Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: the Hotel, restaurant and catering (Horeca) sector

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Pracovněprávní vztahy,
  • Representativeness,
  • Social partners,
  • Date of Publication: 31 Říjen 2012



About
Author:
Institution:

This study sets out to provide the necessary information for assisting the existing sectoral social dialogue in the Hotel, restaurant and catering (Horeca) sector. It identifies the relevant national organisations on both sides of industry as well as analysing the relevant European organisations. The study consists of three main parts: a description of the economic background; an analysis of the social partner organisations in all EU Member States, focusing on membership, role in collective bargaining and public policy, and national and European affiliations; and finally, an analysis of the relevant European organisations, particularly membership composition and capacity to fulfill their role in the social dialogue. The EIRO series of studies on representativeness aims to identify relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in selected sectors. The impetus for these studies comes from the European Commission’s desire to recognise the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.

Download the full report (442KB PDF)

National contributions may be available


Objectives of study

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational associational actors – that is the trade unions and employer associations – in the field of industrial relations in the Hotel, restaurant and catering (Horeca) sector, and show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study, and for similar studies in other sectors, arises from the European Commission’s aim to identify the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (1.4Mb PDF). Hence, this study seeks to provide the basic information needed to support sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of the 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. Hence, only European associations which meet this precondition will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

Against this background, the study will first identify the relevant national social partner organisations in the Horeca sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations, 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).

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

Scope

Question in the standardised questionnaire to all correspondents

Possible answers

Notes and Explanations

Domain of the organisation within the sector

Does the union’ s/employer organisation’s domain

…embrace potentially all employees in the Horeca sector?

Yes/No

This question has not been asked directly in the questionnaire, but is considered to be ‘Yes’ if all of the five following sub-questions are ‘yes’. It is considered to be ‘No’, if at least one of the following sub-questions is answered with ‘no’.

   

.

…cover ‘basically all’ groups of employees (min.: blue collar, white collar) in the Horeca sector?

Yes/No

This question refers to the organisation’s scope of the sector with regard to different types of employment contracts etc. As the contractual forms are rather heterogeneous, the minimum requirement to answer this question with ‘yes’ would be the fact that both blue-collar and white-collar workers are potentially covered by the organisation’s domain.

…cover the ‘whole’ Horeca sectorin terms of economic activities, (i.e. including all sub-activities)

Yes/No

This question refers to the economic sub- activities of the NACE code chosen. In the spreadsheet part of the questionnaire, correspondents have been provided a detailed breakdown of sub-activities down to the four-digit level.

… cover employees in all types of companies (all types of ownership: private, public…) in the Horeca sector?

Yes/No

This question refers to ownership. Some organisations might limit for instance their domain to domestically owned, or to public sector companies/employees only.

… cover employees in enterprises of all sizes in the Horeca sector?

Yes/No

Often, organisations limit their domain to enterprises by size class (such as SMEs only).

…cover all occupations in the Horeca sector?

Yes/No

Some organisations (notably trade unions) delimit their domain to certain occupations only. This sub-question intends to identify these occupational organisations.

Domain of the organisation outside the sector

Does the union also represent members outside the Horeca sector?

Yes/No

This question is again being addressed directly to the correspondents.

Source: Standardised Excel-based questionnaire, sent to EIRO National correspondents (2011).

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

  • a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining;
  • or 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 EU treaty;
  • or it must participate 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 implies that such an association may not be involved at all 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 in the European organisation.

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.

In terms of the selection criteria for the European organisations, this report

  • includes those sector-related European social partner organisations that are on the Commission’s list of consultation.
  • considers any other European association with sector-related national social partner organisations – as defined above – under its umbrella.

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

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the Horeca sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE), to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. According to the mandate of the European Commission, the Horeca sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev. 2) 55 and 55, with the exclusion of class 55.29, ‘other food serving activities’, within the food and beverage serving activities.

This includes the following activities:

NACE Rev.2

Definition

Description

55

Accommodation

This division includes the provision of short-stay accommodation for visitors and other travellers.

55.10

Hotels and similar accommodation

This class includes the provision of accommodation, typically on a daily or weekly basis, principally for short stays by visitors. This includes the provision of furnished accommodation in guest rooms and suites. Services include daily cleaning and bed-making. A range of additional services may be provided such as food and beverage services, parking, laundry services, swimming pools and exercise rooms, recreational facilities and conference and convention facilities.

This class includes accommodation provided by:

- hotels

- resort hotels

- suite/apartment hotels

- motels

55.20

Holiday and other short-stay accommodation

This class includes the provision of accommodation, typically on a daily or weekly basis, principally for short stays by visitors, in self-contained space consisting of complete furnished rooms or areas for living/dining and sleeping, with cooking facilities or fully equipped kitchens. This may take the form of apartments or flats in small free-standing multi-storey buildings or clusters of buildings, or single storey bungalows, chalets, cottages and cabins. Very minimal complementary services, if any, are provided.

This class includes accommodation provided by:

- children’s and other holiday homes

- visitor flats and bungalows

- cottages and cabins without housekeeping services

- youth hostels and mountain refuges

55.30

Camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and trailer parks

This class includes:

- provision of accommodation in camping grounds, trailer parks, recreational camps and fishing and hunting camps for short stay visitors

- provision of space and facilities for recreational vehicles

55.9

Other accommodation

This class includes the provision temporary or longer-term accommodation in single or shared rooms or dormitories for students, migrant (seasonal) workers and other individuals.

This class includes:

- student residences

- school dormitories

- workers hostels

- rooming and boarding houses

- railway sleeping cars

56

Food and beverage service activities

This division includes food and beverage serving activities providing complete meals or drinks fit for immediate consumption, whether in traditional restaurants, self-service or take-away restaurants, whether as permanent or temporary stands with or without seating. Decisive is the fact that meals fit for immediate consumption are offered, not the kind of facility providing them.

56.10

Restaurants and mobile food service activities

This class includes the provision of food services to customers, whether they are served while seated or serve themselves from a display of items, whether they eat the prepared meals on the premises, take them out or have them delivered. This includes the preparation and serving of meals for immediate consumption from motorised vehicles or non-motorised carts.

This class includes activities of:

- restaurants

- cafeterias

- fast-food restaurants

- take-out eating places

- ice cream truck vendors

- mobile food carts

- food preparation in market stalls

56.21

Event catering activities

This class includes the provision of food services based on contractual arrangements with the customer, at the location specified by the customer, for a specific event.

 
 

56.30

Beverage serving activities

This class includes preparation and serving of beverages for immediate consumption on the premises.

This class includes activities of:

- bars

- taverns

- cocktail lounges

- discotheques (with beverage serving predominant)

- beer parlours

- coffee shops

- fruit juice bars

- mobile beverage vendors

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

  • congruence – the domain of the organisation or scope of the collective agreement must be identical to the NACE demarcation, as specified above;
  • sectionalism – the domain or scope covers only a certain part of the sector, as defined by the aforementioned NACE demarcation, while no group outside the sector is covered;
  • overlap – the domain or scope covers the entire sector along 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 scope covers part of the sector plus (parts of) one or more other sectors.

Figure 1: Sector relatedness of social partner organisations: Domain patterns

Figure 1: Sector relatedness of social partner organisations: Domain patterns

Table 2: Pattern and scope 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 Horeca sector?

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

Congruence (C)

Yes

No

Sectionalism (S)

No

No

Overlap (O)

Yes

Yes

Sectional overlap (SO)

No

Yes

Note: The domain pattern results from the answers to the questions on the scope of the domain derived in Table 5 in the Annex.

At European level, the European Commission established a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the Horeca sector in 1999, while the social partners had been working together in an informal working party since 1983. The EU-level organisations which participate in the sector’s European social dialogue are, on the employers’ side, HOTREC, the umbrella association of national trade associations representing the hotels, restaurants, cafés and similar establishments in Europe, and the European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agriculture and Tourism sectors (EFFAT) on the employee side. Thus, affiliation to one of these European organisations is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a social partner organisation for the purpose of this study.

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 the country studies provided by the EIRO national centres based on a standardised questionnaire in both Word and Excel format, which they complete through contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. The contact is generally made via telephone interviews in the first place, but might in certain cases be established via email. In case of non-availability of any representative, the national correspondents are asked to fill out the relevant questionnaire using 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 EIRO national centres 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, namely:

  • 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 rates on the basis of available statistical figures on the potential membership of the organisations;
  • personal estimates made by representatives of the respective organisations.

While the data sources on the labour market and economic figures cited in the report are generally from EUROSTAT or national statistical offices, the figures in respect of 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. These organisations can, however, still be found in the national contributions, which are published together with the overview report.

Quality assurance

In order to assure the quality of the information gathered, several verification procedures and feedback loops have been used.

  • First, Eurofound staff together with the author of this report check the consistency of the figures provided, and make sure that the organisations listed match the criteria for inclusion for the purpose of this study (see Table 2)).
  • Second, Eurofound sends the national contributions to both their national members of governing board and the European-level sector-related social partners’ 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.
  • Third, the complete study is finally 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 EU Member States. The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level.

Each section will 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 deciding on adequate representativeness is a matter for the political decision making process rather than an issue of research analysis.


Economic background

The Horeca sector is an important element of the EU economy. In the European Union, within the non-financial business economy, it represents around 8% of the enterprise population, 7% of its workforce and 3% of the value added (Eurostat, Statistics in focus, 101/2009). The sector shows an overwhelming presence of SMEs, as more than 90% of all enterprises have less than 10 employees and therefore fall into the category of micro enterprises.

Employment characteristics

In 2010, total sectoral employment was almost 9.4 million workers, of whom 55% were women, 10 percentage points above the level in the overall workforce. The proportion of Horeca employment on total EU27 employment was 4.4%, slightly up (+0.2%) from the level recorded in 2007 (Eurostat, Tourism employment – Statistics Explained, 4 March 2012).

It is important to note that the Horeca sector has grown considerably in recent years and provided, thanks to its high labour intensity, a significant contribution to employment creation in the 2000s. There were 1.9 million new jobs in the sector between 2000 and 2007, and a good employment performance even during the recent economic crisis, with 200,000 jobs created between 2008 and 2010, especially in food and beverage service activities (Eurostat, LFS series – Detailed annual survey results, Employment by sex, age groups and detailed economic activity (1992-2008, NACE rev.1.1 two digit level and from 2008, NACE Rev.2 two digit level).

Employment in the Horeca sector presents some specific features. The above-average presence of women has already been noted, but it should be underlined that the sectoral share of female employment varies considerably across countries (Table 3) and it peaks in Finland and Poland at around 70%.

Another important characteristic is that Horeca employs many young people (about 60% of the total was under the age of 39 years in 2010, 15 percentage points above the share in the overall workforce), so that it represents an important vehicle for labour market entry for young job seekers.

Due to the high seasonal variation of tourism, which represents an important but not exclusive source of business for the Horeca sector, there are important variations in employment. In certain countries, such as Greece, these variations almost double the workforce in the summer period. In other countries, like Denmark and the Netherlands, there are no substantial variations in employment during the year (Eurostat, Tourism employment - Statistics Explained, 4 March 2012).

The Horeca sector is also characterised by a higher percentage of part-time employment: almost one third of workers in the accommodation and food service activities in the EU work part-time, compared to around one fifth in the whole economy (Eurostat, Full-time and part-time employment by sex and economic activity, reference year 2011). The higher presence of part-time work is seen particularly among men: in 2011, 21% of men in the accommodation and food service sector had a part-time job, against 9% in the whole workforce. For wemen, the difference is not as great: 39% instead of 32%. Similarly, temporary employment is higher in the accommodation and food service sector (18% compared to 12%, Eurostat, Employment by sex, age and economic activity, reference year 2011). Both indicators suggest that flexible and ‘atypical’ work tend to be more present in the Horeca sector than in the whole economy.

Table 3: Employment in the EU Horeca sector, 2010
 

Employment

Female employment

Female emp. as % of total emp.

Accommodation

Food & Beverages

Total

Accommodation

Food & Beverages

Total

BE

20.6

119.3

139.9

12.4

54.6

67.0

47.9

BG

39.0

119.3

158.3

25.8

72.1

97.9

61.8

CZ

43.8

144.3

188.1

27.4

79.3

106.7

56.7

DK

18.6

68.6

87.2

11.5

37.7

49.2

56.4

DE

425.0

1,027.0

1,452.0

290.2

548.8

839.0

57.8

EE

6.9

12.0

18.9

:

9.7

:

:

IE

44.6

73.5

118.1

25.5

40.4

65.9

55.8

GR

61.8

237.8

299.6

36.5

103.4

139.9

46.7

ES

320.8

1,040.9

1,361.7

185.2

555.3

740.5

54.4

FR

233.4

725.1

958.5

137.6

324.1

461.7

48.2

IT

222.1

949.3

1171.4

111.6

480.8

592.4

50.6

CY

10.5

16.6

27.1

6.1

7.8

13.9

51.3

LV

6.0

23.2

29.2

:

18.8

:

:

LT

:

29.1

29.1

:

23.1

:

:

LU

1.6

3.9

5.5

:

1.7

:

:

HU

32.4

125.6

158.0

17.6

72.4

90.0

57.0

MT

7.8

4.7

12.5

2.5

:

:

:

NL

75.2

260.4

335.6

42.1

130.9

173.0

51.5

AT

86.1

162.6

248.7

58.7

95.2

153.9

61.9

PL

90.1

258.5

348.6

63.1

175.2

238.3

68.4

PT

55.9

223.8

279.7

29.2

142.6

171.8

61.4

RO

45.7

133.8

179.5

27.6

79.4

107.0

59.6

SL

13.2

33.0

46.2

7.6

18.3

25.9

56.1

SK

28.1

75.1

103.2

18.4

44.4

62.8

60.9

FI

16.8

64.8

81.6

11.0

46.8

57.8

70.8

SE

40.5

110.9

151.4

26.9

54.8

81.7

54.0

UK

308.9

1,078.5

1,387.4

172.4

565.3

737.7

53.2

EU27

2,259.6

7,121.8

9,381.4

1359.2

3784.4

5143.6

54.8

Source: Eurostat, LFS series – Detailed annual survey results, Employment by sex, age groups and detailed economic activity ( NACE Rev.2 two digit level), data extracted on 16 March 2012.

Table 4: Total employers and employment in Horeca, years as indicated
 

Year

Number of companies

Total employment

Male employment

Female employment

Total sectoral employment as % of total in economy

AT

2000

38,133

212,400

74,100

138,300

5.80

AT

2009

n.a.

252,190

n.a.

n.a.

6.30

BE

2000

48,192

134,200

62,974

71,126

3.00

BE

2010

56,557

156,156

78,056

78,100

4.00

BG

2010

n.a.

131,458

81,681

49,777

4.00

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2005

n.a.

27,143

12,250

14,893

7.80

CY

2009

6,892

27,710

13,576

14,134

7.20

CZ

2000

n.a.

156,400

66,400

90,000

3.00

CZ

2010

n.a.

161,400

73,800

87,600

3.00

DE

2001

n.a.

122,9000

522,000

566,000

3.30

DE

2010

273,797

1,488,000

616,000

865,000

3.80

DK

2001

12,330

73,342

32,539

40,803

n.a.

DK

2008

12,630

76,716

36,226

40,490

n.a.

EE

1998

n.a.

14,000

2,300

11,700

2.30

EE

2010

1,897

19,400

5,000

14,400

3.40

ES

2000

522,632

991,186

532,695

458,490

6.00

ES

2010

579,228

1,399,666

644,004

755,662

7.00

FI

2000

10,054

66,013

19,420

46,597

3

FI

2009

11,126

79,559

22,079

57,480

3

FR

2003

195,479

798,300

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2010

208,245

955,300

504,189

447,111

n.a.

GR

2000

37,329

272,770

157,730

115,040

7.00

GR

2010

42,218

302,219

162,679

139,541

7.00

HU

2000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

2010

26,000

150,000

63,300

86,700

n.a.

IE

2004

n.a.

107,200

n.a.

n.a.

6.00

IE

2010

n.a.

122,800

48,900

63,900

7.00

IT

2001

253,111

818,031

440,472

377,559

3.00

IT

2008

289,701

1,154,416

621,600

53,2816

5.00

LT

2006

2,706

38,900

5,600

33,300

3.00

LT

2011

3,080

33,600

7,200

26,300

3.00

LU

2000

2,400

13,000

7,150

5,850

5.00

LU

2010

2,800

17,000

9,350

7,650

5.00

LV

2000

1,765

16,868

4,072

12,896

2.00

LV

2010

21,38

20,768

5,942

14,826

3.00

MT

2005

2,056

16,620

10,319

6,301

9.00

MT

2010

2,970

17,968

11,175

6,793

9.00

NL

1999

38905

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

n.a.

38515

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2000

94,774

225,700

76,600

149,100

2.00

PL

2010

124,214

252,500

88,800

163,700

2.00

PT

1999

28,422

174,223

75,392

98,831

7.00

PT

2009

39,494

235,483

95,883

139,600

8.00

RO

2000

11,933

122,838

47,064

75,774

1.14

RO

2009

26,170

179,841

72,488

107,353

1.95

SE

2000

9584

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2010

15914

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2000

8,600

28,899

11,848

17,051

4.00

SI

2010

7,728

33,782

13,638

20,144

4.00

SK

2000

1,422

65,300

25,400

39,900

3.00

SK

2010

5,106

103,600

40,700

62,900

5.00

UK

2000

105,225

1,169,300

492,694

676,606

4.00

UK

2010

128,705

1,346,620

655,407

691,213

5.00

Source: EIRO national contributions (2011), national statistics. Reference years are for employment data; those for number of companies may vary. For detailed description of sources and reference years for number of companies please refer to the national reports.

Table 5: Total employees in Horeca, years as indicated
 

Year

Total employees

Male employees

Female employees

Total sectoral employees as % of total in economy

AT

2000

166,200

51,800

114,400

5.23

AT

2009

205,043

n.a.

n.a.

5.84

BE

2000

108,197

51,935

56,262

n.a.

BE

2010

119,907

57,872

62,035

n.a.

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2010

95,671

37,257

58,414

4.00

CY

2005

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2009

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

2000

122,100

45,100

77,100

3.00

CZ

2010

126,900

53,400

73,500

3.00

DE

2001

782,106

326,992

45,514

2.80

DE

2010

863,967

367,703

496,264

3.00

DK

2001

62,826

26,019

36,807

n.a.

DK

2008

67,833

30,446

37,387

n.a.

EE

1998

12,900

2,000

10,900

2.30

EE

2010

18,600

4,700

13,900

3.50

ES

2000

680,527

347,751

332,812

6.00

ES

2010

1075,845

460,500

615,345

7.00

FI

2000

59,123

16,644

42,483

3

FI

2009

71,970

18,369

53,601

4.00

FR

2003

,n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2010

750,000

n.a.

n.a.

4.00

GR

2000

146,307

81,139

65,168

6.00

GR

2010

179,415

89,736

89,679

6.00

HU

2000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

2010

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2001

423,476

211,542

211,934

2.00

IT

2008

692,291

345,825

346,466

4.00

LT

2006

29,807

n.a.

n.a.

4.00

LT

2011

34,764

n.a.

n.a.

4.00

LU

2000

13,000

7,150

5,850

5.00

LU

2010

17,000

9,350

7,650

5.00

LV

2000

16,523

3,965

12,558

2.00

LV

2010

20,675

5,915

14,760

3.00

MT

2005

9,232

n.a.

n.a.

7.00

MT

2010

8,341

n.a.

n.a.

6.00

NL

1999

235,400

109,700

125,700

n.a.

NL

2009

309,000

147,700

161,300

n.a.

PL

2000

167,300

49,500

117,800

2.00

PL

2010

205,700

66,800

138,900

2.00

PT

1999

151,783

59,833

91,950

6.00

PT

2009

209,929

80,052

129,877

7.00

RO

2000

113,856

40,894

72,962

1.89

RO

2009

173,088

68,093

104,955

2.86

SE

2000

87,453

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2010

117,916

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2000

24,413

10,497

13,916

3.00

SI

2010

28,264

12,029

16,235

4.00

SK

2000

56,400

19,600

36,800

3.00

SK

2010

87,100

30,700

56,400

5.00

UK

2000

1,042,930

418,048

624,882

4.00

UK

2010

1,204,871

582,425

622,446

5.00

Source: EIRO national contributions (2011), national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.


National level of interest representation

In many Member States, 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;
  • participation in public policy and tripartite consultation bodies.

Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually 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 above, 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 effectiveness of European social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European organisations to regulate the employment terms and conditions 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, setting an incentive for the governments 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 rationale for establishing generalised tripartite policy concertation will be significantly weaker, if not absent.

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

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

Membership domains 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 Horeca 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.

Regarding membership strength, a differentiation exists 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.

Furthermore, 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. However, in this context a clarification of the concept of ‘member’ should be made. Whereas in most countries recorded membership includes both employees in jobs and members who are not in active employment (such as unemployed people and retired workers), some countries provide information on employed membership only. Hence, two measures of trade union density have to be differentiated: gross union density (including inactive members) and net union density (referring to employed union members only). In addition to taking the total membership of a trade union as an indicator of its strength, it is also reasonable to break down this membership total according to gender.

Measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely companies that employ employees. In this case, therefore, two possible measures of membership strength may be used – 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 both the trade unions and employer organisations have also to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, membership density in the sector under investigation will most likely differ from the overall density, since the reference population for delimiting the relevant membership – the numerator – and identifying the potential members – the denominator – will not be the same. This report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and will then consider those of the employer organisations.

To summarise, this report basically distinguishes between three types of organisational densities, as defined in Table 6, which are – depending on data availability – also broken down into net and gross rates.

Table 6: Definition of organisational density figures
Type of density Definition Breakdown
Domain density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation divided by total number of employees (companies) included in the organisation’s membership domain

Net and gross; Employees (for trade unions); Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Sectoral density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation in the Horeca sector divided by total number of employees (companies) in the sector.

Net and gross; Employees (for trade unions); Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Sectoral domain density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation in the Horeca sector divided by total number of employees (companies) in the Horeca sector as demarcated by the organisation’s domain

Net and gross; Employees (for trade unions); Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Trade unions

Tables 7 and 8 present the trade union data on their domains and membership strength. The tables list all trade unions which meet at least one of the two criteria for classification as a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier.

Table 7: Domain coverage and membership of trade unions in Horeca, 2010/11
 

Trade Union

Type of mem-bership

Domain coverage

Members total

Members active

Members sector

Members sector active

Female member-ship as (%) of total

AT

GPA-djp

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

180,000

n.a.

2,000

44

AT

vida

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

152,000

n.a.

9,300

33

BE

ABVV-HORVAL*

Voluntary

Congruence

1482,000

27,000

1,482,000

27,000

n.a.

BE

CGSLB-ACLVB*

Voluntary

Congruence

250,000

n.a.

250,000

n.a.

n.a.

BE

CSC-ACV Alimentation*

Voluntary

Congruence

1550,000

30,000

1,550,000

30,000

n.a.

BG

FITUT*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

62

BG

ITUFECCTCS*

Voluntary

Overlap

5,340

5,340

2,225

2,225

65

BG

NFTSCT*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

58

CY

OEXEKA*

Voluntary

Congruence

15,765

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

58

CY

SYXKA*

Voluntary

Congruence

14,692

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

49

CZ

ČMOS PH ČR

Voluntary

Congruence

820

820

820

820

n.a.

DE

NGG

Voluntary

Overlap

205,646

n.a.

37,600

n.a.

41

DK

3F

Voluntary

Overlap

301,172

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

35

EE

ESTAL*

Voluntary

Overlap

1,048

1,408

15

15

69

EE

ETKA*

Voluntary

Overlap

1,168

1,168

38

38

96

ES

CHTJ-UGT*

Voluntary

Overlap

75,271

66,607

35,201

n.a.

52

ES

CIG-FEDERACIÓN DE SERVIZOS*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ELA-ZERBITZUAK*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FECOHT*

Voluntary

Overlap

110,316

96,759

43,494

n.a.

57

ES

LAB*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

USO*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

PAM

Voluntary

Overlap

221,000

150,000

40,000

33,000

80

FR

CGT Services*

Voluntary

Overlap

37,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CSFV-CFTC Services*

Voluntary

Overlap

29,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FdS-CFDT*

Voluntary

Overlap

11,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FGTA-FO*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

INOVA CFE-CGC*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

POEEYTE

Voluntary

Congruence

83,610

83,610

83,610

83,610

45

HU

VISZ

Voluntary

Congruence

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

n.a.

IE

Mandate

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

45,206

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

66

IE

SIPTU

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

217,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

37

IT

Conflavoratori*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a.

IT

Fenasalc*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Fesica*

Voluntary

Overlap

375,000

35,000

375,000

35,000

40

IT

Filcams*

Voluntary

Overlap

375,859

375,859

89,700

89,700

58

IT

Fisascat*

Voluntary

Overlap

233,887

233,887

n.a.

n.a.

60

IT

Manageritalia*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

35,304

703

25,548

703

17

IT

Ugl Terziario*

Voluntary

Overlap

212,380

212,380

65,000

65,000

39

IT

UilTucs*

Voluntary

Overlap

113,956

113,956

n.a.

n.a.

50

LT

LMPS

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

LCGB Commerce/Handel*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

Alimentation et Hôtellerie OGBL*

Voluntary

n.a.

12,000

12,000

3,500

3,500

n.a.

LV

LAKRS

Voluntary

Overlap

7,695

7,695

350

350

n.a.

MT

GWU*

Voluntary

Overlap

41,575

34,543

3,190

3,190

18

MT

UHM*

Voluntary

Overlap

26,107

22,738

4,526

4,526

32

NL

CNV Vakmensen*

Voluntary

Overlap

140,000

140,000

2,000

2,000

45

NL

Die Unie/MHP*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

64,500

64,500

350

350

50

NL

FNV Vakbewegigng*

Voluntary

Congruence

460,000

460,000

22,000

22,000

47

PL

SKHG

Voluntary

Congruence

1,900

1,400

1,900

1,400

n.a.

PT

SITESE*

Voluntary

Overlap

10,000

700

8,000

600

68

PT

STHTASSRAM*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

1,600

800

1,500

700

n.a.

PT

STIHTRSA*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

2,000

1,500

1,500

1,300

n.a.

PT

STIHTRSC*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

n.a.

PT

STIHTRSN*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

1,500

1,300

1,200

1,000

n.a.

PT

STIHTRSS*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

6,500

6,000

6,000

5,500

n.a.

RO

FST

Voluntary

Overlap

17,000

17,000

16,500

16,500

n.a.

SE

HRF*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

35,878

27,700

33,000

26,700

n.a.

SE

Kommunal*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

505,000

24,000

465,000

21,600

80

SE

Unionen

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

500,000

5,300

4,500

n.a.

SI

SDGiTS KS90*

Voluntary

Congruence

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

65

SI

SGIT*

Voluntary

Congruence

9,000

9,000

9,000

9,000

68

SI

SODS*

Voluntary

Overlap

8,000

200

8,000

200

30

SK

OZ POCR

Voluntary

Overlap

12,000

325

11,000

295

76

SK

OZ PP

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

5,000

n.a.

4,500

n.a.

20

SK

OZP SR

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

3,500

3,500

n.a.

n.a.

50

UK

BFAWU

Voluntary

Overlap

22,786

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UK

GMB*

Voluntary

Overlap

601,730

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UK

Unite*

Voluntary

Overlap

1,474,564

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UK

USDAW

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

386572

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

* = Domain overlaps with other sector-related trade unions.

n.a. = not available

Table 8: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of trade unions in Horeca, 2010/11
 

Trade union

Domain total

Domain active

Sector

Sector active

Sectoral domain

Sectoral domain active

CB

Consul-tation

National

European

AT

GPA-djp

n.a.

16.00

n.a.

1.00

n.a.

9.00

Yes

Yes

OGB

EPSU; EMCEF; EFFAT; EFJ; UNI Europa

AT

vida

n.a.

22.00

n.a.

4.50

n.a.

6.00

Yes

Yes

OGB

EFFAT; ETF; EPSU; UNI EUROPA

BE

ABVV-HORVAL

16.50

16.50

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

FGTB-ABVV

EFFAT

BE

CGSLB-ACLVB

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

ACLVB-CGSLB

EFFAT

BE

CSC-ACV Alimentation

18.00

18.00

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CSC-ACV

EFFAT

BG

FITUT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CITUB

UNI Europa

BG

ITUFECCTCS

6.00

5.60

2.00

2.30

2.00

2.00

Yes

Yes

CITUB

UNI Europa

BG

NFTSCT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CL ‘PODKREPA’

UNI Europa

CY

OEXEKA

68.60

n.a.

68.60

n.a.

68.60

n.a.

Yes

No

SEK

EFFAT

CY

SYXKA

63.90

n.a.

63.90

n.a.

63.90

n.a.

Yes

No

PEO

None

CZ

ČMOS PH ČR

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

Yes

Yes

CMKOS

EFFAT; UNI Europa

DE

NGG

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

Yes

Yes

DGB

EFFAT

DK

3F

n.a.

75.00

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

26.00

Yes

Yes

LO

EFFAT; UNI Europa; EMCEF

EE

ESTAL

1.20

1.20

n.a

n.a.

n.a.

0.10

No

Yes

EAKL

UNI Europa Commerce; Association of Baltic communication and Service Workers

EE

ETKA

1.00

1.00

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.20

No

Yes

EAKL; AHL

UNI Europa Commerce

ES

CHTJ-UGT

n.a.

n.a.

3.30

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

UGT

EFFAT; UNI Europa

ES

CIG-FEDERACIÓN DE SERVIZOS

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ELA-ZERBITZUAK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FECOHT

n.a.

n.a.

4.00

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CCOO

EFFAT; UNI Europa

ES

LAB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

n.a.

n.a.

ES

USO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

n.a.

n.a.

FI

PAM

n.a.

n.a.

55.58

45.85

55.58

45.85

Yes

Yes

SAK

EFFAT

FR

CGT Services

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CGT

EFFAT

FR

CSFV-CFTC Services

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CFTC

n.a.

FR

FdS-CFDT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CFDT

EFFAT; UNI Europa

FR

FGTA-FO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

FO

EFFAT

FR

INOVA CFE-CGC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

n.a.

n.a.

GR

POEEYTE

n.a.

n.a.

46.60

46.60

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

GSEE

EFFAT

HU

VISZ

5.00

5.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

Yes

Yes

Autonomok

EFFAT

IE

Mandate

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

ICTU

UNI Europa

IE

SIPTU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

ICTU

UNI Europa

IT

Conflavoratori

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

Yes

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Fenasalc

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

CISAL

n.a.

IT

Fesica

n.a.

n.a.

5.10

5.10

5.10

5.10

Yes

Yes

Confsal

Cesi

IT

Filcams

9.40

9.40

13.00

13.00

13.00

13.00

Yes

No

Cgil

EFFAT; UNI Europa

IT

Fisascat

5.80

5.80

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Cisl

EFFAT; UNI Europa

IT

Manageritalia

7.10

5.10

0.10

0.10

14.10

14.10

Yes

Yes

Confedir-Mit

n.a.

IT

Ugl Terziario

n.a.

n.a.

9.40%

0.09

9.40%

9.40

Yes

Yes

Ugl

n.a.

IT

UilTucs

2.80

2.80

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Uil

EFFAT; UNI Europa

LT

LMPS

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

No

     

LU

LCGB Commerce/Handel

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LCGB

EFFAT

LU

Alimentation et Hôtellerie OGBL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

OGBL

EFFAT

LV

LAKRS

10-54

10

1.70

1.70

1.70

1.70

Yes

Yes

LBAS

EPSU; ETF; EFFAT

MT

GWU

25.90

21.50

18.50

18.50

18.50

18.50

Yes

Yes

None

EFBWW; EFFAT; EMF; EPSU; ETF; Eurocadres; EURO WEA; FERPA; UNI Europa

MT

UHM

18.90

16.50

26.70

26.70

27.00

27.00

Yes

Yes

CMTU

EUROFEDOP

NL

CNV Vakmensen

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

76.00

Yes

Yes

CNV

EFFAT

NL

Die Unie/MHP

1.0

1.0

1.0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CMHP

n.a.

NL

FNV Vakbewegigng

n.a.

n.a.

7.00.

7.00

7.0

7.00

Yes

Yes

FNV

EFFAT

PL

SKHG

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Yes

No

None

EFFAT

PT

SITESE

0.60

0.50

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

Yes

n.a.

UGT; FETESE

UNI Europa

PT

STHTASSRAM

3.20

3.00

0.40

0.30

3.00

2.80

Yes

No

CGTP. FESAHT

None

PT

STIHTRSA

2.90

2.10

0.60

0.60

2.00

2.20

Yes

No

CGTP. FESAHT

None

PT

STIHTRSC

2.40

2.00

0.50

0.40

2.00

2.30

Yes

No

CGTP. FESAHT

None

PT

STIHTRSN

2.10

1.70

0.60

0.50

2.00

1.70

Yes

No

CGTP. FESAHT

None

PT

STIHTRSS

8.10

7.50

2.90

2.60

8.00

7.90

Yes

No

CGTP. FESAHT

None

RO

FST

8.90

8.90

9.50

9.50

9.50

9.50

Yes

Yes

CNSLR

None

SE

HRF

28.70

22.20

28.00

22.60

47.10

22.30

Yes

Yes

LO

EFFAT

SE

Kommunal

71.80

66.10

20.40

18.40

72.70

65.00

Yes

Yes

LO

EPSU; (EFFAT); ETF

SE

Unionen

50.00

42.00

4.50

3.80

53.00

53.00

Yes

Yes

TCO

EFFAT

SI

SDGiTS KS90

14.00

14.00

14.00

14.00

14.00

14.00

Yes

Yes

KS90

n.a.

SI

SGIT

32.00

32.00

32.00

32.00

32.00

32.00

Yes

Yes

ZSSS

EFFAT

SI

SODS

3.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

Yes

No

ZSSS

None

SK

OZ POCR

4.00

n.a.

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

Yes

Yes

KOZ SR

EFFAT; UNI Europa

SK

OZ PP

10.00

10.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

No

No

KOZ SR

EFFAT

SK

OZP SR

n.a.

51.00

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

No

No

KOZ SR

EFFAT

UK

BFAWU

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

Yes

Yes

TUC

EFFAT

UK

GMB

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

Yes

Yes

TUC

EFFAT

UK

Unite

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

10

Yes

Yes

TUC

EFFAT

UK

USDAW

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

n.a.

0.00

No

No

TUC

EFFAT

Note: The figures are rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% therefore refer to a figure of up to 0.49% and always more than 0%.

CB = collective bargaining

n.a. = not available

All countries included in the study record at least one sector-related trade union. The Lithuanian union LMPS was included in the study, even though it does not have any members in the Horeca sector, both because it is member of EFFAT and also because it used to recruit members in the Horeca sector and could still potentially do so, since its representational domain covers hotel, restaurant and catering activities.

In total, 69 sector-related trade unions could be identified, but for only 68 was it possible to collect information on the characterisation of their representational domain. Of these, 12 (18%) have demarcated their domain in a way which is congruent with the sector definition. This low proportion underscores the fact that statistical definitions of business activities rather differ from the lines along which employees identify common interests and band together in trade unions. Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector occur in 34 (or 50%) of cases. This is the commonest situation in the Horeca sector. Overlap by and large arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first one refers to general (cross-sectoral) domains (such as 3F in Denmark and Unite in the UK). The second mode in the sector relates to various forms of multi-sector domains, covering contiguous sectors, frequently in the broader services or retail segments of the economy (such as SIPTU in Ireland and Filcams, Fisascat and UILTuCS in Italy). Sectional overlaps involves 21 trade unions (31%). This mode usually emanates from domain demarcations which focus on certain categories of employees which are then organised across several or all sectors. Typically it this is the case for white- and blue-collar unions. Employee categories are specified by various parameters, such as distinct occupations (such as white-collar workers, as is the case of GPA-DJP in Austria, INOVA CFE-CGC in France, and Unionen in Sweden; or blue-collar employees, as is the case with vida of Austria; or managers as for Manageritalia in Italy), and geographic region (such as CIG-FEDERACIÓN DE SERVIZOS and ELA-ZERBITZUAK of Spain which are active only in Galicia and the Basque Country respectively). Finally, sectionalism can be found only in one case (1%). It ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions, which represent and organise only certain categories of employees in the sector; this is the case with the Bulgarian union FITUT (Federation of Independent Trade Unions in Tourism), which organises only tourism-related activities.

In the majority of countries covered by this study, there is more than one union organising the Horeca sector. In particular, in ten countries there is one single sector-related trade union, whereas in the remaining 17 a pluralist representation structure is present on the labour side.

Figure 2: Horeca sector-related trade unions and their domain patterns (N=68)

Figure 2: Horeca sector-related trade unions and their domain patterns (N=68)

Source: EIRO national contributions (2011)

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their domains with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the Horeca sector. Table 8 also illustrates these inter-union domain overlaps. Inter-union overlaps of domains are endemic; they involve 50 organisations out of a total of 69. In all countries with more than one sector-related trade union, the domain of any of them overlaps with the domain of all or most of the others. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in possible competition for members. Inter-union competition is recorded from several countries, but it should be underlined that this is the case for far less organisations: 19. In many cases, in fact, trade unions cooperate in joint collective bargaining at sectoral and decentralised levels. Rivalries are reported in Belgium, Estonia, France, Portugal, UK, and occasionally in Austria as regards the membership of white-collar employees. Competition often refers to membership while cooperation usually prevails in collective bargaining also in these cases.

On average, female employees represent practically half of trade union members in the unions covered by this study (with a simple mean of 52% for the 36 cases where the information is available). Variations are significant across union organisations and they partly reflect the representational domain, with a lower presence of women in the case of representation of managers (in Manageritalia only 17% of members are women) or blue-collar workers (only one third of members of vida in Austria are women). However, also the distinct features of national Horeca sectors and of individual unions matter. For instance, the Estonian trade union ETKA has an almost completely female membership basis (96%) and the Finnish PAM has a very large female membership (80%).

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all cases in the Member States under consideration.

The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from about 1.5 million (in the case of UK’s Unite – The Union) to only around one thousand workers (as in the cases of ETKA and ESTAL in Estonia and of STIHTRSC in Portugal). This considerable variation reflects differences in the size of the economy and the comprehensiveness of the membership domain rather than the ability to attract members.

In fact, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to perform a comparative analysis. In this context it should be noted that density figures in this section refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees only, rather than taking all union members (those in jobs and those who are not) into account. This is mainly because research usually considers net union densities as more informative compared to gross densities, since the former measure tends to reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce more quickly and appropriately than the latter (only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action).

Membership rates are available for only a number of the sector-related organisations. Sectoral density tends to be of a low level, since 28 unions are under 10% and three are above 30% (but we have to remember that we are in a situation of multiple unions in a majority of countries – see Table 8 and Table 9). The simple average of available sectoral density rates (38 cases) is 8%. Compared with their overall domain densities, the sector-related trade unions’ density in the Horeca sector are lower, with a certain increase in the case of sectoral domain densities. The former is 12% (40 cases) while the latter is 13% (38 cases).

In fact, when looking at sector density (again referring only to active members), it is important to differentiate between the trade unions’ sectoral density on the one hand and their sectoral domain density on the other. Whereas the former measures the ratio of the total number of members of a trade union in the sector to the number of employees in the sector (as demarcated by the NACE classification), the latter indicates the total number of members of a trade union in the sector in relation to the number of employees which work in that part of the sector as covered by the union domain (Figure 2). This means that the sectoral domain density must be higher than the sectoral density if a trade union organises only a particular part of the sector – that is where the trade union’s membership domain is either sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping in relation to the sector.

As noted above, when taking the trade unions’ sectoral domain density into account (which tends to be higher than their sectoral density for the reasons outlined above), the trade unions’ density in the Horeca sector is in line with the density ratio referring to their domain on aggregate. It should be noted that for nearly half of the sector-related trade unions (that is in 30 cases) no data on sectoral domain density are available. In regard of those trade unions for which figures on both measures (i.e. sectoral domain density and domain density on aggregate) are recorded, there is a tendency of presenting similar densities in the two domains (34 cases). Some unions with a multisectoral coverage, like 3F in Denmark, and GPA-djp and vida in Austria, show significantly lower density rates in the Horeca sector, so that it can be regarded as a relatively weaker context compared to the their overall representational domain.

Employer organisations

Tables 9 and 10 present the membership data for the employer organisations in the Horeca sector. Almost for all of the 27 countries under consideration at least one sector-related employer organisation is documented, with the only exception of Poland, where no sector-related employer association is present and collective bargaining takes place exclusively at company level within a large former-state owned group of companies, Orbis. In at least nine of these countries, a proportion of the listed employer/business organisations are not a party to collective bargaining (see Table 9). Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations specialised in matters other than industrial relations are commonly defined as ‘trade associations’ (TN0311101S). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the Horeca sector.

In terms of their national scope of activities, all of the associations which are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 11 either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. It is the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to EU-level organisations involved in Sectoral Social Dialogue, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study. Of the 74 employer/business organisations listed in Table 10 and Table 11, at least ten organisations belong to this group.

Twenty-one of the 26 countries for which related data are available have one or more employer organisations engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. In five countries, employer/business organisations do not take part in sector-related collective bargaining. This is the case for countries where only company-level bargaining is present in the Horeca sector, Malta and the UK, and of the three Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, where no collective bargaining takes place in the Horeca sector.

In nine of the 26 countries for which full information on the sector-related associational landscape is given, only one single employer organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, and Netherlands). Pluralist associational systems are thus prevailing both on the trade union and employer sides. As far as employers are concerned, this is probably the result of a relatively diversified representation linked to the various relevant subsectors which are present in Horeca, as well as to the importance of SMEs. Business organisations often tend to represent well-defined interests within relatively narrow sectors.

Table 9: Domain coverage and membership of employer organisations in Horeca, 2010/11
 

Employer organisation

Type of membership

Domain coverage

Companies

Companies in sector

Employees

Employees in sector

AT

FVG*

Compulsory

Sectionalism

57,000

57,000

129,000

129,000

AT

FVH*

Compulsory

Sectionalism

17,805

17,805

104,218

104,218

AT

VVAT*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

55,000

52,000

200,000

180,000

BE

COMEOS

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

Fed Horeca Bruxelles

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

Fed Horeca Vlaanderen

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

Fed Horeca Wallonie

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

UBC

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

BTC

Voluntary

Sectionalism

120

120

30,207

30,207

CY

ACTE*

Voluntary

Overlap

30

30

4,500

4,500

CY

PASYXE*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

280

280

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

AHR ČR

Voluntary

Overlap

       

CZ

SOCR ČR

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

BdS*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

700

700

100,000

100,000

DE

DEHOGA*

Voluntary

Congruence

70,000

70,000

n.a.

n.a.

DE

IHA

Voluntary

Sectionalism

1,269

1,269

n.a.

n.a.

DK

HORESTA

Voluntary

Congruence

2,100

2,100

50,000

50,000

EE

EHRL*

Voluntary

Overlap

94

69

2,500

n.a.

ES

CEHAT*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

14,000

14,000

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FEHR*

Voluntary

Congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

PRODELIVERY*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

MaRa

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

2,400

2,200

60,000

50

FR

CPIH*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FAGIHT*

Voluntary

Congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

SNRTC*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

SYNHORCAT*

Voluntary

Congruence

10,000

10,000

955,300

955,300

FR

UMIH*

Voluntary

Congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

OEZE

Voluntary

Sectionalism

1,000

1,000

n.a.

n.a.

GR

OKE

Voluntary

Sectionalism

40,000

40,000

n.a.

n.a.

GR

POESE

Voluntary

Sectionalism

20,000

20,000

n.a.

n.a.

GR

POX

Voluntary

Sectionalism

6,500

6,500

118,000

118,000

HU

HAH

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

VIMOSZ

Voluntary

Sectionalism

46

46

n.a.

n.a.

IE

IBEC*

Voluntary

Overlap

7,500

1,000

n.a.

n.a.

IE

IHF*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

RAI

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

AICA*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Assocamping*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Assohotel*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Assoturismo*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

48,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Confterziario*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FAITA*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

1,600

1,600

4,000

4,000

IT

FED.AR.COM*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Federalberghi*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

27,000

27,000

200,000

200,000

IT

Federturismo*

Voluntary

Overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FIEPeT*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FIPE*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

110,000

100,400

400,000

n.a.

IT

Italia Turismo-CIDEC*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

UCICT*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

UNCI*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

7,825

n.a.

129,301

n.a.

LT

LVRA

Voluntary

Overlap

316

291

9,000

8,800

LU

HORESCA

Voluntary

Congruence

2,650

2,650

12,000

12,000

LV

LKA

Voluntary

Sectionalism

23

23

110

110

LV

LTA

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

155

34

n.a.

n.a.

LV

LVRA*

Voluntary

Overlap

300

290

10,000

9,700

MT

MHRA

Voluntary

Congruence

405

405

n.a.

n.a.

NL

KHN

Voluntary

Congruence

15,800

15,800

344,250

344,250

PT

AHP*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

430

430

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AHRESP*

Voluntary

Congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AIHSA*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

1,000

1,000

n.a.

n.a.

PT

APHORT*

Voluntary

Congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

HRCentro*

Voluntary

Sectionalism

1,000

1,000

n.a.

n.a.

RO

FIHR*

Voluntary

Congruence

n.a.

n.a.

15,000

15,000

RO

FPTR*

Voluntary

Overlap

2,500

2,450

20,932

20,624

SE

LI*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

890

300

45,000

2,000

SE

SHR*

Voluntary

Overlap

3,752

3,652

64,009

61,009

SE

SKL*

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

760

330

1,045,000

25,100

SI

TGZS*

Voluntary

Congruence

1,100

1,000

20,000

19,000

SI

ZDOPS*

Voluntary

Overlap

2,700

n.a.

22,000

n.a.

SI

ZDS*

Voluntary

Overlap

1,450

50

250,000

19,000

SK

ZHR SR

Voluntary

Congruence

221

221

4,200

4,200

SK

ZOCR

Voluntary

Overlap

105

2

40,000

10,000

UK

BBPA

Voluntary

Sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

600,000

600,000

UK

BHA

Voluntary

Congruence

40,000

40,000

500,000

500,000

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

n.a. = not available

Table 10: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/ business organisations in Horeca, 2010/11
 

Employer org.

Companies

Employees

CB

Consul-tation

National

European

Domain

Sector

Sectoral

Domain

Sector

Sectoral domain

AT

FVG

100

51-75

100

100

63

100

Yes

Yes

WKO

HOTREC

AT

FVH

100

41

100

100

51

100

Yes

Yes

WKO

HOTREC

AT

VVAT

91–100

91–100

91–100

91–100

76–90

91–100

No

Yes

None

HOTREC

BE

COMEOS

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

FEB-VOB

EuroCommerce

BE

Fed Horeca Bruxelles

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

UCM

HOTREC

BE

Fed Horeca Vlaanderen

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

UNIZO

HOTREC

BE

Fed Horeca Wallonie

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

UCM

HOTREC

BE

UBC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

COMEOS

FERCO

BG

BTC

0.5

0.5

1.0

17.4

17.4

23.2

Yes

Yes

n.a.

n.a.

CY

ACTE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

None

None

CY

PASYXE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

None

HOTREC

CZ

AHR ČR

           

No

Yes

SOCR CR

HOTREC

CZ

SOCR ČR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

None

EuroCommerce

DE

BdS

60

n.a.

n.a.

80

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

BDA

n.a.

DE

DEHOGA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

BTW

HOTREC

DE

IHA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

No

Yes

BDA. via BTW in BDI

HOTREC

DK

HORESTA

17

17

17

74

74

74

Yes

Yes

DA

HOTREC, Nordisk Besögsnäring

EE

EHRL

5.06

n.a.

3.64

4.46

n.a.

n.a.

No

Yes

ETTK

HOTREC

ES

CEHAT

61.07

2.42

61.07

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CEOE

HOTREC

ES

FEHR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CEOE

HOTREC

ES

PRODELIVERY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

n.a.

n.a.

FI

MaRa

n.a.

19.8

n.a.

n.a.

69.5

n.a.

Yes

Yes

EK

HOTREC

FR

CPIH

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CGAD

HOTREC

FR

FAGIHT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

None

HOTREC

FR

SNRTC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

MEDEF

n.a.

FR

SYNHORCAT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

CGPME

HOTREC

FR

UMIH

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

MEDEF

HOTREC

GR

OEZE

n.a.

2.4

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

No

GSEVEE

n.a.

GR

OKE

n.a.

94.7

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

GSEVEE

None

GR

POESE

n.a.

47.4

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

GSEVEE

None

GR

POX

n.a.

15.4

n.a.

n.a.

65.8

n.a.

Yes

Yes

SETE

None

HU

HAH

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HOTREC

HU

VIMOSZ

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

Confederation of Hungarian Employers and Industrialists

FERCO

IE

IBEC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

Yes

None

EuroCommerce

IE

IHF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

No

Yes

n.a.

n.a.

IE

RAI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

No

Yes

n.a.

n.a.

IE

SFA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

AICA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Confindustria

None

IT

Assocamping

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Confesercenti; Assoturismo

None

IT

Assohotel

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Confesercenti; Assoturismo

None

IT

Assoturismo

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Confesercenti

None

IT

Confterziario

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

None

None

IT

FAITA

64.0

0.6

64.0

60.6

0.6

60.6

Yes

Yes

Confcommercio; Confturismo

EFCO&HPA

IT

FED.AR.COM

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

None

None

IT

Federalberghi

67.5

9.3

67.5

83.4

28.9

83.4

Yes

Yes

Confcommercio; Confturismo

HOTREC

IT

Federturismo

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Confindustria

None

IT

FIEPeT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Confesercenti; Assoturismo

None

IT

FIPE

44.0

34.8

43.7

53.3

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

Confcommercio; Confturismo

HOTREC

IT

Italia Turismo-CIDEC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

CIDEC

None

IT

UCICT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

CNAI

None

IT

UNCI

9.5

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

None

None

LT

LVRA

9

9.4

9.4

22.5

25.3

25.3

No

Yes

None

HOTREC

LU

HORESCA

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

n.a

Yes

Yes

n.a.

HOTREC

LV

LVRA

14

14

14

48.4

48.4

48.4

No

Yes

LDDK

HOTREC

MT

MHRA

13.6

13.6

13.6

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

No

Yes

None

HOTREC

NL

KHN

n.a.

52

n.a.

n.a.

72.5

n.a.

Yes

Yes

VNO-NCW

HOTREC

PT

AHP

3

1

3

10–25

10–25

10–25

Yes

n.a.

CTP

HOTREC

PT

AHRESP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

CTP; CIP

HOTREC; FERCO

PT

AIHSA

8

2

8

10–25

0–9

10–25

Yes

n.a.

CTP

n.a.

PT

APHORT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Yes

n.a.

CTP

HOTREC

PT

HRCentro

12

2

12

10–25

0–9

10–25

Yes

n.a.

CTP

n.a.

RO

FIHR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

8.7

8.7

8.7

Yes

Yes

UGIR

HOTREC

RO

FPTR

9.26

9.36

9.36

11.02

11.92

11.92

Yes

Yes

CNPR

 

SE

LI

40.45

1.89

42.86

78.95

1.7

33.33

Yes

n.a.

Svenskt Näringsliv

CIAA

SE

SHR

37.52

22.95

24.35

53.34

51.74

50.84

Yes

Yes

Svenskt Näringsliv

HOTREC

SE

SKL

43.83

2.07

91.67

98.4

21.29

98.43

Yes

No

None

CEEP; CEMR

SI

TGZS

14.0

13.0

13.0

14.0

13.0

13.0

Yes

Yes

n/a

EFCO & HPA

SI

ZDOPS

2

0

0

8

0

0

Yes

No

n/a

None

SI

ZDS

1.0

1.0

1.0

53.0

67.0

58.0

Yes

Yes

n/a

 

SK

ZHR SR

4

4

4

5

5

5

No

Yes

RUZ SR

HOTREC

SK

ZOCR

1

0–9

0–9

16

0–9

0–9

Yes

No

RUZ SR

EuroCommerce

UK

BBPA

26–50

10–25

26–50

26–50

n.a.

51–75

No

Yes

n.a.

HOTREC

UK

BHA

20

31

31

33.3

41.5

33.3

No

Yes

None

HOTREC

Note: The figures have rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure of 0.49% to more than 0%.

n.a. = not available

The employer organisations’ domains tend to be narrower than those of the trade unions. First, the two types of overlap cover 38% of cases, compared to almost 80% in the case of unions. Congruence is similar on two the sides of industry, as it concerns 20% of employer organisations and 18% of trade unions; sectionalism is far more present among employers as it involves 42% of cases compared to only 2%. This pattern is essentially linked to two features of employer representation. Trade associations tend to focus on quite specific economic activities, since they essentially act in the political arena and they can benefit from relatively high specialisation in terms of more homogeneous interests and clearer objectives. Representation of specific parts of the Horeca sector lead sectionalism, as in the cases where hotels and restaurants have specific associations, as happens in many countries (for instance, Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy) or where territorial representation emerges (this is the case, for instance, in Belgium and Portuguese hotels).

Figure 3: Horeca sector-related employer’s organisations/business associations and their domain patterns (N=74)

Figure 3: Horeca sector-related employer’s organisations/business associations and their domain patterns (N=74)

Source: EIRO national contributions 2011

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have managed to arrive at non-competing and often collaborative relationships.

As the figures on density show (Table 11), membership strength in terms of companies varies widely with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector-related densities. The same holds true for the densities in terms of employees. Both the domain and the sectoral domain densities in terms of companies tend to be lower than the densities in terms of employees to a large extent. This reflects the usual higher propensity of the larger companies to associate, as compared to their smaller counterparts.

In general, overall densities of the employer/business organisations in the sector tend to be higher compared to trade union densities (see above). However, the sectoral features (with the strong presence of SMEs) and the representational characteristics (with the plurality of associations active at national level) lead to relatively low individual membership rates, especially if the copmany associational rate is taken into consideration. Having said that, it is notable that still a significant proportion of employer organisations show quite high density rates, as nine of the 25 organisations for which data are available (that is over a third) associate companies which employ over 50% of the sectoral employment. In general, the findings suggest that in the Horeca sector the employers are quite well organised in terms of both companies and employees represented, with an average sectoral associational rate of 21% in terms of companies (29 cases) and 33% in terms of employees (25 cases). However, it should be noted that density data are available only for a small number of the employer/business associations (between 30% and 40% of all cases, depending on the indicator) and that rates are often provided as estimations. Therefore, the data set should again be treated cautiously.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Tables 8, 9 and 10 list all of the social partners engaged in sector-related collective bargaining and consultation. The data presented in Table 11 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 27 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.

Table 11: System of sectoral collective bargaining in Horeca (2011)
 

Main level

Coverage rate (main level)

Additional level

Coverage rate (additional level)

Extension (a)

AT

Sectoral

100

Company

n.a.

(2)

BE

Sectoral

100

Company

n.a.

2

BG

Sectoral

6

n.a.

n.a.

0

CY

Sectoral

50

Company

n.a.

0

CZ

Sectoral

35

n.a.

n.a.

0

DE

Sectoral

Around 40

Company

2% in WG and 7% in EG

1

DK

Sectoral

At least 74

Company

n.a.

0

EE

No CB

n/a

n/a

n.a.

0

ES

Sectoral

Over 70

Company

n.a.

2

FI

Sectoral

90

Company

22

2

FR

Sectoral

Almost 100

Company

n.a.

2

GR

Sectoral

100

Local and company

n.a.

2

HU

Sectoral

100

n.a.

n.a.

2

IE

Sectoral

72

Company

14

(2)(b)

IT

Sectoral

Almost 100

Company

n.a.

(2)

LT

No CB

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

LU

Company

Marginal

None

n/a

n/a

LV

No CB

n/a

n/a

n.a.

1

MT

Company

5

None

n/a

0

NL

Sectoral

100

None

n/a

2

PL

Company

1,5

None

n/a

0

PT

Sectoral

Almost 100

Company

Marginal

2

RO

Sectoral

100

n.a.

n.a.

2 (ended in 2011)

SE

Sectoral

75

Company

60

0

SI

Sectoral

90-95

None

n.a.

0-1

SK

Company

1

n.a

n.a.

0

UK

Company

5,4

None

n/a

0

Source: EIRO national contributions 2011

Main level: main collective bargaining level

Coverage rate = collective bargaining coverage: employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector; Main level: coverage rate of main level of collective bargaining; Additional level: coverage rate of the additional level of collective bargaining. The two bargaining areas (main and additional) may overlap.

(a) Extension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings): 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are put in parentheses.

(b) The extension concerns minimum rates of pay and conditions of work proposed by Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) composed of representatives of workers and employers in the sector concerned. The pay and conditions agreed by the representatives on the JLCs are given force of law in Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) made by the Labour Court on foot of proposals made to the Court by the JLCs.

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

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, only the company or its divisions are the party to the 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 to this analysis for two reasons.

  • Extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard of the International Labour Organization, aside from any national legislation.
  • If employers did not extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when not formally obliged to do so; they would set 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 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 (see Traxler et al., 2001).

Collective bargaining coverage

In terms of the sector’s collective bargaining coverage, 15 of the 27 countries for which related data are available record high coverage rates of at least 70% (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, and Slovenia); eight of them record coverage rates of (almost) 100% (Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, and Romania).

Conversely, there are six countries where collective bargaining coverage is below 10% or marginal (Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and UK). With the exception of Bulgaria, these are the countries where only company-level bargaining is present. In three countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic and Germany), the coverage rate lies roughly between 30% and 50%. In Germany, the coverage rate is 48% in western Lander and 25% in the eastern part of the country (taking into consideration employment in establishments with at least five employees). In the remaining three countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) no collective bargaining is present.

One can say from these findings that in more than half of the 27 countries under consideration the sector’s industrial relations structures are well-established, while they appear to be weak in around one-third of the countries.

In most of the countries with available information, several factors which sometimes interact with each other account for the high coverage rates: the predominance of multi-employer bargaining (see Table 12); high density rates of the trade unions and/or employer organisations; and the existence of pervasive extension practices, such as in Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania (for the intersectoral agreement), and Spain.

The presence of extension practices in the Horeca sector are reported for several countries (for instance, in Belgium, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, and Romania). It should be noted that for Romania, the extension of the sectoral collective agreement is no longer available after 2011. Referring to the aim of extension provisions making multi-employer agreements generally binding, the provisions for obligatory membership in the Austrian Fachverband Gastronomie (FVG) and in the Fachverband Hotellerie (FVH), which are part of the system of compulsory representation of the Federal Economic Chamber (WKO), represent a functional equivalent. 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. In Ireland, a system similar to extension mechanisms is present through the generally binding nature of the Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) issued by the Labour Court following a proposal by the Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) on minimum rates of pay and conditions of work for workers. In the Horeca sector, there are two JLCs for catering (one for Dublin and one for the rest of the country) and one JLC for hotels outside Dublin and Cork.

Participation in public policymaking

Interest associations may partake in public policy in two basic ways:

  • they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members;
  • they may be represented on tripartite committees and boards of policy concertation.

This study considers only cases of consultation and corporatist participation which relate explicitly to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and also 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 9 and Table 11 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

At least some of the trade unions are regularly consulted by the authorities in at least 23 of the 27 countries where sector-related trade unions are recorded. Four countries cite a lack of regular consultation of any of the trade unions (Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland, and Portugal). In most countries with a multi-union system where a noticeable practice of consultation is observed, all of the existing trade unions take part in the consultation process.

Employer organisations

Almost all of the sector-related employer/business organisations for which related data are available are involved in consultation procedures. In every country at least one employer organisation is regularly consulted on sector-related policies, with the exception of Portugal for which no relevant information could be collected, and Poland where no employer organisation as defined in this study is present.

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the findings reveal that a sector-specific tripartite body has been established in six countries (see Table 12). They most often cover the tourism sector and address general issues, but there are also more specialised bodies which cover health and safety issue or skill development. The former type of body is present in Bulgaria, Spain, Slovenia and Romania, while the second can be found in Estonia, Romania and UK. Generally, they are statutory bodies.

Table 12: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy in Horeca (2010/11)
  Name of body and scope of activity Origin Trade unions participating Business associations participating

BG

Committee at the Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism (MEET)

Agreement

CITUB and CL Podkrepa

BTC

EE

Estonian Qualifications Authority (Kutsekoda) Service Professionals Council

Statutory

Estonian Trade Union of Commercial and Servicing Employees (ETKA)

Estonian Hotel and Restaurants Association (EHRL)

ES

The Spanish Council of Tourism

Statutory

UGT and CCOO

CEOE and CEPYME

SI

Council for Tourism

Statutory

GIT

ZDS, TGZS, OZS

RO

Social dialogue commission at Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism (Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Turismului, MDRT

Statutory

All TU confederations

All EAs representative at national level

RO

Sectoral committee for vocational training in Tourism, hotels and restaurants, under the aegis of National Council for Adults Vocational Training (Consiliul Naţional pentru Formarea Profesională a Adulţilor, CNFPA)

Statutory

FSTR

FPTR

UK

Health and Safety Executive

Statutory

Unite

BHA, BBPA

UK

People 1st – The Sector Skills Council (skills and training

Statutory

GMB

BHA, BBPA


European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria, as defined by the European Commission. Accordingly, a social partner organisation must have the following attributes:

  • be cross-industry or relate to specific sectors or categories, and be organised at European level;
  • consist of organisations which are themselves an integral and recognised part of Member States’ social partner structures and which have the capacity to negotiate agreements, as well as being representative of all Member States, as far as possible;
  • have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the consultation process.

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

As outlined in greater detail below, one sector-related European association on the employee side – namely, EFFAT – and one on the employer side – namely, HOTREC – are particularly significant in the Horeca sector; both of them are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these organisations, while providing supplementary information on others which are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

EFFAT, which is affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), organises the food, agriculture and tourism sector. Therefore its membership domain largely overlaps the Horeca sector. HOTREC, instead, has a representational domain which essentially coincides with the Horeca sector. HOTREC organises both employer and business organisations.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by EFFAT and HOTREC extend beyond the countries examined in this study. However, the report will only consider the members of these countries. For EFFAT, Table 13 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions, as covered by the national reports.

In the case of EFFAT, there is at least one affiliation in most of the countries under consideration, except in Bulgaria, Estonia, Portugal, and Romania. In some countries – such as Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Slovakia and UK – multiple memberships occur. On aggregate, EFFAT counts 41 direct affiliations from the countries under examination. More than half of the trade unions listed in Table 9 are directly affiliated to EFFAT. As far as available data on sectoral membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength, one can conclude that EFFAT covers the sector’s most important labour representatives. 36 of the 41 direct members of EFFAT for which information is available are involved in collective bargaining related to the Horeca sector.

Table 14 lists the members of HOTREC covered by the national reports. The organisation has under their umbrella associational members from nearly all of the 27 countries under consideration here, with the exception of Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Poland. As far as data are available, one can say from the sectoral membership data of the respective organisations that important national associations are affiliated.

Table 13: EFFAT Membership (2011)
 

Name

Full name

AT

GPA-djp

Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten - Druck, Journalismus, Papier (Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists)

AT

Vida

vida

BE

ABVV-HORVAL

Belgian General Federation of Labour - HORVAL (Alimentation-Horeca Sector), Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique – HORVAL (FGTB-HORVAL)/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond – HORVAL (ABVV-HORVAL)

BE

CGSLB-ACLVB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium, Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique (CGSLB) Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België (ACLVB)

BE

CSC-ACV Alimentation

Confederation of Christian Trade unions (Alimentation and services), Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens (CSC)/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond (ACV)

CY

OEXEKA

The Hotel, Catering and Restaurant Employees Federation, formerly known as the Federation of Hotel Industry Employees (OYXEB)

CZ

ÈMOS PH ÈR

The Czech-Moravian Trade Union of Catering, Hotels and Tourism

DE

NGG

Gewerkschaft Nahrung Genuss Gaststätten

DK

3F

United Federation of Danish Workers

ES

CHTJ-UGT

Federation of Commerce, Catering trade, Tourism and Gambling of the General Workers Confederation

ES

FECOHT

Federation of Commerce, Catering Trade and Tourism of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

FI

PAM

The Service Union United

FR

CGT-Services

Fédération CGT Commerce Distribution Services

FR

FdS-CFDT

Fédération des services CFDT

FR

FGTA-FO

Fédération Générale des Travailleurs de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, des Tabacs et Allumettes et des Services Annexes - Force Ouvrière

FR

INOVA CFE-CGC

INOVA Confédération française de l'encadrement - confédération française des cadres

GR

POEEYTE

Pan-Hellenic Federation of Catering Employees – Tourism Profession Employees

HU

VISZ

The Hungarian Trade Union of Catering and Tourism

IE

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

IT

Filcams

Federazione Italiana Lavoratori Commercio, Turismo e Servizi

IT

Fisascat

Federazione Italiana Sindacati Addetti Servizi Commerciali Affini Turismo

IT

UilTucs

Unione Italiana dei Lavoratori Turismo Commercio e Servizi

LT

LMPS

Lithuanian Trade Union of Food producers, Lietuvos Maistininku Profesiné Sajunga

LU

LCGB Commerce/Handel

LCGB Commerce/Handel

LU

Alimentation et Hôtellerie OGBL

Alimentation et Hôtellerie OGBL

LV

LAKRS

Latvian Trade Union of Public Service and Transport Workers

MT

GWU

General Workers' Union

NL

CNV Vakmensen

CNV Vakmensen

NL

FNV Vakbewegigng

Horeca union Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging

PL

SKHG

National Section of Hotels and Gastronomy of NSZZ ‘Solidarity’ (Sekcja Krajowa Hotelarstwa i Gastronomii NSZZ ‘Solidarnoœæ’)

SE

HRF

The Hotel & Restaurant Workers´ Union

SE

Kommunal

The Municipal Workers’ Union

SE

Unionen

Unionen

SI

SGIT

The Catering and Tourism Workers’ Union of Slovenia

SK

OZ POCR

Odborový zväz pracovníkov obchodu a cestovného ruchu

SK

OZ PP

Odborový zväz pracovníkov po¾nohospodárstva na Slovensku

SK

OZP SR

Odborový zväz potravinárov Slovenskej republiky

UK

BFAWU

Bakers, Food & Allied Workers' Union

UK

GMB

GMB

UK

Unite

Unite - The Union

UK

USDAW

Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

Table 14: HOTREC Membership (2011)
 

Name

Full name

AT

FVG (APRA)

Fachverband Gastronomie

AT

FVH (APHA)

Fachverband Hotellerie

AT

VVAT

Veranstalterverband Österreich

BE

Fed Horeca Bruxelles

Brussels Area Employers fédération of hotels, restaurants, cafés et assimilated works, Fédération patronale des hôteliers, restaurateurs, cafetiers et professions assimilées de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

BE

Fed Horeca Vlaanderen

Federation of Hotels, restaurants, cafés of Flanders, Federatie van Hotel-, Restaurant-, Caféhouders en Aanverwanten van Vlaanderen

BE

Fed Horeca Wallonie

Interprovinciale des Fédérations d’Hôteliers, Restaurateurs,Cafetiers et Entreprises assimilées de Wallonie

CY

PASYXE (CHA)

Cyprus Hotel Association

CZ

AHR ÈR

Association of Hotels and Restaurants of the Czech Republic

DE

DEHOGA

Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststättenverband

DE

IHA

Hotelverband Deutschland

DK

HORESTA

Association for the hotel, restaurant and tourism industry in Denmark, Hotel-, Restaurant-, Catering- og Turisterhvervets ovedorganisation

EE

EHRL (EHRA)

Estonian Hotel and Restaurants Association, Eesti Hotellide ja Restoranide Liit

ES

CEHAT

Spanish Federation of Hotels and Holiday Accommodation

ES

FEHR

Spanish Federation of Accommodation and Food Services Activities

FI

MaRa (FHA)

Finnish Hospitality Association

FR

CPIH

Confédération des professionnels indépendants de l'hôtellerie

FR

FAGIHT

Fédération autonome générale de l'industrie hôtelière touristique

FR

GNC

Chaînes Hôtelières

FR

SYNHORCAT

Syndicat national des hôteliers, restaurateurs, cafetiers et traiteurs

FR

UMIH

Union des Métiers et des Industries de l'Hôtellerie

GR

HCH

Hellenic Chamber of Hotels

HU

HAH

Hungarian Hotel and Restaurant Association

IE

IHF

Irish Hotels Federation

IE

RAI

Restaurant Association of Ireland

IT

Federalberghi

Federazione delle Associazioni Italiane Alberghi e Turismo

IT

FIPE

Federazione Italiana Pubblici Esercizi

LT

LVRA (LHRA)

Lithuanian Association of Hotels and Restaurants

LU

HORESCA

Fédération Nationale des Hôteliers, Restaurateurs et Cafetiers du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

LV

LVRA (AHRL)

Association of Latvian Hotels and Restaurants

MT

MHRA

Malta Hotel and Restaurants Association

NL

KHN

Koninklijke Horeca Nederland

PT

AHP

Associação da Hotelaria de Portugal

PT

AHRESP

Associação da Hotelaria, Restauração e Similares de Portugal

PT

APHORT

Associação Portuguesa de Hotelaria, Restauração e Turismo

SE

SHR

The Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association

SK

ZHR SR (SAHR)

Zväz hotelov a reštaurácií Slovenskej republiky

UK

BBPA

British Beer and Pub Association

UK

BHA

British Hospitality Association

Some of the organisations affiliated to HOTREC are not engaged in collective bargaining. Of the 38 members of HOTREC, at least 26 are involved in sector-related collective bargaining. Employer/Business organisations which are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than as industrial relations actors. This situation involves the affiliates operating in the countries where no collective bargaining takes place (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), or where existing agreements are concluded directly by companies at decentralised levels (as in the cases of Malta and UK). Moreover, some member organisations operate exclusively as trade associations (as in Austria for VVAT, in the Czech Republic for AHR ČR, and in Germany for IHA). Conversely, in some countries sectoral collective bargaining is carried out by organisations which are not affiliated to HOTREC. This is the case for Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia, where HOTREC does not have any members.

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. According to its constitution, EFFAT is committed to carry out a number of tasks in relation to European issues, including ‘negotiations in sector-specific questions at European level’, ‘co-ordination of collective bargaining activities and policies concerning minimum agreements and framework agreements at European level’, and the ‘promotion and development of the sectoral and interprofessional Social Dialogue’ (Art. I.2). EFFAT’s Executive Committee decides ‘on the composition and the mandate of the delegation entrusted with negotiations with the European employers’ associations’ and ‘on the outcomes of negotiations’. The decisions on the outcome of negotiations ‘shall have the support of at least two thirds of the organisations directly concerned by the negotiations’ (Art. V.3). Other EFFAT bodies involved in the preparation and implementation of European level negotiations are the Management Committee, the Secretariat and the Sector Assemblies.

On the employer side, HOTREC represent their respective members in matters of the European sectoral social dialogue. In particular, HOTREC’s Social Dialogue Steering Committee is responsible for running all social dialogue actitivites, ‘based on the mandate conferred by the General Assembly. The social dialogue Steering Committee comprises five HOTREC representatives, including one Chairman, which are elected by the General Assembly for a renewable period of two years’ (HOTREC website, Organisation).

As a final proof of the weight of EFFAT and HOTREC, 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.

For the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table 9. Accordingly, European organisations other than EFFAT represent a relatively small 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. There are only three organisations which meet this criterion, UNI Europa, with 19 affiliated organisations covered by this study, EPSU (European Federation of Public Service Unions), with five affiliates in four countries, and ETF (European Transport Workers’ Federation) with four affiliations in four countries. This situation usually involves multi-sector or general unions, so that the national organisations maintain different affiliations for the various industries they cover. For instance, it should be noted that in 12 cases, national organisations are members of both EFFAT and UNI Europa. Single affiliations to UNI Europa and involvement in collective bargaining can be found in Bulgaria, Ireland and Portugal. In sum, the affiliations to European organisations other than EFFAT which refer to the Horeca sector are quite limited and this overview underlines the principal status of EFFAT as the sector’s labour representative.

An analogous review of the membership of the national employer/business associations can be derived from Table 11. The other European organisations with national sector-related affiliates in at least three countries within the Horeca sector are EuroCommerce, with four affiliations in four countries, and FERCO (European Federation of Contract Catering Organisations) with three affiliations in three countries.

In conclusion, EFFAT and HOTREC appear by far the most important sector-related European organisations.


Commentary

Industrial relations in the Horeca sector in the European Union tend to be well-organised, despite the presence of a large proportion of SMEs, which traditionally does not constitute a favourable environment for trade union organisations. Collective bargaining coverage is, on average, quite high, mainly thanks to the prevalence of sectoral bargaining and the utilisation of extension procedures. Indeed, where company bargaining is the norm, collective bargaining coverage rates tend to be very low. Another interesting sectoral feature is the diversification of representation, also on the employer side, which partly reflects the various subsectors which constitute Horeca. This ‘dispersion’ at national level is reduced by the presence of sectoral ‘peak’ organisations in a number of countries, especially for the employers (for instance in Italy and Portugal), as well as at EU-level through the affiliation to EFFAT and HOTREC. As a consequence, overall, EFFAT and HOTREC have to be regarded as the by far most important, if not the only EU-wide representatives of the sector’s employers and employees.


References

Traxler, F. (2004), ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism’, in European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004, pp. 571–598).

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

Roberto Pedersini, Università degli Studi di Milano

EF/12/53/EN

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

Přidat komentář