In October 2010, the loss-making Belgian branch of money transport company Brink’s presented a drastic cost-cutting plan that included a change of employment status for white-collar workers. In response, trade unions called a strike, and Brink’s management replied by declaring bankruptcy – putting about 450 jobs at risk. The case reopened the debate on the harmonisation of employment status of blue-collar and white-collar workers, a crucial topic in Belgian industrial relations.
Strike at Brink’s Belgium
The future of Brink’s Belgian branch has been uncertain since the management presented a major restructuring plan in October 2010. The company has had poor financial results for a number of years, and before announcing the plan the group had already made some adjustments in the Belgian branch, including staff reductions and the transfer of management to the Dutch branch. In view of these changes, the trade unions – Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC/ACV), General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB/ACLVB) and the Belgian General Federation of Labour (FGTB/ABVV) – were not expecting further drastic cost-cutting measures.
The restructuring plan announced by Brink’s management involved the closure of the group’s Strepy site (one of the four Belgian sites of the group) and changes in employment status for the whole technical staff, among other measures. The employment contract of the workers who currently have white-collar status would change to a blue-collar contract. The latter contains fewer rules and clauses regarding job protection, notably in terms of dismissal procedures. Brink’s management justified these changes by the need to gain a comparative advantage over their competitors, whose workers have blue-collar status. The workers affected found this move unacceptable, and an immediate strike was called.
Amid these tensions, the trade unions began a bargaining process with Brink’s. The unions at first proposed alternative cost-reduction measures. However, because of Brink’s refusal to look for alternatives, conciliation was organised under the joint committee for the sector (Joint committee 317 for safekeeping and monitoring services).
The parties were unable to find a solution and on 12 November 2010 the Brink’s management announced bankruptcy. However, doubts about the motives behind the declaration of bankruptcy led the commercial court to reject the bankruptcy request on 15 November. The court judged that administrators did not have the required mandate to make such a decision. Moreover, because of the lack of involvement of the management during bargaining and the suspicion that the company was seeking a cheaper way out, the court decided to appoint provisional administrators. They have a two-fold mission of managing Brink’s Belgian branch and analysing the financial situation of the company.
Differences between blue-collar and white-collar status
Brink’s decision to change the employment status of its workers raised many questions. Belgian law provides for a clear differentiation between white-collar and blue-collar status. This gap is based on the nature of the job in question: intellectual or manual. The main differences between the two relate to the length of the notice period, probationary periods, calculation of holiday pay, guaranteed income in case of disability and temporary unemployment measures.
The move to switch employees to a shorter notice period led trade unions and the court to suspect that Brink’s management was trying to save money by reducing possible future redundancy payments. For a white-collar worker the period of notice is three months for every five years spent at the company, but for blue-collar workers there is a 28-day notice period for a worker with less than 20 years’ service and 58 days for those with more than 20 years’ service. This could explain why the Brink’s management proposed to modify the employment status of the entire workforce.
This is also why industry-level social partners from all sectors of the Belgian economy, who recently began negotiations for a new cross-industry agreement for 2011–2012, will pay close attention to the Brink’s case. They cannot take the risk that this case could set a legal precedent that could undermine the working conditions of white-collar workers. According to employers, differences between the two types of contract of employment are necessary in order to protect the competitiveness of companies in Belgium.
Employment status harmonisation has been on the list of trade union demands for a long time. In 2009, measures implemented by the Ministry of Employment to combat the financial crisis included a section authorising employers to use the mechanism of temporary unemployment for their white-collar workers. Traditionally, this mechanism is reserved for blue-collar workers in times of low production or economic slowdown with cyclical causes (BE0906029I).
Simon Erkes, Institute for Labour Studies (IST), Catholic University of Louvain (UCL)