Thematic feature - social partner involvement in the 2003 NAP

This article examines social partner involvement in the preparation of Belgium’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 -BE0206302T). The Belgian 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 Belgian 2003 NAP was approved by the cabinet on 10 October 2003. The instalment during the summer holidays of a new socialist- liberal coalition government following the 18 May elections (BE0308302N) and the change to the NAP planning timetable have somewhat disrupted the Belgian tradition of'social concertation' that has previously been applied to the process of drafting the NAP.

As matters stand in the federal Belgian state, competences in respect of employment and training policy are distributed at different levels of power (ie the federal government, the regions and the communities). The drawing up of an NAP triggers a complex process of concertation between the various institutional actors (within the federal government, and both between and within federal bodies) that is coordinated by the federal Ministry of Employment. This decentralisation of competences also involves consultation with the social partners at the various levels of power. It has been the case that the dynamic of the concertation between the various actors varies considerably from one level to the next.

Federal level

With regard to federal employment policy and the relevant aspects of the NAP, the intersectoral social partners represented on the bipartiteNational Labour Council (Conseil National du Travail/Nationale Arbeidsraad, CNT/NAR) are consulted. The contribution to the 2003 NAP of the social partners on the CNT/NAR was transmitted to the cabinet of the federal employment minister on 19 September 2003. At that stage, this did not have the status of a formal opinion, but was an eight-page note summarising the main outcomes of the CNT/NAR meeting in early September that had been given over to an examination of employment measures in the NAP. Unlike in 2002 (BE0206302T), consultation with the social partners was informal, with the partners not being able to react either to the final document or to certain parts of it in particular. Their contribution appears in the NAP as an annex.

Regional and community level

Coordination for the whole of the NAP is centralised at the the Federal Public Service for Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (Le Service public fédéral Emploi, Travail et Concertation sociale/De Federale Overheidsdienst Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Sociaal Overleg), which is where the relevant meetings with political representatives of the regions and communities take place. These bodies consult the social partners at their level independently via the consultative bodies particular to their institutional framework, as follows:

• in the Flemish region, the partners are consulted via the the Flemish Social Economic Council (Sociaal Economische Raad voor Vlaanderen, SERV);

• in the Walloon region, social partner consultation takes place on the Economic and Social Council of the Walloon Region (Conseil économique et social de la Région wallonne, CESRW);

• in the Brussels-Capital Region, the social partners have been consulted through the Economic and Social Council of the Brussels-Capital Region (Conseil économique et social de la Région Bruxelles-Capitale/Economische en Sociale Raad voor het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, CESRBC/ESR) in the context of drawing up the Brussels-Capital region contributions to the NAP since 1999; and

• in the German-speaking community, the relevant consultative body is the Economic and Social Council of the German-speaking Community (Wirtschafts- und Sozialrat der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft Belgiens).

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?

Federal level

The central social partners' contribution to the implementation of the 2003 NAP forms part of their current intersectoral agreement for 2003-4, signed on 17 January 2003 (BE0302302F) and constitutes an extension of the relevant provisions of the previous intersectoral agreement for 2001-2 (BE0101337F). The relevant parts of these agreements derive directly from the EU Employment Guidelines, particularly in respect of:

• the continuing training of employees;

• work organisation;

• reconciliation between family life, private life and working life;

• end of career arrangements; and

• employment measures, particularly finding jobs for older workers, young people and certain target groups, and keeping these people in employment.

Moreover, the social partners on the CNT/NAR think that the'national conference for employment' launched by the federal government in September 2003 with the aim of drawing up measures leading to the creation of 200,000 new jobs by 2007.BE0310301N), will be an opportunity for them'to be directly involved in defining new strategic lines of action for employment, and to express their views on a number of new proposals'. Moreover, some of the issues raised in the context of the European employment strategy should also be addressed in the context of negotiations on the next intersectoral agreement for 2005-6 - particularly, as the social partners on the CNT/NAR argue, matters relating to end of career arrangements and the harmonisation of blue- and white-collar workers' statuses.

Regional level

The contribution to the 2003 NAP of the_Walloon_ social partners was brought together in their contribution to the national conference on employment launched in September. Indeed, the Walloon government initiated prior concertation with the Walloon social partners with a view to preparing the region's recommendations, positions and demands to be relayed to this federal round table. The Walloon actors agreed to restrict discussion to issues whose implementation is the responsibility of the Walloon Ministry of Employment, but they nonetheless stressed the key link between objectives associated with job creation and other policies being pursued (eg dynamisation of the economy, administrative simplification, sustainable development, and combating poverty). The following issues were studied in detail: the development of local services to households and'local community services vouchers' ('Titres-services') programme; unemployment reabsorption programmes; support for job-seekers; training; and the introduction of new forms of employment reintegration in the event of restructuring. An initial sharing of the various parties’ views took place on 8 September 2003 and was presented in a joint document entitled'Conference on employment. Positions of the Walloon social partners, and convergent points of view with the Walloon government' (CESRW opinion A.716).

The government of the_Brussels-Capital_ region asked the Economic and Social Council of the Brussels-Capital Region (CESRBC/ESR) to make contributions in the framework of the Employment Guidelines: this was mainly in the nature of an'initial exercise' that took the form of the transmission of dossiers. This embryonic collaboration or concertation was then incorporated into a tripartite agreement that was ratified on the CESRBC/ESR by the conclusion of a[Social pact for employment for residents of Brussels](http://www.esr.irisnet.be/fr/neuf/Pacte Social.htm) on 11 June 2003 (BE0310303F). The pact incorporates a series of commitments made by the social partners and the Brussels regional government, and largely took its inspiration from the NAP process.

The CESRBC/ESR was also involved in drawing up a Regional Action Plan for employment, which for the first time in 2003 was drafted through'social concertation' process, rather than being based only on a consultation exercise. The CESRBC/ESR made an initial assessment of its work in connection with the Employment Guidelines and then sent the regional government its contributions to the Regional Action Plan, and issued an opinion (a relatively succinct one given that some of the elements had already been discussed under the aegis of the social pact). The social partners on the CESRBC/ESR then adopted the Regional Action Plan on 18 September 2003. Although the social pact and the Regional Action Plan constitute two separate documents with different statuses and objectives, both projects form part of a single process and contain a number of identical features; for example, one of the social pact’s aims is to increase the employment rate among residents of Brussels.

Finally, in Flanders, in March 2003, the regional social partners represented on the Flemish Social Economic Council (SERV) updated elements of an earlier 2001-2 agreement on employment to run for a further period of two years. The partners' new 2003-4 agreement with the regional government focuses particularly on commitments in relation to training and non-discrimination in recruitment.

Comment

At the present time, the large number of venues and procedures for consultation and the overlapping of various issues relating to employment policy rule out the possibility of determining very accurately what is arising out of NAP negotiations and what is deriving from other political procedures. In this respect, the organisation of the new national conference for employment and the mobilisation that it has brought about have been significant. The problem of the consultation timetable, which is often raised by the actors, does not appear to have been satisfactorily resolved in 2003. The accent has been so firmly on technical aspects that, apart from the content, it has also been difficult to identify clear political lines of action on the aims of the measures selected. (Enrique Moro, Fondation Travail-Université)