Dispute over regulation of health and safety at work

The Danish government has recently proposed extending the competence of the Working Environment Authority to include the "psychosocial" working environment. Along with other recent political initiatives in the field of health and safety at work, this has been interpreted by the social partners as an attack on the Danish model of bargaining and cooperation. In July 2001, the Danish Employers' Confederation (DA) responded by proposing the abolition of the Working Environment Act and the introduction of a system based exclusively on agreements between the social partners. This proposal was flatly rejected by the ruling Social Democratic Party and also failed to obtain support from many trade unions.

In May 2001, the Minister of Labour, Ove Hygum, announced that a the powers of the Working Environment Authority (Arbejdstilsynet) would be extended to cases concerning the "psychological" and "psychosocial" working environment (DK0106124F). The Authority would be authorised to intervene in cases of sexual harassment and serious bullying, and also if employees were suffering from "a stressful pace of work, heavy workloads or excessively diffuse work tasks".

The Danish Employers' Confederation (Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, DA) voiced strong criticism of this and other recent political initiatives relating to health and safety as a breach with existing agreements in the area, and accused the Minister of repeatedly intervening in matters which, in the eyes of DA, are exclusively governed by managerial prerogatives. With regard to the plan to extend the competence of the Working Environment Authority, the vice-director of DA, Thomas Philbert Nielsen, stated that he found it "destructive that measures to improve safety and health at work are controlled from the offices at Christiansborg" (the home of parliament). This and other similar statements in the spring confirmed that the employers' organisations see it as a setback for the Danish bargaining system if the authorities are to supervise the cooperation between management and employees, as suggested in the Minister of Labour's initiative (issues relating to the psychological working environment are currently left to such cooperation). DA initially expressed the view that agreements concluded by the social partners concerning health and safety at work should have preference over statutory orders and regulations. However, in July 2001, it made a more radical proposal to abolish completely the Working Environment Act and instead leave it to the social partners freely to negotiate agreements in this field.

Most trade unions have - like DA - seen the trend towards state intervention in labour market affairs as a threat to the "Danish model" and the tradition of solving problems internally between the two sides of industry. Confronted with the plans to extend the competence of the Working Environment Authority to cover cases concerning the psychosocial working environment, in May 2001 the trend-setting bargaining parties in the industrial sector - the Central Organisation of Industrial Employees in Denmark (Centralorganisationen af industriansatte, CO-industri) trade union cartel and the Confederation of Danish Industries (Dansk Industri, DI) - concluded an agreement concerning the psychosocial working environment (DK0106124F) This deal in many respects goes beyond the proposal for a ministerial order from the Minister of Labour. It recommends that the extended competence of the Working Environment Authority in matters concerning safety and health at work should not involve the two sides of industry. This statement is a clear signal of the preference of the social partners in the industrial sector for solving any problems concerning health, wellbeing and the psychosocial environment between management and employees in individual enterprises.

Grey zone

The two main central social partner organisations - DA and the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, (Landsorganisationen i Danmark, LO) - have supported the agreement in the industrial sector and have encouraged other sectors to follow the same path by concluding similar agreements. The rationale is that "soft" working environment issues are considered to be better suited to regulation by agreements and solutions within the system of procedures set up to resolve industrial disputes, rather than through legislation and central government measures. However, this is as far as the consensus goes. The social partners have not yet come to a common position in the debate and this is reflected in the fact that the recent political initiatives in the working environment field have led to differing reactions from the social partners and have generated internal disputes.

Basically, LO shares the concerns of DA and the industrial sector concerning the dilution of the Danish model, but - in line with the position of the ruling Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiet) - it is strongly opposed to the idea of taking such a radical step as abolishing the Working Environment Act. As a counter-reaction to the very clear statements from DA, LO has stressed that the field of health and safety at work is to an increasing extent a "grey zone" in which DA's preference for voluntarism can function only as long as the problems can be solved at enterprise level. To LO it is important to ensure that the weakest groups on the labour market will not become losers as a result of the preference for agreements rather than statutory regulation. In this connection, LO sees a certain potential in having a legislative "safety net" in the Working Environment Authority so that employees are not let down in those cases where the social partners fail to live up to their agreements. The Female Workers' Union (Kvindeligt Arbejderforbund, KAD) has also expressed its support for an extended competence of the Working Environment Service to intervene at individual enterprises, and has been backed up by the Union of Clerical and Commercial Employees' industry section (Handels og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund/industri, HK/industri). The aim is to have a legislative safety net in those cases where enterprises are not able to solve the problems - a sort of guarantee for the weakest groups on the labour market.

Commentary

In recent years there has been consensus between the social partners on focusing on wellbeing and the psychosocial working environment, but they disagree about the framework for this work. The debate about the regulation of safety and health at work mainly reflects the fact that it is more difficult to regulate the new forms of working environment problem than the traditional psychological and chemical working environment hazards. These new problems are not very well suited for regulation in the form of legislation or agreements and this has led to disputes between the social partners about these issues.

With support from the Conservative Party (Konservative Folkeparti) and the Liberal Party (Venstre), DA has provocatively proposed the abolition of the Working Environment Act, while LO - in collusion with the Social Democratic Party - has insisted on the continuance of the long tradition of cooperation between the authorities and the social partners in the field of safety and health at work. Neither LO nor the Social Democratic Party see it as a question of an "either/or situation" in relation to agreements versus legislation. They are in favour of a balanced interaction between the two in recognition of the fact that legislation will be required in some fields. In this connection the Minister of Labour, Ove Hygum, has stressed a political preference for the "subsidiarity" principle, with enterprises solving their own problems in cooperation between management and employees. Sector-specific agreements are thus seen as an important and valuable instrument for the strengthening of the rules governing the psychosocial working environment in enterprises.

The social partners obviously fear a dilution of the bargaining principle in the Danish labour market regulation model. In this connection, a parallel can be drawn with the discussion about implementation of EU Directives in the social and labour market policy field - most recently the Directive on part-time work (97/81/EC)- which has also generated concern about the viability of the Danish model (DK0106125F). It should, however, be born in mind that DA's radical proposal to abolish the Working Environment Act should be seen in the light of the government's recent initiative to extend the competence of the Working Environment Authority. DA's reaction can be interpreted as a protest against what it sees as a serious encroachment on managerial prerogatives, ie the basic right to manage and supervise work.

The question is whether the social partners actually disagree so basically about the regulation of safety and health at work as their statements seem to suggest, or whether they will soon try to come closer together in the working environment debate. There are also signs which seem to indicate that the social partners fear that the politicians will, in the longer perspective, completely take over the regulation of these matters. This fear is hardly likely to materialise as the government has recently emphasised the importance it attaches to tripartite cooperation and the social partners' continued involvement and active participation. There is a political recognition of fact that there are working environment problems of such a nature that it will very difficult to solve them without the participation of the social partners. (Lene Askgaard Hyldtoft, FAOS)