Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Civil aviation

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Relaciones laborales,
  • Representativeness,
  • Diálogo social,
  • Social partners,
  • Date of Publication: 11 Enero 2010



About
Author:
Institution:

This study delineates the situation regarding social dialogue in the civil aviation industry. The study consists of three main parts: a summary of the sector’s economic background; an analysis of the social partner organisations in all of the EU Member States, with special emphasis on their membership, their role in collective bargaining and public policy, and their national and European affiliations; and finally, an analysis of the relevant European organisations, in particular their membership composition and their capacity to negotiate. The aim of the EIRO representativeness studies is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. The impetus for these studies arises from the goal of the European Commission to recognise the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the EC Treaty provisions. Hence, this study is designed to provide the basic information required to establish and evaluate sectoral social dialogue.

The study was compiled on the basis of individual national reports submitted by the EIRO correspondents. The text of each of these national reports is available below. The national reports were drawn up in response to a questionnaire and should be read in conjunction with it.

Download the full report (659KB PDF)

National contributions may be available


Objectives of study

The goal of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational associational actors – that is, the trade unions and employer organisations – in the field of industrial relations in the civil aviation industry, and to show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study and similar studies in other sectors arises from the aim of the European Commission to identify the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the EC Treaty provisions. Hence, the studies seek to provide basic information needed to set up sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of the European social dialogue depends on whether its participants are sufficiently representative in terms of the sector’s relevant national industrial relations actors across the EU Member States. Therefore, only European organisations that meet this precondition of representativeness will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

Against this background, the study will first identify the relevant national social partner organisations in the civil aviation industry, subsequently analysing the structure of the relevant European organisations, in particular their membership composition. This requires clarifying the unit of analysis at both the national and European level of interest representation. The study includes only organisations whose membership domain is ‘sector-related’ (see below). At both the national and European levels, a multiplicity of associations exists, which are not considered as social partner organisations as they do not essentially deal with industrial relations. This creates a need for clear-cut criteria that will enable analysis to distinguish the social partner organisations from other associations.

As regards the national-level organisations, classification as a relevant sector-related social partner organisation involves fulfilling one of two definitional criteria: the associations must be either a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining or a member of a relevant ‘sector-related’ European association of business or labour. Basically, a European association is considered relevant to the sector if: it is on the Commission’s list of European social partner organisations consulted under Article 138 of the EC Treaty; and/or it participates in the sector-related European social dialogue; or it has requested to be included on the Commission’s list to be consulted under Article 138. Taking affiliation to a European association as a sufficient criterion for regarding a national association as a relevant actor implies that such an organisation may not be involved in industrial relations in its own country. Hence, this selection criterion may look odd at first glance. However, if a national organisation is a member of a European association, it may become involved in industrial relations matters through its membership of this European organisation. Aside from this, it is important to know whether the national affiliates to the European associations are engaged in industrial relations in their respective country. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation and/or involvement in national collective bargaining are of utmost importance to the European social dialogue, since these are the two constituent mechanisms that can systematically connect the national and European level. With regard to the selection criteria for the European organisations, any other sector-related European association that has sector-related national actors of relevance, as defined above, under its umbrella are considered; this is in addition to the European organisations in the above narrow sense. Thus, the aim of identifying the relevant sector-related national and European social partner organisations involves both a ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approach.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the civil aviation industry is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne, NACE) (revision 1.1). This is to demarcate an ‘interest space’ that is common to all EU Member States, such that the cross-national comparability of the findings is assured. More specifically, the civil aviation industry is defined as embracing NACE 62.1 (scheduled air transport), NACE 62.2 (non-scheduled air transport) and NACE 63.23 (other supporting air transport activities such as airport infrastructure, air traffic control, baggage handling and technical maintenance).

The domains of the trade unions and employer organisations, and scope of the relevant collective agreements, are not likely to be congruent with this NACE demarcation. This study therefore includes all trade unions, employer organisations and multi-employer collective agreements that are ‘sector-related’ in terms of the following four patterns relative to the above NACE demarcation:

  • congruence – the domain of the organisation or scope of the collective agreement must be identical to the NACE demarcation, as specified above;
  • sectionalism – the domain or scope only covers a certain part of the sector, as defined by the abovementioned NACE demarcation, while no group outside the sector is covered;
  • overlap – the domain or scope covers the entire sector along with parts of one or more other sectors; however, it is important to note that the study does not include general associations that do not deal with sector-specific matters;
  • sectional overlap – the domain or scope covers part of the sector as well as parts of one or more other sectors.

As regards the European level, the European Commission established a European Social Dialogue Committee for civil aviation in 2000. The social partners participating in social dialogue on behalf of the workers are the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and the European Cockpit Association (ECA). Their employer counterparts are ACI Europe-Airports Council International (ACI Europe), the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA), the International Association of Charter Airlines (IACA), and the International Handlers’ Association (IAHA). In addition, this study covers two other European associations: the Air Traffic Controllers European Unions Coordination (ATCEUC) on the employee side, and the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) on the employers’ side.

The above European organisations are the reference associations when it comes to analysing the European level, and affiliation to one of these European organisations is one sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a relevant actor. It should be noted, however, that the constituent definitional criterion is a sector-related membership domain. This is important in the case of ETF due to its multi-sectoral domain. This study will include only those affiliates to ETF whose domain relates to civil aviation.

Collection of data

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential for investigating the representativeness of the social partner organisations. Unless cited otherwise, this study draws from the country studies provided by the EIRO national centres. It is often difficult to find precise quantitative data. In such cases, rough estimates are given rather than leaving the question blank, given the practical and political relevance of this study. However, if there is any doubt over the reliability of an estimate, this will be noted.

In principle, quantitative data may stem from three sources:

  • official statistics and representative survey studies;
  • administrative data, such as data on membership figures provided by the respective organisations; these are then used for calculating the density rate on the basis of available statistical figures on the potential membership of the organisation;
  • personal estimates made by representatives of the respective organisations.

While the data sources of the economic figures cited in the report are generally statistics, the figures on the organisations are usually either administrative data or estimates. Furthermore, it should be noted that some country studies also present data on trade unions and business associations that do not meet the above definition of a sector-related social partner organisation, in order to give a complete picture of the sector’s associational ‘landscape’. For the above substantive reasons, as well as for methodological reasons of cross-national comparability, such trade unions and business associations will not be considered in this report.

Structure of report

The report consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the civil aviation industry’s economic background. The report then analyses the relevant national social partner organisations in all of the 27 EU Member States (EU27). The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level. Each section will contain a brief introduction explaining the concept of representativeness in greater detail, followed by the study findings. As representativeness is a complex issue, it requires separate consideration of the national and European level for two reasons. Firstly, account has to be taken of how representativeness is captured by national regulations and practices. Secondly, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must therefore take account of this difference.

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the research and political aspects of this study. While providing data on the representativeness of the organisations under consideration, this study does not reach any definite conclusion on whether the representativeness of the European social partner organisations and their national affiliates under examination is sufficient for admission to the European social dialogue. The reason for this is that defining criteria for sufficient representativeness is a matter of political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.


Economic background

Tables 1 and 2 give an overview of the development of the civil aviation industry from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, presenting a few indicators that are important to industrial relations and social dialogue. For those countries recording related data, it emerges that the number of employers generally grew over the period covered. With the exception of Denmark, the same development can be seen in relation to employment in the sector. Male employment largely prevails in the sector. However, some noteworthy gender differences by occupation are also evident. For instance, the vast majority of pilots are male, whereas other occupations in the sector, such as flight attendants and ground staff (TN0508101S), are generally comprised of women. Table 2 also shows that the sector usually represents less than 1% of total employment in the national economies. Available data suggest that the sector’s share of total employment remained rather stable over the period covered.

To understand the sector’s system of interest representation in general and the system of industrial relations in particular, it is important to highlight four properties of the sector. Firstly, the sector shows a rather unique configuration of transnational and national orientation. On the one hand, air transport is highly internationalised, especially airline companies, which have employees working in sites across Europe. Air traffic control has also developed into a transnational activity – as demonstrated by the existence of the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, which is run by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol). On the other hand, the sector is still anchored in the countries’ national economies. Airports are commonly regarded as an important part of the national economies’ infrastructure. For similar reasons, there is still noticeable concern about national flag carriers in the respective countries.

A second characteristic of the sector is that it is still highly regulated mainly for safety and security reasons, while it has undergone remarkable market deregulation and privatisation in connection with the creation of the single European market. Thirdly, deregulation has led to enhanced differentiation of product markets, resulting in the emergence of three distinct groups of airlines: that is, ‘full-service’ airlines, low-cost carriers and tour operators (TN0508101S). Fourthly, the sector’s labour market is characterised by a high degree of segmentation in terms of employees’ qualifications and occupations. This has given rise to profound differentiation by job profiles and related employee groups. For instance, clear-cut professional distinctions are visible between occupational groups such as air traffic controllers, pilots and ground staff. This strong segmentation of both product markets and labour markets is reflected in industrial relations, as will be shown in greater detail in this report.

Table 1: Total employment in civil aviation industry, 1995 and 2006
 

Number of employers

Total employment

Male employment

Female employment

1995

2006

1995

2006

1995

2006

1995

2006

AT

n.a.

192a,b

n.a.

14,480b

n.a.

8,876b

n.a.

5,604b

BE

n.a.

275

n.a.

13,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

n.a.

65

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

3a

23a,b

1,972

2,496b

1,047

1,219b

925

1,207b

CZ

132a

137a,c

10,400c

10,300c

6,300

6,200c

400

390c

DE

n.a.

1,170b

n.a.

83,000d

n.a.

52,000d

n.a.

31,000d

DK

n.a.

80b

13,170

12,047

8,413

7,509

4,757

4,538

EE

n.a.

7a

n.a.

728

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

37

50c

n.a.

6,180c

n.a.

2,696c

n.a.

3,484c

ES

n.a.

4,764a,c,h

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

104a

120a

7,522

10,661

4,088

5,606

3,434

5,055

FR

n.a.

171e

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

n.a.

33

n.a.

5,597

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

n.a.

6

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

265a,f

474a,g

45,501f

48,167g

30,807f

32,612g

14,694f

15,555g

LT

n.a.

11

n.a.

1,689

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

n.a.

17c

n.a.

3,500c

n.a.

2,300c

n.a.

1,200c

LV

26i

28

1,451i

2,324

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

n.a.

27a,b

n.a.

2,703b

n.a.

2,091b

n.a.

612b

NL

175

250

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

5

35

4,199

5,356

n.a.

2,930

n.a.

2,426

PT

n.a.

n.a.

11,832f

12,290g

8,454f

8,221g

3,378f

4,069g

RO

n.a.

54d

n.a.

3,528d

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

45

68

14,960

15,542

8,652

8,992

6,308

6,550

SI

18

45

1,098

1,219

659

829

439

390

SK

4

3

356

807

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

UK

n.a.

377e

n.a.

141,301e

n.a.

84,389e

n.a.

56,912e

Notes: a companies; b 2005; c 2007; d NACE 63.23 excluded; e 2008, only air carriers; f 1991; g 2001; h NACE 62.1, 62.2 and 63.2; i 1997

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Table 2: Total employees in civil aviation industry, 1995 and 2006
 

Total employees

Male employees

Female employees

Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy

Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy

1995

2006

1995

2006

1995

2006

1995

2006

1995

2006

AT

n.a.

14,393a

n.a.

8,795a

n.a.

5,598a

n.a.

0.38b

n.a.

0.43a

BE

n.a.

13,400

n.a.

5,586

n.a.

2,593

n.a.

0.30

n.a.

0.40

BG

n.a.

6,762

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.30

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.68

0.70a

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

7,000

6,700b

5,400

4,600b

1,500

2,100b

0.21

0.21b

0.17

0.16b

DE

n.a.

31,676c

n.a.

15,166c

n.a.

16,510c

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DK

13,136

12,038

8,382

7,502

4,754

4,536

0.5

0.4

0.6

0.5

EE

n.a.

728

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.20

n.a.

0.20

EL

n.a.

6,180b

n.a.

2,696b

n.a.

3,484b

n.a.

0.16

n.a.

0.21b

ES

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

7,514

10,640

4,081

5,586

3,433

5,054

0.40

0.50

0.50

0.50

FR

73,544

90,425

n.a.

54,728

n.a.

35,697

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.39

HU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.14

n.a.

n.a.

IE

n.a.

11,800

n.a.

3,800

n.a.

8,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.50

IT

45,033e

47,613f

30,409e

32,151f

14,624e

15,462f

0.20e

0.21f

0.27e

0.27f

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.11

n.a.

n.a.

LU

n.a.

3,200b

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1.04b

n.a.

0.95b

LV

1,449g

2,324

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.19g

0.24

0.19g

0.24

MT

n.a.

2,696a

n.a.

2,085a

n.a.

611a

n.a.

2.14a

n.a.

2.70a

NL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

4,199

4,952

n.a.

2,692

n.a.

2,260

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

PT

11,507e

11,956f

8,215e

8,018f

3,292e

3,938f

0.29e

0.26f

0.36e

0.32f

RO

n.a.

3,520c

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0.04c

n.a.

0.08c

SE

14,915

15,474

8,618

8,932

6,297

6,542

0.39

0.36

0.42

0.40

SI

1,098

1,207

659

819

439

388

0.15

0.16

0.15

0.16

SK

352

807

256

469

96

338

0.02

0.04

0.02

0.04

UK

n.a.

138,863d

n.a.

82,386d

n.a.

56,477d

n.a.

0.4

n.a.

0.4

Notes: a 2005; b 2007; c NACE 63.23 excluded; d 2008, only air carriers; e 1991; f 2001; g 1997

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008


National level of interest representation

In many of the Member States, statutory regulations explicitly refer to the concept of representativeness, when allocating certain rights of interest representation and public governance to trade unions and/or employer organisations. The most important rights addressed by such regulations include: formal recognition as a party to collective bargaining; the extension of the scope of a multi-employer collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; and participation in public policy and tripartite bodies of social dialogue. Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally captured as the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually allow for extending a collective agreement to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer organisation organise 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain (see Institut des Sciences du Travail (IST), 2001).

As outlined earlier, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest here in connection with the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in the European social dialogue. Hence, the role of the national actors in collective bargaining and public policymaking constitutes another important component of representativeness. The effectiveness of the European social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European associations to regulate the employment terms and to influence national public policies that affect the sector. As cross-national comparative analysis shows (see Traxler, 2004), a generally positive correlation emerges between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy. Social partner organisations that are engaged in multi-employer bargaining are incorporated in state policies to a significantly greater extent than their counterparts in countries where multi-employer bargaining is lacking. The explanation for this finding is that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms, such that they set an incentive for the governments to persistently seek the cooperation of the social partner organisations. If single-employer bargaining prevails in a country, none of the collective agreements will have a noticeable effect on the economy due to their limited scope. As a consequence, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be absent.

The result of these considerations is that representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements:

  • the membership domain and the membership strength of the social partner organisations;
  • their role in collective bargaining;
  • their role in public policymaking.

Membership domain and membership strength

The membership domain of an organisation, as formally established by its constitution, demarcates its potential members from other groups which the association does not claim to organise and represent. As pointed out previously, this report only considers the organisations whose domain relates to the civil aviation industry. For reasons of space, it is impossible to delineate the domain demarcations of all the organisations in detail. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector relatedness’, as specified by the conceptual remarks earlier.

As regards membership strength, there is differentiation between strength in terms of the absolute number of members and strength in relative terms. The literature usually refers to relative membership strength as density – that is, the ratio of actual to potential members. A difference also exists between trade unions and employer organisations when measuring membership strength. Trade union membership simply means the number of unionised persons. Aside from taking the total membership of a trade union as an indicator of its strength, it is also reasonable to give a breakdown of this figure according to gender. Measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex, however, since they organise collective entities, in other words companies, that employ employees. In this case, there are two possible measures of membership strength – one referring to the companies themselves, and the other to the employees working in the member companies of an employer organisation.

For a sectoral study such as this, measures of membership strength of both the trade unions and employer organisations also have to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, the organisation’s total density (the density referring to its overall domain) may differ from its sector-specific density (the density referring to the sector). As a result, three measures of density should be distinguished as follows:

  • domain density – this refers to the ratio of the total membership to potential membership, as demarcated by the membership domain;
  • sectoral density – this measures sectoral membership relative to the total number of employees or companies in the sector;
  • sectoral domain density – this captures sectoral membership in relation to potential membership within the sector, as demarcated by the domain.

The second measure of density differs from the third one if the domain of an organisation includes only a certain part of the sector of focus. The report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and then shift to the employer organisations.

Trade unions

Table 3 presents the data on the trade unions’ domains and membership strength. The table lists all of the trade unions meeting the two definitional criteria for classification of a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier. The domain of more than 100 trade unions – in other words, the majority of the unions – is sectionalist. Closer consideration shows that there are two profiles of sectionalism that originate either from company trade unions and or occupational trade unions. Within this sectionalist group, the occupational trade unions clearly outnumber the company unions. Almost half of the total number of the sector-related trade unions have demarcated their domain by occupation. With the exception of Ireland, Latvia and Slovakia, occupational trade unions are established in all EU Member States. In several countries, namely France, Hungary and Slovenia, as many as 10 trade unions of this type exist. In this case, a generally fragmented national trade union system increases the relevance of occupational organisations in that each trade union confederation tends to gather occupational unions. Pilots, flight attendants, cabin crew in general, air traffic controllers and specialists in maintenance are the professions most frequently organised in occupational trade union organisations.

A minor but notable number of overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping trade unions is also evident. Overlaps usually ensue from trade unions whose domain embraces the entire transport sector. Sectionalist overlaps emanate from specialisation in certain employee groups of cross-sectoral nature, which are then also organised by the respective trade unions across sectors. Typical examples of sectionalist overlaps are trade unions representing either white-collar employees, blue-collar employees or public-sector employees. Trade unions whose domain largely coincides with the sector are rare. This underlines the fact that statistical definitions of business activities differ somewhat from the lines along which employees identify common interests and group together in trade unions.

Overall, pronounced pluralism characterises the trade union system. A multi-union situation is given in all countries, with the exception of Slovakia. In principle, the co-existence of pronounced occupational trade unionism alongside more comprehensive trade union organisations fuels inter-union competition. Against this background, rivalries and competition over rights of collective bargaining and participation in public policy are reported for a relatively small number of countries – namely, Austria, Bulgaria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK).

Turning to the membership data of the trade unions, considerable differences emerge regarding the membership of men and women. The share of female members as a proportion of the total membership ranges from 1% to 80% or over. Given the large number of occupational trade unions, these differences mainly reflect the gender-specific differences between the distinct professions. For instance, the pilots’ associations register extremely low female membership levels. This contrasts with the trade unions representing cabin crew which often register high proportions of female members.

The absolute number of trade union members differs markedly, ranging from several hundred thousand members to less than one hundred members. This considerable variation reflects differences in the size of the economy and the comprehensiveness of the membership domain, rather than the ability to attract members. In almost all trade unions with overlapping or sectionalistically overlapping domains, total membership is clearly higher than membership within the sector.

Since density corrects for differences in country size, it is a more appropriate measure of membership strength for a comparative analysis. As already outlined, the domain of the vast majority of trade unions is sectionalist. In this case, domain density is identical with sectoral domain density. Sectionalist unions are generally characterised by contrasting figures on sectoral density and sectoral domain density. Sectoral density is rather low and often remains below 10%. Sectoral domain density is usually high, with a proportion of often more than 70%. This follows from the narrow domain of sectionalist trade unions, which usually embrace only a small group within the total number of employees working in civil aviation. Since sectionalist trade unions tend to specialise in recruiting highly qualified staff, they achieve high levels of unionisation within their domain.

There are far less data on the sectoral membership strength of overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping trade unions. Available data indicate strong differences in density within this group, ranging from sectoral domain density of 80% or more to less than 20%. Nevertheless, the broader domain of these trade unions usually results in a higher sectoral density, compared with the sectionalist unions. Notwithstanding country-specific differences in detail, it is possible to differentiate between two basic profiles of unionisation which are closely associated with the comprehensiveness of membership domain. On the one hand, overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping trade unions are characterised by a large absolute number of members in the sector, high sectoral density and low sectoral domain density. On the other hand, the sectionalist trade unions show the opposite properties, that is, a smaller absolute number of members, low sectoral density and high sectoral domain density. Given these contrasting unionisation profiles, it is hard to infer from Table 3 an estimate of total trade union density in the sector. However, the large number of trade unions in combination with the high densities in many cases suggests that overall trade union density is quite high in the civil aviation industry.

Table 3: Interest representation of trade unions in civil aviation, 2006–2008

Country

Type of mem-ber-shipa

Domain cover-age

Membership

Density (%)

Collec-tive bargain-ing

Con-sult-ation

National and Europ-ean affiliat-ionsc

Members

Members in sector

Female member-ship (% of total member-ship) b

Dom-ain

Sector

(sectoral domain)d

AT                    

Vida

Vol.

O

154,436

5,000

30%

n.a.

35% (80%)

Yes

Yes

ÖGB, ETF, EFFAT, UNI-Europa

GPA-DJP

Vol.

SO

249,500

2,600

43.2%

20%

18% (25%)

Yes

Yes

ÖGB, UNI-Europa, EFFAT, EMCEF, EPSU

GPF

Vol.

SO

59,618

n.a.

24.3%

80%

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ÖGB, UNI-Europa, ETF

ACA

Vol.

S (OC)

600

600

1%

55%

4% (55%)

No

Yes

ECA

BE                    

ACV-Public Services (CCSP-CCOD)

Vol.

SO

148,908

1,407

46%

n.a.

15% (30%)

Yes

Yes

ACV-CSC, FIOST, EPSU, ETF

ACV-Transcom

Vol.

SO

82,000

1,300

15%

n.a.

10%–15% (33%)

Yes

Yes

ACV-CSC, ETF

BBTK-SETCa

Vol.

SO

360,000

7,200

n.a.

n.a.

<10% (15%–20%)

No

Yes

ABVV- FGTB, ETF

BTB

Vol.

SO

38,130

n.a.

18%

65%

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ABVV- FGTB, ETF

ACOD/ CGSP (CGSP Telecom/ CA

Vol.

SO

284,576

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ABVV- FGTB, EPSU, PSI, ETF

VSOA-LRB/ SLFP-ALR

Vol.

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ACLVB/CGSLB, EPSU

BeCA

Vol.

S (OC)

800

800

n.a.

n.a.

5% (n.a.)

No

Yes

ECA

ACLVB- CGSLB

Vol.

SO

220,000

n.a.

38.7%

n.a.

15% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ACLVB/CGSLB, ETF

LBC-NVK

Vol.

SO

297,449

500

59%

n.a.

3%–4% (30%)

Yes

Yes

ACV-CSC, ETF

BG                    

FTTUB

Vol.

O

13,240

1,993

35%

n.a.

29.5% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CITUB, ETF

FTW

Vol.

O

7,000

1,442

21%

n.a.

21.3% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CL Pod-krepa, ETF

FreeAviation Trade Union

Vol.

n.a.

n.a.

100

n.a.

n.a.

0.1% (n.a.)

Yes

No

AirTraffic Controllers Union

Vol.

S (OC)

450

450

n.a.

n.a.

6.7% (n.a.)

Yes

No

Promiana, ATCEUC

BUL-ALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

100

100

0%

n.a.

2.2% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ECA

CY                    

ASISEKA

Vol.

S

149

149

13.4%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

PALPU

Vol.

S (OC)

119

119

5%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ECA

SIDIKEK

Vol.

SO

3,500

220

28.6%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

PEO

SIPKKA

Vol.

S (OC)

170

170

50%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SYNYKA

Vol.

S

n.a.

900

40%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

OHO-SEK, ETF

CZ                    

Transport Workers’ Union (OSD)

Vol.

O

15,000

n.a.

18%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ČMKOS, ETF

CZALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

499

499

1.8%

n.a.

7.4% (n.a.)

Yes

No

ECA, SPA

Aviation Trade Union

Vol.

C

864

864

n.a.

n.a.

12.9% (n.a.)

Yes

No

CZATCA

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ASO ČR

CZALDA

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

OOPL

Vol.

S

800

800

n.a.

n.a.

11.9% (n.a.)

Yes

No

OOML

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

CZLCA

Vol.

n.a.

n.a.

800

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

DE                  

ver.di

Vol.

O

2,205,145

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

DGB, ETF

VC

Vol.

S (OC)

8,200

8,200

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ECA

GdF

Vol.

S (OC)

3,000

3,000

19.1%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ATCEUC

dbbtarif-union

Vol.

SO

360,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

DBB, EULOS

UFO

Vol.

S (OC)

8,739

8,739

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

n.a.

DK                  

DALPA/ DPF

Vol.

S (OC)

600

600

2.5%

100%

5% (100%)

Yes

No

ECA

LH

Vol.

SO

76,260

1,200

22%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

3F

Vol.

SO

341,672

5,000

33.2%

75%

41.5% (95%)

Yes

No

LO, ETF, EFFAT, EPSU, UNI- Europa, EFBWW

CUD

Vol.

S (OC)

1,637

1,550

71.5%

95%

13.6% (95%)

Yes

No

FTF, ETF

DFF-S

Vol.

SO

18,777

1,500

24.3%

70%

12.5% (85%)

Yes

No

LO, ETF

DMF

Vol.

SO

132,113

1,000

4.7%

80%

8.3% (90%)

Yes

No

LO, ETF, EMF, EPSU

HK Privat

Vol.

SO

329,679

950

74.2%

45.5%

6.3% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LO, ETF, UNI-Europa

DEF

Vol.

SO

29,769

76

1%

80%

0.6% (100%)

Yes

LO, EMCEF, EMF, UNI-Europa, EFBWW

DATCA

Vol.

S (OC)

300

300

30%

100%

2.5% (100%)

Yes

FTF

LLF

Vol.

S

1,300

1,300

67%

90%

10% (90%)

Yes

 

FTF

EE                  

ETTA

Vol.

SO

4,630

296

20%

13%

22% (50%)

Yes

No

EAKL, ETF

ALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

52

52

n.a.

80%

4% (80%)

Yes

Yes

EAKL, ECA

ESSTU

Vol.

S (OC)

96

96

80%

48%

7.2% (48%)

Yes

No

EAKL

EL                  

OSPA

Vol.

S

5,457

5,457

n.a.

0.7%

n.a. (0.7%)

Yes

Yes

GSEE, ETF

OPAM

Vol.

S

645

645

n.a.

60%

n.a. (60%)

Yes

Yes

GSEE

OSYPA

Vol.

S

2,970

2,970

n.a.

99%

n.a. (99%)

No

Yes

ATCEUCfECAf

FAU

Vol.

S (OC)

700

700

57%

87.5%

n.a. (87.5%)

Yes

No

GSEE, ETF

ES                  

USCA

Vol.

S (OC)

2,219

2,219

30%

94%

4.7% (94%)

Yes

No

ATCEUC

FCT-CC.OO

Vol.

O

250,000

8,140

n.a.

17%

17% (17%)

Yes

No

CC.OO, ETF

FETCM-UGT

Vol.

SO

71,400

8,200

17%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

UGT, ETF

SITCPLA

Vol.

S (OC)

2,500

2,500

65%

25%

5.3% (25%)

Yes

No

ETF

SEPLA

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ECA

FSP-UGT

Vol.

SO

200,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

UGT

USO-STA

Vol.

O

n.a.

4,500

40%

9.5%

9.5% (n.a.)

Yes

No

USO

FI                  

IAU

Vol.

C

3,800

3,800

25%

85%

35% (85%)

Yes

Yes

SAK, ETF

SLSY

Vol.

S (OC)

2,200

2,200

89%

93%

21% (94%)

Yes

Yes

SAK, ETF

FPA

Vol.

S (OC)

1,000

1,000

3%

78%

9% (96%)

(Yes)d

Yes

ECA

TU

Vol.

SO

125,000

1,600

49%

79%

15% (85%)

Yes

No

STTK, UNI-Europa, EMF, EMCEF, ETUF-TCL, EFFAT, ETF, EFBWW

SLJY

Vol.

S (OC)

260

260

15%

90%

2% (90%)

Yes

Yes

Pardia

Vol.

SO

68,000

600

53%

60%

6% (80%)

Yes

No

STTK, EPSU

JHL

Vol.

SO

230,000

460

71%

30%–40%

4% (92%)

Yes

No

SAK, EPSU

AKT

Vol.

O

51,000

45

12%

80%

0.4% (100%)

Yes

No

SAK

YTN

Vol.

SO

125,000

530

25%

67%

5% (85%)

(Yes)d

No

Akava Erityisalat

Vol.

SO

22,000

200

81%

60%

2% (85%)

Yes

No

Akava

FR                  

FGTE-CFDT

Vol.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CFDT, ETF

CFE-CGC

Vol.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ETF e

FGT-CFTC

Vol.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CFTC, ETF

FNST-CGT

Vol.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CGT, ETF

FO-FETS-CGT-FO

Vol.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CGT-FO, ETF

National Union of Civil Aviation Technical Ground

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SNMSAC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

7%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

UNSA, ETFe

UNAC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

CFE-CGC, ETF

SNPL

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ECA

SPAC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SNOMAC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SNPNC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ETF

SPAF

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SNPNAC

Vol.

S (OC)

1,600

1,600

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

UNSA, ETFe

SNAC-CFTC

Vol.

C

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CFTC, ETF

SNCTA

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

1,213

30%

30%

n.a. (30%)

No

Yes

ATCEUC

HU

LESZ

Vol.

C

1,200

1,200

n.a.

21.4%

21.4% (21.4%)

Yes

No

LIGA, ETF

HUNACCA

Vol.

S (OC)

350

350

n.a.

60%–70%

6.3% (60%–70%)

Yes

No

GSZSZ

Vol.

SO

80

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1.4% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LIGA

RMFSZ

Vol.

S (OC)

600

600

n.a.

80%–85%

10.7% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LIGA, ETF

HUNALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

330

330

n.a.

90%–95%

5.9% (90%–95%)

Yes

No

ECA

MALÉV SS

Vol.

S

225

225

n.a.

n.a.

4% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LIGA

RDSZSZ

Vol.

S

80

80

n.a.

n.a.

1.4% (n.a.)

Yes

No

MOSZ

MDM

Vol.

S (OC)

150

150

n.a.

n.a.

2.7% (n.a.)

Yes

No

MOSZ

LIFSZ

Vol.

S (OC)

185

185

n.a.

n.a.

3.3% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LIGA, ETF, ATCEUC

FORTISZ

Vol.

S (OC)

50

50

n.a.

n.a.

0.8% (n.a.)

Yes

No

JÉSZ

Vol.

S (OC)

50

50

n.a.

n.a.

0.8% (n.a.)

Yes

No

Control

Vol.

S (OC)

160

160

n.a.

86

2.9% (86%)

Yes

No

IDFSZ

Vol.

S (OC)

8

8

n.a.

n.a.

2.9% (n.a.)

Yes

No

MLSZSZ

Vol.

S

15

15

n.a.

n.a.

0.2% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LIGOSZ

Vol.

SO

100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1.8% (n.a.)

Yes

No

RTFSZ

Vol.

S (OC)

29

29

n.a.

n.a.

0.5% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LIGA

IE                  

SIPTU

Vol.

O

225,000

4,500

45%

n.a.

38% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ICTU, ETF, CES

IMPACT

Vol.

O

~60,000

2,950

65%

n.a.

25% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ICTU, ECAe, ETF, CES, ATCEUC

Mandate

Vol.

SO

n.a.

n.a.

90%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ICTU, CES

Unite

Vol.

O

n.a.

n.a.

10%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ICTU

TEEU

Vol.

SO

n.a.

n.a.

5%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ICTU

IT                  

FILT

Vol.

O

147,279

11,623

12%–13%

13.6%

24.1% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CGIL, ETF

FIT

Vol.

O

112,500

8,000

15%

10.4%

16.6% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CISL, ETF

Ultrasporti

Vol.

O

103,312

n.a.

20%

8.6%

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

UIL, ETF

UGL Trasporti

Vol.

O

80,676

8,000

45%

8.2%

16.6% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

UGL

UP

Vol.

S (OC)

1,400

1,400

5%

23.3%

2.9% (23.3%)

Yes

No

AVIA

Vol.

S (OC)

1,500

1,500

65%

23%

3.1% (23%)

Yes

No

SDL

Vol.

O

7,500

4,200

30%

0.63%

8.7% (n.a.)

Yes

No

 

ANPAV

Vol.

S (OC)

1,000

1,000

50%

12.5%

2.1% (12.5%)

Yes

Yes

Or.SA

ANPAC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

ECA

ATM-PP

Vol.

S (OC)

1,000

1,000

n.a.

n.a.

2.1% (n.a.)

Yes

No

ATCEUC

LT                    

TVOUDPS

Vol.

S

48

48

50%

6%

2.8% (6%)

Yes

No

LPSK

LRSVA

Vol.

S (OC)

80

80

12%

90%

4.7% (90%)

Yes

No

LPSK

ONDPS

Vol.

S

189

189

60%

71%

11.2% (71%)

Yes

No

LPSK, IFATCA

FLDPS

Vol.

S (OC)

70

70

83%

50%

4% (50%)

No

No

LPS

LU                    

OGB-L

Vol.

O

61,000

1,000

33%

n.a.

28.6% (28.6%)

Yes

No

CGT-L, ETF, EPSU, ATCEUC

ALPL

Vol.

S (OC)

452

452

5%

28.6%

n.a. (28.6%)

No

Yes

LCGB, ECA

GLCCA

n.a.

S (OC)

25

25

n.a.

62.5%

n.a. (62.5%)

No

Yes

ATCEUC

LCGB

n.a.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

n.a.

ETF

NGL-SNEP

n.a.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

No

n.a.

LV                    

LAAF

Vol.

C

460

460

24%

27%

n.a. (n.a.)

(Yes)d

Yes

LBAS

MT                  

GWU

Vol.

O

45,993

1,110

17.5%

30%

41% (41%)

Yes

No

ETF, EPSU, EFFAT, EMF, EMCEF, FERPA, EURO-WEA, SCECBU

UHM

Vol.

O

26,231

400

31%

17%

15% (15%)

Yes

No

CMTU, Euro-fedop, FERPA

MATCA

Vol.

S (OC)

75

75

5%

100%

2.8% (100%)

Yes

No

ATCEUC

AAE

Vol.

S (OC)

78

78

0%

100%

2.9% (100%)

Yes

No

UCC

Vol.

S (OC)

214

214

49%

98%

7.9% (98%)

Yes

No

GWU, ETFe

ALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

130

130

5%

65%

4.8% (65%)

Yes

No

ECA

NL                  

FNV-Bond-genoten

Vol.

O

470,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

FNV, ETF

CNV-Bedrijven-bond

Vol.

O

90,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CNV, ETF

De Unie

Vol.

O

85,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

MHP

OVN

Vol.

S (OC)

20

20

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

VNV

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ECA

VNC

Vol.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ETF

VHKP

Vol.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

CMHF

TUEM

Vol.

S (OC)

460

460

n.a.

71%

n.a. (71%)

(Yes)f

Yes

ATCEUC

EPSU Eurocontrol

Vol.

S (OC)

500

500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

(Yes)f

Yes

EPSU

ATC LVNL (NL Guild)

Vol.

S (OC)

410

410

25%

90%

n.a. (90%)

Yes

No

MHP, ATCEUC

PL                    

NSZZ S PLL LOT

Vol.

S

950

950

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

NSZZ Solidar-ność

ZZKRL

Vol.

S (OC)

400

400

n.a.

98%

n.a. (98%)

Yes

Yes

ATCEUC

POLALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

350

350

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

No

Yes

ECA

ZZPLP

Vol.

S (OC)

575

575

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

No

Yes

OPZZ, ETF

PT                    

SITEMA

Vol.

S (OC)

1,471

1,471

5%

70%

12.3% (70%)

Yes

No

UGT, ETF

SITAVA

Vol.

C

4,700

4,700

n.a.

n.a.

39.3% (39.3%)

Yes

No

CGTP-IN, ETF

SNPVAC

Vol.

S (OC)

2,491

2,234

65%

90%

15.1% (81.2%)

Yes

No

UGT, ETF

SPAC

Vol.

S (OC)

800

800

n.a.

90.2%

6.7% (90.2%)

Yes

No

SINTAC

Vol.

S

400

400

n.a.

n.a.

3.3% (n.a.)

Yes

No

STHA

Vol.

S (OC)

1,100

1,100

n.a.

n.a.

9.2% (n.a.)

Yes

No

SQAC

Vol.

S

350

350

n.a.

n.a.

2.9% (n.a.)

Yes

No

UGT, ETF

SIMA

Vol.

O

n.a.

350

n.a.

n.a.

2.9% (n.a.)

Yes

No

EMF

SITECSA

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SITNA

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SINCTA

n.a.

S (OC)

650

650

n.a.

100%

n.a. (100%)

Yes

No

ATCEUC

APPLA

n.a.

S (OC)

No

No

ECA

RO                    

FSAR

Vol.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

BNS

CSNTR

n.a.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

BNS

ASTR

n.a.

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ETF

SPNT

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

ETF

ATCOR

n.a.

S (OC)

695

695

n.a.

100%

n.a. (100%)

No

Yes

ATCEUC

SLIPEF

n.a.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

 

ETOS

n.a.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.) (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

SSZT

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

 

SITT

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

 

SETA

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

 

SPLR

n.a.

S (OC)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

 

SIOT

n.a.

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

 
SE                    

Civilekon-omerna

Vol.

SO

33,000

100

52%

50%

0.6% (n.a.)

Yes

Yes

SACO

Jusek

Vol.

SO

76,757

n.a.

50%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SACO

Ledarna

Vol.

SO

71,000

342

20%

15%

2.2% (n.a.)

Yes

No

CEC

Pilot-förbundet

Vol.

S (OC)

100

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

 

SEKO

Vol.

SO

140,000

1,000

30%

80%

6.5% (50%)

Yes

No

LO, ETF, EPSU

ST

Vol.

SO

90,000

1,500

65%

25%–30%

9.6% (30%)

Yes

No

TCO, ETF, EPSU, UNI-Europa

SFF

Vol.

S (OC)

783

700

1.2%

75%

4.5% (75%)

Yes

No

 

SI

Vol.

SO

115,500

n.a.

25%

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

Yes

No

SACO

Swealpa

Vol.

S (OC)

1,225

1,225

5%

80%

8% (80%)

Yes

No

ECA

Transport

Vol.

O

64,536

2,177

16%

85%

14% (n.a.)

Yes

No

LO, ETF

Unionen

Vol.

SO

483,526

4,826

44%

80%–85%

42% (n.a.)

Yes

No

TCO, ETF, UNI-Europa

SI                  

SPP

Vol.

S (OC)

100

100

n.a.

70%

7.8% (70%)

Yes

No

Pergam, ECA

ZKOPLS

Vol.

S (OC)

80

80

n.a.

90%

6.3% (90%)

Yes

No

KNSS

SLTO

Vol.

S (OC)

80

80

n.a.

n.a.

6.3% (n.a.)

Yes

No

ZSSS

SLTOM

Vol.

S (OC)

50

50

n.a.

50%

3.9% (50%)

Yes

No

 

SLMS

Vol.

S (OC)

30

30

n.a.

n.a.

2.4% (n.a.)

Yes

No

CTU-90

SAITS

Vol.

S (OC)

40

40

n.a.

n.a.

31% (n.a.)

Yes

No

CTU-90

SDLTP

Vol.

S (OC)

40

40

n.a.

n.a.

31% (n.a.)

Yes

No

KNSS

SDKLRS-95

Vol.

S (OC)

95

95

n.a.

n.a.

7.5% (n.a.)

Yes

No

CTU-90, ATCEUC

Sindikat Adria

Vol.

S

100

100

n.a.

n.a.

6.3% (n.a.)

Yes

No

KNSS

SZPS

Vol.

C

400

400

n.a.

n.a.

31.4% (n.a.)

Yes

No

CTU-90

SSKL

Vol.

S (OC)

95

95

8%

95.5%

7.5% (95.5%)

Yes

No

CTU-90, ATCEUC

UCC-SLO

Vol.

S (OC)

80

80

93%

90%

3% (90%)

Yes

No

KNSS, ETF

SK                    

OZ Doprava

Vol.

O

6,975

463

17%

50%

25% (25%)

Yes

Yes

KOZ SR

UK                    

Unite

Vol.

O

1,940,000

50,000

22%

6%

36% (36%)

Yes

Yes

TUC, ETF

GMB

Vol.

O

605,000

8,500

43%

2%

6% (6%)

Yes

Yes

TUC, ETF

PCS

Vol.

O

310,000

2,000

60%

16%

1% (1%)

Yes

Yes

TUC, ETF

Prospect

Vol.

SO

102,000

3,500

22%

8%

3% (3%)

Yes

Yes

TUC, ETF

Unison

Vol.

O

1,350,000

400

70%

17%

0.2% (0.2%)

Yes

Yes

TUC, ETF

BALPA

Vol.

S (OC)

10,000

10,000

6%

85%

6.5% (85%)

Yes

Yes

TUC, ECA

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

aVol. = voluntary

b= as a percentage of total trade union membership

c= national affiliations appear in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level, only sector-related associations are listed

d= indirect involvement via lower-level affiliates

e= indirect affiliation via higher-level or lower-level organisations

f= consultation

O = Overlap, SO = Sectional overlap, S = Sectionalism, C = Congruence,

OC = Occupational union

n.a. = not available

Membership data are partly from the European organisations.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Employer organisations

Tables 4 and 5 present the membership data on the employer organisations. Altogether, some 14 of the 27 Member States register employer organisations. Of these, seven countries have more than one employer organisation in the sector. In the other countries, no organisation meets the definition of a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier. This does not mean that business has remained unorganised. Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations specialised in matters other than industrial relations are commonly designated as ‘trade associations’ (see TN0311101S). Sector-level trade associations usually outnumber sector-level employer organisations (see Traxler, 1993).

As regards domain demarcation, there are relatively few cases of overlaps, sectionalist overlaps and congruence. Half of the employer organisations listed in Table 4 have demarcated their domain in a way that sectionalistically relates to the sector. Sectionalist demarcations are usually based on differentiation by business activity, such as airports and airlines. Moreover, distinct associations may exist for domestic and foreign airlines, as is the case in Greece and Italy. Sectionalist overlaps result almost exclusively from specialisation in state-owned businesses across sectors. As a result of the predominance of sectionalist domain demarcation, certain parts of the sector remain outside the remit of any existing employer organisation. This situation applies particularly to countries where only one employer organisation is established in the sector, such as Germany and Romania. The employer organisations have usually managed to arrive at complementary domain demarcations. In countries where more than one employer organisation operates, the associational domains are usually complementary either by formal demarcation or by practice. Inter-associational competition for membership is thus absent in such countries, with the exception of Finland. Moreover, competition over bargaining rights does not exist.

As the figures on density show (Table 4), most of the organisations for which data are available have more than 70% of the companies as members within their domain. The number of organisations that reach such levels of domain density in terms of employees is even larger. In contrast, relatively low densities are recorded for the Slovenian organisations, along with one Finnish association and the majority of the Italian organisations. Generally, density relates to the sector in a similar way as it does for the trade unions. Sectoral domain density tends to be far higher than sectoral density. This is mainly because the domain of most of the employer organisations is sectionalist, as is the case for their trade union counterparts.

Table 4: Domain coverage, membership and density of employer organisations in civil aviation, 2005–2006

Country

Domain cover-age

Membership

Density (%)

Typea

Comp-anies

Comp-anies in sector

Employ-ees

Employ-ees in sector

Companies

Employees

Domain

Sector (sectoral domain density)

Domain

Sector (sectoral domain density)

AT                    

FL

S

oblig.

124

124

14,581

14,581

100%

65% (100%)

100%

~100% (100%)

BE                    

BATA

S

vol.

8

8

6,000

6,000

95%

4% (95%)

99%

45% (99%)

BAR

S

vol.

56

56

8,000

8,000

95%

55% (95%)

99%

55% (99%)

EFITTRA

O

vol.

515

n.a.

24,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

BG                    

BAA

S

vol.

17

17

1,500

1,500

85%

26.2% (85%)

n.a.

22.2% (n.a.)

CY

CZ

DE                    

VKA

SO

vol.

n.a.

n.a.

2,000,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

DK                    

DI

O

vol.

11,000

20

~500,000

3,500

n.a.

95% (95%)

n.a.

95% (95%)

EE

EL                    

UFAC

S

vol.

23

23

650

650

70%

n.a. (70%)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

ES                    

ASEATA

S

vol.

10

10

18,932

18,932

100%

0.2% (100%)

100%

40% (100%)

AECA

S

vol.

>20

>20

6,000

6,000

n.a.

12% (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

FI                    

ASSI

SO

vol.

200

20

35,000

7,500

25%

17% (n.a.)

80%

70% (n.a.)

LTY

SO

vol.

21

2

18,600

2,400

90%

2% (n.a.)

95%

23% (n.a.)

ET

SO

vol.

1,300

2

42,000

230

75%

2% (n.a.)

80%

2% (n.a.)

FR                    

FNAM

C

vol.

159

159

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

SCARA

S

vol.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

HU

IE                    

IBEC

O

vol.

n.a.

4

n.a.

7,500

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

63% (n.a.)

IT                    

Assaeroporti

S

vol.

39

39

15,000

15,000

16.7%

8.2% (16.7%)

65.4%

31.1% (65.4%)

Assohandlers

S

vol.

12

12

7,000

7,000

5.1%

2.5% (5.1%)

30.5%

14.5% (30.5%)

Assocatering

SO

vol.

6

6

2,500

2,500

2.6%

1.3% (2.6%)

10.9%

5.2% (10.9%)

Assaereo

S

vol.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

FAIRO

S

vol.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

n.a.

n.a. (n.a.)

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO                    

AAR

S

vol.

17

17

2,018

2,018

100%

n.a. (100%)

100%

n.a. (100%)

SE                    

Arbetsgiv-arverket

SO

vol.

280

1

250,000

3,500

100%

n.a. (100%)

100%

20% (100%)

Flygarbets-givarna

SO

vol.

98

93

12,800

12,400

95%

n.a. (95%)

n.a.

80% (n.a.)

SI                    

GZS

O

vol.

17,750

34–37

n.a.

650

16%

75% (n.a.)

n.a.

50% (n.a.)

ZDS

O

vol.

1,410

1

3,000

450

2.9%

2.2% (n.a.)

0.4%

35% (n.a.)

SK

UK

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

avol. = voluntary membership; oblig. = obligatory membership

O = Overlap, SO = Sectional overlap, S = Sectionalism, C = Congruence

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Table 5: Collective bargaining, consultation and national/European affiliations of employer organisations in civil aviation, 2005–2006

Country

Collective bargaining

Consultation

National and European affiliationsa

AT      

FL

yes

yes

WKÖ

BE      

BATA

yes

yes

FEB-VBO

BAR

yes

yes

BAR

EFITTRA

yes

yes

FEB-VBO

BG      

BAA

yes

yes

UPEB

CY

CZ

DE      

VKA

yes

yes

CEEP

DK      

DI

yes

no

DA

EE

EL      
UFAC

yes

yes

ES      

ASEATA

yes

no

CEOE

AECA

yes

no

CEOE

FI      

ASSI

yes

yes

EK

LTY

yes

no

EK, CEEPb

ET

yes

no

EK

FR      

FNAM

yes

n.a.

SCARA

yes

n.a.

HU

IE      

IBEC

yes

yes

IT      

Assaeroporti

yes

yes

Confindustria

Assohandlers

yes

yes

Assocatering

yes

yes

Confcommercio, HOTREC, HORECA

Assaereo

yes

yes

Confindustria

FAIRO

yes

yes

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO      

AAR

yes

yes

SE      

Arbetsgivarverket

yes

yes

Flygarbetsgivarna

yes

no

SN

SI      

GZS

yes

yes

EICTA

ZDS

yes

yes

SK

UK

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

a= national affiliations appear in italics; only affiliations to sectoral European associations are listed

b= indirect affiliation via higher-level or lower-level organisations

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 6 gives an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the EU27. The standard measure of the importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation is collective bargaining coverage – that is, the total number of employees covered by collective bargaining as a proportion of the total number of employees within a certain segment of the economy (see Traxler, Blaschke and Kittel, 2001). Accordingly, the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage is defined as the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector.

To delineate the bargaining system, two further indicators are used. The first indicator refers to the relevance of multi-employer bargaining, compared with single-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer organisation on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, it is the company or its divisions that are party to the agreement. This includes instances where two or more companies jointly negotiate an agreement. The relative importance of multi-employer bargaining – measured as a percentage of the total number of employees covered by a collective agreement – thus indicates the impact of the employer organisations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes are applied to the sector. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes that seek to extend the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; extension regulations targeting the employees are not significant to this analysis for two reasons. Firstly, extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard of the International Labour Organization (ILO), aside from any national legislation. Secondly, employers have good reason to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are not formally obliged to do so. Otherwise, they would set an incentive for their workforce to unionise.

Compared with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are far more significant to the strength of collective bargaining in general and to multi-employer bargaining in particular. This is because employers are capable of refraining from joining an employer organisation and from entering single-employer bargaining in the context of a purely voluntaristic system. Therefore, employer-related extension practices increase the coverage of multi-employer bargaining. Moreover, when it is pervasive, an extension agreement may encourage more employers to join the controlling employer organisation, since membership enables them to participate in the bargaining process and to benefit from the organisation’s related services in a situation where the respective collective agreement will bind them in any case (see Traxler, Blaschke and Kittel, 2001).

It should be noted that the category of extension practices also covers functional equivalents to these practices. There are two kinds of such equivalents. The first type is obligatory membership, which is legally established in public-law interest associations such as the Federal Association of Aviation Companies (Fachverband der Luftfahrtunternehmungen, FL) in Austria. The other functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. Under the country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. The labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, in the sense that they are seen as being generally binding (see IST, 2001).

Table 6: System of sectoral collective bargaining in civil aviation, 2005–2006

Country

Collective bargaining coverage (CBC)

Proportion of multi-employer bargaining (MEB) as % of total CBC

Extension practicesa

AT

90%

35%

(Limited/exceptional)

BE

100%

100%b

Pervasive

BG

100%

100%b

Pervasive

CY

~100%

0%

No practice

CZ

99%

0%

No practice

DE

n.a.

n.a.

No practice

DK

95%

99%

No practice

EE

33%

0%

No practice

EL

~100%

n.a.

Pervasive

ES

n.a.

n.a.

Limited/exceptional

FI

100%

MEB prevailing

Pervasive

FR

100%

MEB prevailing

Pervasive

HU

59%

0%

No practice

IE

60%

n.a.

No practice

IT

>90%

n.a.

n.a.

LT

69%

0%

No practice

LU

95%

0%

No practice

LV

~48%

0%

No practice

MT

~95%

0%

No practice

NL

>95%

0%

No practice

PL

80%

0%

No practice

PT

100%

0%

No practice

RO

100%

100%

Pervasive

SE

100%

70%

(Limited/exceptional)

SI

100%

100% b

Pervasive

SK

~50%

0%

No practice

UK

~75%

0%

No practice

Notes: Collective bargaining coverage = employees covered as a percentage of the total number of employees in the sector

MEB = multi-employer bargaining relative to single-employer bargaining

aExtension practices include functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings; cases of functional equivalents appear in parentheses.

b= supplementary single-employer bargaining

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Collective bargaining coverage

On the whole, collective bargaining coverage in the civil aviation industry is generally high, with 18 of the 26 countries for which data are available registering a very high coverage rate of 80% or more. In the remaining countries, 50% or more of the employees are covered, with the exception of Estonia and Latvia, which record a coverage level of 33% and 48%, respectively. In both of these countries, only single-employer bargaining exists. Depending on national circumstances, several factors, sometimes interacting with each other, account for the generally high coverage rates. The highest rate of collective bargaining coverage, at 100%, can be found in countries where multi-employer bargaining coincides with pervasive extension practices. While coverage in countries with prevalent multi-employer bargaining is generally very high, there is much more variance across countries operating under single-employer bargaining. In such circumstances, coverage ranges from 33% in Estonia to almost 100% in Cyprus. Total coverage in single-employer bargaining systems is usually contingent on trade union density, which interacts with the economic concentration of a sector. Unionisation generally increases with company size (see Visser, 1991). The relatively high economic concentration of the civil aviation industry in terms of employment is thus conducive to both unionisation and favourable collective bargaining coverage, and explains why coverage is also high in most cases of predominantly single-employer bargaining.

With the exception of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain, at least a rough estimate can be made with regard to the relative importance of multi-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining prevails in eight countries, while 14 countries are characterised by the predominance of single-employer bargaining. It should be noted that the distinction between multi-employer and single-employer bargaining does not fully describe the complexity of the bargaining systems. In some countries – for example, Belgium, Bulgaria and Slovenia – a multi-level bargaining system exists, which combines multi-employer bargaining with single-employer settlements. In these cases, the single-employer settlements contain more favourable employment terms than the multi-employer agreements. It is also important to note that the scope of multi-employer agreements varies considerably. In some countries, the sector is covered by a central agreement (for example Bulgaria and Slovenia) or by a multi-industry agreement that embraces the entire transport sector (Romania). In many other countries, the scope of the multi-employer agreements is limited to certain parts of the sector. In these cases, their scope is usually demarcated by business activities, in line with the (sectionalist) domain of most employer organisations.

Finally, the high economic concentration of the sector combined with the importance of single-employer bargaining, even within multi-employer bargaining systems, directs special attention to employers’ attitudes towards collective bargaining. While a detailed survey of the bargaining climate is beyond the scope of this study, an important question relates to whether there are companies which refuse to recognise trade unions and to enter collective bargaining. Such cases are reported for Austria, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK. In terms of business activities, these cases involve airline companies only, usually those belonging to the group of low-cost carriers. Of these, the low-cost airline Ryanair in Ireland has reportedly pursued a non-union policy the most consistently (see also TN0508101S)

Participation in public policymaking

Interest associations may take part in public policy in two basic ways: firstly, they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members; alternatively, they may be represented on ‘corporatist’, that is tripartite, committees and boards of policy concertation. This study considers only cases of consultation and corporatist participation that explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and over time, depending on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on an ad hoc basis rather than regularly. Given this variability, Tables 3–5 list only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations that are usually consulted. Depending on country-specific regulations and practices, the sector-related organisations may directly or indirectly participate in public policy. Indirect participation takes place through their affiliation to a peak-level organisation that obtains participatory rights.

The trade unions are usually consulted in two thirds of the 27 Member States. In most of the countries where such consultation practices occur, this process involves not all but only some of the existing trade unions. The situation of pronounced multi-unionism, as it is characteristic of most countries, probably fosters selective consultation processes. In addition, formal criteria of representativeness also perform a selective function. Spain provides a particular example in this instance. Since rights of consultation are formally tied to criteria of representativeness, only the most representative trade union organisations are admitted to the consultation process in this country.

The situation is less differentiated on the employer side due to the far smaller number of organisations. The employer organisations, where existing, are consulted by the authorities in almost all countries. If two or more employer organisations are established, all of them are usually consulted. Furthermore, if employer organisations exist, then their opportunity to participate in consultation processes does not differ from that of the trade unions. Generally, each of the two sides of industry is either consulted or not consulted. As already noted, employer organisations in the sense of the aforementioned definition of a social partner organisation are not established in all of the 27 Member States. This does not mean that employers are excluded from consultation procedures in these countries. Under these circumstances, trade associations are likely to be consulted. In addition to these associations of business, large employers themselves may directly be involved in consultation procedures, particularly when policymaking follows the pattern of a ‘company state’ rather than that of an ‘associative state’ (see Grant, 1993).

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, it emerges that sector-specific tripartite bodies are only established in a minority of countries – namely, Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Portugal, Slovakia and the UK (Table 7). The legal basis of these tripartite bodies is either a statute or an agreement between the parties involved. Their scope of activities ranges from specific tasks to any matter that affects the sector.

Some business associations which are represented on the boards are not listed in Tables 4–5, since they do not meet the criteria of a social partner organisation, as established in this comparative study. In the case of Portugal, it is the cross-sectoral peak employer organisation that is represented.

Table 7: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy in civil aviation, 2005–2006

Country

Name of body and scope of activity

Origin

Participants

Trade unions

Business associations

AT

Civil Aviation Advisory Board: all matters affecting the sector

Statutory

vida

FL

BG

Council for Social Partnership for Air Transport – all sector-related matters

Statutory

FTTUB, FTW

BAA

FI

Council for Safety at Work

Administrative

IAU, TU

ASSI

FR

Conseil Supérieur de l’Aviation Marchande

Statutory

CFDT, CFE-CGC, CFTC, CGT, CGT-FO

n.a.

PT

Evaluation Council for Certification of Aircraft Maintenance Technicians

Statutory

SITAVA, SITEMA

CIP

SK

Consultative Body for Civil Aviation: sector-related legislation

Administrative

OZ Doprava and local airport trade unions

ÚDPT SR and six airports

UK

Transec: security at airports

Administrative

Unite, Prospect, GMB, BALPA

BATA

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

n.a. = not available

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008


European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria, as defined by the European Commission see Commission Decision (34Kb PDF) of 20 May 1998). Accordingly, a social partner organisation must meet the following criteria:

  • be cross-industry or relate to specific sectors or categories, and be organised at European level;
  • consist of organisations that are themselves an integral and recognised part of Member States’ social partner structures and that have the capacity to negotiate agreements, as well as being representative of all Member States, as far as possible;
  • have adequate structures to ensure effective participation in the consultation process.

As regards social dialogue, the constituent property of these structures is the ability of an organisation to negotiate on behalf of its members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section on the European associations of the civil aviation industry will analyse these organisations’ membership domain, the composition of their membership and their ability to negotiate.

Membership domain

As will be outlined in greater detail below, the membership domain of three European associations on the employee side, and seven associations on the employer side, is sector-related in the way that is delineated above. On the employee side, these associations are ETF, ECA and ATCEUC. Sector-related business interests, on the other hand, are organised by ACI Europe, AEA, CANSO, ERA, IACA, IAHA and ELFAA.

The following analysis will concentrate on these organisations, while providing supplementary information on other European associations that are organisationally linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors through these actors’ affiliation to these other European associations.

As far as the membership domain of the employee representatives is concerned, the domain of ETF overlaps in relation to the civil aviation industry, while the domains of ECA and ATCEUC are sectionalist. In the case of both ECA and ATCEUC, this sectionalism is based on specialisation by occupation. The membership domains of all European business associations, meanwhile, are sectionalist. This sectionalist domain demarcation of business interests mainly originates in specialisation in distinct business activities. In addition, the associations of the airlines are differentiated by markets.

Membership composition

Although the countries covered by the associations extend beyond the EU Member States to include other countries, this report will only consider the EU Member States. Furthermore, the report will only examine ETF affiliates that have members in the civil aviation industry, as demarcated earlier.

Following these specifications, Table 8 lists the members of the European organisations representing employees. Accordingly, ETF covers most of the 27 EU Member States, with the exception of Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. ECA records affiliates in 21 EU Member States, with Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Spain not being covered. ATCEUC has members in 15 EU Member States, with no affiliations being recorded in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK. When reviewing the overall territorial coverage of the three European labour representatives, it emerges that there are three countries where none of the organisations registers an affiliation – namely, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia.

Table 8: Members of European trade union organisations, 2008

Country

ETFa

ECA

ATCEUC

AT

GPF, Vida

ACA*

BE

ACOD/CGSP, ACV-Transcom, ACLVB-CGSLB, BBTK-SETCa*, BTB, ACV-Public Services, LBC-NVK

BeCA*

BG

FTTUB, FTW

BUL-ALPA

Air Traffic Controllers’ Union

CY

SYNYKA

PALPU

CZ

Transport Workers’ Union

CZALPA

DE

Ver.di

VC

GdF

DK

3F, CUD, DFF-S/DFS, DMF, HK Privat

DALPA/DPF

EE

ETTA

ALPA

EL

OSPA, FAU

HALPA (OSYPA)

Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (OSYPA)**

ES

FCT-CC.OO, FETCM-UGT

USCA

FI

SLSY, IAU, TU

FPA**

FR

FGTE-CFDT, FO-FETS, UNSA (SNMSAC, SNPNAC), SNPNC, FGT-CFTC, FNST-CGT, SNAC-CFTC, UNAC-AFA Council (CFE-CGC)

SNPL

SNCTA*

HU

LESZ, RMFSZ

HUNALPA

LIFSZ

IE

IMPACT, SIPTU

IALPA (IMPACT)

IMPACT

IT

FILT, FIT, Ultrasporti

ANPAC

ATM-PP

LT

LU

OGB-L, LCGB

ALPL*

GLCCA*

LV

MT

GWU

MATCA

NL

FNV-Bondgenoten, CNV-Bedrijvenbond, VNC

VNV

ATC LVNL (NL Guild), TUEMb

PL

ZZPLP*

POLALPA*

ZZKRL

PT

SITAVA, SITEMA, SNPVAC, SQAC

APPLA*

SINCTA

RO

SPNT, ATU Romania (SPLR)

ATCOR*

SE

SEKO, ST, Unionen, Transport

Swealpa

SI

UCC SLO

SPP

SSKL

SK

UK

UNITE, GMB, PCS, PROSPECT, UNISON

BALPA

Participant in social dialogue

Yes

Yes

No

Negotiating mandate+

Yes

No evidence

Yes

Notes: See Annex for list of abbreviations and full names of organisations.

Membership list is confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration.

aMembers in the civil aviation section, 2008

bListed as a member for Eurocontrol

* Not involved in collective bargaining

** Indirectly involved in collective bargaining via higher-level or lower-level affiliations

+As formalised in the associational constitution.

Associations that appear in parentheses are sector-related trade unions listed in Table 3 which are indirectly affiliated via national higher-order associations or lower-level affiliates.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

In relation to the sector-related European business associations, it is a common property of the membership structure that only businesses – in contrast to business interest associations – are eligible for full or regular membership. Table 9 presents some basic data about the membership composition of these organisations. Of the associations organising airlines, AEA covers 21 of the 27 EU Member States, while ERA, IACA and ELFAA cover 19, 13 and 10 countries, respectively. It is worth noting that none of these four airline representatives has a national affiliate in Estonia, although airline companies do exist in this country. The territorial remit of ACI-Europe is all-encompassing insofar as it has members in all of the 27 EU Member States. For its part, CANSO has 24 countries under its umbrella. IAHA, on the other hand, only covers nine countries.

Table 9: Members of European business interest organisations, 2008
 

ACI-Europe

AEA

CANSO

ELFAA

ERA

IACA

IAHA

AT

6

1

1

3

1**

BE

7

1

1

1

1

BG

4*

1*

1

CY

2

1

1

2

CZ

3

1*

1

DE

23*

1*

1

7*

5

DK

2

1

1

2

1

EE

1

EL

2

1*

1

2

1

ES

2*

2*

1

1

2

5

2

FI

1

1

2

1

FR

45

1

1

2

1

1

HU

1*

1*

1

1

IE

3

1*

1

1**

2**

IT

16

2

1

1

2*

2

1

LT

5

1

1

LU

1

2*

1*

LV

2

1

1

MT

1*

1

1*

1

NL

6

1*

1

1

2*

3

PL

5

1*

1

2*

PT

2

1*

1*

2

RO

16

1

1

1

SE

2

1*

1

1

5

2

3

SI

1*

1*

1*

1*

SK

1*

1

1

SK

1*

1

1

UK

21*

3*

2*

3**

3

4

4

Particpant in European social dialogue

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes***

Negotiating mandate+

No

No

Yesc

No

Yesa

No

Yesb

Notes: Membership list is confined to the countries under consideration; number of members by country is listed; regular/full members are shown only (i.e. companies/businesses in all cases).

* Member(s) from the respective country is (are) party to one or more sector-related collective agreements of major importance.

** Member(s) from the respective country refuse(s) to recognise trade unions and to enter collective bargaining.

*** Since 2008

aUnless issue is voluntarily referred to the general assembly of members.

bSubject to case-by-case assessment.

cOn behalf of members which joined the corresponding partnership structure.

+As formalised in the associational constitution.

Source: EIRO national centres, 2008

Involvement in collective bargaining and membership strength

In addition to the territorial remit of the European associations, the weight of their affiliates in the national industrial relations systems is another criterion for evaluating their membership structure. In this respect, the key criterion is involvement of the national affiliates in collective bargaining. Aside from this, there is a question specific to each organised labour and business association. In the case of the labour representatives, the domain overlap of ETF with the two other associations raises the question of the relative strength of their affiliates in terms of the number of employees covered. As regards the European business associations, the fact that they organise only businesses raises the question of how relevant their members are in collective bargaining matters. This question is of special importance in countries where the existing employer organisations are all outside the membership domain of the European associations.

Table 8 also summarises the bargaining role of the affiliates of the European labour organisations (those marked with an asterisk do not participate in collective bargaining). Almost all member trade unions of ETF conduct collective bargaining. This means that its affiliates have a bargaining role in all of the countries covered by ETF, with the exception of Poland and one of the trade union organisations in Belgium. Of the 21 ECA members, 16 are directly or indirectly engaged in collective bargaining. This same is true for 12 of the 15 ATCEUC members. As far as available data on membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength (Table 3), it can be concluded that ETF tends to organise the largest national trade unions of the sector in the EU Member States. Poland and Slovenia are the two exceptions in this respect, aside from the three countries where no trade union is affiliated to ETF. On the whole, ETF represents the majority of the sector’s unionised employees across Europe. Due to their occupational specialisation, the affiliates of ECA (covering pilots) and ATCEUC (covering air traffic controllers) are comparatively small. As a rule, one single trade union exists for each of these two occupations in each country that is covered by ECA and ATCEUC. In Portugal and Sweden, pilots have a special representative trade union in addition to the ECA-affiliated union. In the case of Portugal, close links exist between these two organisations. Due to the overlapping domain of ETF, pilots as well as air traffic controllers are also under the umbrella of this federation. In Ireland, one national trade union holds dual membership in sector-related European associations – that is, the IMPACT trade union, which is a member of ETF and also affiliated to ECA through its branch the Irish Airline Pilots’ Association (IALPA).

Table 9 specifies whether the members of the European business associations are a signatory party to a collective agreement of major importance to the national bargaining systems. As the cross-national comparison shows, multi-employer bargaining of employer organisations and single-employer bargaining are not mutually exclusive. In countries where only single-employer bargaining exists, the members of the European associations do not necessarily figure prominently in the national bargaining process. Conversely, in many countries where multi-employer bargaining is established, companies that are affiliated to one of the European associations negotiate over major collective agreements. There are two possible reasons for this: firstly, there may be a multi-level bargaining system; secondly, multi-employer and single-employer bargaining may cover distinct areas of the sector.

Comparing the European business associations, in nine countries under the umbrella of ACI-Europe, one or more of its members are party to a collective agreement of major importance. The corresponding figures for AEA, CANSO and ERA are 13, five and six members, respectively. None of the members of ELFAA, IACA and IAHA is a major bargaining party. For an evaluation of how the European business associations relate to bargaining, it is also important to examine whether members avoid trade union recognition as a partner in collective bargaining (see also Table 9). This situation applies to two ELFAA members from Ireland and the UK, to two ERA members again from Ireland, and to one IACA member from Austria. Hence, the total bargaining record of the national affiliates of ELFAA and IACA is negative – that is, they have no cases of major bargaining parties under their umbrella, but instead record cases of trade union avoidance.

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at the European level is the capacity of an organisation to negotiate on behalf of its own members. In this context, reference is made to whether this capacity is formally endorsed in the organisations’ constitution. Tables 8 and 9 present the information on this issue for the trade unions and business associations respectively. Of the European labour representatives, ETF has obtained a general negotiating mandate (Table 8). Similarly, ATCEUC is entitled to negotiate on behalf of its members. The constitution of ECA does not contain a provision that deals with the right to negotiate.

In the case of the business associations, the constitution of ERA and IAHA provides for a conditional mandate (Table 9). ERA is generally vested with a mandate, unless an issue is voluntarily referred to the general assembly. Under the constitution of IAHA Europe, the association aims to foster dialogue with social partners such as the sectoral European social dialogue. Hence, IAHA can be equipped with a mandate on a case-by-case basis. For the purpose of negotiations, CANSO created a special structure that is tailored to the European social dialogue – namely, the CANSO Social Dialogue Partnership (CSDP), which is a subunit within CANSO Europe. CSDP delegates are mandated and it is important to note that membership of CSDP is voluntary, such that a member can opt out of the dialogue process. AEA, ELFAA and ACI Europe lack a formal mandate. As an AEA representative outlined in response to the survey for this report: ‘AEA’s member airlines consider employer–employee relations as the prerogative of the members themselves. AEA does not have a mandate to enter into negotiations on detailed topics and issues with regard to employer–employees relations’. Similarly, the constitution of ELFAA underlines the autonomy of its members: ‘where no common position has been agreed, there is nothing to stop an airline from expressing their own view on any issue.’ With regard to IACA, the association’s constitution was not accessible for this study.

Overall, there is no evidence of a formal mandate in the case of ECA, ACI-Europe, AEA, ELFAA and IACA. This finding is somewhat surprising with regard to the associations that participate in the European social dialogue – that is, ECA, ACI-Europe, AEA and IACA – particularly since the dialogue resulted in a European agreement in 2000. A possible explanation for this is that these associations are equipped with a mandate on an ad hoc basis, depending on circumstances. In any case, the constitutional differences in providing a negotiating mandate do not mirror the (non)participation patterns in the sectoral European social dialogue: while some participating associations lack a formalised mandate, such a mandate is granted to some of the non-participating associations, such as ATCEUC. For its part, IAHA joined the sectoral social dialogue committee as a full member in 2008.

As proof of the weight of the sector-related European associations considered above, it is also worth identifying other European associations that may be important representatives of the sector. This can be done by reviewing the membership of the national associations in sector-specific European associations.

For the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table 3. As a consequence of the multiplicity of trade unions listed, there are also numerous affiliations to European organisations other than ETF, ECA and ATCEUC. For brevity, only those European organisations that cover at least three countries are mentioned here, namely:

  • the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), which covers 13 trade unions in eight countries;
  • UNI-Europa, with eight affiliations in four countries;
  • the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), with five members in four countries;
  • the European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF), with five members in four countries;
  • the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF), with four affiliations in four countries.

The presence of EPSU is attributed to the fact that parts of the civil aviation industry were or are still owned by the state. Moreover, due to its cross-sectoral domain, UNI-Europa also relates to civil aviation. The relationship of the remaining European associations to the sector is less evident. In principle, this relationship depends on how the national trade unions demarcate their domain. In many cases, the affiliations to European associations other than ETF, ECA and ATCEUC result from overlapping and rather broadly defined membership domains of the national trade unions which largely involve member groups outside of civil aviation. Even though the list of affiliations in Table 3 may be incomplete, this review confirms that the sector-related national trade unions are most frequently affiliated to ETF, ECA and ATCEUC.

An similar review of the memberships of the national employer organisations can be derived from Table 5. Most of the organisations do not show any membership of a European business interest association. There is only one European association that has three members from three countries – namely, the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP). As with EPSU on the side of labour, this reflects the presence of public ownership in the sector. However, in terms of both the number of affiliations as well as territorial coverage, CEEP remains far behind the seven sector-related European business associations listed in Table 9.


Commentary

Compared with other sectors, the representational system of the civil aviation industry has several characteristics. One characteristic of the sector is its comparatively high degree of unionisation at national level. In comparison with many other service sectors, trade union density is usually high. The same holds true for employer density, where employer organisations exist, although this applies to only a minority of the 27 EU Member States. In the majority of countries, the large businesses in the sector act as trade union counterparts in industrial relations.

The high levels of density are backed by the sectionalist profile of many trade unions and employer organisations. This creates a ‘small size effect’, which helps overcome free-riding tendencies (see Olson, 1965). In addition, the fact that rather large businesses characterise major parts of the sector helps foster greater unionisation. The high levels of density are reflected in the high collective bargaining coverage. A comparison with recent figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in 25 EU Member States (the EU25, prior to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania) indicates that bargaining coverage in civil aviation is higher than the country average in 16 of the 19 countries for which comparable data are available, whereas sectoral coverage is lower than the country average only in Austria (see Marginson and Traxler, 2005). In two countries, the sector’s coverage is equal to overall coverage. The main reasons for the comparatively high levels of coverage in civil aviation are the high levels of trade union density, as well as employer density in cases where employer associations are established. The relatively high economic concentration of the sector is conducive to single-employer bargaining in areas where employer organisations are absent.

Another property of the sector is that its associational system is highly heterogeneous and differentiated on both sides of industry. On the employee side, this heterogeneity is manifested in the large number of trade unions, which reflects the strong labour market segmentation in terms of qualifications and professions. Public ownership or its associational legacies in cases where privatisation has taken place meanwhile adds to this heterogeneity. This situation has given rise to two basic types of sector-related trade unions: overlapping or sectionalistically overlapping trade unions, which account for the major proportion of unionised employees in the sector; and occupational trade unions, which usually record a smaller share in sector unionisation but which register high levels of density within their narrow, occupational domain.

On the employer side, heterogeneity is not expressed in a large number of employer organisations. On the contrary, the number of employer organisations is small because the large companies in the sector are often the principal industrial relations actors rather than employer organisations. Nevertheless, the degree of associational heterogeneity is also remarkable on the employer side, as employer organisations, if existing, are usually based on a sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping domain. The type of economic activities is the most important criterion for such domain demarcations. This means that the sector is also highly segmented in terms of business activities. Of the 11 national employer organisations with a sectionalist domain, seven are specialised in airlines. Two special associations also exist for airports and handlers.

On both sides of industry, this high degree of organisational heterogeneity at national level is reflected at the European level. Not only can a relatively large number of sector-related European associations be found for business as well as labour, but also a notable number among these have demarcated their domain in a sectionalist way. The noteworthy exception to this rule is ETF and its overlapping domain. In January 2009, ETF, EPSU and Union Syndicale Federal (USF) – which is the umbrella of staff trade unions active within EU institutions, and which is an affiliate of EPSU – concluded an agreement to recognize ETF as the main organisation representing the interests of air traffic management members of EPSU and USF in civil aviation social dialogue. Compared with the trade unions as well as the national level of business association, the European-level associational system of business is even more differentiated. On the one hand, there is a special association for civil air navigation services that has no associational counterparts at national level. On the other hand, the representational system of airlines is far more differentiated according to subgroups at European level. In addition, a qualitative difference is evident in this respect. If special associations for subgroups of airlines exist at national level, then the organisational divide is always between domestic and foreign carriers. In contrast to this, the associational differentiation at European level follows the segmentation of sales markets. Finally, no organisational link exists between the national and European level of business interest associations, since all European associations have only companies as full or regular members.


References

Grant, W., Business and politics in Britain, London, Macmillan, 1993.

Institut des Sciences du Travail (IST), Collective agreement extension mechanisms in EU member countries, Catholic University of Louvain, Typescript, 2001.

Marginson, P. and Traxler, F., ‘After enlargement: Preconditions and prospects for bargaining coordination’, Transfer, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2005.

Olson, M., The logic of collective action, Harvard University Press, 1965.

Traxler, F., ‘Business associations and labour unions in comparison’, British Journal of Sociology, No. 44, 1993.

Traxler, F., ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004.

Traxler, F., Blaschke, S. and Kittel, B., National labour relations in internationalised markets, Oxford University Press, 2001.

Visser, J. ‘Trends in trade union membership’, OECD Employment Outlook, 1991.


Annex: List of abbreviations

Country

Abbreviation

Full name of organisation

Austria (AT)

ACA

Austrian Cockpit Association

 

FL

Federal Association of Aviation Companies

 

GPA-DJP

Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists

 

GPF

Union of Post and Telecommunications Employees

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

Vida

Vida Trade Union

 

WKÖ

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

Belgium (BE)

ABVV/FGTB

Belgian General Confederation of Labour

 

ACLVB/CGSLB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

ACV/CSC

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

ACV/CSC-Public Services

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions – Public Services

 

ACV/CSC-Transcom

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions – Transport and Communications

 

BAR

Board of Airline Representatives in Belgium

 

BATA

Belgian Air Transport Association

 

BBTK/SETCa

Belgian Union of White-collar, Technical and Executive Employees

 

BeCA

Belgian Airline Pilot Association

 

BTB

Belgian Transport Workers’ Federation

 

EFITTRA

Employers’ Federation for International Trade, Transport and Related Activities

 

FEB/VBO

Belgian Federation of Employers

 

LBC/NVK

Federation of White-collar Workers and Managers

 

VSOA-LRB/SLFP-ALR

Free Trade Union of the Public Service

Bulgaria (BG)

BAA

Bulgarian Airlines Association

 

BUL-ALPA

Bulgarian Airline Pilots’ Association

 

CITUB

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria

 

CL Podkrepa

Confederation of Labour ‘Podkrepa’

 

Free Aviation TU

Free Aviation Trade Union Organisation

 

FTTUB

Federation of Transport Trade Unions in Bulgaria

 

FTW

Federation of Transport Workers

 

Promiana

Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers of the ‘Promiana’ Trade Union

 

UPEB

Union of Private Entrepreneurs in Bulgaria ‘Vuzrazhdane’

Cyprus (CY)

ASISEKA

Independent Trade Union of Cyprus Airways Employees

 

OHO-SEK

Cyprus Workers’ Confederation

 

PALPU

Pancyprian Airline Pilots’ Union

 

PEO

Pancyprian Federation of Labour

 

SIDIKEK

Local Authority Workers’ and Employees’ Trade Union

 

SIPKKA

Cyprus Airways’ Cabin Crew Union

 

SYNYKA

Cyprus Airways Employees’ Trade Union

Czech Republic (CZ)

ASO ČR

Association of Autonomous Trade Unions

 

ČMKOS

Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions

 

CZALDA

Czech Association of Air Traffic Controllers

 

CZALPA

Czech Airline Pilots’ Association ČSA

 

CZATCA

Czech Air Traffic Controllers’ Association

 

CZLCA

Czech Load Controllers’ Association

 

OOML

Airline Mechanics’ Union

 

OOPL

Air Crew Trade Union Organisation

 

OSD

Transport Workers’ Union

Denmark (DK)

3F

United Federation of Danish Workers

 

CUD

Cabin Union Denmark

 

DA

Confederation of Danish Employers

 

DALPA/DPF

Danish Airline Pilots’ Association

 

DATCA

Danish Air Traffic Controllers’ Association

 

DEF

Danish Union of Electricians

 

DFF-S

Federation of Salaried Employees

 

DI

Confederation of Danish Industries

 

DMF

Danish Metalworkers’ Union

 

FTF

Confederation of Salaried Employees and Civil Servants

 

HK Privat

Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark/Private

 

LH

Danish Association of Managers and Executives

 

LLF

Federation of Salaried Employees in Air Transport

 

LO

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

Estonia (EE)

ALPA

Estonian Airline Pilots’ Association

 

EAKL

Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions

 

ESSTU

Estonian Stewardesses’ and Stewards’ Trade Union

 

ETTA

Estonian Transport and Road Workers’ Trade Union

Finland (FI)

Akava

Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals

 

Akava Erityisalat

Akava Special Branches

 

AKT

Transport Workers’ Union

 

ASSI

Association of Support Service Industries (affiliated to EK)

 

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

ET

Employers’ Association of the Special Branches

 

FPA

Finnish Pilots’ Association

 

IAU

Finnish Aviation Union

 

JHL

Trade Union for the Public and Welfare Sectors

 

LTY

Employers’ Association for Transport and Special Services

 

Pardia

Federation of Salaried Employees Pardia

 

SAK

Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions

 

SLJY

Finnish Air Traffic Controllers’ Association

 

SLSY

Cabin Crew Union

 

STTK

Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees

 

TU

Union of Salaried Employees

 

YTN

Federation of Professional and Managerial Staff

France (FR)

CFDT

French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

CFE-CGC

French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff

 

CFTC

French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CGT

General Confederation of Labour

 

CGT-FO

General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière

 

FGT-CFTC

General Federation of Transport – French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

FGTE-CFDT

General Federation of Transport and Infrastructure – French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

FNAM

National Commercial Aviation Federation

 

FNST-CGT

National Federation of Transport Unions – General Confederation of Labour

 

FO-FETS-CGT-FO

Federation of Infrastructure, Transport and Services – General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière

 

SCARA

Union of Independent Airlines

 

SNAC-CFTC

National Union of Civil Aviation – French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

SNCTA

National Union of Air Traffic Controllers

 

SNMSAC

National Union of Civil Aviation Technical Ground Staff

 

SNOMAC

National Union of Civil Aviation Cabin Engineering Officers

 

SNPL

National Pilots’ Union

 

SNPNAC

National Union of Civil Aeronautics Cabin Crew

 

SNPNC

National Union of Commercial Cabin Crew

 

SPAC

Civil Aviation Pilots’ Union

 

SPAF

Air France Pilots’ Union

 

UNAC

Union of Civil Aviation Cabin Crew

 

UNSA

National Federation of Independent Unions

Germany (DE)

dbbtarifunion

Bargaining Cartel of the German Civil Service Association

 

DGB

Confederation of German Trade Unions

 

GdF

Gewerkschaft der Flugsicherung (Air navigation services’ union)

 

VC

Cockpit Association

 

ver.di

United Services Union

 

VKA

Confederation of Municipal Employers’ Associations

Greece (EL)

FAU

Flight Attendants’ Union

 

GSEE

General Confederation of Labour of Greece

 

HALPA

Hellenic Airline Pilots’ Association

 

OPAM

Air Transport Staff Federation

 

OSPA

Civil Aviation Associations’ Federation

 

OSYPA

Federation of Civil Aviation Agency Associations

 

UFAC

Union of Foreign Air Companies

Hungary (HU)

Control

Hungarian Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union

 

FORTISZ

Trade Union of Traffic and Ramp Officers

 

GSZSZ

Trade Union of Economic Professionals

 

HUNACCA

Hungarian Cabin Crew Association

 

HUNALPA

Hungarian Airline Pilots’ Association

 

IDFSZ

Independent Trade Union of Workers in Air Traffic Control Technology

 

JÉSZ

Workers’ Union of Flight Service Provision

 

LESZ

United Civil Aviation Trade Union

 

LIFSZ

Air Traffic Controllers’ Independent Trade Union

 

LIGA

Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions

 

LIGOSZ

Trade Union of Administration, Economic and Education Workers

 

MALÉV SS

Trade Union of MALÉV

 

MDM

Airport Minibus Drivers’ Trade Union

 

MLSZSZ

Trade Union of Hungarian Air Traffic Services

 

MOSZ

Engine Drivers’ Trade Union

 

RDSZSZ

Trade Union of Airport Workers and Service Providers

 

RMFSZ

Aircraft Technicians’ Independent Trade Union

 

RTFSZ

Independent Trade Union of Flight Information Specialists

Ireland (IE)

IBEC

Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

IMPACT

Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union

 

Mandate

Union of Retail, Bar and Administrative Workers in Ireland

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

 

TEEU

Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union

 

Unite

Unite the Union

Italy (IT)

ANPAC

National Association of Civil Aviation Pilots

 

ANPAV

National Association of Flight Assistants

 

Assaeroporti

Italian Association of Airport Management

 

Assaereo

National Association of Vectors and Operators in Air Transport

 

Assocatering

National Association of Catering Operators

 

Assohandlers

Assohandlers’ Association

 

ATM-PP

Air Traffic Management Professional Project

 

AVIA

Italian Associated Hostesses and Stewarts

 

Confcommercio

General Confederation of Trade, Tourism, Services and SMEs

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

Confindustria

Confederation of Italian Industry

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions

 

FAIRO

Association of Foreign Airline Companies

 

FILT

Italian Transport Workers’ Federation

 

FIT

Italian Transport Federation

 

Or.SA

Autonomous Trade Union and Base Organisation

 

SDL

Workers’ Trade Union

 

UGL

General Workers’ Union

 

UGL Trasporti

General Workers’ Union – Transport

 

UIL

Union of Italian Workers

 

Uiltrasporti

Italian Union of Transport Workers

 

UP

Union of Pilots

Latvia (LV)

LAAF

Latvian Federation of Civil Aviation Trade Unions

 

LBAS

Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia

Lithuania (LT)

FLDPS

Trade Union of ‘Fly Lithuanian Airlines (LAL)’ Workers

 

LPS

Lithuania Trade Union ‘Solidarity’

 

LPSK

Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation

 

LRSVA

Association of Air Traffic Controllers of the Republic of Lithuania

 

ONDPS

Trade Union of Air Navigation Workers

 

TVOUDPS

Vilnius Airport Trade Union

Luxembourg (LU)

ALPL

Luxembourg Pilots’ Association

 

GLCCA

Luxembourg Air Traffic Control

 

LCGB

Luxembourg Christian Trade Union Confederation

 

NGL-SNEP

National Union of Private Sector White-CollarEmployees

 

OGB-L

Independent Trade Union Confederation of Luxembourg

Malta (MT)

AAE

Malta Association of Airline Engineers

 

CMTU

Confederation of Malta Trade Unions

 

MATCA

Malta Air Traffic Controllers’ Association

 

UCC

Union of Cabin Crew

 

UHM

Union of United Workers

Netherlands (NL)

ATC LVNL

Air Traffic Controllers – Air Traffic Control the Netherlands

 

CNV

Christian Trade Union Federation

 

CNV Bedrijvenbond

Industry, Food and Transport Workers’ Union

 

De Unie

Union of Intermediate and Higher Personnel

 

FNV

Dutch Trade Union Federation

 

FNV Bondgenoten

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions Allied Unions

 

MHP

Federation of Managerial and Professional Staff Unions

 

NL Guild

Netherlands Guild of Air Trafic Controllers

 

OVN

Dutch Independent Pilots’ Association

 

TUEM

Trade Union Eurocontrol Maastricht

 

VHKP

Association for Higher KLM Personnel

 

VNC

Association of Dutch Cabin Personnel

 

VNV

Association of Dutch Pilots

Poland (PL)

NSZZ S PLL LOT

Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity of Polish Airline Employees LOT SA

 

NSZZ Solidarność

Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union ‘Solidarity’

 

OPZZ

All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions

 

POLALPA

Polish Airline Pilots’ Association

 

ZZKRL

Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers

 

ZZPLP

Trade Union of Cockpit and Cabin Crew of PLL LOT

Portugal (PT)

APPLA

Association of Portuguese Airline Pilots

 

CGTP-IN

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers

 

CIP

Confederation of Portuguese Industry

 

SIMA

Union of Metal Industries and Correlative Industries and Services

 

SINCTA

Union of Air Traffic Controllers

 

SINTAC

National Union of Civil Aviation Workers

 

SITAVA

Union of Aviation and Airport Workers

 

SITECSA

Union of Aerial Security Technicians

 

SITEMA

Union of Aircraft Maintenance Technicians

 

SITNA

Union of Air Travel Technicians

 

SNPVAC

National Union of Civil Aviation Cabin Crew Staff

 

SPAC

Union of Civil Aviation Pilots

 

SQAC

Union of Qualified Ground Personnel in Commercial Aviation

 

STHA

Union of Airport Handling Technicians

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

Romania (RO)

AAR

Airports’ Association of Romania

 

ASTR

Trade Unions Alliance of Transport Workers from Romania

 

ATCOR

Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union

 

BNS

National Trade Union Bloc

 

CSNTR

Romanian Transport Workers’ Trade Union Convention

 

ETOS

Tarom ETOS Trade Union

 

FSAR

Airport Workers’ Trade Union Federation of Romania

 

SETA

Airships Technical Exploitation Trade Union

 

SIOT

Tarom Operational Independent Trade Union

 

SITT

Tarom Technical Independent Trade Union

 

SLIPEF

Free Independent Armada Exploitation Workers’ Trade Union

 

SPLR

Line Pilots’ Trade Union of Romania

 

SPNT

Tarom Aerial Navigators’ Trade Union

 

SSZT

Tarom Flight Safety Trade Union

Slovakia (SK)

KOZ SR

Central Confederation of Trade Unions

 

OZ Doprava

Trade Union Association of Transport, Road Economy and Car-repair Industry

 

ÚDPT SR

Union of Transport, Post and Telecommunications

Slovenia (SI)

CTU-90

Confederation of Trade Union 90

 

GZS

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia

 

KNSS

Independent Confederation of New Trade Unions of Slovenia

 

Pergam

Confederation of Trade Unions of Slovenia Pergam

 

SAITS

Trade Union of Aeronautical Informatics and Technical Services

 

SDKLRS-95

Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers – 95

 

SDLTP

Trade Union of Flying Technical Support

 

Sindikat Adria

Trade Union Adria

 

SLMS

Trade Union of Air Meteorologists

 

SLTO

Trade Union of Avian Technical Operatives

 

SLTOM

Trade Union of Flying Technical Staff Mechanics

 

SPP

Trade Union of Traffic Pilots

 

SSKL

Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union

 

SZPS

Trade Union of Air Transport Employers of Slovenia

 

UCC-SLO

Slovenian Union of Cabin Crew

 

ZDS

Association of Employers of Slovenia

 

ZKOPLS

Trade Union of Cabin Crew of Slovenian Aircraft

 

ZSSS

Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia

Spain (ES)

AECA

Spanish Association of Air Companies

 

ASEATA

Association of Airport Handling Companies

 

CC.OO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CEOE

Spanish Federation of Employer Organisations

 

FGT-CC.OO

Communication and Transport Workers’ Federation – Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

FETCM-UGT

Aviation Sector of the National Federation of Transport, Communications and the Sea – General Workers’ Confederation

 

FSP-UGT

National Federation of Public Services – General Workers’ Confederation

 

SELPA

Spanish Trade Union of Airline Pilots

 

SITCPLA

Independent Trade Union of Airline Passenger Cabin Crew

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

 

USCA

Trade Union of Air Controllers

 

USO

Workers’ Trade Union Confederation

 

USO-STA

Workers’ Trade Union Confederation – Aviation Sector

Sweden (SE)

Arbetsgivarverket

Swedish Agency for Government Employers

 

Civilekonomerna

Swedish Association of Economics or Business School Graduates

 

Flygarbetsgivarna

Swedish Air Transport Industry Employers’ Association

 

Jusek

Swedish Association of Graduates in Law, Business Administration and Economics, Computer and Systems Science, Personnel Management and Social Science

 

Ledarna

Swedish Organisation for Managers

 

SMA

Steel and Metal Employers’ Association

 

LO

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

 

Pilotförbundet

United Pilots of Scandinavia

 

SACO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

SEKO

Swedish Association for Service and Communication

 

SFF

Swedish Flight Technicians’ Association

 

Sveriges Ingenjörer (SI)

Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers

 

Svenskt Näringsliv (SN)

Confederation of Swedish Enterprise

 

Statstjänstemannaförbundet (ST)

Union of Civil Servants

 

Swealpa

Swedish Airline Pilots’ Association

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

 

Transport

Swedish Transport Workers’ Union

 

Unionen

Union of White-collar Workers

United Kingdom (UK)

BALPA

British Airline Pilots’ Association

 

BATA

British Air Transport Association

 

PCS

Public and Commercial Services Union

 

Prospect

Trade Union ‘Prospect’

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

Unison

Trade Union Unison

 

Unite

Unite the Union

     
Europe

ATCEUC

Air Traffic Controllers’ European Union Coordination

 

BAR Europe

Board of Airline Representatives in Europe

 

CEC

European Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff

 

CEEP

European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest

 

CES

Economic and Social Council

 

ECA

European Cockpit Association

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EICTA

European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Industry Technology Association

 

EMCEF

European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation

 

EMF

European Metalworkers’ Federation

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

ETUF:TCL

European Trade Union Federation: Textiles, Clothing and Leather

 

EULOS

European Network of Independent Unions of Local Authority Staff

 

Eurocontrol

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

 

Eurofedop

European Organisation of Public Service Employees

 

EURO-WEA

European Workers’ Educational Association

 

FERPA

European Federation of Retired and Older Persons

 

FIOST

International Trade Union Federation of Transport Workers

 

HORECA

International Federation of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés

 

HOTREC

Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés in Europe

 

IFATCA

International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations

 

PSI

Public Services International

 

SCECBU

Standing Committee of European Central Bank Unions

 

SPA

SkyTeam Pilots’ Association

 

UNI-Europa

Union Network International – Europe

Franz Traxler, Department of Industrial Sociology, University of Vienna

EF/09/105/EN

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Añadir nuevo comentario