the sector. Such subsectors or sub-segments may be defined by the following factors.

  • Ownership structure of the enterprises in the sector, such as private-sector companies – as in the case of Assorimorchiatori of Italy, OP of Romania and SARF of Sweden; or public-sector companies and authorities – as in the case of ELIME of Greece and Assoporti of Italy.
  • Specialised activities within the ports sector, such as seaport operating activities – see Belgium’s WBH, Germany’s ZDS, Finland’s FPOA, France’s UPF and UNIM, Italy’s Assiterminal and FISE-Uniport and Sweden’s Sveriges Hamnar; maritime passenger and/or freight water transport activities – see FSA of Finland, SEEN and UGS of Greece, Confitarma and Fedarlinea of Italy, FEDIL Shipping of Luxembourg, ANESCO of Spain and SARF of Sweden; tugging activities – see Assorimorchiatori and Federmorchiatori of Italy; or specialised land transportation activities, either by railways – see Austria’s FVSch – or road – see Finland’s SHL;
  • Geographical region – see AOPL and AOPPDL of Portugal, representing the ports of Lisbon and the northern regions of Portugal respectively, and OP of Romania, representing the port operators of the county of Constanta.

Finally, 7.5% of the associations show a membership domain that is more or less congruent with the sector definition. This means that the domain of these organisations largely focuses on the ports sector as defined for the purpose of this study.

In several countries, the sectoral employers have managed to establish specific employer organisations as a particular voice of narrow and clearly distinct business activities within the ports sector. This applies, in particular, to activities such as port operation and maritime transport. However, as outlined earlier in the report, the number of sectoral employer organisations clearly falls short of the number of sector-related trade unions. This implies that the fragmentation of the sector’s associational ‘landscape’ on the employer side is confined to a subgroup of countries only. As indicated above, in eight Member States there is no sector-related employer organisation. Table 8 and Table 9 show that pluralist associational systems on the employer side can – with the exception of Cyprus’s two associations – be found exclusively in the EU15. Almost 90% of the associations listed in Table 8 and Table 9 belong to the ‘old’ EU Member States. This means that in most of the ‘new’ Member States, the sector’s employers face difficulties setting up or are unwilling to set up employer organisations.

According to the national reports, most of the employer organisations with a domain sectional or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector have delimited their domain in terms of business activities, such that they do not cover all activities within the ports sector. Only a minority do not represent all (legal) forms of companies in the sector (in most cases focusing either on private- or public-law enterprises), while domain demarcations in terms of territorial coverage are rare. In countries with a highly fragmented and differentiated associational ‘landscape’ on the employer side, such as Italy, Portugal and Sweden, the associations’ domains tend to be tailor-made for a particular sub-group of employers and businesses within the sector. This may enable these associations to perform a particularistic interest representation on behalf of their members, although their membership strength may vary widely from one organisation to the other. Such a fragmented associational configuration tends to favour the (bargaining) power of organised business in small segments of the economy.

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations with regard to the ports sector (N=53)

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015); percentages are rounded

All of the four sector-related employer organisations of Austria and WBH of Belgium can rely on obligatory membership. For Austria’s associations, this is due to their public-law status as a chamber unit. In Belgium, membership of WBH is mandatory according to the Belgian Port Labour Act. All other sector-related employer/business organisations are – as far as related information has been given – voluntary associations.

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have usually managed to arrive at non-competing and collaborative relationships. Their activities are complementary to each other as a result of inter-associational differentiation, by either (and more prominently) membership demarcation (as is the case, in particular, of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal) or functions and tasks (as can be found in France, Italy and the UK).  

As the figures for membership totals (Table 8) and density (Table 9) indicate, membership strength in terms of both companies and employees varies widely with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector. Again, as outlined earlier in the context of the trade unions, density figures rather than absolute membership numbers are indicative of membership strength. In the case of the sector-related employer/business organisations, sectoral densities in terms of both companies and employees (employed by these companies) can be calculated. However, due to a lack of absolute numbers of sectoral members in terms of both companies and employees for many associations (and due to a lack of sectoral company and employment data in several countries because of the particular sector demarcation); sectoral densities can be calculated only for some of them. According to the figures available, about 89% of employers’ organisations and about 52% of business organisations record a sectoral density in terms of companies and employees of 5% or below. Whereas the median of the organisations’ sectoral densities in terms of companies lies at 0.4%, the corresponding median in terms of employees stands at 3.5%. This does not necessarily allow inferences on overall very low densities of the sector-related employer/business organisations in the sector, since sectoral densities (in contrast to sectoral domain densities) tend to decline with increasing levels of associational fragmentation. Higher sectoral densities in terms of employees, compared to those in terms of companies, indicate a higher propensity of the larger companies to associate than among their smaller counterparts. Moreover, as in the case of the sector-related trade unions, some tentative information has been provided on the employer/business organisations’ sectoral domain density in relation to their overall domain density for those associations with a domain (sectionally) overlapping relative to the sector. However, relevant information is available for only very few employer/business organisations, such that an interpretation of these data is not feasible. For that reason, no conclusion can be drawn on whether or not the ports sector constitutes a stronghold of those employer/business organisations with a domain (sectionally) overlapping relative to the sector.

Irrespective of this data unavailability, in both single-organisation and pluralist associational systems, the sector-related employer/business organisations appear to have tailored their membership domain well to a certain part of the ports sector. This enables these organisations to align their policy of interest representation with the specific requirements of their members. In countries where several employer organisations coexist, this associational fragmentation (together with a high specialisation in terms of the associations’ constituency) does not rule out the possibility that overall major part of the ports sector is nevertheless covered by the domains of the sector-related organisations altogether. High specialisation of the membership domain in single-organisation systems, however, means that a major part of the sector is not represented by organised business. However, there is no evidence from the data gathered that this might be an impediment to the functioning of industrial relations in the ports sector. By contrast, it does not come as a surprise that those eight Member States without any sector-related employer organisation, all of them 2004/7 accession countries, clearly record less developed industrial relations systems in the sector compared to most other countries. As might be expected, their industrial relations are mainly or exclusively based on single-employer arrangements.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 7 lists all of the trade unions engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Despite numerous cases of inter-union domain overlap and some cases of unclear domain demarcation, in only a few countries (such as Estonia, France, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) inter-union rivalry for bargaining capacities has been identified. In the case of the sector-related employer organisations, no case of such rivalry has been reported.

The data presented in Table 10 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 28 countries under consideration. The importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation is measured by calculating the total number of employees covered by collective bargaining as a proportion of the total number of employees within a certain segment of the economy (Traxler et al, 2001). Accordingly, the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage is defined as the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector. To delineate the bargaining system, two further indicators are used.

The first indicator refers to the relevance of multi-employer bargaining, compared with single-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer organisation on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, the company or its divisions is the party to the agreement. This includes the cases where two or more companies jointly negotiate an agreement. The relative importance of multi-employer bargaining, measured as a percentage of the total number of employees covered by a collective agreement, therefore provides an indication of the impact of the employer organisations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes have been applied to the sector. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes which widen the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; extension regulations targeting the employees are therefore not included in the research. Regulations concerning the employees are not significant for this analysis for two reasons. On the one hand, extending a collective agreement to employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard practice of the ILO, aside from any national legislation. Secondly, employers have good reason to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are not formally obliged to do so; otherwise, they would create an incentive for their workforce to unionise.

In comparison with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are far more significant for the strength of collective bargaining in general and multi-employer bargaining in particular. This is because the employers are capable of refraining from both joining an employer organisation and of entering single-employer bargaining in the context of a purely voluntaristic system. Therefore, employer-related extension practices increase the coverage of multi-employer bargaining. Moreover, when it is pervasive, an extension agreement may encourage more employers to join the controlling employer organisation; such a move then enables them to participate in the bargaining process and to benefit from the organisation’s related services in a situation where the respective collective agreement will bind them in any case (Traxler et al, 2001).

Collective bargaining coverage

In terms of the sector’s collective bargaining coverage (Table 10), 10 of the 17 countries with available data record a rate of 80% and more. This group of countries comprises Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Conversely, there are only two countries with a rate of collective bargaining coverage of 15% or less: Hungary and Slovenia. A third group of countries records medium-range rates of in between 20% and 60%, including countries such as Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and the UK. For as many as 11 countries – Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Romania – no data have been provided. This is mainly attributable to the particular demarcation of the ports sector for the purpose of this study.

In Greece, with the introduction of the Economic Stability Mechanism and the First and Second Memoranda of Understanding, 2011 and 2012, agreed with the so-called ‘Troika’ (IMF, ECB, EC) (see Eurofound 2012), a package of measures curtailing labour law in general and overturning all valid collective agreements in particular was implemented. However, in contrast to other sectors of the economy, the collective bargaining coverage rate in the ports sector is said to have only slightly declined since then. This is because the sectoral collective agreements signed before the radical revision of the national labour regime have largely remained in effect. The actual collective bargaining coverage rate in the sector is not available.

In the case of Portugal, it is not quite clear whether the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage has dropped since 2011 as a result of the reform of the collective bargaining regulation enacted under the regime of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ‘Troika’ and the Portuguese government (see Eurofound 2011 and Eurofound 2012a). Accordingly, in 2011 the government suspended the practice of issuing extension decrees in general. In autumn 2012, the government passed a resolution that stipulates new rules for the extension of collective agreements; only those agreements signed by employer organisations representing 50% or more of the workers of a particular sector may be extended. In the ports sector, no extension order has been issued since 2010. Nevertheless, collective bargaining coverage in the sector stands at about 90%.

Similarly, in Romania the Social Dialogue Act of 2011 abolished the national unique collective agreement, which served as a reference point for collective bargaining at all levels, as well as the practice of extending multi-employer agreements at sectoral level (see Eurofound 2011a). As a consequence, the collective bargaining coverage rate in the overall economy fell considerably after 2011. However, the specific consequences for the ports sector are uncertain.

In most of the countries with available information, several factors, which sometimes interact with each other, account for higher coverage rates:

  • the predominance of multi-employer bargaining (Table 10);
  • the presence of strong sector-related trade unions and employer/business organisations;
  • the existence of pervasive extension practices (Table 10).

The group of Member States where sector-related multi-employer bargaining is completely absent consists of 10 countries: Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and the UK. In all these countries, with the exception of Croatia, collective bargaining coverage within the ports sector tends to be low or no information is available. Where collective bargaining takes place, it is based exclusively on company-level arrangements. This group of countries mainly consists of ‘new’ Member States. Due to the lack of strong, encompassing social partners at least on one of the two sides of industry within the sector in most of these countries, sectoral industrial relations tend to be relatively poorly developed. On the other hand, there is a group of countries with exclusive or prevailing multi-employer arrangements in the sector, comprising 12 countries. As far as information is available, all of them record high or even full collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector. Taking the collective bargaining coverage rate and the share of multi-employer bargaining as indicators for the effectiveness and strength of sectoral industrial relations structures, one can infer from these findings that in slightly less than half of the EU28 the sector’s industrial relations structures are quite well-established. In some countries (such as Finland, France and Italy), a multi-level bargaining system combines comprehensive multi-employer bargaining with single-employer agreements. In such cases, the single-employer settlements either complement the multi-employer agreements in matters not regulated by the latter or contain more favourable employment terms than the multi-employer agreements.

The prevalence of multi-employer settlements in the sector is, in a few countries, backed by a significant use of extension practices. According to Table 10, pervasive extension practices in the ports sector are reported for several countries: Finland, France, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden. As the aim of extension provisions is to make multi-employer agreements generally binding, the provisions for obligatory membership in the chamber system of Austria should also be noted. Obligatory membership creates an extension effect, since the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKO) and its subunits are parties to multi-employer bargaining. The same holds true of the Federation of Belgian Port Employers (WB) of Belgium. A 1972 law (Wet Major) stipulates that all employers employing port workers must be a member of an employer organisation that fulfils special obligations in relation to the port sector and its workers; these employer organisations are, in turn, obliged to join the WB. Another functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. According to the country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. The country’s labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, to the extent that they are regarded as generally binding.

Participation in public policy

Interest associations may partake in public policy in two basic ways. They may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members; or they may be represented on ‘corporatist’ – in other words, tripartite – committees and boards of policy concertation. This study considers only cases of consultation and corporatist participation which explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised; the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and also, over time, depending on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on occasional rather than a regular basis. Given this variability, in Table 7 and Table 9 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

In all of the 27 Member States recording at least one sector-related trade union, with the exceptions of Hungary and Portugal, at least some of the sector-related trade unions are usually (regularly or on occasion) consulted by the authorities. In total, 87% of the sector-related trade unions for which information is available are consulted, through participation in existing tripartite structures and/or in the form of unilateral consultation by the authorities. While for around 44% of those trade unions consultation is regular (generally at least once a year), about 56% are consulted occasionally. Since a multi-union system has been established in 25 of the 27 Member States with sector-related trade unions, one cannot rule out the possibility that the authorities may favour certain trade unions over others or that the unions compete for participation rights. In at least nine (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia) of the 25 countries with a multi-union system, any of the existing trade unions may take part in the consultation process. By contrast, in five countries – Finland, Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and Sweden – only some of the sector-related trade unions are usually consulted, while at least one union is not. (For Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK, no conclusions on possible (un)equal consultation practices can be drawn due to a lack of information.) Nevertheless, there is no evidence of inter-union rivalry and/or conflicts over participation in public policy matters in the ports sector in any of the 25 countries with a multi-union system.

Employer organisations

The vast majority (almost 86%) of sector-related employer/business organisations for which related information is available are involved in consultation procedures. In terms of consultation frequency, about 56% of the employer/business organisations for which information is available are consulted on a regular basis, while about 44% are consulted on occasion. In the 13 countries with a multi-organisation system, there are no reports of conflict over participation rights of employer organisations. In the multi-organisation systems of Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and the UK, where related data of all employer/business organisations are available, all of the ports sector organisations are consulted. In the pluralist systems of Austria, Finland and Sweden, at least one of the employer organisations is usually consulted, while at least one other is not. In 18 of the 20 Member States recording at least one sector-related employer organisation, at least one is involved in consultation procedures. However, for some countries with a pluralist system of employer representation, such as Cyprus, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal,  no information about consultation practices is available for at least some of the organisations, so it remains unclear whether consultation rights are being attributed to the national organisations in a selective manner or not.

As far as information is provided, in those countries which record sector-related associations of interest representation on both sides of industry, consultation rights are symmetrically attributed to organised labour and business; in other words, at least one organisation on each side is consulted. For Cyprus, Greece and Portugal, however, no evidence can be provided in this respect due to a lack of information for at least one organisation.

Tripartite participation

The findings reveal that genuine sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in nine countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK. Table 11 lists a total of 12 bodies – one in each country except Romania (which has two) and Denmark (three). The legal basis of these tripartite bodies is either a statute or an agreement between the parties involved. Their tasks largely comprise advice to and consultation of administrative bodies dealing with matters related to ports and transport. In terms of their scope of activities, some bodies specifically focus on skills and training issues (as in the case of all three bodies of Denmark and one body of the UK), while for most other bodies no specification has been provided.

Other bodies listed in some country reports are not taken into account in this study, since they are either bipartite rather than tripartite in terms of composition, or sector-unspecific – in other words cross-sectoral – tripartite bodies for concertation of economic and social policy. These bodies may also address the sector, depending on the particular circumstances and issues that may arise. 

European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in social dialogue is linked to three criteria, as defined by the European Commission Decision on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level (98/500/EC). Accordingly, a social partner organisation must have the following attributes: It must:

  • relate to specific sectors or categories and be organised at European level;
  • consist of organisations that are themselves an integral and recognised part of Member States’ social partner structures and have the capacity to negotiate agreements, and which are representative of several Member States;
  • have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the work of the Sectoral Dialogue Committees.

Regarding social dialogue, the constituent feature is the ability of such organisations to negotiate on behalf of their members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section on European associations of the ports sector will analyse these organisations’ membership domain, the composition of their membership and their ability to negotiate.

As outlined in greater detail below, the study presents detailed data on each two sector-related European associations on the employee side – ETF and IDC – and on the employer side – FEPORT and ESPO. All four are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation to be consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these four organisations, while providing supplementary information on others that are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

ETF is affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and – according to the Preamble of its Constitution – organises European national trade unions representing workers in sectors such as transport (including logistics), fisheries and tourism services. Its membership domain therefore overlaps relative to the sector under consideration. Internally, the ETF structure is divided into sections representing distinct individual modes of transport and allied activities. The Dockers’ Section largely represents the workers of the ports sector in a narrow sense. This section’s domain is thus sectional relative to the sector under examination.

According to Article 6 of its Constitution, IDC represents national trade unions and union federations that organise dockworkers. Its membership domain thus comprises ports and is sectional relative to the ports sector as defined for the purpose of this study.

On the employers’ side, according to its name and Article 3 of its Statutes, FEPORT represents the interests of European private port operators. Its membership domain is thus sectional relative to the ports sector as demarcated in this study.

ESPO, according to Article 4 of its Statutes, organises nationally representative port authorities, port administrations and port associations within a Member State of the European Union. Hence, its membership domain is sectional relative to the sector.

Both FEPORT and ESPO organise both national employer organisations and individual companies (in the case of FEPORT) and authorities (in the case of ESPO). However, individual entities are not included in this study.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by ETF, IDC, FEPORT and ESPO extend beyond the 28 Member States examined in this study. However, the report will only consider these 28 countries.

ETF

For ETF, Table 12 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions drawn on the national reports. (It should be noted that only sector-related ETF members are listed in Table 12, which means that they are affiliated to the Dockers’ Section of ETF. Correspondingly, in Table 7 a differentiation is made between trade unions affiliated to the Dockers’ Section of ETF and those affiliated to any other Section of ETF. In the former case, the unions are labelled by: ‘ETF (ports)’.)

Accordingly, at least one direct affiliation is recorded in 23 countries. Only Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia do not record any affiliation to ETF’s Dockers’ Section. Multiple memberships occur in 16 countries. On aggregate, ETF’s Dockers’ Section counts 50 direct sector-related affiliations from the countries under examination. ETF’s Dockers’ Section thus covers about 40% of the trade unions listed in Table 6 and Table 7 through direct affiliation. All of the direct members of ETF (Dockers’ Section) but two (STPA and FNSTP of Portugal) are involved in collective bargaining related to the ports sector. However, in the case of two affiliates, that is RMT and TSSA of the UK, no information on bargaining involvement has been provided. Insofar as available data on sectoral membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength, it may be concluded that ETF (Dockers’ Section) covers the sector’s most important labour representatives. Exceptional cases of uncovered major trade unions in the sector may involve only a few unions, such as Denmark’s MMF, Finland’s SMU and ERTO, Greek’s PNO and PASENT, Italy’s Uiltec, Latvia’s LTFJA, Poland’s OZZOiM and some unions of Sweden. Several of these unions are affiliated to ETF as well, albeit to a Section other than that for Dockers.

IDC

Table 12 also lists the European affiliates to IDC, which are – due to IDC’s membership domain – all related to the ports sector. Nine countries are covered through affiliations to this organisation: Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. (The three affiliates of Italy are not taken into account in this report, since they are – according to the national correspondent for Italy – not trade unions.) More than just one affiliation can be found in Greece, Portugal and Spain. The two affiliations from the UK (Tilbury Local Branch and Felixstowe Local Branch) are not considered as multiple memberships, since they are local branches of the general Unite trade union rather than independent unions representing members on their own. Since Unite is not directly affiliated to IDC, but only indirectly through these two subunits, it is regarded as indirect IDC member. The same holds true of Denmark’s 3F which is indirectly affiliated to IDC via its Aarhus Dockworkers Union Local Branch. IDC counts 11 direct and two indirect members in nine countries and thus covers about one-tenth of all sector-related trade unions identified in this study. Two IDC affiliates are not involved in sector-related collective bargaining (that is, STPA and FNSTP of Portugal), while all other members conduct bargaining in the sector. Overall, IDC tends to organise the smaller trade unions representing particular niches in the sector or subunits of larger unions, as in the case of the UK’s Unite and Denmark’s 3F, rather than the big players.

Together, ETF and IDC can claim to be highly representative in the ports sector, in terms of both countries (23 of 28) and trade unions (62 of 123) covered. However, there is a huge difference between the two associations in this regard, since ETF (Dockers’ Section) organises about four times as many and covers clearly more than twice as many countries through affiliations from these countries than IDC.

FEPORT

Turning to the employer side, Table 13 lists the members of FEPORT and ESPO. Of the 28 countries under consideration, FEPORT has 12 under its umbrella through direct and indirect associational members from these countries. Multiple memberships of FEPORT occur in two countries (Italy and Portugal, with two affiliates each). On aggregate, according to the country reports from Eurofound’s network of European correspondents, FEPORT counts 14 associational members (one of which is an indirect member affiliated via a higher-order unit) from the EU28. This number is higher than the number of associational affiliates included in the membership list as provided by FEPORT in 2014. It appears that this list does not contain all associational members as per July 2015.

Table 9 indicates that associations affiliated to FEPORT and unaffiliated associations co-exist in a series of countries. Sectoral membership data of the respective organisations of these countries do not provide a clear indication of whether the most important associations are affiliated. In almost all countries with a pluralist associational ‘landscape’ in the sector, some important employer organisations that conduct bargaining are not affiliated to FEPORT. LJKKA of Lithuania is the only FEPORT affiliate that is not engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. It may therefore regard itself as a trade association rather than an industrial relations actor. All other 13 affiliates of FEPORT are involved in sector-related collective bargaining. The 14 FEPORT members cover collective bargaining in 11 of the 12 Member States that record affiliations to FEPORT. Nevertheless, as can be seen from Table 9, the majority of the sector-related employer organisations across the EU involved in sector-related collective bargaining are not affiliated to FEPORT. Hence, most of the relevant national actors within the sector are not under the umbrella of this European organisation.

ESPO

ESPO is the European association of the nationally representative port authorities, port administrations and port associations gathers primarily the major public port operators, which in some cases may have a quasi-monopoly position. Via its eight direct associational members and three companies/authorities, ESPO covers 10 of the 28 Member States under examination. (This information comes from Eurofound’s network of European correspondents and, for the three non-associational ESPO affiliates, the membership list provided by ESPO in 2014). This means that 18 countries (10 of those countries recording at least one sector-related employer organisation) are uncovered, including some of the largest Member States as well as those with the largest ports, such as Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. In terms of type of membership, seven countries – Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the UK – are linked to ESPO through associations only, while three countries – Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta – are exclusively covered via affiliated companies or authorities. Multiple memberships can be found in only one country, the UK, which records two associational affiliates to this organisation. Only three of the eight associational ESPO members are involved in sector-related collective bargaining, as are both the state-owned non-associational entities Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company and the Cyprus Ports Authority (for the third non-associational member of ESPO, the Authority for Transport Malta, no information is available). However, one cannot rule out the possibility that one or another associational member of ESPO is – as a public sector unit – formally excluded from collective bargaining and yet, in practice, involved in sectoral employment regulation.

Both FEPORT as the European representative of the private port operators and, in particular, ESPO as the European voice of the public ports sector each appear – as individual units – to cover only a relatively small part of the port sector as demarcated for the purpose of this study, both in terms of employer organisations and countries covered. However, since their respective membership domains are complementary to each other rather than mutually overlapping, together (including the three non-associational ESPO members) they have 19 of the 28 Member States under their umbrella through members from these countries. Moreover, it can be assumed that in these 19 countries they tend to organise the most important national associations and – in the case of ESPO – also non-associational entities within their respective realms. In particular, FEPORT members can be regarded as the key actors of business in the sector’s industrial relations systems, since all of them but LJKKA of Lithuania are involved in sector related collective bargaining – in most cases multi-employer bargaining.

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at the European level refers to the organisations’ capacity to negotiate on behalf of their own members.

On the side of organised labour, Article 13 of the ETF Constitution stipulates that

… the Executive Committee shall decide the guidelines governing the procedure for negotiations and agreements between social partners in the EU. These guidelines shall lay down, in particular, the mandate for negotiations; the composition of the negotiating team; and the procedure for adopting or rejecting the results of negotiations. The guidelines shall be subject to ratification by the affiliated organisations from EU countries represented at Congress.

Hence, it appears that rather than being equipped with an explicit permanent mandate on behalf of its members, ETF has laid down clear procedures for how to operate in the case of imminent negotiations in the framework of the European sectoral social dialogue.

By contrast, the IDC’s Constitution does not provide for any clear formal procedures for member participation to be observed in order to enter social dialogue or negotiations. Rather, Article 4f of the Constitution contains an abstract clause according to which ‘the General Assembly consisting of the affiliated trade unions duly informed and with free participation, will be the supreme authority for all those decisions that affect general interests of all the members.’

On the employer side, the Statutes of ESPO do not explicitly grant this organisation a general or permanent mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members. However, Article 15 of the Statutes stipulate that the Secretary General, who is responsible for the daily management and the external representation of the organisation, ‘shall have the duty to carry out tasks within the limits or the mandate given to him by the General Assembly’, including, among other functions, ‘establishing and maintaining regular contacts with EU Institutions’ and ‘presenting views and opinions to EU Institutions and other relevant bodies.’ This implies that the General Assembly, which is composed of the member organisations, is authorised to give the Secretary General a mandate for negotiations with third parties as well.

Likewise, in the case of FEPORT, Article 23 of the Articles of Association stipulates that the Board of Directors, whose members are appointed by the General Assembly (which, in turn, consists of representatives of the voting member associations and member companies), is devised to manage the daily business of the association. Accordingly, it ‘shall have the power to act in all matters, including taking an official position in its dealings with third parties (…).’ However, the persons authorised to represent FEPORT ‘in dealings with third parties (…) jointly or individually’ are, according to Article 27 of the Articles of Association, the Chair (who is elected by the General Assembly) and the Secretary General (who is appointed by the General Assembly). Hence, as in the case of ESPO, FEPORT is equipped with an implicit rather than explicit mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members in matters related to the sectoral European social dialogue.

As a final proof of the weight of these three organisations, it is useful to look at other European organisations which may be important representatives of the sector. This can be done by reviewing the other European organisations to which the sector-related trade unions and employer associations are affiliated.

The affiliations of the trade unions are listed in Table 7. European organisations other than ETF and IDC represent a relatively high proportion of both sector-related trade unions and countries. For reasons of brevity, only those European organisations are mentioned here which cover at least three countries. This involves five organisations: IndustriAll, the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), UNI Europa, the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) and the Sections of the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) other than Dockers. None of these organisations record more than 12 affiliations. Although the affiliations listed in Table 7 are likely not to be exhaustive, this overview still underlines the principal status, in particular, of ETF (Dockers), and also of IDC as the sector’s labour representatives. This is because the presence of the organisations other than ETF (Dockers) and IDC responds to the overlapping domains of many sector-related trade unions (see Table 6). European organisations other than ETF and IDC do not claim to attract unions from the ports sector.

A similar review of the membership of the national employer/business associations can be derived from Table 9. Most of them have no or very few affiliations to European associations other than FEPORT and ESPO. Overall, only one alternative European association can be identified that covers at least three countries. This is the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) with five affiliations in five countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Italy and Luxembourg). In terms of both the number of affiliations as well as territorial coverage, however, this organisation lags far behind both FEPORT and ESPO.

Commentary

In its 2013 Communication on ports (COM[2013] 295 final), the European Commission identifies a number of structural shortcomings in the European ports sector, foremost of which are  connectivity problems to the hinterland, the lack of transparency with regard to public funding, labour market entry barriers, inadequate governance models and excessive bureaucracy and administrative (customs) procedures. However, in spite of several attempts by the EU to open up access to the market of port services, the European ports industry has undergone only relatively minor economic restructuring thus far. In a few countries, such as Greece, Portugal and Romania, restructuring measures in the ports sector have been initiated within the framework of an encompassing restructuring programme affecting the entire national economy and industrial relations, as required by the EU authorities. Restructuring in the ports industry has in some cases meant liberalisation and privatisation processes (as in the case of Greece, Poland and Slovenia) and may also have triggered some changes in the national industrial relations systems. Endeavours to liberalise the market of port services and the port labour market have in some countries resulted in industrial dispute (for instance, in Portugal and Slovenia). However, overall, both governance practices and industrial relations systems in the ports industry have remained relatively resistant to reform in recent decades.

This may be traced back to two main features of the European ports industry. On the one hand, European ports are often owned and/or managed by public authorities and thus prove resistant to alteration. On the other hand, ports are traditionally a stronghold of trade unionism, particularly in state- or municipality-controlled ports. Strong unionisation in connection with large port operators, often in public ownership, has paved the way for single-employer arrangements in many countries. In some of them, for example in Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the UK, employers have refrained from setting up employer organisations equipped with a bargaining mandate. In another group of countries, however, multi-employer bargaining conducted by employer organisations is prevalent in the sector. Overall, according to the data available, as many countries operate under predominant multi-employer bargaining as countries with prevalent single-employer bargaining.

In terms of collective bargaining coverage, the situation in the European ports industry is highly polarised. While ten of the 17 countries with available data record high rates of collective bargaining coverage – reaching 85% to 100% – five countries record rates below 30% and two countries record medium-range rates of between 30% and 60%. High collective bargaining coverage can be found exclusively among the ‘old’ Member States, whereas low rates scatter among the Baltic and the central and eastern European countries. Comparing the figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the EU28, as presented in the EurWORK country profiles,  the ports sector’s bargaining coverage of each Member State indicates that the ports sector’s bargaining coverage is more or less higher in 11 of the 16 countries for which comparable data are available. Only in Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia is the sector’s bargaining coverage lower than that of cross-sectoral bargaining, whereas the two measures are equal in Croatia. Comparatively high levels of collective bargaining coverage in the sector may be explained by high organisational strength, particularly on the side of organised labour and relatively stable national industrial relations systems. Overall, collective bargaining coverage rates in the ports sector tend to increase with the predominance of multi-employer arrangements and a significant use of extension practices.

It is important to note that the data provided in the country profiles have not undergone a thorough validation procedure. However, since more reliable information on national cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage rates tends to be outdated, this report refers to information provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents.

With regard to the representativeness status of the sectoral European-level social partner organisations examined in this study, on the employee side ETF (with its Dockers’ Section), which tends to organise the major players among a highly fragmented associational ‘landscape’ on the side of organised labour within the sector, can be regarded as the main EU-wide representative of the sector’s workforce. By contrast, IDC tends to cover the smaller trade unions that represent particular niches in the sector. Yet it seems that not only ETF, but also IDC, may rightfully claim some representativeness within the sector for itself, while no other European organisation with a special focus on port workers’ representation exists.

On the employer side, FEPORT representing the private port operators and ESPO as the voice of the port authorities and administrations individually are not representative of the ports sector as a whole; however, since their respective membership domains are complementary to each other rather than mutually overlapping, together they represent major industrial relations actors in the sector in most Member States. FEPORT and ESPO are unmatched as the European voices of the ports sector’s employers, as there is no other European organisation which can compare with them in terms of organising relevant sector-related businesses and employer organisations across the European Member States.

Georg Adam, FORBA

Bibliography

Müller-Jentsch, W. (1988), ‘Industrial relations theory and trade union strategy’, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 177–190.

Olson, M. (1965), The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Schnabel, C. (2013), ‘Union membership and density: Some (not so) stylized facts and challenges’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 255–272.

Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B. (2001), National labour relations in internationalised markets, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Traxler, F. (2004), ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism: From classical to lean patterns’,

European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 571–598.

Annex 1: Data tables

Note about the data

Due to the particular and encompassing definition of the sector under scrutiny, including rather heterogeneous activities, many of the correspondents had great difficulties in gathering data that matched the sector. For this reason, Table 3 and Table 4 contain many blanks, and some of the data provided may be questionable. To complement these sketchy tables, an additional Table 5 containing data calculated and compiled on the basis of Eurostat SBS statistics (providing data at four-digit NACE code level) is included in this report. However, the data included in Table 5, devised to contrast the data included in Table 3 and Table 4 for verification and to provide figures where corresponding numbers are lacking in Table 3 and Table 4, only partially accomplish this purpose. This is because for most countries Eurostat SBS statistics are available only for part of the sector, which means that a direct comparison of the corresponding data of the respective tables is often not possible.

Table 3: Total companies and employment in ports: approximations (2003 and 2013)

Country

Year

Number of Companies

Year

Total Employment

Women

Men

Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy

AT

2005

1159

2005

45146

n.a.

n.a.

1.2%

AT

2012

1292

2012

42829

10014

32815

1.0

BE

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

2013

n.a.

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2013

n.a.

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2012

1592

2012

16438

n.a.

n.a.

4.2%

CZ

2003

4196**

2003

258300

51300

207000

5,5

CZ

2013

7826**

2013

31900

9000

22800

0.6

DE

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

2011

27861

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DK

2003

1570

2003

29011

6823

22188

1.1%

DK

2012

1548

2013

27921

6798

21123

1.0%

EE

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

2013

n.a.

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

2003

20818*

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

2013

20112*

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

2003

1412

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

2012

1992

2013

33772

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2011

3335

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL*

2013

5691

2013

58990

14156

44834

1.7%

HR

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HR*

2013

1378

2013

60981****

8151****

52830****

4.5%****

HU

2003

n.a.

2003

9325

n.a.

n.a.

0.4%

HU

2013

n.a.

2013

47882

n.a.

n.a.

2.2%

IE

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2013

n.a.

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2011

23425

2011

334130

79857**

254273**

2.2%

LT

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

2012

3164

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2005

317

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2013

222

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LV

2003

494

2003

19419

5921

13498

2.3%

LV

2012

1621

2012

26639

8696

17943

3.1%

MT

2005

346

2005

3372

n.a.

n.a.

2.4%

MT

2013

405

2013

3994

n.a.

n.a.

2.7%

NL

2003

8855

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

2013

15075

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2003

n.a.

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2013

n.a.

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

2004

2257

2001

15791

3692

12099

0.3%

PT

2012

2482

2011

22630

6266

16364

0.5%

RO

2003

1498*

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2012

2399*

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2003

1530

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2013

1960

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2003

456

2003

11449

2967

8482

1.5%

SI

2013

840

2013

9160

2887

6273

1.2%

SK

2003

1861

2003

5900

1500

4400

0.3%

SK

2013

4268

2013

16600

4200

12400

0.7%

UK

2003

5705***

2003

296831***

61557

235274

1.1%

UK

2013

18090***

2013

325041***

62655

262386

1.1%

* = figures include all support activities for transportation according to NACE 52.2

** = estimate

*** = figures are not directly comparable

**** = figure questionable

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Table 4: Total employees in ports: approximations (2003 and 2013)

Country

Year

Total Employees

Female Employees

Male Employees

Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy

AT

2005

44592

n.a.

n.a.

1.4%

AT

2012

41924

9883

32041

1.2%

BE

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

2003

217900

47400

170400

5,6

CZ

2013

30700

9000

21700

0.8

DE

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

2013

628901

~141673

~487408

1.8%

DK

2003

28559

6769

21790

1.1%

DK

2013

27592

6768

20824

1.1%

EE

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

2003

24759

n.a.

n.a.

1.9%

FI

2012

32973

n.a.

n.a.

2.2%

FR

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2013

86147

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL*

2013

53299

13451

39848

2.6%

HR

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HR*

2013

60581

14958

45623

4.4%

HU

2003

8417

n.a.

n.a.

0.5%

HU

2013

44102

n.a.

n.a.

3.1%

IE

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2011

305251

73260**

231991**

3.0%

LT

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

2012

33273

n.a.

n.a.

2.9%

LU

2005

586

68

518

0.2%

LU

2013

893

130

763

0.2%

LV

2003

19412

5919

13493

2.3%

LV

2012

26385

8613

17772

3.2%

MT

2005

3137

n.a.

n.a.

3.1%

MT

2013

3837

n.a.

n.a.

3.3%

NL

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

2001

15001

3508

11493

0.4%

PT

2011

21215

6051

15164

0.6%

RO

2003

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2003

36316

n.a.

n.a.

1.0%

SE

2013

41472

n.a.

n.a.

1.0%

SI

2003

11329

2952

8377

1.6%

SI

2013

8743

2845

5898

1.3%

SK

2003

5100

1300

3800

0.3%

SK

2013

16400

4200

12200

0.8%

UK

2003

289651

61032

228619

1.2%

UK

2013

316263

61544

254719

1.2%

* = figures include all support activities for transportation according to NACE 52.2

** = estimate

*** = figures are not directly comparable

**** = figure questionable

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Table 5: Companies, employment and employees in ports (2008 and 2012)

Country

Year

Companies

Employment

Employees

AT

2008

1277

45458

44756

AT

2012

1292

42829

41924

BE

2008

2792a

45297a

42810a

BE

2012

3153b

86123b

83241b

BG

2008

1645

30824d

29620d

BG

2012

1933c

27286a

26079a

CY

2008

747

8464i

8071i

CY

2012

709d

6469d

6276d

CZ

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

2012

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

2008

17145

546127

529922

DE

2012

17503

576437

560488

DK

2008

1748

21894a

21649a

DK

2012

1688

44695c

43132c

EE

2008

948

11456j

11209j

EE

2012

1212

11823i

11411i

ES

2008

14354e

226665e

218391e

ES

2012

17010f

221612f

209619f

FI

2008

1975

32341c

31924c

FI

2012

2090

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2008

9282

n.a.

247713

FR

2012

10618

252165

249860

EL

2008

11076c

57133c

45490c

EL

2012

9490c

48724c

41722c

HR

2008

1581

22199k

21721k

HR

2012

1607

25042c

24126c

HU

2008

3550d

54022d

52573d

HU

2012

3568c

50654c

49048c

IE

2008

1018g

18199g

17083g

IE

2012

1120g

15283g

14649g

IT

2008

21824

361489

332372

IT

2012

23251

335604

316747

LT

2008

1130

15143b

14981b

LT

2012

1633

17941b

17792b

LU

2008

162d

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2012

187d

n.a.

n.a.

LV

2008

1460

25254

25208

LV

2012

1859

24801

24412

MT

2008

374

n.a.

2920m

MT

2012

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

2008

4968

82066b

76019b

NL

2012

6088

90115

81178

PL

2008

8657

73495

63332

PL

2012

10375

123509

111508

PT

2008

2337

27369

26468

PT

2012

2425

23022

22172

RO

2008

2092h

68144h

67742h

RO

2012

2341

62261

61804

SE

2008

3868

59671

52600

SE

2012

4266c

55706c

48539c

SI

2008

795

7603l

7185l

SI

2012

1080

7829c

7210c

SK

2008

665c

30628c

30354c

SK

2012

3332a

31597a

28946a

UK

2008

10753

275985

271990

UK

2012

10065

293345d

290828d

a = without NACE 49.50, 50.10 and 50.20; b = without NACE 50.10; c = without NACE 49.50; d = without NACE 50.10 and 50.20; e = including NACE 52.23; f = without NACE 49.50, including NACE 52.23; g = without NACE 50.10 and 50.20, including NACE 52.23; h = prognosis data; i = without NACE 50.20; j = without NACE 50.20, including NACE 52.23; k = without NACE 49.50 and 50.10; l = without NACE 49.50 and 50.20; m = without NACE 50.10, including NACE 52.23.;

Source: Eurostat, SBS (access on webpage as of 28 July 2015), and own calculations.

Table 6: Domain coverage, membership and density of trade unions in ports (2012/13/14)

 

Trade union

Type of membership

Domain coveragea

Membership

Density

 

Members active

Members sector active

Sector density (%)

Sectoral domain density in relation to overall domain density

AT

PRO-GE

voluntary

SO

230486**

120

0.3%

n.a.

 

AT

vida*

voluntary

SO

139919**

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

AT

GPA-djp*

voluntary

SO

175455**

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

BE

ACV-CSC Transcom*

mixed***

SO

80000

5022

n.a.

 

BE

LBC-NVK*

voluntary

SO

275000

8000

n.a.

 

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB*

n.a.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

BE

BBTK-SETCa

voluntary

SO

42000

5000

n.a.

n.a.

 

BE

ABVV/BTB - FGTB/UBT*

n.a.

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

BG

FTW*

voluntary

SO

7000

1000

n.a.

 

BG

FTTUB*

voluntary

SO

10000

1150

n.a.

 

BG

SSB*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

CY

OMEPEGE-SEK*

voluntary

SO

5000-6000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

CY

SEGDAMELIN-PEO*

voluntary

SO

7700

103

n.a.

 

DE

ver.di

voluntary

SO

2064541

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

DK

3F*

voluntary

SO

264571

3000

10.9%

 

DK

SL

voluntary

S

2986

2986

10.8%

n/a

 

DK

MMF

voluntary

SO

11000

2200

8.0%

equal

 

DK

Co-Sea*

voluntary

S

>1922

>1922

7.0%

n/a

 

EE

EMSA*

voluntary

SO

2056

132

n.a.

n.a.

 

EE

EVAF*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

ES

FSC-CCOO*

voluntary

O

250000

5000

n.a.

n.a.

 

ES

SMC-UGT*

voluntary

O

180000

6000

n.a.

n.a.

 

ES

CETM*

voluntary

S

5000

5000

n.a.

n/a

 

ES

FGAMT-CIG*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

ES

ELA-Zerbitzuak*

voluntary

SO

26142

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

ES

LAB-Sindikatua*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

FI

AKT

voluntary

SO

37000

4500

13.9%

 

FI

FMPA

voluntary

S

160

160

0.5%

n/a

 

FI

PARDIA

voluntary

SO

60000**

2860

8.7%

equal

 

FI

SMU

voluntary

S

8500

8500

25.8%

n/a

 

FI

ERTO

voluntary

SO

17000

8000

24.3%

 

FI

PRO

voluntary

SO

110000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

FI

JHL

voluntary

SO

230000

1000

3.0%

 

FI

FEA

voluntary

SO

2400

1100

3.3%

n.a.

 

FI

FSU

voluntary

S

1600

1600

4.9%

n/a

 

FR

FPD-CGT*

voluntary

SO

16000

8000

9.3%

 

FR

FGTE-CFDT*

voluntary

O

50000

1300

1.5%

 

FR

FEETS FO*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

FR

FO TL*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

FR

FGT-CFTC*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

FR

FNSM-CGT*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

FR

FOMM-CGT*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

FR

CGT Transports*

voluntary

SO

34500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

FR

FT-CFE-CGC*

voluntary

SO

3000

n.a.

n.a.

 

FR

FNCAMPD-CGC*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

EL

OMYLE

voluntary

S

1386

1386

2.6%

n/a

 

EL

DUPPA

voluntary

S

280

280

0.5%

n/a

 

EL

OFE

voluntary

S

2500

2500

4.7%

n/a

 

EL

PNO

voluntary

S

17000

17000

31.9%

n/a

 

EL

PASENT

voluntary

SO

8500

6500

12.2%

 

HR

SSLRLP

voluntary

S

450

450

0.7%

n/a

 

HR

SLRH

voluntary

S

1800

1800

3.0%

n/a

 

HR

SSLRLD

voluntary

S

40

40

0.1%

n/a

 

HR

NSZRL

voluntary

S

250

250

0.4%

n/a

 

HR

SSZRL

voluntary

S

330

330

0.5%

n/a

 

HR

LSS

voluntary

S

65

65

0.1%

n/a

 

HR

NSPLS

voluntary

S

90

90

0.1%

n/a

 

HR

SSZLV

voluntary

S

15

15

0.0%

n/a

 

HR

SPH

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

HU

GOES

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

IE

SIPTU

voluntary

SO

199881 (2011)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IE

UNITE

voluntary

SO

31594 (2011)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IE

TEEU

voluntary

SO

39000 (2011)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IE

SUI

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

IE

UCATT

voluntary

SO

39000 (2011)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IE

IMPACT

voluntary

SO

61500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IT

FILT-CGIL*

voluntary

SO

50000

6000

2.0%

 

IT

FIT-CISL*

voluntary

O

121577

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IT

UILTrasporti*

voluntary

SO

117846

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IT

FILCTEM-CGIL*

voluntary

SO

224447

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IT

Femca-CISL*

voluntary

SO

120000

200

0.1%

equal

 

IT

Uiltec*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

9000

2.9%

 

IT

UGL Chimici*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

LT

LGPF*

voluntary

SO

4350

n.a.

n.a.

equal

 

LT

LJS*

voluntary

O

1650

n.a.

n.a.

 

LT

LVTDPF*

voluntary

S

240

240

0.7%

n/a

 

LT

DPS / IDU

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

LT

LKADPSF*

voluntary

SO

1200

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

LT

LADPS*

voluntary

SO

1490

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

LV

LTFJA*

voluntary

S

7433

7433

28.2%

n/a

 

LV

ÜTAF*

voluntary

SO

1152

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

LU

LCGB-Transport*

voluntary

O

700

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

LU

OGBL-Transport*

voluntary

SO

4025

300

33.6%

 

MT

MDU*

voluntary

S

600

600

15.6%

n/a

 

MT

GWU*

voluntary

SO

39201

n.a.

n.a.

 

MT

UHM*

voluntary

n.a.

22502

n.a.

n.a.

 

NL

FNV Bondgenoten*

voluntary

O

475000

6915

n.a.

 

NL

CNV Vakmensen*

voluntary

O

140000

1500

n.a.

 

PL

FZZMiR*

voluntary

SO

2188

1643

n.a.

 

PL

OZZOiM*

voluntary

SO

5078

4699

n.a.

 

PL

KSPM NSZZ Solidarnosc*

voluntary

S

1944

1944

n.a.

n/a

 

PL

WZZPGM*

voluntary

SO

5000

1100

n.a.

 

PL

KSMMiR*

voluntary

SO

6106

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PL

NSZZ Solidarnosc-80*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

SITESE*

voluntary

O

<10000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

FESMAR*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

SIMAMEVIP*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

SINDEPESCAS*

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

SOEMM*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

OFICIAISMAR*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

PT

SETC*

voluntary

S

366

366

1.7%

n/a

 

PT

STPA*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

PT

FNSTP*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

 

RO

FNSP

voluntary

SO

4500

3500

n.a.

 

RO

FARUL

voluntary

S

400

400

n.a.

n/a

 

SE

Transport*

voluntary

SO

62000

9000

21.7%

 

SE

SHF*

voluntary

S

1400

1400

3.4%

n/a

 

SE

Pappers

voluntary

SO

15000

300

0.7%

equal

 

SE

SEKO*

voluntary

SO

122955

13300

32.1%

equal

 

SE

SBF

voluntary

S

3600

3600

8.7%

n/a

 

SE

SI

voluntary

SO

100000

240

0.6%

n.a.

 

SE

Unionen

voluntary

SO

465000

9800

23.6%

equal

 

SE

Ledarna

voluntary

SO

91416

1900

4.6%

n.a.

 

SE

Lotsförbundet

voluntary

S

205

205

0.5%

n/a

 

SE

ST*

voluntary

SO

63700

n.a.

n.a.

 

SI

SPS

voluntary

S

250

250

n.a.

n/a

 

SI

SPDS*

voluntary

SO

180

130

n.a.

 

SI

SZPD*

voluntary

S

400

400

n.a.

n/a

 

SK

POZ

voluntary

SO

1920

1862

11.4%

 

SK

ECHOZ

voluntary

SO

11520

218

1.3%

 

UK

Unite*

voluntary

O

1400000

11491

3.6%

n.a.

 

UK

RMT*

voluntary

O

80000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

UK

TSSA*

voluntary

SO

30000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

a = domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism (For details, see Table 2); * = Domain overlap with other sector-related trade unions; ** = figure includes non-active members; *** = union generally relies on voluntary membership; however, for some grades and functions in the ports sector membership is obligatory due to closed shop provisions;

n.a. = not available; n/a = not applicable.

 Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), administrative data and estimates

Table 7: Collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of trade unions in ports (2012/13/14)

Country

Trade union

Collective bargaining (CB)a

CB coverage (total)b

Consultation/ frequency

National and European affiliations**

AT

PRO-GE

M

n.a.

regularly

ÖGB; IndustriAll, EFFAT

AT

vida*

S+M

7000

regularly

ÖGB; ETF, EFFAT, EPSU, UNI-Europa

AT

GPA-djp*

S+M

20000

n.a.

ÖGB; IndustriAll, EFFAT, EPSU, EFJ, UNI-Europa

BE

ACV-CSC Transcom*

S+M

11190

regularly

ACV-CSC; ETF (ports)

BE

LBC-NVK*

S+M

n.a.

ad-hoc

ACV-CSC; ETF (ports), IndustriAll, UNI-Europa, EFFAT, EPSU, EuroCadres

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB*

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

ETF (ports)

BE

BBTK-SETCa

S+M

20000

ad-hoc

FGTB; ETF (ports), UNI-Europa, EPSU, EFFAT, IndustriAll

BE

ABVV/BTB - FGTB/UBT*

S+M

n.a.

regularly

FGTB; ETF (ports)

BG

FTW*

S+M

1000

regularly

PODKREPA; ETF (ports)

BG

FTTUB*

S+M

n.a.

regularly

CITUB; ETF (ports)

BG

SSB*

S

n.a.

regularly

CITUB; ETF (ports)

CY

OMEPEGE-SEK*

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

SEK; ETF (ports), EFFAT

CY

SEGDAMELIN-PEO*

S+M

226

ad-hoc

PEO; IDC

DE

ver.di

S+M

n.a.

regularly

DGB; ETF (ports)

DK

3F*

S+M

3390

regularly

LO; ETF (ports), UNI-Europa, EPSU, EFFAT, EFBWW, IndustriAll

DK

SL

M

1789

regularly

ETF (ports), EMPA

DK

MMF

M

2000

regularly

 

DK

Co-Sea*

S+M

>2560

regularly

LO; ETF

EE

EMSA*

S

2438

ad-hoc

EAKL; ETF (ports)

EE

EVAF*

S

730

n.a.

ETF (ports)

ES

FSC-CCOO*

S+M

>100000

regularly

CCOO; ETF (ports)

ES

SMC-UGT*

S+M

20000

regularly

UGT; ETF (ports)

ES

CETM*

S+M

6000

regularly

IDC

ES

FGAMT-CIG*

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

CIG; ETF (ports)

ES

ELA-Zerbitzuak*

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

ETF (ports)

ES

LAB-Sindikatua*

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

IDC

FI

AKT

S+M

4870

regular

SAK; ETF (ports)

FI

FMPA

S

167

ad-hoc

(STTK); EMPA

FI

PARDIA

M

2860

no

STTK; EPSU

FI

SMU

S+M

9525

regular

SAK; ETF

FI

ERTO

M

8000

regular

STTK; ETF

FI

PRO

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

STTK; ETF (ports)

FI

JHL

S+M

1000

regular

SAK; ETF (ports)

FI

FEA

S+M

1000

regular

STTK; ETF

FI

FSU

S+M

1600

regular

STTK; ETF (ports)

FR

FPD-CGT*

S+M

10000

regular

CGT; IDC

FR

FGTE-CFDT*

S+M

26000

ad-hoc

CFDT; ETF (ports)

FR

FEETS FO*

S+M

26000

ad-hoc

CGT-FO; ETF (ports)

FR

FO TL*

S+M

n.a.

ad-hoc

CGT-FO; ETF

FR

FGT-CFTC*

S+M

26000

ad-hoc

CFTC; ETF

FR

FNSM-CGT*

S+M

16000

ad-hoc

CGT; ETF

FR

FOMM-CGT*

S+M

n.a.

ad-hoc

CGT; ETF

FR

CGT Transports*

S+M

n.a.

ad-hoc

CGT; ETF

FR

FT-CFE-CGC*

S+M

16000

ad-hoc

CFE-CGC; FICT

FR

FNCAMPD-CGC*

S+M

10000

n.a.

CGC

EL

OMYLE

S+M

1200

no

GSEE; IDC

EL

DUPPA

S

280

no

IDC

EL

OFE

S

2500

regular

GSEE; ETF (ports)

EL

PNO

M

n.a.

no

GSEE; ETF

EL

PASENT

M

10800

ad-hoc

OIYE

HR

SSLRLP

S

700

ad-hoc

URSH

HR

SLRH

S

2200

ad-hoc

SSSH; ETF (ports)

HR

SSLRLD

S

40

ad-hoc

URSH

HR

NSZRL

S

280

ad-hoc

(SSSH; ETF [ports])

HR

SSZRL

S

350

ad-hoc

(SSSH; ETF [ports])

HR

LSS

S

80

ad-hoc

(SSSH; ETF [ports])

HR

NSPLS

S

120

ad-hoc

HURS

HR

SSZLV

S

20

ad-hoc

(SSSH; ETF [ports])

HR

SPH

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ETF (ports)

HU

GOES

S

799

no

 

IE

SIPTU

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

ICTU; ETF (ports)

IE

UNITE

S

n.a.

no

ICTU

IE

TEEU

S

n.a.

no

ICTU

IE

SUI

S

n.a.

no

ETF

IE

UCATT

S

n.a.

no

ICTU

IE

IMPACT

S

n.a.

yes

ICTU; ETF (ports)

IT

FILT-CGIL*

S+M

n.a.

regular

CGIL; ETF (ports)

IT

FIT-CISL*

S+M

n.a.

regular

CISL; ETF (ports)

IT

UILTrasporti*

S+M

n.a.

ad-hoc

UIL; ETF (ports)

IT

FILCTEM-CGIL*

S+M

n.a.

regular

CGIL; EPSU, IndustriAll

IT

Femca-CISL*

S+M

1500

regular

CISL; IndustriAll

IT

Uiltec*

S+M

n.a.

regular

UIL; IndustriAll

IT

UGL Chimici*

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

UGL

LT

LGPF*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

LPSK; ETF

LT

LJS*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

ETF

LT

LVTDPF*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

LPSK

LT

DPS / IDU

S

n.a.

n.a.

ETF (ports)

LT

LKADPSF*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

LPSK; ETF

LT

LADPS*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

LPS Solidarumas; ETF

LV

LTFJA*

S

4853

regular

LBAS; ETF

LV

ÜTAF*

S

2185

regular

LBAS; ETF (ports)

LU

LCGB-Transport*

S+M

1500

ad-hoc

LCGB

LU

OGBL-Transport*

S+M

1500

ad-hoc

OGBL; ETF

MT

MDU*

S

600

ad-hoc

IDC

MT

GWU*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

ETF (ports)

MT

UHM*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

CMTU

NL

FNV Bondgenoten*

S+M

7500

ad-hoc

FNV; ETF (ports)

NL

CNV Vakmensen*

S+M

7500

ad-hoc

CNV; ETF (ports)

PL

FZZMiR*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

OPZZ; ETF (ports)

PL

OZZOiM*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

FZZ; ETF

PL

KSPM NSZZ Solidarnosc*

S

1450

ad-hoc

NSZZ Solidarnosc; ETF (ports)

PL

WZZPGM*

S

800

ad-hoc

OPZZ

PL

KSMMiR*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

NSZZ Solidarnosc; ETF

PL

NSZZ Solidarnosc-80*

S

n.a.

n.a.

FZZ

PT

SITESE*

S+M

492

n.a.

UGT; UNI-Europa

PT

FESMAR*

S

955

n.a.

UGT; ETF (ports)

PT

SIMAMEVIP*

S+M

4914

n.a.

CGTP-IN

PT

SINDEPESCAS*

S+M

5276

n.a.

UGT

PT

SOEMM*

no

0

n.a.

UGT; ETF (ports)

PT

OFICIAISMAR*

no

0

n.a.

CGTP-IN; ETF (ports)

PT

SETC*

M

n.a.

no

IDC

PT

STPA*

no

0

n.a.

IDC

PT

FNSTP*

no

0

n.a.

UGT; IDC

RO

FNSP

M

4000

regular

BNS; ETF (ports)

RO

FARUL

S

400

ad-hoc

ETF (ports)

SE

Transport*

M

11300

ad-hoc

LO; ETF (ports), UNI-Europa, EPSU

SE

SHF*

S

600

regularly

IDC

SE

Pappers

M

300

ad-hoc

LO; IndustriAll

SE

SEKO*

M

16700

regularly

LO; ETF, UNI-Europa, EFBWW, EPSU

SE

SBF

M

3200

regularly

ETF

SE

SI

M

240

no

SACO; IndustriAll, UNI-Europa, FEANI

SE

Unionen

M

15000

ad-hoc

TCO; UNI-Europa, ETF, Eurocadres

SE

Ledarna

M

1900

n.a.

ETF, CEC

SE

Lotsförbundet

M

215

regularly

SACO; EMPA

SE

ST*

M

n.a.

regularly

TCO; ETF, UNI-Europa, EPSU

SI

SPS

S

250

ad-hoc

KS-90; ETF (ports)

SI

SPDS*

S

999

no

KS-90

SI

SZPD*

S

999

no

Alterativa; ETF (ports)

SK

POZ

S

2270

ad-hocc

KOZ SR; EPSU

SK

ECHOZ

S+M

310

regularly

KOZ SR; IndustriAll

UK

Unite*

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

TUC; ETF (ports), IndustriAll, (IDC)

UK

RMT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ETF (ports)

UK

TSSA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ETF (ports)

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related trade unions; ** = National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher- or lower-order unit; a = Collective bargaining involvement: S = single-employer bargaining; M = multi-employer bargaining; b = number of employees covered by collective agreements concluded by the union within the ports sector; c = indirect consultation via higher-order unit; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), administrative data and estimates

Table 8: Domain coverage and membership of employer/business organisations in ports (2012/13/14)

 

Employer Organisation

Domain coveragea

Membership

Type

b

 

Companies

– in sector

Employees

– in sector

AT

FVSch

S

o

100

100

45500

n.a.

AT

FVMI

SO

o

26

n.a.

4200

n.a.

AT

FVSp

SO

o

1683

n.a.

22659

n.a.

AT

FV ALS-Schifffahrt

SO

o

406

n.a.

600

n.a.

BE

WBH

S

o

180

180

11000

11000

BE

WF-FE

SO

v

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

CSA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

LLPA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

ZDS

S

v

190

190

12600

12600

DK

DI

SO

v

10000

95

1000000

n.a.

DK

DSA

SO

v

93

93

23048

17113

ES

ANESCO

S

v

148

148

n.a.

n.a.

FI

SHL

S

v

67

67

4800

4800

FI

FSA

S

v

25

25

12000

12000

FI

FPOA

S

v

50

50

3000-4000

3000-4000

FI

AVAINTA

SO

v

600

5

33000

248

FR

UPF*

S

v

44

44

6000

6000

FR

TLF*

SO

v

n.a.

300

220000

n.a.

FR

UNIM*

S

v

100

100

5500

5500

FR

FSA*

SO

v

49

n.a.

22000

n.a.

EL

ELIME

S

v

13

13

1880

1880

EL

SEEN

S

v

22

22

5000

5000

EL

UGS

S

v

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HR

ZLU

S

v

6

6

2000

2000

IE

IBEC

O

v

7500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Assiterminal*

S

v

64

64

6020

6020

IT

Assologistica*

SO

v

230

35

25000

2000

IT

Assoporti*

S

v

23

23

1200

1200

IT

Fise-Uniport*

S

v

25

25

3000

3000

IT

Confitarma*

S

v

230

230

24000

24000

IT

Fedarlinea*

S

v

7

n.a.

7

n.a.

IT

Assorimorchiatori*

S

v

22

22

1000

1000

IT

Federimorchiatori*

S

v

6

6

n

n.a.

IT

CE

SO

v

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

LJKKA

SO

v

17

15

n.a.

n.a.

LU

GT*

SO

v

260

n.a.

5000

n.a.

LU

FEDIL Shipping*

S

v

5

5

1500

1500

NL

Verocog-AWVN

S

v

5

5

400

400

PT

AATFL

SO

v

8

8

600

600

PT

AANP

C

v

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

ACOPE

SO

v

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

ANESUL

C

v

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AOPL

S

v

4

4

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AOPPDL

S

v

2

2

330

330

PT

APP

S

v

11

11

n.a.

n.a.

RO

OP

S

v

35

35

7000

7000

SE

SARF

S

v

93

93

10300

10300

SE

Sveriges Hamnar*

S

v

64

64

4100

4100

SE

SAIE*

SO

v

860

n.a.

82000

350

SE

BA

SO

v

7900

>103

n.a.

>11700

SE

SFB

SO

v

107

30

10000

3000

SE

Almega

SO

v

3900

25

155500

1129

SK

ZCHFP SR

SO

v

53

1

15000

395

UK

BPA*

C

n.a.

91

91

39000

39000

UK

UKMPG*

C

n.a.

9

9

78000

78000

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisations

a = domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism (For details see Table 2 / page 4); b = type: o = obligatory; v = voluntary; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), administrative data and estimates

Table 9: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/ business organisations in ports (2012/13/14)

 

 

Density

CBa

CB coverageb

F

NAF***

Comp.

Empl.

Comp.

Empl.

(%)

 

 

 (%)

Sectoral domain in relation to overall domain

 

 

AT

FVSch

7.7

n.a.

n/a

S+M

100

n.a.

regularly

WKO; CER

AT

FVMI

n.a.

n.a.

equal

M

<26

n.a.

ad-hoc

WKO

AT

FVSp

n.a.

n.a.

equal

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

WKO

AT

FV ALS-Schifffahrt

n.a.

n.a.

equal

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

no

WKO

BE

WBH

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

M

180

11000

yes

VBO; FEPORT

BE

WF-FE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

yes

 

CY

CSA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

175

n.a.

 

CY

LLPA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

DE

ZDS

0.7

2.0

n/a

M

79

10760

regularly

FEPORT, UNISTOCK

DK

DI

6.1

n.a.

n.a.

M

95

n.a.

regularly

DA; FEPORT

DK

DSA

6.0

62.0

equal

M

93

17113

regularly

DA; ECSA

ES

ANESCO

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

CEOE; FEPORT, ECASBA

FI

SHL

3.4

14.6

n/a

M**

67

4800

no

EK

FI

FSA

1.3

36.4

n/a

M

25

12000

no

ECSA

FI

FPOA

2.5

9.1

n/a

S+M

50

3000-4000

regularly

EK; FEPORT

FI

AVAINTA

0.3

0.8

n.a.

M**

5

248

n.a.

KT

FR

UPF*

1.3

7.0

n/a

M

50

10000

regularly

ESPO

FR

TLF*

9.0

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

MEDEF; CLECAT

FR

UNIM*

3.0

6.4

n/a

M

200

10000

ad-hoc

MEDEF; FEPORT

FR

FSA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

16000

ad-hoc

MEDEF; ECSA

EL

ELIME

0.2

3.5

n/a

no

0

0

no

SETE; ESPO

EL

SEEN

0.4

9.4

n/a

M

22

5000

no

SETE

EL

UGS

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

HR

ZLU

0.4

3.3

n/a

no

0

0

ad-hoc

ESPO

IE

IBEC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

S

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

 

IT

Assiterminal*

0.3

2.0

n/a

S+M

150

10000

ad-hoc

Confindustria; FEPORT

IT

Assologistica*

0.1

0.7

n.a.

S+M

160

10000

regular

Confindustria, Confetra, Federtrasporto; FEPORT, ECSLA

IT

Assoporti*

0.1

0.4

n/a

M

n.a.

10000

ad-hoc

ESPO

IT

Fise-Uniport*

0.1

1.0

n/a

S+M

200

10000

regular

Confindustria, FISE

IT

Confitarma*

1.0

7.9

n/a

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Confindustria; ECSA

IT

Fedarlinea*

0.0

n.a.

n/a

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Confcommercio

IT

Assorimorchiatori*

0.1

0.3

n/a

S+M

27

1500

regular

 

IT

Federimorchiatori*

0.0

n.a.

n/a

yes

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

IT

CE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

S+M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Confindustria

LT

LJKKA

0.5%

n.a.

no

0

0

ad-hoc

LPK; FEPORT

LU

GT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

CLC; IRU

LU

FEDIL Shipping*

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

M

5

1500

ad-hoc

FEDIL; ECSA

NL

Verocog-AWVN

0.0

n.a.

n/a

S+M

5

400

ad-hoc

VNO-NCW; (FEPORT)

PT

AATFL

0.3

2.8

n.a.

M

8

600

ad-hoc

 

PT

AANP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

101

1470

n.a.

 

PT

ACOPE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

150

4800

n.a.

 

PT

ANESUL

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

M

99

1493

n.a.

 

PT

AOPL

0.2

n.a.

n/a

M

18

334

n.a.

FEPORT

PT

AOPPDL

0.1

1.6

n/a

M

2

330

ad-hoc

FEPORT

PT

APP

0.4

n.a.

n/a

no

0

0

n.a.

ESPO

RO

OP

n.a.

n.a.

n/a

yes

n.a.

n.a.

regular

CNPR; FEPORT

SE

SARF

4.7

24.8

n/a

M

n.a.

n.a.

regular

CSE; ECS

SE

Sveriges Hamnar*

3.3

9.9

n/a

M

64

4100

regular

CSE; ESPO, FEPORT

SE

SAIE*

n.a.

0.8

equal

M

n.a.

350

no

CSE; CEPI, Euromines

SE

BA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

regular

CSE

SE

SFB

1.5

7.2

equal

M

n.a.

3000

ad-hoc

CSE; EHA

SE

Almega

1.3

2.7

equal

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

CSE; CoESS

SK

ZCHFP SR

0.0

2.4

M

1

395

regular

AZZZ SR; ECEG, CEFIC

UK

BPA*

0.5

12.3

n/a

no

0

0

regular

ESPO

UK

UKMPG*

0.0

24.7

n/a

no

0

0

regular

ESPO

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/business organisations; ** = Indirect collective bargaining involvement via higher-level unit; *** = National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit; a = Collective bargaining involvement: S = single-employer bargaining; M = multi-employer bargaining; b = number of companies/employees covered by collective agreements concluded by the employer organisation within the ports sector; CB = collective bargaining; Comp. = companies; Empl. = employees; F = frequency; NAF = National and European affiliations; n.a. = not available; n/a = not applicable.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), administrative data and estimates

Table 10: The system of sectoral collective bargaining (2013–14)

Country

CBC (%)

(estimates)

Share of MEB in total CBC (%) (estimates)

Extension practicesa

AT

100%

93%

[2]

BE

100%

100%

[2]

BG

n.a.

n.a.

0

CY

n.a.

n.a.

0

CZ

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

n.a.

MEB prevailing

0

DK

85-90%

60%

0

EE

21%

0%

0

ES

almost 100%

MEB prevailing

2

FI

almost 100%

100%b

2

FR

almost 100%

100%b

2

EL

n.a.

MEB prevailing

0

HR

60%

0%

0

HU

2%

0%

0

IE

n.a.

0%

0

IT

100%

100%b

[2]

LT

n.a.

0%

0

LV

27%

0%

0

LU

n.a.

MEB prevailing

2

MT

n.a.

0%

0

NL

almost 100%

SEB prevailing

0

PL

n.a.

0%

0

PT

90%

84%

0c

RO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

>95%

>95%

2

SI

15%

0%

0

SK

16-18%

2%

0

UK

34%

0%

0

CBC = collective bargaining coverage: employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector; MEB = multi-employer bargaining relative to single-employer bargaining; SEB = single-employer bargaining; Extension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings); a = 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are put in parentheses; b = complemented by single-employer bargaining; c = since 2010; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015), administrative data and estimates.

Table 11: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy (2014–2015)

Country

Name of body and scope of activity

Origin

Trade unions participating

Business associations participating

BE

Flemish Port Commission (VHC) – advisory body of the Flemish government

Statutory

ABVV-BBTK, LBC-NVK, ACLVB

Unizo

BG

Sub-branch Council – no further information provided

Statutory

FITUB

BMC, BCS, EAMA

DK

Education Committee of the Transport Sector – training in warehousing and storage

Statutory

3F

DI, Danish Chamber of Commerce

DK

Education Committee of the Metal Industry – training in skilled maritime trades

Statutory

3F, Dansk Metal

DI

DK

Education Committee for the Maritime Educations

Statutory

SL, MMF, 3F, CO-Sea

DI, Danish Shipowners, DF

ES

Permanent Observatory of the Port Services Market – economic analysis of the port sector and advisory body

Statutory

CCOO, UGT, CETM

Ports authorities

FR

Conseil Supérieur de la Marine Marchande – advisory body of the government

Statutory

CGT, FO, CFDT, CFTC, CFE-CGC

UPF, UNIM

LV

Transport, Communications and Information Technologies Tripartite Cooperation Subcouncil of National Tripartite Cooperation Council

Statutory

LBAS

LDDK

PL

Tripartite Team for Seafaring and Sea Fishery of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development – advisory body

Statutory

FZZMiR, OZZOiM, KSMMIR NSZZ Solidarnosc

ZAP

RO

Inter-ministerial Committee for the Coordination of an Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union – advisory body

Statutory

n.a.

n.a.

RO

Social Dialogue Commission of the Ministry of Transport – advisory body

Statutory

BNS, FNSP

CNPR, UPIR

UK

Port Skills and Safety

Agreement

Unite, UMPA, RMT, UNISON

BPA, UKMPG

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015)

Table12: ETF (Dockers’ Section) and IDC Membership (2015)+

Country

ETF

IDC

AT

---

---

BE

ACV-CSC Transcom*, LBC-NVK*, ACLVB-CGSLB*, BBTK-SETCa*, ABVV/BTB*

---

BG

FTW*, FTTUB*, SSB*

---

CY

OMEPEGE-SEK*

SEGDAMELIN-PEO*

CZ

---

---

DE

ver.di*

---

DK

3F*, SL*

(3F*)a

EE

EMSA*, EVAF*

---

ES

FSC-CCOO*, SMC-UGT*, FGAMT-CIG*, ELA-Zerbitzuak*

CETM*, LAB-Sindikatua*

FI

AKT*, PRO*, JHL*, FSU*

---

FR

FGTE-CFDT*, FEETS-FO*

FPD-CGT*

EL

OFE*

OMYLE*, DUPPA*

HR

SLRH*, (NSZRL*), (SSZRL*), (LSS*), (SSZLV*), SPH**

---

HU

---

---

IE

SIPTU*, IMPACT*

---

IT

FILT-CGIL*, FIT-CISL*, UILTrasporti*

---

LT

DPS/IDU*

---

LU

---

---

LV

ÜTAF*

 

MT

GWU*

MDU*

NL

FNV Bondgenoten*, CNV Vakmensen*

---

PL

FZZMiR*, KSPM NSZZ Solidarnosc*,

---

PT

FESMAR*, SOEMM, OFICIAISMAR

SETC*, STPA, FNSTP

RO

FNSP*, FARUL*

---

SE

Transport*

SHF*

SI

SPS*, SZPD*

 

SK

---

---

UK

Unite*, RMT**, TSSA**

(Unite*)a

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-or lower-order units; * = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining; ** = No information on collective bargaining involvement; a = 3F of Denmark and Unite of the UK do not affiliate to IDC, but one individual local branch (Aarhus Dockworkers Union Local Branch) of 3F and two individual local branches (Felixstowe Dockworkers Union Local Branch and Tilbury Dockworkers Union Local Branch) of Unite do.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2014–2015).

Table 13: FEPORT and ESPO Membership (2015)+

Country

FEPORT

ESPO

AT

---

---

BE

WBH*

---

BG

---

Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company*a

CY

---

Cyprus Ports Authority*a

CZ

---

 

DE

ZDS*

---

DK

DI*

---

EE

---

---

ES

ANESCO*

---

FI

FPOA*

---

FR

UNIM*

UPF*

EL

---

ELIME

HR

---

ZLU

HU

---

---

IE

---

---

IT

Assiterminal*, Assologistica*

Assoporti*

LT

LJKKA

---

LU

---

---

LV

---

---

MT

---

Authority for Transport Malta**a

NL

(Verocog*)

---

PL

---

---

PT

AOPL*, AOPPDL*

APP

RO

OP*

---

SE

Sveriges Hamnar*

Sveriges Hamnar*

SI

---

---

SK

---

---

UK

---
BPA, UKMPG

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit; * = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining; ** = No information available on collective bargaining involvement; a = Company/authority rather than associational member.

Source: EIRO/Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2013/14)

Annex 2: List of abbreviations

 

Country

Abbreviation

Full Name

AT

FV ALS-Schifffahrt

Association of Bus, Aviation and Shipping Companies – Shipping Group

 

FVMI

Austrian Petroleum Industry Association

 

FVSch

Association of Railway Companies

 

FVSp

Association of Freight Forwarding Companies

 

GPA-djp

Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

PRO-GE

Production Workers’ Union

 

vida

Vida Trade Union

 

WKO

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

BE

ABVV-FGTB

Belgian General Federation of Labour

 

ABVV/BTB - FGTB/UBT

Belgian Transport Union of the Belgian General Federation of Labour

 

ACLVB - CGSLB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

ACV/CSC

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

ACV/CSC Transcom

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions – Transport and Communication

 

BBTK-SETCa

Union of Employees, Technicians, Professional and Managerial Staff

 

LBC-NVK

National Union for Executives

 

VBO

Belgian Federation of Employers

 

WBH

Federation of Belgian Port Employers

 

WF-FE

Employer Organisation for International Trade, Transport and Logistics

BG

CITUB

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria

 

FTTUB

Federation of Transport Trade Unions of Bulgaria

 

FTW

Federation of Transport Workers

 

SSB

Seamen’s Syndicate

 

Podkrepa

Confederation of Labour Podkrepa

CY

CSA

Cyprus Shipping Association

 

LLPA

Limassol Licenced Porters Association

 

OMEPEGE

Federation of Transport, Petroleum and Agriculture Workers

 

SEGDAMELIN

Cyprus Agriculture, Forestry, Transport, Port, Seamen and Allied Occupations Trade Union

 

PEO

Pancyprian Federation of Labour

 

SEK

Cyprus Workers’ Federation

CZ

---

---

DE

DGB

German Trade Union Confederation

 

ver.di

United Services Union

 

ZDS

Association of German Seaport Operators

DK

3F

United Federation of Danish Workers

 

ADU

Aarhus Dockworkers Union Local Branch

 

Co-Sea

Co-Sea

 

DA

Confederation of Danish Employers

 

DI

Confederation of Danish Industry

 

DSA

Danish Shipowners’ Association

 

LO

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

 

MMF

Danish Engineers’ Association

 

SL

Danish Navigators Association

EE

EAKL

Estonian Trade Union Confederation

 

EMSA

Estonian Seamen’s Independent Union

 

EVAF

Estonian Federation of Water Transport Workers’ Unions

ES

ANESCO

National Association of Stevedoring Companies and Ship Agencies

 

CCOO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CEOE

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

 

CETM

State Coordinator of Sea Workers

 

CIG

Galician Inter-union Confederation

 

ELA-Zerbitzuak

Basque Workers’ Solidarity

 

FGAMT-CIG

Federation of Food, Sea, Transport, Textiles and Communications Workers of the Galician Inter-union Confederation

 

FSC-CCOO

Federation of Citizens’ Services of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

LAB-Sindikatua

Abertzales Workers Commission

 

SMC-UGT

Federation of Services for Mobility and Consumation Workers of the General Workers’ Confederation

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

FI

AKT

Transport Workers’ Union

 

AVAINTA

AVAINTA Employers

 

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

ERTO

Federation of Special Service and Clerical Employees ERTO

 

FEA

Finnish Engineers’s Association

 

FMPA

Finnish Maritime Pilots’ Association

 

FPOA

Finnish Port Operators’ Association

 

FSA

Finnish Shipowners’ Association

 

FSU

Finnish Shipofficers’ Union

 

JHL

Trade Union for the Public and Welfare Sectors

 

KT

Local Government Employers KT

 

PARDIA

Federation of Salaried Employees Pardia

 

PRO

Trade Union Pro

 

SAK

Confederation of Finnish Trade Unions

 

SHL

Finnish Freight Forwarders’ Association

 

SMU

Finnish Seamen’s Union

 

STTK

Finnish Confederation of Professionals

FR

CFDT

French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

CFE-CGC

French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – CGC

 

CFTC

French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CGC

General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff

 

CGT

General Confederation of Labour

 

CGT-FO

General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière

 

CGT Transports

National Federation of Transport Unions of the General Confederation of Labour

 

FEETS-FO

Federation of Infrastructure, Transport and Services of FO

 

FGT-CFTC

General Federation of Transport of the French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

FGTE-CFDT

General Federation of Transports and Equipment of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

FNSM-CGT

National Federation of Maritime Unions of the General Confederation of Labour

 

FNCAMPD-CGC

National Union of Managerial Staff and Technicians of Ports and Docks – CGC

 

FO

Force Ouvrière

 

FO TL

Transport and Logistics National Union – Force Ouvrière

 

FOMM-CGT

Federation of Merchant Marine Officers of the General Confederation of Labour

 

FPD-CGT

Ports and Docks Federation of the General Confederation of Labour

 

FSA

French Shipowners’ Association

 

FT-CFE-CGC

Federation of Transport of the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – CGC

 

MEDEF

French Employers’ Confederation

 

TLF

Union of Transport and Logistics Companies of France

 

UNIM

National Association of French Seaport Terminal Operators

 

UPF

French Ports Organisation

EL

DUPPA

Dockworkers’’ Union of Piraeus Port Authority

 

ELIME

Hellenic Ports Association

 

GSEE

Greek General Confederation of Labour

 

OFE

Federation of Loaders and Unloaders of Greece

 

OIYE

Federation of Private Employees of Greece

 

OMYLE

Federation of Port Workers of Greece

 

PASENT

Panhellenic Association of Employees in Shipping and Tourism

 

PNO

Panhellenic Seamen’s Federation

 

SEEN

Greek Shipowners’ Association for Passenger Ships

 

SETE

Association of Greece Tourism Enterprises

 

UGS

Union of Greek Shipowners

HR

HURS

Croatian Association of Workers’ Trade Unions

 

LSS

Independent Ports Trade Union

 

NSPLS

Independent Trade Union of Workers of the Port of Split

 

NSZRL

Independent Trade Union of Workers of the Port of Rijeka

 

SLRH

Dockers’ Union of Croatia

 

SSLRLD

Independent Dockers’ Unions of the Port of Dubrovnik

 

SSLRLP

Independent Trade Union of the Port of Ploce

 

SSSH

Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia

 

SSZLV

Independent Trade Union of the Port of Vukovar

 

SSZRL

Autonomous Trade Union of Workers of the Port of Rijeka

 

URSH

Association of Workers’ Trade Unions of Croatia

 

ZLU

Croatian Association of Port Authorities

HU

GOES

Oil and Gas Suppliers United Trade Union

IE

IBEC

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

IMPACT

Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

 

SUI

Seamen’s Union of Ireland

 

TEEU

Technical Engineering and Electrical Union

 

UCATT

Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians

 

UNITE

Unite Trade Union

IT

Assiterminal

Italian Association of Terminal Operators

 

Assologistica

Assologistica

 

Assoporti

Italian Ports Association

 

Assorimorchiatori

Italian Tug-owners Association

 

CE

Federation of Associations of the Energy Industry

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

Confcommercio

Confcommercio

 

Confindustria

Confindustria

 

Confitarma

Italian Shipowners Confederation

 

Fedarlinea

Italian Federation of Shipping Lines

 

Federimorchiatori

Italian Tug-owners Federation

 

FEMCA-CISL

Federation of Energy, Fashion, Chemical and Allied Industries – CISL

 

FILCTEM-CGIL

Italian Federation of Chemical, Textiles, Entergy and Manufacturing Workers – CGIL

 

FILT-CGIL

Italian Transport Workers’ Federation – CGIL

 

FISE

Association of Service Enterprises

 

FISE-UNIPORT

National Union of Port Companies – FISE

 

FIT-CISL

Italian Transport Federation – CISL

 

UGL

General Union of Work

 

UGL-Chimici

National Chemical Federation – UGL

 

UIL

Italian Union of Workers

 

UIL-Trasporti

Italian Transport Workers’ Union

 

UILTEC-UIL

Italian Union of Textiles, Energy and Chemical Workers – UIL

LT

DPS/IDU

Dockers’ Trade Union

 

LADPS

Trade Union of Lithuanian Transport Workers

 

LGPF

Lithuanian Federation of Railway Workers

 

LJKKA

Association of Lithuanian Stevedoring Companies

 

LJS

Union of Lithuanian Mariners

 

LKADPSF

Lithuanian Federatoin of Roads and Transport Workers’ Unions

 

LPK

Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists

 

LPS Solidarumas

LPS ‘Solidarumas’

 

LPSK

Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation

 

LVTDPF

Lithuanian Federation of Water Transport Workers’ Unions

LU

CLC

Commerce Confederation of Luxembourg

 

FEDIL

Business Federation Luxembourg

 

FEDIL Shipping

Shipping Association of Luxembourg

 

GT

Union of Transport Companies

 

LCGB

Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Unions

 

LCGB-Transport

Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Unions – Transport

 

OGBL

Independent Trade Union Confederation of Luxembourg

 

OGBL-Transport

Independent Trade Union Confederation of Luxembourg – Transport

LV

LBAS

Free Trade Union Federation of Latvia

 

LTFJA

Seafarers’ Union of Merchant Fleet

 

ÜTAF

Water Transport Trade Union Federation

MT

CMTU

Confederation of Malta Trade Unions

 

GWU

General Workers’ Union

 

MDU

Malta Dockers’ Union

 

UHM

United Workers’ Union

NL

CNV

Christian Federation of Trade Unions

 

CNV Vakmensen

Christian Federation of Trade Unions – Vakmensen

 

FNV

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions

 

FNV Bondgenoten

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Bondgenoten

 

Verocog

Association of Independent Superintending Companies

 

VNO-NCW

Confederation of Netherlands Industries and Employers

PL

FZZ

Trade Union Forum

 

FZZMiR

Seamen’s and Fishermen’s Trade Union Federation

 

KSMMiR NSZZ Solidarnosc

National Maritime Section of the Independent Self-governing Trade Union ‘Solidarnosc’

 

KSPM NSZZ Solidarnosc

National Section of Port Workers of the Independent Self-governing Trade Union ‘Solidarnosc’

 

NSZZ Solidarnosc

Independent Self-governing Trade Union ‘Solidarnosc’

 

NSZZ Solidarnosc-80

Independent Self-governing Trade Union ‘Solidarnosc’-80

 

OPZZ

All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions

 

OZZOiM

Polish Seafarers’ Union

 

WZZPGM

Free Trade Union of Maritime Economy Workers

PT

AANP

Association of Shipping Agents of Portugal

 

AATFL

Association of River and Local Transport Shipping Company Owners

 

ACOPE

Association of Fish Merchants

 

ANESUL

Association of Shipping Agents and Port Operators

 

AOPL

Operators’ Association of the Port of Lisbon

 

AOPPDL

Association of Port Operators of the Ports of Douro and Leixoes

 

APP

Association of the Ports of Portugal

 

CGTP-IN

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers

 

FESMAR

Federation of Sea Workers’ Trade Unions

 

FNSTP

National Federation of Workers’ Unions of Ports

 

OFICIAISMAR

Union of Masters, Officers, Pilots, Commissioners and Engineers of the Merchant Marine

 

SETC

Portuguese Dockworkers’ Union

 

SIMAMEVIP

Union Workers at the Merchant Marine, Transport Agents and Fishery

 

SINDEPESCAS

Democratic Union of Fishery Workers

 

SITESE

Union of Service Workers and Technicians

 

SOEMM

Union of Officers and Machine Engineers of the Merchant Marine

 

STPA

Union of Workers of the Port of Aveiro

 

UGT

General Union of Workers

RO

BNS

National Trade Union Block

 

CNPR

National Confederation of Romanian Employer Associations

 

CNSLR Fratia

National Confederation of Free Unions of Romania – ‘Brotherhood’

 

FARUL

FARUL Galati Danube Workers’ Trade Union

 

FNSP

National Federation of Port Workers’ Unions

 

OP

Constanta Port Operators Association

SE

Almega

Almega Service Association

 

BA

Swedish Road Transport Employers’ Association

 

CSE

Confederation of Swedish Enterprises

 

Ledarna

Sweden’s Organisation for Managers

 

LO

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

 

Lotsförbundet

Swedish Pilots’ Association

 

Pappers

Swedish Paper Workers’ Union

 

SACO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

SAIE

Swedish Association of Industrial Employers

 

SARF

Swedish Shipowners’ Employer Association

 

SBF

Maritime Officers’ Association

 

SEKO

Union of Service and Communication Employees

 

SFB

Swedish Aviation Industry Group

 

SHF

Swedish Dockworkers’ Union

 

SI

Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers

 

ST

Union of Civil Servants

 

Sveriges Hamnar

Ports of Sweden Association

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

 

Transport

Swedish Transport Workers’ Union

 

Unionen

Trade Union for Professionals in the Private Sector

SI

Alternativa

Trade Union Confederation Alternativa

 

KS-90

Trade Union Confederation KS-90

 

SPDS

Dockers’ Union of Slovenia

 

SPS

Seamen’s Union of Slovenia

 

SZPD

Union of Crane Operators of the Port of Koper

SK

AZZZ SR

Federation of Employers’ Associations

 

ECHOZ

Energy and Chemical Trade Union Association

 

KOZ SR

Confederation of Trade Unions

 

POZ

Gas Trade Union Association

 

ZCHFP SR

Association of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry of the Slovak Republic

UK

BPA

British Ports Association

 

RMT

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

 

TSSA

Transport, Salaried Staffs Association

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

UKMPG

UK Major Ports Group

 

UNITE

Unite Trade Union

EUROPE

 

 

 

CEC

European Managers

 

CEFIC

European Chemical Industry Council

 

CEPI

Confederation of European Paper Industries

 

CER

Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies

 

CLECAT

European Liaison Committee of Common Market Forwarders

 

CoESS

Confederation of European Security Services

 

ECASBA

European Community Association of Ship Brokers and Agents

 

ECEG

European Chemical Employers Group

 

ECSA

European Community Shipowners’ Association

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EFJ

European Federation of Journalists

 

EMPA

European Maritime Pilots’ Association

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ESPO

European Sea Ports Organisation

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

ETF (ports)

European Transport Workers’ Federation – Dockers’ Section

 

Eurocadres

Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff

 

Euromines

European Association of Mining Industries, Metal Ores and Industrial Minerals

 

FEANI

European Federation of National Engineering Associations

 

FEPORT

Federation of European Private Port Operators

 

FICT

European Managers in the Transport Industry

 

IDC

International Dockworkers Council

 

IndustriAll Europe

IndustriAll European Trade Union

 

IRU

International Road Transport Union

 

UNI Europa

Union Network International – Europe

 

UNISTOCK

Association of professional portside storekeepers in the food and feed chain

 

EF/15/76

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Add new comment

Click to share this page to Facebook securely

Click to share this page to Twitter securely

Click to share this page to Google+ securely

Click to share this page to LinkedIn securely