A conference in Romania on the topic of ‘Tripartite Social Dialogue: Current Status and Prospects’ was organised by the government in early February 2014. The conference was attended by government representatives, leaders of the national trade union confederations and leaders of employers’ organisations. At the conference, participants who took the floor expressed the social partners’ often conflicting viewpoints, but all agreed that social dialogue is essential.
Romania’s Associate Minister for Social Dialogue, Doina Pană, convened a conference in Romania on 4 February 2014 on the topic of ‘Tripartite Social Dialogue: Current Status and Prospects’.
It was an opportunity to draw attention to the ‘Tripartite Social Dialogue Yearbook of Romania’, published in response to the fact that:
…conflictual approach is almost habitual in dealing with social disputes in Romania, which makes it desirable for us all to do our best to switch from the culture of conflict to the culture of dialogue.
The yearbook was put together by Serghei Mesaroş and Marian Cazangiu of the Social Dialogue Department of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly (MMFPSPV), coordinated by the Associate Minister for Social Dialogue. It covers:
According to Romania’s Social Dialogue Act 62/2011, social dialogue can take place at three levels:
The five national trade union confederations and 13 employers’ organisations that are representative at national level have members across the entire three-tier social dialogue structure. Observation of the tripartite social dialogue process during 2013 (the first 11 months of 2013, to be specific) has led to the following main conclusions.
The county social dialogue committees held 301 meetings, involving 780 participants from the national trade union confederations and 593 participants from employers’ organisations. The meetings addressed 528 different topics: 47% were proposed by the local authorities; 42% were proposed by the trade unions; 7% were suggested by the employers’ organisations; the remaining 4% were the fruit of joint initiatives by unions and employers, or by local authorities and the two social partners. Of the topics discussed, 320 were of local interest, 147 were of national interest and 61 were of both national and local interest.
The participants also contributed ideas about how social dialogue could be improved at local level. The social dialogue committees at ministry level held 101 meetings, involving 238 union participants and 225 participants from employers’ confederations. They debated the drafts of 320 projects of regulations and pieces of legislation.
At the conference, Prime Minister Victor Ponta said that Romania greatly needed social dialogue, and that real partnership and solidarity were essential to maintain the ascending trend of economic development. He added that employers, trade unions and the government all shared a common responsibility to make this work.
Representatives of the union confederations expressed the view that the yearbook was a positive step towards social dialogue. However Bogdan Hossu, President of the National Trade Union Confederation Cartel Alfa (CNS Cartel Alfa), said that, on its own, the yearbook could not raise the quality of the results that social dialogue is expected to have. Dumitru Costin, President of the National Trade Union Bloc (BNS), said that the current legislative framework was not adequate for social dialogue, commenting: ‘We need to change the crooked rules that govern us from their very foundations.’
Representatives of employers’ organisations, including the Romanian Employers Confederation (CPR) voiced the opinion that social dialogue was necessary at all levels. Ovidiu Nicolescu, Chair of the National Council of Private Small and Medium Enterprises of Romania ( CNIPMMR) recommended supportive initiatives such as a framework for social dialogue designed specifically for small and medium enterprises. Some of the representatives, including Cezar Corâci, Chair of the General Union of Romanian Industrialists (UGIR 1903), suggested joint negotiations to reach national agreements on the objectives for sustainable economic growth. Others, including a representative of the American Chamber of Commerce in Romania (AmCham), proposed that a joint objective could be defined by consensus to allow all participants a say. This was an approach that Romanian society had not tried since Romania’s accession to the EU, he said.
In her address, Labour Minister Mariana Câmpeanu urged the employers’ organisations to notify government employment offices of job vacancies, and stressed that social dialogue could not exist without participation.
The ‘Tripartite Social Dialogue Yearbook of Romania’ is almost 300 pages long, and contains useful information for anyone who wants an overview of Romania’s social dialogue institutions and how they work, the thematic spectrum, subjects of interest, and the status of social disputes all over the country.
The general picture shows a higher degree of commitment to the principle of social dialogue from the unions. They have always been interested in reactivating social dialogue, streamlining collective bargaining and amending labour legislation.
One of the shortcomings of the Yearbook, commented on at the conference, was the absence of any reference to bipartite social dialogue or collective bargaining. It is worth remembering that since the national unique collective agreement was abolished by the legislative reforms of 2011, only one sectoral collective agreement has been negotiated, signed and registered in the private sector.
Constantin Ciutacu, Institute of National Economy, Romanian Academy