Social dialogue in the candidate countries

Social dialogue and EMU in Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia - Workshop

Vienna, 26-28 May 2003

Speech abstract - Ann Branch

European Commission, DG Employment, Unit D-1: Interprofessional Social Dialogue – Industrial Relations – Adaptation to Change

Social dialogue in the candidate countries: a view from the European Commission

Introduction: the difference between this enlargement and previous ones

This enlargement will be different in several respects to the previous ones. Firstly, in terms of its size and, secondly, because it will shift the balance of industrial relations traditions among the Member States. Although the industrial relations systems of the existing Member States are themselves characterised by heterogeneity, they nevertheless share certain common features which provide a solid foundation for both bipartite and tripartite dialogue at European level. In contrast, in the candidate countries bipartite dialogue and sectoral bargaining are generally rare and tripartite dialogue is the predominant form. Where collective bargaining takes place, it tends to take place at company level. However this enlargement will also be different from the previous ones in another respect, namely with regard to the social dialogue acquis which these countries will inherit because of the developments in the social dialogue over the past few years.

The social dialogue acquis and social dialogue in the candidate countries

The European social dialogue has evolved considerably since its launch in 1985, and particularly since the last accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. As a consequence, the countries which acceded in the 1970s and 1980s did not have to adapt to a social dialogue acquis in the same way, and they only really had to incorporate the legislative acquis communautaire. Indeed, since the last enlargement, the European cross-industry social partners have negotiated three framework agreements which have been implemented by directive. With their Laeken Declaration the social partners launched a new autonomous phase in their social dialogue and in 2002 reached agreement on the first in a new generation of 'voluntary' texts, which entail a greater role for the social partners with regard to implementation and follow-up. Another significant development since 1998 has been the development of the sectoral social dialogue, triggered by the Commission's 1998 Communication. There are now 27 sectoral social dialogue committees. Some of these sector committees have also adopted texts entailing regular follow-up.

It is well-documented that the industrial relations systems of the candidate countries are characterised by weak bilateral social dialogue structures, low and declining rates of unionisation, difficulties among employers' organisations in recruiting members, and fragmentation of employers' and trade union organisations in some cases. In view of the difficulties faced by both trade unions and employers' organisations in recruiting members, the financial resources of the social partners in these countries are therefore limited. While the participation of the social partners in the candidate countries in the various European social dialogue meetings will be reimbursed by the Commission, the most obvious challenge presented by the weak social partner structures is to the implementation and monitoring of the new voluntary agreements and texts, as the success of these new instruments will depend upon how effectively they are implemented and monitored.

Commission work in relation to social dialogue and industrial relations in the candidate countries

Throughout the accession process the Commission has stressed the distinction between bipartite and tripartite dialogue as well as the importance for the CCs of developing stronger autonomous bipartite dialogue structures. The Commission has urged the CCs to involve the social partners in the transposition and implementation of the social acquis, and has sought to promote capacity-building efforts by including social dialogue among the priorities of the PHARE programmes. The Commission has also sought to promote social dialogue and greater knowledge of industrial relations in the CCs through various joint initiatives with the social partners (2 major conferences), special enlarged meetings of the cross-industry and sectoral social dialogue committees, co-funding social partner initiatives by budget lines B3-4000, B3-4002 and B3-4003, various publications, and it has commissioned a representativity study on sectoral social partner organisations in these countries. Furthermore, the Director-General of DG EMPL is currently undertaking a tour of the ten acceding countries in order to review the progress in preparing for membership, including the progress made in promoting social dialogue. In promoting the social dialogue the European Commission respects the principles upon which the European social dialogue is based, namely the autonomy of the social partners and the right to freedom of association.

The impact of enlargement on the European social dialogue: various scenarios

There are various possible scenarios as to the impact of this enlargement on social dialogue in the European Union. The first is that the European social dialogue has a diffusion effect on the industrial relations systems of the candidate countries and provides an incentive to their social partners to develop stronger structures. A second scenario is that the social partners in the candidate countries do not strengthen their structures, but the European social partners adapt their structures instead to cope with the situation. A third scenario is that the weaknesses in the candidate countries' social partner structures hinder the autonomous social dialogue and use of the voluntary method of implementation, with a possible return to other implementation methods. The Commission believes that negotiations and jointly-agreed initiatives are the most suitable way forward on questions relating to modernisation and the effective and positive management of change. However in view of the role of the social dialogue in improving governance, the questions of representativity, efficiency and legitimacy are of course interrelated.

Ann Branch studied political science at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and as a postgraduate at Oxford University, Nuffield College. She is now working as an administrator in the European Commission, DG EMPL, Unit D1 'Interprofessional Social Dialogue – Industrial Relations – Adaptation to Change'. She has previously worked for the Committee of the Regions, the European Parliament and two British employers' organisations, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Engineering Employers' Federation (EEF).

She has published several articles:

• Ann Branch and Anand Menon (forthcoming),"The Committee of the Regions and Institutional Change", in A. Menon & D. Dimitrakopoulos (eds.), The European Union Institutions and Institutional Change

• Ann Branch (2002), "The Impact of the EU on National Trade Unions", in R. Balme, D. Chabanet & V. Wright (eds.), Collective Action in Europe, Presses de Science Po

• Ann Branch & Justin Greenwood (2001), "European Employers", in H. Compston & J. Greenwood (eds.), European Social Partnership, Palgrave

• Ann Branch & Jakob Ohrgaard (1999), "Trapped in the supranational-intergovernmental dichotomy: a response to Stone Sweet and Sandholtz", in Journal of European Public Policy, vol 6, no 1