Problems in revising occupational classification system in metalworking

Download article in original language : ES9905122FES.DOC

A January 1996 framework agreement lays down the rules for a revision of the occupational classification system in the Spanish metalworking industry. Signed by the CONFEMETAL employers' organisation and the UGT, CC.OO and CIGA trade union confederations, the agreement aimed to help the sector modernise its industrial relations. However, many difficulties have been encountered in its application, which continue in mid-1999.

The occupational classification system in the metalworking sector in Spain, as across the other manufacturing sectors, was traditionally based on a "Taylorist" concept of the division of labour, which establishes a correspondence between the actual job, the occupational category and wages. These areas, as with others that affect industrial relations and working conditions, used to be regulated by both the former statutory Labour Ordinances and collective agreements (ES9706110F)

The need to negotiate an agreement regulating occupational classification specifically for the metalworking sector arose due to the lack of a general regulatory framework. The Labour Ordinance for the metalworking sector had been repealed in the mid-1980s, and it had not been possible to renew it or to incorporate new provisions on occupational classification into a collective agreement at intersectoral level, due to the failure of trade unions and employers to reach an agreement.

Eventually, however, the metalworking social partners entered into negotiations that culminated in the signing of the Framework agreement on the occupational classification system for the metalworking industry (Acuerdo Marco sobre Sistema de Clasificación Profesional para la Industria del Metal) in January 1996 by the Spanish Confederation of Metal Industries (Confederación de Empresarios del Metal, CONFEMETAL) and the UGT, CC.OO and CIGA trade union confederations. They had been driven to do so by the lack of regulations or a framework at sectoral level. In particular, they needed to establish minimum points of reference on occupational classification at the different levels of collective bargaining (company and regional), which took into account new requirements of work organisation, occupational competency and production needs.

Structure of the framework agreement

The aim of the new system of occupational classification in the metalworking sector was to replace the traditional structure, based on categories corresponding to the actual job carried out, with one in which occupational groups and functional divisions form the reference point for defining the position of workers in the organisational chart of the company.

The new classification structure establishes the following:

• seven occupational groups defined by general criteria regarding the characteristics of the occupation, occupational skills and qualifications and/or training required. As a guideline to facilitate the change from the previous system, in each group the activities that can be transposed between the two systems are established;

• six criteria based on the most common factors for assigning workers to given occupational groups - knowledge, initiative, autonomy, responsibility, command and complexity; and

• three functional divisions or basic occupational subgroups for each group - technicians, employees and operators.

The framework agreement thus represented a substantial modification to the classification system of the metalworking sector. Aware of the difficulties that the introduction of the agreement could involve, the social partners referred in the agreement itself and in a previous declaration to the need to establish two essential conditions: the participation of workers and employers in collective agreements at each level of bargaining through their legal representatives and signatory organisations; and the existence of a high degree of consensus.

These conditions are of great importance because the provisions of the framework agreement are not binding; they offer only general guidelines and criteria for development and adaptation in agreements at lower levels. The sectoral agreement can be interpreted flexibly and there is even an opt-out clause for companies that have their own agreement and do not wish to be covered by this one.

Application

One of the main objectives of defining a classification system in the metalworking sector was to facilitate its introduction into small companies, where it is more difficult to articulate new classification mechanisms. In these companies, workers have less bargaining power, so regulations are established not by company agreements but through collective agreements at provincial level, in which the system of occupational categories laid down by the old Labour Ordinances is still in force.

To make its implementation in companies with diverse labour situations easier, the framework agreement states the following:

Agreements at a lower level that are in force at the time of publication and are not excluded from execution in accordance with the opt-out clause will adapt and develop their texts, including the occupational classification that is laid down in this agreement, as of the coming into force of each agreement, or earlier if the signatories so decide. In all cases it will be attempted to consolidate the definitive application of the new occupational classification within a maximum period of two years starting from the termination of each agreement.

However, in mid-1999, three years after the setting up of the new classification system, its introduction or adaptation in agreements at provincial and company level has not achieved the expected results. Only a small number of companies have established classification systems by groups (these are large companies with strong union representation and bargaining power, which in some cases had begun to renew the classification system even before the agreement had been signed). Most companies, and all provincial agreements, maintain classification systems by occupational categories. There are also examples of negotiations that have been open for some years following failure to agree.

The main obstacles in applying the agreement lie in two areas.

• Adapting the existing categories, which involves establishing the qualification levels and occupational competencies according to the number of groups that the parties determine in each case. These criteria must bear in mind the characteristics of the bargaining levels in order to specify the respective categories within them (there are agreements that include over 100 different categories). The trade unions are in favour of specific definitions in order to prevent mobility and multiskilling from being interpreted flexibly by the employers, whereas the employers believe that the regulations should be as open as possible in order to allow day-to-day adaptability.

• As a result of this, adapting pay levels to the new demands of qualification and classification has proved difficult. The increase in the wage bill that this adjustment involves is the main source of dispute and one of the greatest obstacles to the application of the agreement by some employers' associations. In most cases this problem is being overcome by the progressive adaptation of the classification system over a period of between three and five years.

Commentary

The 1996 agreement represented a major step forward in a sector characterised by many levels of collective bargaining and an almost limitless number of job categories. It was conceived as a general framework to provide the sector with a new classification system that would modify the framework of industrial relations, benefiting mainly small companies.

The effectiveness of the agreement will depend on how it is developed. It will require the full participation of the social partners at each level, adaptation in line with varying circumstances (at company, regional and even subsector level if the employers' organisations and trade unions see fit) and a high degree of consensus.

Moving from a classification system that is explicitly regulated - not only with respect to occupational categories and wages but also with respect to limitations on mobility, multiskilling and promotion - to one with the characteristics outlined above is not free from difficulty. To achieve this change, the social partners in the sector must negotiate other elements that are directly related to job classification but have not been developed in the agreement. These include: identifying the qualifications required and the mechanisms for acquiring or renewing the skills and competencies demanded under the new system; developing formulas for recognising occupational competence and status; and defining occupational trajectories so as to establish vertical and horizontal mobility. All these points can be dealt with by existing or future negotiating bodies in a sector with a great deal of experience in collective bargaining. (Cruz Elvira, Fundación CIREM)