Conference on tripartism

EU Presidency Conference on Tripartism in an enlarged European Union

Co-organised by the Danish Ministry of Employment and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Hotel Comwell, Elsinore, Denmark

29-30 October 2002

• Introduction

• Background

• Programme

• Venue & contact details

See also conference information from the Danish Ministry of Employment.

Speech abstract - Ludovit Cziria

Deputy Director, Research Institute of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, Bratislava Slovak Republic

Forms, Attempts, Successes and Failures of Tripartism in Slovakia

1990-to the present

Tripartism in Slovakia has its origin in late 1990. After the velvet revolution the new federal Government decided, in co-operation with Czech and Slovak Governments, and representatives of newly formed employers and trade union organisations, to establish the tripartite Council for Economic and Social Concertation. The main role of tripartism was to consult all relevant measures of Government in economic and social policy with social partners to make the implementation of unpopular changes more feasible.

Though the idea of tripartism was quite new for all parties involved they soon signed the General Agreement of 1991 at a federal level, which was followed by Czech and Slovak national General Agreements in 1991. The General Agreement played the same role as a social pact and such Agreements were also signed in 1992.

Tripartism was adopted also by the Slovak Government, which was established after the separation of the previously common state. The Tripartite Council for Economic and Social Concertation (RHSD) continued its operation practically in unchanged form (7+7+7 social partners' representatives). The Slovak Government signed with the social partners General Agreements (GAs) for 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

Measures adopted in GAs were mostly about duties of the Government in implementing necessary economic reforms and changes. Fulfilment of these measures did not respond effectively to the rapid increase of unemployment and decrease in real wages of the population in respective years. This fact has contributed much to increasing tensions between social partners in tripartism.

Disagreements culminated in 1996-97 when the Government proposed to introduce wage regulation. Social partners disagreed but the Government pushed through its own decision and social partners refused to sign the General Agreement for 1997. Tripartite negotiations at the RHSD were also broken.

The Government tried to co-operate with social partners but it was done outside the tripartite RHSD. The Government asked social partners for their opinion on proposals of governmental bills. The tripartism actually did not work in 1997 and 1998, but the social peace wasn't broken, and the economic transformation continued.

Trade union representatives challenged the "gentleman agreement form" of tripartism and required the measures agreed in tripartism to be compulsory for parties involved. Several years' discussion concluded in the adoption of a special law on tripartism - the Act on Economic and Social Partnership in 1999.

According to this act, the previously voluntary operation rules are laid down by the law (the plenary session meets at least at quarterly intervals, social partners shall negotiate all essential issues of economic and social development, materials shall be submitted within the specified deadline, expenses of activities of the Secretariat shall be reimbursed from the budget of the Governmental Office, etc).

After adoption of the new law on tripartism, RHSD meetings became more obligatory but also more demanding for the social partners because of the extended agenda. The tasks agreed remained however not legally binding on parties involved. A reversal effect could be considered the fact that employers are currently asking for a substantial reduction in the tripartite meetings agenda.

Tripartite negotiations at the RHSD started again at the end of 1998, when the previous Government came into power. After almost three years' interruption the GA for 2000 was signed in early 2000. After an optimistic start the tripartism ran into troubles again during 2001 when the outcomes of the GA 2000 were evaluated.

Several measures adopted in GA were implemented but socially sensitive goals like increase in real wages and reduction of high unemployment were not achieved. Although tripartite negotiations continued, trade unions refused to negotiate for the new General Agreement for 2001 until the measures of GA 2000 were fulfilled. No new General Agreement is signed at this time.

Other forms of tripartism

Other forms of tripartism were implemented according to the Act on Employment when the National Labour Office was established. The National Labour Office acts through its tripartite self-governing bodies (e.g. Supervisory Board and Governing Committees of Regional and District Labour Offices). Members of self-governing bodies (elected for a 4 year period) equally represent employers, trade unions and the state (usually consisting of nine members). They are entitled to a refund of their expenses, and may also obtain remuneration in consideration of their performance.

Tripartite social dialogue was implemented also in the preparatory stage of adoption of the National Employment Plan in 2000. Participation of social partners continued in 2001 when some of the NEP measures were implemented and the National Employment Action Plan for 2002-2003 was prepared.

Other areas where new forms of tripartism were implemented was the extension of tripartite negotiation to regional level. In 1998 regional tripartism started to operate in newly constituted regional state administration structures. County Councils for Economic and Social Concertation were established in four of the eight new Counties. Their activities were mostly formal and did not achieve the real involvement of regional social partners in solving the actual problems in regions.

The National Plan for Regional Development (adopted in 2001) increased the role of social partners in regional development. They should participate in the preparation of Regional Development Plans, including projects aspiring towards EU financial support. In late 2001, regional self-government bodies were elected for the first time in eight Counties. They took over responsibility from the state administration for regional development this year. A new, positive impulse for development of regional tripartism is foreseen.