Thematic feature - social partner involvement in the 2003 NAP

This article examines social partner involvement in the preparation of the UK’s 2003 National Action Plan for employment drawn up in response to the EU Employment Guidelines.

The European Union'sEuropean employment strategy (EES) has been in operation since 1997 (EU9711168F). The strategy enables the coordination of national employment policies at EU level and one of its main components has been the adoption (on the basis of a proposal from theEuropean Commission) by theEuropean Council of a set of annual Employment Guidelines setting out common priorities for Member States' employment policies. The Member States then draw up annual National Action Plans (NAPs) which describe how these Guidelines are being put into practice nationally.

Following a review of the EES undertaken in 2002 after five years of operation (EU0209204F), and proposals for its streamlining, made by the Commission in aCommunication in September 2002 (EU0210206F), the strategy has now been renewed and simplified, with a stronger focus on implementation and a new timetable. In July 2003, the Council adopted the 2003Employment Guidelines (EU0308205F), which had been proposed by the Commission in April 2003. Compared with previous years, the Employment Guidelines have been revised so as to: ensure a stronger link with EU economic policy coordination (through streamlined timetables); lay down fewer guidelines with a broader perspective; provide a medium-term time horizon in order to achieve an increased emphasis on results and outcomes; and strengthen the involvement of the social partners, local authorities and other stakeholders.

The2003 Employment Guidelines to the Member States set out three main objectives:

• full employment;

• improving quality and productivity at work; and

• strengthening social cohesion and inclusion.

While still maintaining the employment targets set at the Lisbon (EU0004241F) and Stockholm (EU0104208F)European Council meetings in 2000 and 2001, in order to achieve these three objectives the Guidelines focus on 10 policy priorities, rather than grouping a range of guidelines into four pillars, as has previously been the practice. These 10 priorities are

1. active and preventative measures for the unemployed and inactive;

2. job creation and entrepreneurship;

3. address change and promote adaptability and mobility in the labour market;

4. promote development of human capital and lifelong learning;

5. increase labour supply and active ageing;

6. gender equality;

7. promote the integration of and combat the discrimination against people at a disadvantage in the labour market;

8. make work pay through incentives to enhance work attractiveness;

9. transform undeclared work into regular employment; and

10. address regional employment disparities.

Under the revised EES, Member States still draw up NAPs setting out how the Employment Guidelines are being implemented. The NAPs present the progress achieved in the Member State over the past 12 months and the measures planned for the coming 12 months, and are thus both reporting and planning documents. The NAPs based on the 2003 Guidelines - which should have a stronger focus on implementation and the medium term - were due to be adopted in October 2003.

While national governments and public labour market authorities are mainly responsible for drawing up and implementing the NAPs, the role and the contribution of the social partners has been progressively emphasised as the EES has developed, acknowledging the fact that many issues addressed in the Employment Guidelines directly concern the social partners, and in many cases the collective bargaining process. The 2003 Guidelines include a section on'good governance and partnership' in their implementation, with Member States requested to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines, including at the regional and local level, and involve parliamentary bodies, social partners and other relevant actors. Good governance and partnership are seen as important issues for the implementation of the EES,'while fully respecting national traditions and practices'. With regard to the social partners, they should be invited at national level -'in accordance with their national traditions and practices'- to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines and to report on their most significant contributions in all areas under their responsibility, in particular concerning: the management of change and adaptability;'synergy' between flexibility and security;'human capital development'; gender equality; making work pay; active ageing; and health and safety at work. The European-level social partners at intersectoral and sectoral level are invited to contribute to the implementation of the Guidelines and to support efforts undertaken by the national social partners at all levels. As announced in theirjoint work programme for 2003-5 (EU0212206F), the European intersectoral social partners will report annually on their contribution to the implementation of the Guidelines. Furthermore, the European sectoral social partners are invited to report on their respective actions.

In October 2003, the EIRO national centres in each EU Member State, were asked, in response to a questionnaire, to outline how the social partners were involved in the preparation of their country's2003 NAP (a similar exercise was conducted in relation to the 2002 NAPs -UK0206101T). The UK responses are set out below (along with the questions asked).

Procedural aspects

1) Which organisations did the government consult on the preparation of the 2003 NAP? Were these organisations informed in time? Did they have enough time to react?

2) If the social partners have submitted their views, are these represented in the NAP?

3) Does the NAP include a chapter/part written by the social partners? Is the NAP a joint text? Did social partners sign the NAP?

4) What was the degree of consultation? Was the consultation important in substance or were social partners asked to say just'yes' or'no'?

The main social partner organisations consulted in the production of the 2003 UK NAP were theConfederation of British Industry (CBI) and theTrades Union Congress (TUC).CEEP UK- the UK section of theEuropean Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP) - was also consulted. The lead government department was theDepartment for Work and Pensions (DWP), but officials from other departments, principally theDepartment of Trade and Industry (DTI), were also involved. This article is based on information provided by CBI and TUC officials during short telephone interviews with the author.

Government officials convened a meeting in July 2003 involving CBI and TUC representatives to discuss the process of drawing up the NAP. At this meeting there was a preliminary discussion of the social dialogue-type activity that would need to be covered in the NAP - on which government officials requested the CBI and TUC to supply further information. The two organisations, along with CEEP UK, agreed a joint submission which is reproduced in the NAP, as well as making their own input in the form of comments on a draft of the NAP drawn up by government officials.

Both the CBI and TUC officials concerned felt that the timetable for making the necessary input was'very tight'- reportedly a matter of days. The CBI official commented that the process had been'a bit of a rush', and that'more time would have been helpful'. The TUC official said that the speed of the process inevitably meant that it was a'minimalist exercise'.

With regard to the extent to which the social partners’ views are represented in the NAP, both the officials felt that, given the time constraints, their organisation's suggestions were properly taken account of by the NAP. The CBI official commented that the NAP’s'broad thrust is right'. The TUC official'wouldn’t quarrel with the content of the report': it was'the best that could be expected in the circumstances'. The two organisations reportedly had to press for the issue of illegal working and immigration to be included in the NAP and were eventually successful (see below).

The NAP is a government document, produced in consultation with external bodies, not a joint text. It is not signed by the social partners. However, as already noted, the 2003 NAP does include an agreed contribution by the CBI, the TUC and CEEP UK (see pp. 16-18). This highlights what they see as the key policy areas where they have been jointly involved in policy formulation.

Matters of policy content

1) To what extent were social partners involved at national (and/or regional/local) level, as mentioned under the'good governance and partnership' part of the Employment Guidelines?

a) Was a comprehensive partnership developed or not, and why? Have there been significant tripartite arrangements in view of implementing some or all of the Employment Guidelines?

b) How have the social partners at various levels implemented the Employment Guidelines - eg through collective bargaining, consultations, joint or unilateral actions etc - notably with regard to those aspects which are identified as their key responsibilities (where appropriate, taking into account the employment policy recommendations addressed by the EU to the Member States)? This should cover the following areas:

• Management of change and adaptability

• Synergy between flexibility and security, work-life balance

• Human capital development

• Gender equality

• Making work pay

• Inclusion and access to the labour market

• Active ageing and increase in labour supply

• Health, safety and well-being at work

2. What is the social partners’ assessment of the employment policy of the government?

3. Are there any gaps or any insufficiencies identified by the social partners in the NAP?

The UK has not developed a'comprehensive partnership' with the social partners for the implementation, monitoring and follow-up of the European employment strategy in the sense of having a single institutional framework for their involvement. Differing institutional arrangements apply according to the issue in question, ranging from formal'tripartite' bodies with CBI and TUC representation, such as theAdvisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas), theHealth and Safety Commission and theLow Pay Commission, to ad hoc working groups such as the DTI-convened discussions between the CBI, TUC and CEEP UK which resulted in agreed telework guidelines (see below).

The CBI sees no need for an overarching framework, arguing that the precise mechanisms for social partner involvement inevitably vary depending on the issue concerned (eg other stakeholders may need to be involved), and that some issues are potentially more fruitful for joint action than others. However, the CBI acknowledges that there can be value in joint dialogue, for instance where this leads to recommendations on policy issues, and points out that the amount of joint CBI-TUC activity has increased in recent years.

For the TUC,'the main problem in terms of social partner involvement is that the UK lacks the coherent institutional arrangements between the social partners, and between them and the government, necessary to take all the various elements of the Employment Guidelines process forward'. However, the TUC official concerned did point to what he regarded as positive recent developments in terms of social partner involvement in the UK’s skills strategy (see below) - an area specifically highlighted by one of the EU employment policyrecommendations to the UK this year (recommendation 4).

A range of initiatives taken by or involving the social partners which are relevant to the Guidelines are referred to in the NAP. These include:

• agreement between the DTI, CBI and TUC (UK0307106F) on aframework for implementing the EU information and consultation Directive(2002/14/EC) (EU0204207F) (guideline 3);

• CBI and TUC involvement in theWork and Parents Taskforce which advised the government on the implementation of the statutory right for working parents to request flexible working, introduced in April 2003 (UK0304104F) (guideline 3);

• DTI-convened discussions between the CBI, TUC and CEEP UK which resulted in agreed telework aguidelines (UK0309102N) (guideline 3);

• joint work on skills, including the November 2002 CBI/TUC report on the basic skills challenge facing the UK, and CBI and TUC involvement in the UK skills strategy through the newSkills Alliance (UK0307105F), Sector Skills Councils (UK0211105F) and Frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESAs) (guideline 4);

• CBI and TUC involvement in shaping the strategy for helping small firms achieve the Investors in People training standard (UK9703111F) (guideline 4);

• promotion of the code of practice on age diversity in employment (UK9906110N) (guideline 5);

• CBI and TUC support for the government’s managed migration policy and membership of the Home Office’sIllegal Working Steering Group (guideline 5);

• CBI and TUC representation on theEqual Opportunities Commission and the promotion of voluntary equal pay reviews (guideline 6);

• CBI and TUC representation on theCommission for Racial Equality,Disability Rights Commission andDisability Employment Advisory Committee (UK0306109F)(guideline 7);

• CBI and TUC representation on and input to theLow Pay Commission (UK0304101N) (guideline 8);

• employer and trade union involvement in Regional Development Agencies and FRESAs (guideline 10).

With regard to the social partners' assessment of the government's overall employment policy, the CBI is broadly supportive of the'welfare to work' strategy (eg the New Deal programmes and benefits reform -UK9707143F) but critical of some other aspects of government employment policy, notably the nature and level of regulation. A'major concern' of the CBI is that'labour market flexibility is being seriously eroded by EU employment legislation' (UK0310102N). The TUC believes that the government’s employment policy is'on the right lines'. The TUC supports the'welfare to work' strategy but identifies the treatment of the long-term unemployed and the equality agenda as'areas where there are weaknesses'.

Neither the CBI official nor the TUC official identified any particular gaps or insufficiencies in the NAP. As already noted, the CBI official commented that the'broad thrust' of the NAP is'right'. The TUC official interviewed said that'the plan is OK, but in many areas there is no attempt by the government to promote active social partnership'.

As regards the implementation of the EU Employment Guidelines by the UK social partners, it needs to be borne in mind that the UK industrial relations system is not characterised by formal national and sectoral bargaining arrangements. While some of the issues covered by the Guidelines are affected by bargaining carried out at company or establishment level, this is unlikely to be a direct result of the Guidelines. For example, driven by economic pressures, a number of collective agreements in key sectors such as the automotive industry have focused on enhanced flexibility in areas such as working time and work organisation.

More generally, the TUC official commented:'We’re increasingly hard pressed to come up with solid examples of social partnership at company level' on issues covered by the Guidelines, reflecting the absence of a'national coordination structure'.

Comments

Please add here any other comments on the NAP, its procedures and its implementation.

The UK’s NAP does not have a high profile in terms of domestic political debate or media coverage. It is seen by the government and the social partners largely in terms of meeting the UK’s reporting requirements under the European employment strategy, although the TUC would like to see the NAP process developed in order to strengthen the development of social partnership in the UK context.

As in previous years (UK0206101T), the CBI appears slightly more satisfied than the TUC about the NAP process, perhaps reflecting the greater importance trade unions attach to active labour market planning and to formal tripartite structures for involving the social partners in policy development.

In terms of the social partners’ role in the implementation of the Guidelines, it needs to be recognised that the absence of comprehensive social partnership arrangements, together with the UK’s highly decentralised collective bargaining structures and their patchy coverage, make it very difficult for EU and national policy objectives to be translated into coordinated bargaining outcomes. (Mark Hall, IRRU)