Social partners set out future shape of social dialogue

In a joint contribution to the Laeken summit, held on 14-15 December 2001, the European-level social partners set out their vision for the future of the social dialogue. Their suggestions include a specific role for the social partners in European governance, a clearer distinction between bipartite social dialogue and tripartite concertation, the creation of a new tripartite concertation committee in the place of the Standing Committee on Employment, and, most significantly, the development of a work programme for autonomous social dialogue.

The European social dialogue process has come a long way since the launch of the so-called 'Val Duchesse' process by the then European Commission president, Jacques Delors, in 1985. The social dialogue process at intersectoral level (EU0001224F) has produced a wealth of joint texts, including three agreements which have been given legal force by a Council Directive - on parental leave in 1995, part-time work in 1997 (EU9706131F) and fixed-term work in 1999 (EU9901147F). The most recent attempt by the central social partners to conclude an agreement, on the issue of temporary agency work, failed in May 2001 (EU0106215N). However, the process is still very much alive, as witnessed by the current negotiations over a voluntary agreement on the subject of teleworking (EU0111102N), in addition to a range of negotiations on other subjects such as lifelong learning, which will in all probability result in joint texts or recommendations rather than framework agreements.

Nevertheless, the social partners - at intersectoral level these are theEuropean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), for private sector employers, the European Association of Craft and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) and the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP) - currently feel that the process is at something of a crossroads and have recently prepared a joint contribution to the European Council meeting held in Laeken, Belgium on 14-15 December 2001, on how they think the process should move forward.

In this joint contribution, the social partners state that, 10 years after powers were given to the social partners to negotiate agreements in the area of social policy, following the 1991 conclusion of the social policy protocol and agreement as an annex to the Maastricht Treaty and now that these provisions have been incorporated into the main body of the European Community (EC) Treaty (EU9707135F), they would like to 'reposition' their role. This comes in the light of particular challenges posed by developments such as the debate on Europe's future and governance, the EU's enlargement plans, and the completion of Economic and Monetary Union. In particular, the social partners believe that the following issues need to be addressed:

• the role of the social partners;

• the distinction between bipartite social dialogue and tripartite social concertation;

• the need to improve the articulation of tripartite concertation around the different aspects of the strategy agreed at the Lisbon summit in March 2000 (EU0004241F); and

• the development of a work programme for a more autonomous social dialogue.

The role of the social partners

The parties to the joint contribution focus on a White Paper on European governance published in July 2001 by the European Commission, which highlights the principles of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence and proposes increased participation by 'the various players', including civil society. The social partners state that they fully support the five principles identified by the Commission, but that it is important to take into account the 'specificities of the social dialogue, the nature of the responsibilities of the social partners, their legitimacy and their representativeness, together with their capacity to negotiate agreements', which, they argue, places the social dialogue in a special position. They intend to make their views known during their preparations for the next Treaty revision.

Bipartite social dialogue and tripartite concertation

The parties to the joint contribution argue that since 1991 there has been an expansion of concertation and social dialogue, and that the term 'social dialogue' has come to mean any type of activity which involves the social partners. They believe that a clear distinction should be drawn between the following:

• tripartite concertation, which should mean exchanges between the social partners and European public authorities;

• consultation of the social partners, which should mean the activities of advisory committees and the Commission's official consultations within the meaning of Articles 137 and 138 of the EC Treaty; and

• social dialogue, which should mean the bipartite work undertaken by the social partners and which may or may not be prompted by the official consultations under Articles 137 and 138 of the Treaty.

The social partners argue that these distinctions should be made clear in the accession negotiations in respect of the countries applying to join the EU.

Tripartite concertation in one single forum

UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC argue that a number of different methods of policy action at EU level have developed over the past five years. These are, essentially, the 'Luxembourg' employment strategy (EU9711168F), the 'Cardiff' process on structural reform (EU9806109F) and the 'Cologne' process of macroeconomic dialogue (EU9906180N). They stress that this has led to 'varied and uneven venues and times for concertation'. This situation was improved by the Member States deciding at the Lisbon summit in March 2000 (EU0004241F) to bring all these processes together in one annual spring European Council meeting. However, the social partners note that a reform of the Standing Committee on Employment (SCE) has not resulted in a similar integration of tripartite concertation. They therefore propose that the SCE be replaced by a 'tripartite concertation committee for growth and employment', which would be the main forum for concertation between the social partners and the public authorities on the European strategy defined in Lisbon. The parties state that they will make specific proposals on how they believe the work of this new committee should be organised.

Autonomous social dialogue

The part of the joint contribution which arguably has the most far-reaching implications for the social dialogue process is that relating to 'autonomous social dialogue'. The parties state that they are 'extremely attached' to the procedures set out in Articles 137 and 138 of the Treaty and fully recognise the European Commission's right of initiative and the role of the European institutions in developing a European strategy for growth and employment.

However, the social partners are now reflecting on the best way of developing a more autonomous social dialogue and state that they will discuss concrete measures in this area at a social dialogue summit. This summit will set out a work programme for the social dialogue, which would be built on a 'spectrum of diversified instruments'. These would include European framework agreements, opinions, recommendations, statements, exchanges of experience, awareness-raising campaigns and open debates. These would look at a 'balanced range of themes of common interest for employers and workers'. It is envisaged that regular social dialogue meetings and/or summits would be held in order to define, monitor and assess the process. The social partners hope that this work programme will be a useful contribution to the European strategy for growth and employment and to EU enlargement, even though it will be decided in complete autonomy.

Commentary

This joint declaration marks something of a departure for the process of the European social dialogue. It also shows that the process is now mature enough for the social partners to feel that they would like to create an autonomous initiative with a rolling programme of work, rather than react to initiatives from the European Commission. This will certainly change the shape of the European social dialogue in years to come, as the emphasis moves away from the negotiation of joint framework agreements towards a more diversified range of joint texts and exchanges of experience. Current autonomous work in progress includes the ongoing negotiations on lifelong learning, which the social partners hope to conclude in time to present a text to the spring 2001 employment European Council to be held in Barcelona. (Andrea Broughton, IRS)