Economic and Social Council questions regional industrial relations frameworks

Download article in original language : ES0009112FES.DOC

In June 2000, Spain's consultative Economic and Social Council, on which the social partners are represented, approved a report which presents a critical analysis of the country's process of economic and social decentralisation. In particular, it questions the creation of separate frameworks for industrial relations in the autonomous communities (regions).

At the end of June 2000, the Economic and Social Council (Consejo Económico y Social, CES) approved a report entitled Market unity and social cohesion (Unidad de mercado y cohesión social), perhaps one of the most controversial reports issued by this body in recent times.

The report deals with the delicate question of political decentralisation: after 20 years of delegation of powers to the autonomous communities (regions), Spain is one of the most decentralised countries in the European Union, but over this period no proper consensus has been achieved on the limits of this process and on the definitive configuration of the relationship between the central state and the autonomous communities - the situation whereby Spain has been described as a "state of the autonomies". There is great controversy on this point between the different political parties, but also within each party.

Decentralisation and its consequences for employment and industrial relations are also controversial questions within both employers' associations (ES0006291N) and trade unions (ES0005286F). The CES is a body which provides for the participation and consultation of the social partners on social and employment policies, but the reports that it draws up do not necessarily reflect the point of view of each of the participating organisations. As was foreseeable, the report has raised a certain degree of controversy among employers and trade unions, especially over the question of the autonomous communities' regional frameworks for industrial relations.

General position

The CES report presents a critical analysis of decentralisation in economic and social terms: its aim is to determine to what extent decentralisation comes into conflict with or endangers market unity and social cohesion. The report makes an assessment of decentralisation in several areas: the labour market; social security; health; education; housing; transport; the environment; domestic trade; and taxation.

The conclusion of the report is clear: it considers that the process of decentralisation has not always shown sufficient respect for the demands imposed by the necessity to maintain market unity and social cohesion. In the opinion of the CES, in recent times a "pro-autonomy" principle, by virtue of which progress always means delegating powers to the autonomous communities, has been applied too schematically. The CES considers that the time has come to subject this principle to criticism and revision, in order to ensure that the development of this constitutional model does not come into conflict with market unity or threaten social cohesion. It thus calls for new political commitments between parties and institutions to achieve a major political pact on "closing" the process of decentralisation.

Employment and social security

The CES considers that decentralisation in industrial relations, social protection and regulations on employment has become an arena for experimentation in the construction of differentiated frameworks for the various autonomous communities The report warns of the threat to social cohesion that these developments represent. From this perspective, it considers four questions of particular interest.

• Supplements to minimum pensions. In late 1998, the autonomous community of Andalusia decided to increase the level of non-contributory pension benefits by more than the rise implemented at national level (non-contributory pensions are granted to people who have not made sufficient contributions and are paid out mainly from public budgets) (ES9902201N). This decision led to a major political debate and was copied by Catalonia and by some city councils. The CES report does not go into this legal and constitutional controversy, because it understands that there are reasons for and against the legitimacy of this type of measure and believes that the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) should issue a clear judgment on this matter. However, from the political point of view, the CES is clearly opposed to this development because it threatens the principles of solidarity and "sufficiency" of the social protection system and leads to imbalances between autonomous communities.

• Collection and administration of employers' compulsory vocational training contributions. Some autonomous communities call for this to be decentralised, especially in the area of continuing training, so that they can enjoy a greater capacity for independent decision-making and action. This question is clearly associated with the debate on the decentralisation of the continuing training system (ES9804152F), on which opinions differ among employers and trade unions. The position of the CES is very clear: based on constitutional case law, it considers that the funding of vocational training should be centralised in order to ensure the principles of unity, autonomy and solidarity and to coordinate planning of training at national level.

• Active employment policies. These policies have recently been decentralised in two ways: the transfer to the autonomous communities of the administration of active employment policies (ES9707214F); and the development of autonomous communities' own programmes for developing employment. As with social security, the CES warns of an excessive conflict between the state and the autonomous communities over their respective powers. The Constitutional Court has been kept busy on this subject and many questions are still open. The CES feels that a new "basic employment law" should be introduced to define a new public employment service, the respective employment-related powers of the central state and the autonomous communities, and the rules of coordination and cooperation between them. It also considers that there should be greater coordination between the different administrations to avoid overlapping and to guarantee a greater degree of stability and articulation. In the CES's opinion, the development of active employment policies at autonomous community level could distort market unity, because it does not always respond to the characteristics of the autonomous communities' labour markets and all the regions do not offer the same level of intensity and quality in their policies.

• Autonomous communities' frameworks for industrial relations. In this area, the CES is especially critical. It feels that certain aspects of national labour regulations, and even an inappropriate exercise of powers by the autonomous communities, have encouraged political aspirations to try to create specific frameworks for industrial relations within the individual autonomous communities. With regard to collective bargaining, it considers that the fact that national sectoral agreements are affected by collective agreements at autonomous community level conflicts with the general prohibition of overlapping agreements and destroys any rational pattern for organising and articulating collective bargaining.

Commentary

The CES report is controversial in political terms: the general approach is debatable since it considers market unity to be the basis and fundamental guarantee for social cohesion. Without going into the grounds on which the report bases its findings, it is worth noting one very important issue for industrial relations, that of the autonomous communities' frameworks for industrial relations. The forcefulness with which the report declares opposition to such developments is remarkable, and it is hard to believe that it reflects the point of view of trade unions and employers' organisations. (María Caprile, Fundació CIREM)