Download article in original language : BE9903167FFR.DOC
A May 1997 sectoral collective agreement covering white-collar workers across a number of Belgian industries gives employees an individual right to in-company vocational training. A survey published in late 1998 reveals that 2,000 companies out of the 50,000 covered by the agreement have utilised this measure so far.
For several years, the Belgian social partners have been innovative in concluding collective agreements on the training of workers in employment or of young people taking their first steps into the labour market. The building and engineering industries, where vocational training has long been a concern, have been joined in recent months by the insurance sector, the gas and electricity industry, the timber industry and the graphics industry, which all offer various training schemes. Some agreements define a global commitment to training by the number of workers to be trained or the hours of training to be organised; others open training "credit" facilities with sectoral providers or join existing facilities. The training measures are often focused on the usual target groups, such as less-qualified young people or groups "at risk".
Other agreements cover all workers, whether blue- or white-collar. In these cases, the main concern is to find a means of broadening in-company training to include every category of worker. So far, training measures organised and financed only by employers have been aimed mainly at more highly qualified workers.
For its part, the National Auxiliary Joint Committee for White-Collar Workers (Commission Paritaire Nationale Auxiliaire pour Employés/Aanvullend Nationaal Paritair Comité voor Bedienden, CPNAE/ANPCB), which covers 50,000 companies across several sectors, introduced an ambitious new scheme in a collective agreement concluded on 12 May 1997: employers which voluntarily implement the "training" section of the agreement commit themselves to offering two days of training a year to every employee (or four days every two years). Training content is determined by the employer. The distinctive feature of this system, the only one of its kind at sectoral level, is that it establishes an individual right to vocational training. Employers are encouraged to join the scheme by the offer of reduced social security contributions when recruiting new workers.
At the end of the first year of the agreement's application, a study was carried out by Claire de Brier, professor at the Catholic Institute of Higher Commercial Studies (Institut Catholique des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, ICHEC), to evaluate its scope and impact - "Application de la mesure formation de la convention collective de travail du 12 mai 1997 de la CPNAE", C De Brier (with N Van Droogenbroeck), Commission Paritaire Nationale Auxiliaire pour Employés, Brussels. November 1998.
Several interesting and particularly encouraging observations from the survey are worth mentioning. In total, some 2,000 companies have joined the scheme, covering 14% of all workers employed in the companies grouped under this national joint committee. Contrary to the trends generally observed in matters of in-company training, the scheme has been particularly successful amongst small and medium-sized enterprises (SME s), and especially very small companies (52% of those joining employ fewer than 10 workers).
Many of these SMEs are very dynamic companies in the midst of high growth. This explains both the attraction for them of the reduced social security contributions for new recruitment and the importance of training for new, expanding occupations (such as those in call-centres, telemarketing, temporary work agencies and so on).
Moreover, the overwhelming majority of employers (90%) which have implemented the training provisions of the agreement consider themselves fully committed and have provided the resources necessary for the fulfilment of their obligations. Only a minority (10%) had not initiated anything by November 1998.
Employers that have joined the system are for the most part those which favour developing in-service training. Several had used the sectoral agreement to give some impetus to an embryonic policy or to revitalise a project that was otherwise inert. However, it appears that the employers are the driving force, even if in some firms the human resource managers or training managers have had some influence. Workers' representatives have not mobilised to promote this measure at all. In some major companies, they have relayed information to workers concerning their new right.
In the light of the results of this survey of the employers concerned, certain positive results in the development of training practices can be discerned. The initiative has enabled some employers to "demystify" training (employees are no longer afraid to enter training or to request it), while it has enabled others to make it attractive to the most reluctant participants. Moreover, employers have been induced to propose training measures for certain categories of employees who otherwise tended to be left out. There have also been effects in terms of the management of training. For example, budgets have been created or increased and training plans drawn up.
The scheme has also led to the introduction of training processes into small firms. This is far from insignificant, because this is where most difficulties are encountered in seeking means for developing in-company training and giving all workers the opportunity for training within working hours.
The experiment carried out by the CPNAE/ANPCB acquires its full significance when viewed in the context of the national intersectoral agreement signed for 1999-2000 (BE9811252F). It is clear that continuing training has become a major factor in social concertation, not only at the intersectoral level but also at the sectoral. Indeed, sectors appear to be a popular level for the implementation of measures and for attempts to develop regional and community training initiatives. The positive results in terms of added value of the CPNAE/ANPCB agreement throw a new light on the scope of this type of agreement. They should help consideration of the way in which this area ought to be dealt with by the social partners at the company level. Indeed, how best to transfer the impetus from sectoral level to company level remains an open question at this stage. (Claire de Brier, ICHEC, Brussels)