Mergers affect social dialogue in banking sector

Download article in original language : BE0005311NFR.DOC

Recent mergers in Belgian banking have been affecting the social dialogue in the sector. After industrial strife in the summer and autumn of 1999, in 2000 trade unions and employers have been clashing over the issue of union representation in the newly-merged banks, particularly in the new Fortis group.

In September 1999, the Belgian banking sector was rocked by a series of trade union initiatives, including a one-day strike, aimed in particular at obtaining reduced working hours, with compensatory recruitment of young workers, and the inclusion of employees in franchised branch offices within the sphere of competence of the industry's joint committee (No. 310) (BE9911310N).

After the national strike on 24 September 1999, four working groups were set up by the Belgian Bankers' Association (Association Belge des Banques/Belgische Vereniging van Banken, ABB/BVB), the Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers (Syndicat des Employés, Techniciens et Cadres de Belgique/Bedienden, Technici en Kaders van België, SETCa/BBTK) and the National Federation of White-Collar Workers (Centrale Nationale des Employés/Landelijke Bedienden Centrale, CNE/LBC).

The recent flurry of merger activity in the sector, however, has added new complexity to industrial relations in banking. This process has created new banking groups operating in Belgium such as BBL-ING, KBC/CBC, AXA and, most recently, Fortis.

This last group, the result of the merger of Générale de Banque/Generale Bank (with 9,000 employees) and CGER/ASLK (14,000 employees), is now the third largest employer in the private sector, behind Belgacom and the GIB group. Unlike the other mergers, the one that gave birth to Fortis involved a private concern (Générale de Banque/Generale Bank) and a semi-public operator (CGER/ASLK). This has consequences for trade union representation. Furthermore, the fact that the Fortis merger took place just before the "social elections" of employee representatives on works councils and health and safety committees, to be held in May 2000 (BE0001302N), raised fears within the banking trade unions that the election campaign would cause rifts among Fortis employees. The problems stem from the facts that:

• the two merged banks have very different traditions of social dialogue. Whereas CGER/ASLK has had a culture of joint management and a generous level of representation granted to trade unions, Générale de Banque/Generale Bank is seen as having a culture of "guerrilla warfare" and a low level of representation granted to the union federations. The unions thus feared a "downward harmonisation" in the wake of the merger to the level of the culture prevailing at Générale de Banque/Generale Bank;

• the two banks came under the sphere of competence of two different joint committees - as a semi-public company, CGER/ASLK came under the joint committee competent for public credit institutions (No. 325), while, as a private concern, Générale de Banque/Generale Bank came under the committee competent for private credit institutions (No. 310); and

• in addition to having different statuses, employees in the two banks were represented by different union federations. Officially, the major intersectoral confederations are the only union organisations entitled to present lists of candidates for social elections - the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV), the Belgian General Federation of Labour (Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, FGTB/ABVV) and the Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (Centrale Générale des Syndicaux Libéraux de Belgique/Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België, CGSLB/ACLVB). In practice, however, they devolve this prerogative to their sectoral organisations. As CGER/ASLK came under joint committee No. 325 until December 1999, its employees were represented by the public sector unions - the General Federation of Public Services (Centrale Générale des Services Publics/Algemene Centrale van de Openbare Diensten, CGSP/ACOD, affiliated to FGTB/ABVV) and the Christian Federation of Public Service Employees (Centrale Chrétienne des Services Publics/Christelijke Centrale van de Openbare Diensten, CCSP/CCOD, affiliated to CSC/ACV) (CGSLB/ACLVB is not organised along sectoral lines). The public service federations were naturally reluctant to hand over some of their competencies to their private sector counterparts.

To avoid feuds between unions arising from the current hazy definition of spheres of competence, which would be particularly harmful at a time of social elections, the unions have obtained an undertaking from Fortis that such elections will not be organised for the 2001-4 term of office. This derogation from the royal decree that imposes social elections was sanctioned by the Employment Inspectorate of the Ministry of Employment and Labour.

The trade unions have pragmatically accepted this postponement, notwithstanding the fact that it works to the advantage of management. In their negotiations with Fortis, CNE/LBC and SETCa/BBTK have succeeded in achieving an upward harmonisation of employee statuses and trade union representation in line with the CGER/ASLK model. They have thus obtained almost a doubling in the number of mandates for trade union representatives, the recognition of leave for training and trade union activities, etc. Union leaders nevertheless remain wary, lest the suspension of social elections set a precedent for the next rounds of elections, hence emptying of their substance the recently gained concessions.