Protection of union representatives under debate

Download article in original language : BE0012333NFR.DOC

In late 2000, in the context of a number of industrial conflicts, Belgian trade unions have drawn the attention of public and political opinion to what they see as a proliferation of "attacks" on trade union freedoms - through the dismissal of union delegates and court interference in disputes. Unions are demanding improvements in the protection of their representatives within companies, while political initiatives are in progress.

Recent months have seen a number of conflicts relating to the recurrent issue of the protection of trade union representatives (BE9909280F). On 23 November 2000, close to 400 activists from the Brussels section of the Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers (Syndicat des Employés, Techniciens et Cadres de Belgique, SETCa)- affiliated to the socialist Belgian General Federation of Labour (Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, FGTB/ABVV) - occupied the offices of the Union of Small Firms and Traders (Union des classes moyennes, UCM) to denounce the latter's alleged "persecution" of union activists. At the same time, several hundred FGTB/ABVV activists occupied one of the most prestigious hotels in the centre of Brussels to protest against the dismissal of eight workers, five of whom were union delegates, who had opposed pay changes being imposed by the management of the establishment. The company had refused to reinstate the "rebel" delegates, preferring to pay the severance payments required by law (in this case, close to BEF 50 million).

The Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV), the largest Belgian union confederation, has also conducted many mobilisation campaigns around this issue. At the end of October 2000, its Brussels federation presented a "white paper" on the better protection of union representatives. It claims that, over the past year, there has been a series of illegal dismissals of union delegates, as well as a "tidal wave" of interventions by the courts to thwart union action. The union states that an average of one new case concerning the arbitrary dismissal of a union delegate is opened every month in its legal department

Based on accounts of cases involving eight representatives, the CSC/ACV white paper aims to put pressure on political circles to strengthen the law on the protection of representatives, which it claims is being increasingly bypassed in practice by: employers making unilateral petitions to the courts; partial judgments issued by the civil courts; and the imposition of heavy fines to stop picketing. As a priority, CSC/ACV is demanding that, in the event of a conflict, the procedures for employer-union dialogue must be fully respected by employers, instead of unilateral action being taken in the courts. On the legislative level, the white paper suggests three initiatives:

1. similar to the principle of parliamentary immunity, the introduction of the concept of "trade union immunity". This immunity would mean that a dismissal procedure concerning a union delegate could be initiated by the employer only after obtaining the agreement of a majority of the workers at the company;

2. if an employer dismissed a union delegate without respecting the procedure provided by the law of 19 March 1991 (which they may currently do if they accept paying large severance payments), the dismissal would be considered as null and void. If the employer refused to reinstate the dismissed representative, it would have to face a criminal court (able to impose fines and custodial sentences); and

3. today, if union delegates are dismissed for serious misconduct , their contract of employment and mandate as a representative are usually suspended as soon as the dismissal procedure is started. CSC/ACV is demanding that, for as long as the misconduct of the delegate has not been recognised by a labour tribunal, the delegate concerned may continue to exercise his or her mandate

In early 2000, three socialist senators (two French-speaking and one Dutch-speaking) submitted a bill aimed at ending the involvement of the courts in collective labour disputes. The parliamentary debate on this proposal has not yet resulted in any decision. In parallel to this, during the campaign for the workplace "social elections" of employee representatives in spring 2000 (BE0006316F), Laurette Onkelinx, the Federal Minister of Employment and Labour, invited all the chairs of the sectoral joint committee s to draw up a "code of good conduct" on the dismissal of workers protected by law. The Department of Employment and Labour reports that two committees have already taken initiatives in this respect. For Ms Onkelinx, the legislative route will be considered by the federal government only where the social partners are unable to resolve matters by agreement. Finally, it should be noted that the subject of protecting representatives, and more generally what is called "economic and social democracy" in companies, are on the agenda of the negotiations over a new intersectoral agreement for 2001-2 (which were still in progress in early December 2000 - BE0011330N).