The Dutch Trade Union Federation has criticised the separate collective agreement for temporary employees from eastern Europe concluded in February 2009 by the Association of International Employment Agencies and De Unie. The federation disapproves of the fact that the agreement provides for lower pay than the existing agreements for temporary workers in the Netherlands. A majority of the Dutch House of Representatives are also opposed to the initiative.
The Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV) has criticised a separate collective agreement concluded for temporary employees from eastern Europe because it may cause unfair competition. The collective agreement was concluded at the beginning of February 2009 by the Association of International Employment Agencies (Vereniging van Internationale Arbeidsbemiddelaars, VIA) and the online network organisation for professionals and managers, De Unie.
VIA is attempting to use the separate collective agreement – which provides for lower pay – for eastern European temporary workers to circumvent applicability of the collective agreements for temporary employees of the Dutch Association of Temporary Work Agencies (Algemene Bond Uitzendondernemingen, ABU) and the Dutch Union of Mediation and Temporary Employment Agencies (Nederlandse Bond van Bemiddelings- en Uitzendondernemingen, NBBU). ABU and NBBU are the biggest employer organisations in this sector of activity. Their agreements were concluded in 2008 with the following four trade unions: the Allied Unions (FNV Bondgenoten), the CNV Services Federation (CNV Dienstenbond), De Unie and the National Employee Interests Association (Landelijke Belangen Vereniging, LBV). It is difficult to reconcile that De Unie is in fact party to these agreements and also to the new collective agreement.
Terms of new agreement
In essence, the VIA collective agreement means less pay, longer working hours and more holidays for employees. The agreement allows for, on average, 5% to 10% lower wages than the existing agreements for temporary workers. Moreover, the new agreement provides for practically no bonuses and the migrant worker must work for three and a half years based on the ‘no work, no pay’ principle. The migrant worker remains bound by contract to VIA and may not seek alternative and/or better-paid employment elsewhere. The VIA agreement thus shows little respect for the free movement of workers principle.
VIA Chair Bert Bakker denies that the collective agreements compete in terms of employment conditions. He considers that, in general, the outcome is similar, although the agreements are formulated differently. For example, the VIA agreement supports the right to accumulate leave faster and the payment of the return journey by the temporary work agency to the worker’s home country if there appears to be no work for them after a month in the Netherlands.
New agreement leads to unfair competition
FNV Bondgenoten is appalled by the terms of the VIA agreement. It points out that some 20,000 temporary workers in the Netherlands have already lost their jobs. Moreover, VIA and De Unie appear to be in favour of encouraging more eastern Europeans to the country for lower wages at the expense of the temporary employees already in the Netherlands. According to FNV Bondgenoten, this only serves to line the pockets of VIA executives. It argues that, given the current economic downturn, the country could do without illegal contractors like this.
Another source of animosity is that VIA refers to the ABU and NBBU collective agreements as a missed opportunity for migrant workers, putting forward its own agreement as a better option. However, according to FNV Bondgenoten, the new agreement serves but one aim: bringing in greater numbers of cheaper eastern European workers to the Netherlands. Furthermore, the final straw for the organisation is the provision of a free bus ticket for eastern European workers to return home again once they are no longer needed in the Netherlands.
Politicians alarmed about breaches of law
In the past, VIA agencies were already at loggerheads with the Foundation for Compliance with the Collective Agreement for Temporary Employees (Stichting Naleving CAO voor Uitzendkrachten, SNCU). The collective agreement for temporary agency workers was breached on a large scale. This resulted in heavy fines for temporary work agencies (NL0810029I). In 2005, VIA also attempted to establish its own collective agreement for migrant workers. This was rejected at the time by the then Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, Aart Jan de Geus, because differentiation on the basis of nationality was in conflict with the Equal Opportunities Act (Wet Gelijke Behandeling).
ABU and the political parties – including the Christian Democratic Appeal (Christen Democratisch Appèl, CDA), the Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid, PvdA) and the Socialist Party (Socialistische Partij, SP) – support the position adopted by FNV Bondgenoten. The parties have requested further clarification on the matter from the current Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, Piet Hein Donner. The minister has promised that exemption from the existing collective agreements for temporary employees will not be permitted.
Marianne Grünell, Hugo Sinzheimer Institute (HSI)