Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Agriculture sector

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Representativeness,
  • Socijalni dijalog,
  • Industrijski odnosi,
  • Date of Publication: 04 ožujka 2016



About
Author:
Institution:

This study provides information designed to encourage sectoral social dialogue in the agriculture sector. The aim of the studies on representativeness by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. Top-down and bottom-up analyses of the agriculture sector in the EU28 shows that EFFAT on the employee side and GEOPA-COPA/COGECA on the employer side are the most important EU-wide representatives of social partners in the sector.

Download the full report [1.3 MB PDF]

See also the executive summary 

Introduction

Objectives of study

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational social actors – that is the trade unions and employer organisations – in the field of industrial relations in the agriculture sector, and to show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study, and for similar studies in other sectors, arises from the European Commission’s aim to identify the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (1.4MB PDF). Hence, this study seeks to provide basic information needed to assess the existing sectoral social dialogue in the agriculture sector. The effectiveness of European social dialogue depend on whether its participants are sufficiently representative in terms of the sector’s relevant national actors across the EU Member States. Only European associations that meet this precondition will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

To accomplish these aims, the study first identifies the relevant national social partner organisations in the agriculture sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations and in particular their membership composition. This involves 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’ (Table 1).

Table 1: Determining the ‘sector-relatedness’ of an organisation

Scope

Question in the standardised questionnaire to all correspondents

Possible answers

Notes and explanations

Domain of the organisation within the sector

Does the domain of the trade union/employer organisation potentially cover

  • the entire agriculture sector, including all of its sub-activities as a whole?

Yes/No

This question refers to the economic sub-activities of the NACE code chosen. Some organisations may delimit their domain to only part of the sub-activities

  • all occupations within the agriculture sector among both blue-collar workers and white-collar workers?

Yes/No

Some trade unions may delimit their domain to certain occupations or categories of workers only

  • all forms and size classes of enterprises (for instance: public ownership, private ownership, multinationals, domestic companies, SMEs, etc. – of course only insofar as they exist in the sector)?

Yes/No

Some organisations may delimit their domain, for instance, to public-sector companies/employees or SMEs only

  • employees/companies, within the sector, in all regions of the country?

Yes/No

Some organisations may delimit their domain to certain regions instead of the entire territory of the country

Domain of the organisation outside the sector

  • employees/companies/business activities outside the agriculture sector?

Yes/No

Some organisations may enlarge their domain to other activities not included in the agriculture sector

Source: Standardised questionnaire sent to Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015)

At both national and European levels, many associations exist which are not considered to be social partner organisations as they do not deal with industrial relations. Thus, there is a need for criteria to distinguish clearly the social partner organisations from other associations.

As regards the national-level associations, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation implies fulfilling one of the following two criteria:

  • being a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining;
  • being a member of a ‘sector-related’ European association of business or labour that is on the Commission’s list of European social partner organisations consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU and/or participates in the sector-related European social dialogue.

Taking affiliation to a European social partner organisation as a sufficient criterion for determining a national association as a social partner does not necessarily imply that the association is involved in industrial relations in its own country. Although this selection criterion may seem odd at first glance, a national association that is a member of a European social partner organisation will become involved in industrial relations matters through its membership of the European organisation (through informal communication, consultation procedures and eventually the implementation of agreements concluded by the European social partners at national level).

Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the national affiliates to the European social partner organisations 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 they are the two constituent mechanisms that can systematically connect the national and European levels.

A European association is considered a relevant sector-related interest organisation if it meets the following criteria:

it is on the Commission’s list of interest organisations to be consulted on behalf of the sector under Article 154 TFEU;

  • it participates in the sector-related European social dialogue
  • it has asked to be consulted under Article 154 TFEU
  • In addition, this study considers any other European association with sector-related national social partner organisations – as defined above – under its umbrella.

Thus, the aim of identifying the sector-related national and European social partner organisations applies both a ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approach.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the agriculture sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE), to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. The NACE code reflects the field of activities covered by the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee ‘Agriculture’ as demarcated by the social partners in agreement with the European Commission. More specifically, the agriculture sector is defined as embracing the NACE (Rev. 2) Division 01, consisting of the groups 01.1 to 01.7. This includes the following activities:

NACE Rev. 2

 

01.1

Growing of non-perennial crops

01.2

Growing of perennial crops

01.3

Plant propagation

01.4

Animal production

01.5

Mixed farming

01.6

Support activities to agriculture and post-harvest crop activities

01.7

Hunting, trapping and related service activities

The domains of the trade unions and employer organisations and scope of the relevant collective agreements are likely to vary from this precise NACE definition. The study therefore includes all trade unions, employer organisations and collective agreements which are ‘sector-related’ in terms of any of the following four patterns:

  • congruence – the domain of the organisation or purview of the collective agreement is identical to the NACE demarcation;
  • sectionalism – the domain or purview covers only a certain part of the sector as demarcated by NACE classification, while no group outside the sector is covered;
  • overlap – the domain or purview covers the entire sector plus (parts of) one or more other sectors. However, it is important to note that the study does not include general associations which do not deal with sector-specific matters;
  • sectional overlap – the domain or purview covers part of the sector plus (parts of) one or more other sectors.

Figure 1: Sector-relatedness of social partner organisations: possible domain patterns

 

Table 2: Domain pattern and purview of the organisation’s domain

Domain pattern

Domain of organisation within the sector

Domain of organisation outside the sector

 

Does the union's/employer organisation’s domain embrace potentially all employees in the agriculture sector?

Does the union/employer organisation also represent potentially members outside the agriculture sector?

Congruence (C)

Yes

No

Sectionalism (S)

No

No

Overlap (O)

Yes

Yes

Sectional overlap (SO)

No

Yes

Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee

At European level, the Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee (SSDC) for the agriculture sector was set up in 1999 following a request by the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) on the employees’ side and the Employers’ Group of the Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union/Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union (GEOPA-COPA) on the employers’ side. Affiliation to one of these two European organisations – namely EFFAT and GEOPA-COPA – is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association of one of the EU28 as a relevant social partner organisation for the purpose of this study. GEOPA-COPA includes the General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union (COGECA), the European voice of agricultural cooperatives, which is closely tied to COPA with shared offices and organisational infrastructure; although COGECA is, in formal terms, an organisation distinct from COPA, the Commission and the sector-related European social partners jointly decided to also consider COGECA as a relevant European organisation on the employer side when applying the top-down approach. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important, in particular, in the case of EFFAT due to its sector-overlapping membership domain. Thus, the study will include only those affiliates to EFFAT whose domain relates to the agriculture sector, as defined earlier.

Collection of data

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential for investigating the representativeness of the social partner organisations and is done through a bottom-up approach (by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents) and also a top-down one (a list of members of European social partners at national level). Unless cited otherwise, this study draws on country reports provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents. They complete a standard questionnaire by contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. The contact is generally first made via telephone interviews, but can also be established via email. In the case of unavailability of any representative, the national correspondents are asked to fill out the relevant questionnaires based on secondary sources, such as information given on the social partner’s website, or derived from previous research studies.

It is often difficult to find precise quantitative data. In such cases, Eurofound’s network of European correspondents are requested to provide rough estimates rather than leaving a 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 membership figures provided by the respective organisations, which 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 official statistics, the figures, in respect of the organisations, are usually either administrative data or estimates. Furthermore, it should be noted that several 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 overview report. However, these organisations can still be found in the national contributions, which are available on demand.

Quality control

In order to ensure the quality of the information gathered, several verification procedures and feedback loops have been included in the process of drawing up this study.

  • First, the coordinators, in collaboration with Eurofound staff, check the consistency of the national contributions.
  • Second, Eurofound sends the national contributions to the national members of its Governing Board, as well as to the European-level sector-related social partner organisations. The peak-level organisations then ask their affiliates to verify the information. Feedback received from the sector-related organisations is then taken into account, if it is in line with the methodology of the study.
  • Third, the complete study is finally evaluated by the European-level sectoral social partners and Eurofound’s Advisory Committee on Industrial Relations, which consists of representatives from both sides of industry, governments and the European Commission.

Structure of report

The study consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the sector’s economic background. The report then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all EU28. The third part of the analysis analyses the representative associations at European level.

The sections ‘National level of interest representation’ and ‘European level of interest representation’ explain the concept of representativeness in greater detail. As representativeness is a complex issue, it requires separate consideration at national and European level for two reasons. First, the method applied by national regulations and practices to capture representativeness has to be taken into account. Second, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must therefore be adapted to this difference.

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

Employment and economic trends

Economic background

The European agriculture sector, as defined in terms of the NACE classification system (see above) for the purpose of this study, is quite large, covering business activities such as growing crops, fruits and vegetables, raising animals, landscape gardening, hunting and related agricultural and animal husbandry service activities. While the number of farms – about 12 million – in the EU is largely undisputed, it is difficult to assess precisely the number of people working in agriculture. EU agriculture is still dominated by family farms, where family members provide labour input at different times of the year. Many farm workers pursue agriculture as a part-time activity often in parallel with other sources of income and there are also considerable seasonal fluctuations in labour demand and thus in the number of workers actually hired in agriculture during the year. For all these reasons, as the European Commission said, in July 2013, ‘statistical data sources with different methodologies and purposes reflect all these situations differently, resulting in figures that may differ greatly from one source to another’ (543KB PDF). Accordingly, the bandwidth of persons employed in agriculture ranges from around 10 million (which corresponds to about 5% of total employment in the EU) to around 25 million, according to the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey. This data source appears to be the best when a detailed analysis of farm labour force (including family members, part-time workers and casual workers) is required.

In terms of ownership, in 2010, 97% of all holdings in the EU were held by a single natural person; in most cases, the farm holder was also the farm manager of a unit which could be considered to be a family farm. Fewer than 3% were so-called corporate farms held by a legal, rather than a natural, person.

In terms of utilised agricultural area (UAA), the EU recorded 172 million hectares (ha) of agricultural land in 2010. On average, a European farm had slightly more than 14 ha of agricultural production land and generated about €25,000 in standard output in 2010. However, these average figures disguise the fact that there are many small farms with less than 5 ha of agricultural land (70% in the EU in 2010) and relatively few with more than 100 ha (3% in the EU in 2010). According to a 2013 report on rural development by the European Commission, these larger holdings occupied 50% of the agricultural land in the EU in that year (12MB PDF). Over the last decade, the number of holdings has steadily fallen in the EU. Strikingly, those Member States most affected by the economic crisis show a lower rate of decline compared with those countries not so severely hit. This may be explained by the tendency to hold on agricultural activities as a safety net in times of uncertainty when there is a lack of alternative job opportunities. Given that the utilised agricultural area has remained relatively unchanged in Europe over the past decades, declining farm numbers mean that the average farm size has increased, with the average farm size in the ‘old’ Member States (EU15) more than three times as high as that in the ‘new’ Member States (EU12). In the period 2005–2010, the total agricultural labour force shrank by 5.2% per year in the EU27, with an even sharper decline in the EU12. This is because, as explained in the 2013 EC report mentioned above, in general economies of scale, a higher degree of mechanisation in larger farms and technical progress have resulted in significant numbers of redundancies.

The sector’s most pressing challenges are the global economic crisis, which has again led to a fall in prices for many agricultural commodities, pressure on further trade liberalisation in the framework of the WTO negotiations, as well as climate change. The EU strives to address these current challenges in the frame of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which was launched in 1962 to support Europe’s farmers in supplying healthy and affordable food, protecting the environment and preserving the vitality of the countryside. In June 2013, the EU institutions agreed to reform the CAP to try to improve the competitive position of European agriculture (1MB PDF). They set out to strengthen the farmers’ position within the food chain; provide better protection against price volatility; encourage better use of natural resources to tackle climate change and safeguard biodiversity; double funding for research and innovation in order to modernise agricultural production; and revitalise the countryside by making the profession of farmers more attractive for young people. Overall, the EU agriculture sector is quite distinct from most other sectors in terms of product and labour market. While production in the European agriculture sector is highly regulated within the CAP framework, the labour market is characterised by a high proportion of self-employed people (and their family members), part-time, seasonal and casual workers, (many of these often commuting from neighbouring countries).

Employment characteristics

Most of the labour force comprises self-employed farmers, aided by family members (often performing informal work) who work only part time and have their main occupation outside agriculture. Dependent employees contribute about one-quarter of the sector’s total employment. Another significant feature of the sector is the high incidence of seasonal and casual work, often performed by non-EU workers. Moreover, informal and illegal employment practices are thought to be relatively high in the sector. Employment in the European agriculture sector is also characterised by a clear prevalence of male workers. According to the European Commission’s CAP Context Indicators 2014–2020, 65% of the total labour force in the EU28 in 2010 were men (198KB PDF) (in terms of average working units (AWU, corresponding to full-time equivalent jobs). Among the non-family labour force, the proportion of males in agriculture is even higher. The finding that about two-thirds of the sector’s labour force is male is corroborated by the national statistics drawn from the national reports of Eurofound’s network of European correspondents. Accordingly, in more than half of the countries for which data are available, male employment numbers are at least twice as high as female numbers.

Furthermore, European agriculture is characterised by an ageing farming population. In 2010, the ratio of farmers younger than 35 years to those older than 55 years was 1:7. Another employment-related feature of the agriculture sector is the relatively low qualifications level of the labour force. While it is likely that non-managerial agriculture workers tend to be less skilled than farm managers, the CAP Context Indicators 2014–2020 indicate – for the latter category of farmers – that in 2010 only about 7% of them had completed a full cycle of agricultural training, whereas 71% of farm managers had learned their profession through practical experience only. Although the qualification levels widely vary between the countries, learning by doing is the predominant form of training in all Member States. In terms of age groups, older farm managers tend to have less agricultural training than farmers under 35 years of age.

Long-term trends

Tables A1 and A2 (data provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents) give an overview of the development from approximately 2008 to approximately 2013, presenting figures for companies, employment and employees in the sector and in relation to the national economy, stemming from both national sources and Eurostat. In all of the 21 Member States apart from  three (Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden) for which related data are available from the Eurofound’s network of European correspondents, the number of companies more or less diminished. Although the definition of a company in the context of the agriculture sector may be problematic (many family farms resemble a household unit rather than a company), there is a clear trend of falling numbers of production units/ companies. While the decline in terms of absolute numbers is remarkable in several countries – such as Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Italy and Lithuania, each of which lost at least 20,000 production units/ companies – Hungary stands out, losing more than one-third of companies within the five-year period.

Some 19 of the 22 countries with available data record a decrease in overall employment within the sector in 2008–2013, while in three countries (Estonia, Sweden and – notably – Hungary, which recorded the sharpest fall in the number of companies) employment grew. Losses in employment in terms of absolute numbers were outstanding in Poland, where more than 300,000 jobs became redundant. Some 16 countries record a fall in the number of sectoral employees, during this period, while eight countries saw an increase (for four countries no comparable data are available). Accordingly, there are some countries, such as Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Greece and Luxembourg, where the number of sectoral employees increased while the number of sectoral employment fell. This is in line with the tendency outlined above, according to which the overall decline in the number of farms is accompanied by an overall growth of the average farm size, since larger farms are more likely to employ dependent workers than small family farms.

In all countries with available data on both measures, although perhaps with the exception of the Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovakia, the number of employees with a contractual relationship lags far behind the total number of those employed. In four countries, Belgium, Greece, Romania and Slovenia, the total number of people employed in the sector is more than ten times the number of employees with contracts. These findings corroborate the above considerations about the extraordinarily high incidence of self-employment and other forms of non-standard employment arrangements in the agriculture sector.

Tables A1 and A2 (in Annex 1) also corroborate the finding that, as outlined above, men represent a clear majority of workers in the agriculture sector. In all countries with available data, men clearly outnumber female employment/employees; representing, in almost all countries with available data, at least 60% of the sector’s total workforce. The tables also indicate that the sector is quite large in most Member States. In terms of employment shares, agriculture proved quite dynamic during 2008–2013 in most countries with available data, with six countries showing an upward trend and nine countries showing a downward trend in the ratio of sectoral employment to total employment in a national economy, while in one country (Denmark) this share remained largely unchanged over the five-year period. The fact that this ratio grew in some countries, even though employment in terms of absolute numbers in the sector declined, may be explained by the fact that the overall economy diminished faster than the agriculture sector in these countries. Such a situation applies to Greece, Slovenia and Spain – which were particularly hard hit by the economic crisis and where many farmers kept working simply due to the lack of alternative jobs. The agriculture sector’s share in the number of aggregate employment ranges from 1% in the UK to almost 30% (in 2010) in Romania, while for two countries no related data for 2013 (or the most recent year for which data are available) have been reported. In terms of absolute numbers of sectoral workers, there are four countries recording more than one million people who were gainfully employed in the sector in 2013 – that is Germany, France, Poland and Romania (for the latter only 2008 figures are available). France and Poland each recorded more than 1.7 million workers in the sector.

Recent developments

The impact of the recession from 2008 onwards on the agriculture sector varied between countries, according to the national reports provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents. Overall, at least in terms of employment, the agriculture sector appears to have suffered severely from the recession – and, in several Member States, probably more severely than most other industries.

Figure 2 shows that, overall in the European Union, the agriculture sector was – in terms of employment – hard hit by the recession, with employment for the 15–64 age group steadily declining from more than 9.6 million in the second quarter of 2008 to about 8.5 million in the second quarter of 2015. Figure 2 shows that the steady decline in employment over the whole period of observance is coincidently overlaid by a cyclical development in each year. This indicates that employment variations in the sector within a year are caused by seasonal fluctuations, in that employment peaks are regularly observable in the third quarter of every year. This does not come as a surprise, since farming activities are contingent on the climate and tend to increase as the weather gets warm and at harvest time.

Figure 2: Overall development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during the recession in the EU-28 agriculture sector, total numbers

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS), 2015

Figure 3: Member States’ development of employment (workforce aged 15-64) during the recession in the agriculture sector, percentage change to quarter two of the reference year

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS), 2015, and own calculations on the basis of LFS data. For two countries, namely Luxembourg and Malta, the data may be unreliable according to Eurostat.

In contrast to Figure 2, which gives a view on the overall development of employment in the agriculture sector for all EU28 on aggregate, Figure 3 provides a picture of employment changes disaggregated by country in this sector. This figure shows the annual or biennial percentage changes of sectoral employment to the second quarter of the reference year for the period 2008–2015 for each individual Member State (2008 in the case of 2009 and then each previous odd-numbered year for the years 2011, 2013 and 2015). Figure 3 indicates that in all Member States but Hungary the sector – to at least some degree – declined in terms of employment in at least one of the four consecutive periods 2008–2009, 2009–2011, 2011–2013 and 2013–2015. According to Figure 3, 10 of the 28 countries recorded an increase in sectoral employment in 2008–2009, whereas a clear majority of 17 countries recorded a decrease (in Finland sectoral employment remained constant). This situation did not change significantly in the subsequent two-year periods 2009–2011, 2011–2013 and 2013–2015; in all these periods a clear majority of countries each recorded decreases in sectoral employment, while no more than 12 Member States (at a maximum) recorded growth in any of these periods. Hence, there is no indication that the impact of the recession on the agriculture sector was substantially stronger at the beginning of the crisis compared with the consecutive years. Only one country, Hungary, records increases for all the four consecutive periods of observation during 2008–2015 and again only one country (France) records increases for three periods of observation. Conversely, three countries (Belgium, Poland and Portugal) can be identified with job losses within the sector in all of the four consecutive periods of observation, while job losses in three periods within the seven-year period can be found in Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Slovenia. Large-scale declines of more than 20% from one period of observation to the other can be observed in several countries, such as Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovakia. However, Luxembourg data are assessed by Eurostat to be unreliable (as is data from Malta). Moreover, increases in sectoral employment of more than 60% within only two years, as indicated in the cases of Cyprus and Luxembourg, appear to be doubtful and thus in need of explanation. Overall, Figure 3 does not identify any recession-related pattern with regard to the sector’s employment development since 2008. In many Member States the employment changes from one period of observation to the other, as documented in Figure 3, do not follow a linear trend but are erratic. This suggests that both the impact of the recession on the sector and its timing may have varied greatly between the Member States. Moreover, it indicates that significant short-term changes in the sector’s employment cannot be traced back to only one single cause, that is, the recent recession. Rather, it seems likely that changes in sectoral employment levels within a very short period of time are due to a number of causes including global economic trends and country-specific and sector-specific developments.

National level of interest representation

In many Member States, statutory regulations explicitly refer to the concept of representativeness when assigning 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;
  • extension of the scope of a multi-employer collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation;
  • participation in public policy and tripartite consultation.

Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, in many countries statutory extension provisions allow for extension of collective agreements to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer association represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain.

As outlined previously, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest to this study in terms of the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in European social dialogue. Hence, the role of the national actors in collective bargaining and public policy-making constitutes another important component of representativeness. The relevance of the European sectoral social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European organisations to regulate the employment terms and influence national public policies affecting the sector.

A cross-national comparative analysis shows a generally positive correlation between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy (Traxler, 2004). 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. This can be attributed to the fact that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms; this in turn gives governments an incentive 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 result, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be limited.

In summary, representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements:

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

Membership domain and strength

The membership domain of an organisation, as formally established by its constitution or name, distinguishes its potential members from other groups which the organisation does not claim to represent. As already explained, this study considers only organisations whose domain relates to the agriculture sector. However, there is insufficient room in this report to delineate the domain demarcations of all the organisations. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector-relatedness’, as specified earlier. A more detailed description of how an organisation may relate to the sector can be found in Figure 1 above.

There is a difference between strength in terms of the absolute number of members and strength in relative terms. Research usually refers to relative membership strength as the density – in other words, the ratio of trade union members (in a sector) to all employees (in the sector).

A difference also arises between trade unions and employer organisations in relation to measuring membership strength. Trade union membership simply means the number of unionised people. Measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely 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 sector study such as this, measures of membership strength of trade unions and employer organisations generally also have to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not identical with the sector demarcation, the organisation’s total density (that is, the density referring to its overall domain) may differ from sector-specific density (that is, the organisation’s density referring to the sector).

This report first presents data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and then considers those of the employer organisations. As far as sectoral membership numbers are concerned, sectoral densities can be calculated provided the number of employees within the sector is given.

Trade unions

Table A3 presents data on the trade union domains and membership strength. It lists all trade unions which meet at least one of the two criteria for classification of a sector-related social partner organisation as defined earlier.

All 28 Member States, except Estonia, Greece and Latvia record at least one sector-related trade union. In total, 63 sector-related trade unions could be identified. Information on their membership domain pattern, relative to the agriculture sector, is available for 62 of them. Of these 62 unions, only two (3.2%) have demarcated their domain in a way which is largely congruent relative to the sector as defined according to the NACE classification system, namely FITUA of Bulgaria and CFTC-AGRI of France. This is not surprising, given that even most ‘pure’ agriculture unions organise workers performing forest and/or fishing activities which do not fall within the purview of this study.

Domain demarcations resulting in overlap relative to the sector occur in 38.7% of the cases for which related information is available. Overlap, by and large, arises from three different modes of demarcation:

  • general or at least cross-sectoral (covering several business sectors of the economy) domains (such as ACLVB/CGSLB of Belgium, SIPTU of Ireland, LCGB Services et Commerce of Luxembourg, FNV, CNV Vakmensen and DeUnie of the Netherlands, CNS Cartel Alfa of Romania, USO of Spain and UNITE of the UK);
  • domains covering the broader agriculture/agri-industrial and food sectors, including fishing and forestry activities as well as the food/drink and/or the tourism/hotel/restaurant industries (such as FAF of Bulgaria, PPDIV of Croatia, FGA-CFDT and FNAF-CGT of France, FLAI-CGIL, FAI-CISL and UILA-UIL of Italy, OGBL SAH of Luxembourg, SETAA of Portugal, AGROSTAR of Romania and FEAGRA-CCOO and FITAG-UGT of Spain);
  • domains including, apart from the agricultural sector, activities not directly related to the agriculture sector, such as construction (see Germany’s IG Bau and Lithuania’s LZUDPSF) or the services sector (see FGTA-FO of France).

Sectional overlaps prevail in the sector and occur in 56.5% of the cases for which information is available. This mode usually arises from domain demarcations which focus on certain categories of employees, which are then organised across several or all sectors; moreover this mode can be found with trade unions representing employees in segments of the economy sectionalistically overlapping relative to the agriculture sector. Employee categories are specified by various parameters, such as:

  • distinct occupations (professionals and managers, see YTN of Finland, SNCEA-CFE-CGC of France, Confederdia of Italy and Naturvetarna and Ledarna of Sweden; or municipality workers, see Finland’s JYTY and Sweden’s Kommunal);
  • employment status (white-collar workers, as is the case of GPA-djp of Austria, Serviceforbundet of Denmark and Unionen and SLF of Sweden; or blue-collar workers, as is the case of PRO-GE of Austria, ABVV/FGTB-Horval and ACV/CSC of Belgium and 3F of Denmark);
  • geographic region (Austria’s LAK and LFB both representing workers of only a few of the country’s nine provinces and Spain’s ELA-STV and LAB-Sindikatua both representing Basque workers).

Other trade unions’ domains cover part of the agriculture sector in terms of business activities (rather than in terms of employee categories) in addition to (parts of) at least another sector. Such domains may, for instance, cover:

  • part of the general public sector (GÖD of Austria);
  • part of the private sector (OMEPEGE-SEK and SEGDAMELIN-PEO of Cyprus, PL and MTJL of Finland, GWU of Malta, FESAHT of Portugal and Unionen of Sweden);
  • the entire agricultural (including forestry)/agri-industrial sector with the exception of a few particular agricultural activities, such as hunting, trapping and related service activities (OSPZV-ASO CR of the Czech Republic, METO of Finland, SR NSZZ Solidarnosc and ZZPR of Poland, OZ PP of Slovakia and KZI of Slovenia).

There are also a few trade unions which organise only workers of a particular type of undertakings, such as cooperatives, across several sectors (as is the case of UILTUCS-UIL of Italy), or of a certain size class of holdings/undertakings (as is the case of Hungary’s MEDOSZ and Poland’s SR NSZZ Solidarnosc and ZZPR which all organise only workers of larger farms).

Last, but not least, only one case (1.6% of trade unions for which related information is available) of a trade union with a sectionalist domain can be found; Sinalcap of Italy. This union organises and represents only workers of farmers’ unions (in most cases agricultural cooperatives).

Trade unions, whose membership domain does not cover the entire agriculture sector, have limited their domain primarily in terms of economic activities and occupations rather than (legal) form, or size of enterprise and region. The vast majority of the trade unions with a domain sectionalist or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector have a domain which does not cover either all occupations or all economic activities within the sector. Some 29.5% and 25.8% of all sector-related trade unions, with available information, have a domain which does not cover, respectively, all economic activities and all occupations within the sector. Only Austria and Spain record two trade unions each which have demarcated their membership in terms of geographic region (Spain) or do not organise workers of certain provinces (Austria). Trade union membership domains explicitly demarcated in terms of (legal) form or size of enterprise can be found in eight countries:

  • Austria, where GÖD organises only public-sector agriculture workers;
  • Cyprus, where OMEPEGE-SEK and SEGDAMELIN-PEO organise only private-sector workers;
  • Finland, where the same holds true for PL and MTJL;
  • Hungary, where MEDOSZ claims to represent only agriculture workers of larger farms not managed by the owner/family;
  • Malta, where GWU’s membership domain is confined to private-law enterprises;
  • Poland, where SR NSZZ Solidarnosc and ZZPR organise only publicly owned and large private farms of strategic importance;
  • Portugal, where FESAHT’s domain covers private-sector employees and workers of that part of the public sector with financial and administrative autonomy;
  • Slovakia, where OZ PP’s membership domain excludes workers of agricultural cooperatives.

Although a clear majority of sector-related trade unions have a domain that does not include the entire agriculture sector and thus specialises within the sector (either by business activity, type of enterprise, employee group or region), one cannot infer that most unions would have a narrow membership domain. This is because – concomitantly – for about 95% of trade unions a domain overlap emerges, also covering food-processing, but also forestry, tourism, construction and woodworking activities. Alternatively, overlaps also arise due to cross-sectoral (general) domains of trade unions. Sectionalism, in most instances, means that trade unions largely organise the entire agriculture sector with the exception of only small delimited segments (such as hunting, trapping, support activities to agriculture) or that a particular employee group is not organised. Hence, it appears from the national reports that the unions’ domains tend to be relatively broad (see Figure 4 and also Table A3).

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related trade unions with regard to the agriculture sector (N=62)

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents

Note: Percentages are rounded

Overall, rather general membership domains are widely considered as obstructive to high unionisation (Müller-Jentsch, 1988, pp. 177–178). According to contextual rather than explicit information provided in the national reports, and due to the high incidence of migrant, seasonal, casual and informal work, self-employment as well as the high proportion of small and family enterprises in the sector (factors all deemed unfavourable to member recruitment), it is likely that unionisation rates tend to be relatively low in agriculture. Gender effects on union density are generally highly disputed among industrial relations experts (Schnabel, 2013). At least, in the case of the agriculture sector, the predominance of male workers obviously does not ensure high densities.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all cases but one; the Chambers for Agricultural Employees (LAK) in Austria. Strictly speaking, these LAK are not trade unions but statutory representational bodies at provincial (Land) level. Membership is obligatory for all employees in agriculture. Such chambers exist in all provinces, with the exception of Vienna and Burgenland, and are engaged in single-employer and multi-employer collective bargaining.

The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from more than 1.2 million (in the case of UK’s Unite) to only slightly more than 300 (in the case of Finland’s MTJL). 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. Hence, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to a comparative analysis. This holds true despite the fact that the density figures gathered and calculated for the purpose of this study may in some cases be unreliable. Therefore, this report considers densities referring to the sector (sectoral density), given that both a trade union’s membership within the sector and the number of employees in the sector are provided. Sectoral density figures refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees only, rather than taking all union members (those in job and those who are not) into account. This is mainly because research usually considers net union densities as more informative than gross densities, since the former measure tends to reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce quicker and more appropriately (only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action, and active members tend to pay higher membership fees than retired members, the unemployed and students).

Two-thirds of the 27 voluntary trade unions with available data record a sectoral density (calculated as the ratio of the number of members within the sector to the total number of employees within the sector) of lower than 10%. Almost 30% of these trade unions record a sectoral density between 10% and 49%, whereas there is only one trade union with a sectoral density higher than 50% (OGBL SAH of Luxembourg). There are two possible explanations for the very low overall sectoral densities of the sector-related trade unions:

  • low densities with regard to the unions’ sectoral domain;
  • their generally small size (in terms of sectoral membership domain) in relation to the sector.

(It must be noted that the sectoral domain density – in contrast to the sectoral density – is the density referring only to that part of the sector as covered by the union’s membership domain.) While no information is available for the former measure, the latter appears to apply to at least part of the sector-related trade unions. This is indicated by two interrelated facts: First, almost 60% of the unions have a membership domain which is sectionalist or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector, and thus covers only part of the sector (even though, in most cases, this is the preponderant part of the sector). Second, no fewer than 63 sector-related trade unions could be identified, with 15 Member States recording a pluralist associational system on the side of organised labour in the sector. Sectoral densities of individual associations tend to fall with the emergence and growing numbers of sectoral competitors and, thus, become less significant as a measure for individual organisational strength relative to the sector. Overall, since sectoral density data can be calculated for clearly less than half of the 63 sector-related trade unions, conclusions from the available figures on sectoral density have to be drawn with the utmost caution.

In conclusion, the study reveals that, in the agriculture sector, a number of occupational trade unions coexist with quite a number of trade unions with multi-sector, and thus relatively broad, domain demarcations. This means that only part of the unions may pursue a particularistic representation of collective interests on behalf of small professional groups – a strategy which is generally deemed favourable for member recruitment. In line with that, neither the quantitative data gathered in this study nor the anecdotal evidence drawn from the national reports indicate high unionisation rates in the agriculture sector. This may be partly because of the shortcomings in relation to data availability and the existing data set. Relatively low densities within the sector can be explained by a range of factors, such as the small size of many holdings, the spread of atypical employment (including part-time, seasonal, migrant and casual work as well as informal and illegal employment) and the high incidence of self-employment.

Employer organisations

Tables A5 and A6 present membership data for the employer/business organisations in the agriculture sector. Overall, 100 sector-related employer/business organisations have been identified, much more than the 63sector-related trade unions. There is at least one sector-related employer organisation documented in all EU28. In six countries, (France, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania and Slovakia), only one sector-related employer organisation, matching at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (see above) has been identified. There are pluralist associational systems in the remaining 22 countries, meaning that at least two sector-related employer/business organisations can be found.

Some 21 Member States record one or more employer/business organisations which are not a party to collective bargaining (see Table 8). These associations not involved in sector-related collective bargaining are classified as social partner organisations in this report only because of their affiliation to the sector-related European-level employer organisation GEOPA-COPA. Conversely, in 18 of the EU28 at least one of them is engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. 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 defined as ‘trade associations’ (Eurofound, 2004). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the agriculture sector. In terms of their national scope of activities all of the associations, which are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 8, either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. (Put very simply, trade associations’ main reference is the ‘product’ market – where business has interests in relation to customers and suppliers – rather than the labour market.) It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to GEOPA-COPA, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them, as a work hypothesis, the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study.

Of the 100 employer/business organisations listed in Tables A5 and A6, 43 organisations belong to this group of trade associations. As outlined above, in six out of the 28 Member States only one single organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established. Thus, compared with the situation on the labour side, where pluralist associational systems exist in 15 of the 25 Member States recording at least one sector-related trade union, on the employer side the incidence of pluralist associational systems is significantly higher (with 22 of the 28 Member States recording at least one employer organisation). This is in line with the fact that the number of sector-related employer/business organisations across the Member States outweighs the number of sector-related trade unions by far. Overall, as is the case on the trade union side, the employer/business organisations are relatively unevenly distributed among the Member States. In six countries only one sector-related employer/business organisation is recorded, whereas in five countries (such as Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain) six or more of such organisations have been established.

The employer/business organisations’ membership domains tend to be clearly narrower than those of the sector-related trade unions. In contrast to organised labour, where membership domains which are sectionalist, relative to the sector, are almost non-existent, this mode is the second most common among the employer organisations, with a share of 30.9% of the cases for which related information is available. Some29.8% and 31.9% of the associations rest on overlapping and sectionally overlapping domains respectively, relative to the sector. Interestingly, no organisation in the sector records a domain which is cross-sectoral (general). Alternatively, most cases of domain overlaps (in the case of organisations with domains either overlapping or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector) are caused by domains covering:

  • the broader defined ‘green’ sector, including – alongside agriculture – forestry and/or fishing activities (as is the case of LKÖ and OALF of Austria; EKA, NFU, Panagrotikos and PEK of Cyprus; ZS CR of the Czech Republic; GLS-A of Denmark; ETKL of Estonia; MTK and SLC of Finland; GLFA and DBV of Germany; Confagricoltura, Coldiretti and CIA of Italy; ZUR of Lithuania; KGZS of Slovenia; and SLA and LRF of Sweden) or the rural tourism sector (as is the case of ZS CR of the Czech Republic; LOSP of Latvia; and ASAJA of Spain);
  • the broader defined ‘agri-food’ sector, including – alongside agriculture – the food-processing industry and related services, such as the storage and trade of foodstuff (as is the case of CEA-Food and Agriculture of Croatia; AK CR of the Czech Republic; DAFC of Denmark; EPK and EPKK of Estonia; AGAVLG and DRV of Germany; Agrarkamara of Hungary; ICOS of Ireland; LZUBA of Lithuania; CPL of Luxembourg; FBZPR of Poland; PRO AGRO of Romania; SPPK of Slovakia; and GZS-ZKZP and ZZS of Slovenia);
  • only part of the agriculture sector in terms of business activities (which is nevertheless the core of the representational domain), with an additional focus on banking and financial services (see ÖRV of Austria; DRV of Germany; and PLANTUM of the Netherlands) or on construction (see MTA of Finland; and CUMELA of the Netherlands).

There are also several employer/business organisations whose domain is focused on a certain subgroup of producers within agriculture, such as cooperatives. Sectional overlaps ensue from the fact that most of these cooperatives also represent activities other than agriculture, such as banking (see ÖRV of Austria; and DRV of Germany), food-processing (see AGAVLG of Germany; ICOS of Ireland; and ZZS of Slovenia) or trade and other services (see Pellervo of Finland; PASEGES of Greece; AGCI Agrital, Fedagri and ANCA Legacoop of Italy; LLKA of Latvia; and KM of Malta).

Sectionalism is caused by domain demarcations that focus on a particular subsegment of the agriculture industry, without covering areas of business activity outside the sector. Such subsectors or subsegments may be defined by:

  • specialisation in terms of business activities within the agriculture sector, such as horticulture activities (see AgA of Germany), stock farming activities (see AIA of Italy; and FPAS of Portugal) or fruit production activities (see NFO of the Netherlands); in most cases, however, the organisations’ domains cover the entire agriculture sector with the exception of only small segments, such as hunting and trapping (see LTO of the Netherlands; NSZZRI Solidarnosc, KRIR, ZZT Samoobrona and ZZR Ojczyzna of Poland; and COAG of Spain) or other segments of the sector (see CBAO of Bulgaria; ASZ CR of the Czech Republic; and LTO Glaskracht of the Netherlands;
  • firm size, as is the case of MOSZ of Hungary which organises only larger holdings and UPA and JARC of Spain which both specialise in SMEs;
  • type of enterprise, such as cooperatives (see NUACB of Bulgaria; MAGOSZ of Hungary; Assocap of Italy; LZUKA of Lithuania; CONFAGRI of Portugal; and CAA of Spain);
  • geographic region (as is the case of FWA and BB of Belgium, representing farmers of Wallonia/Brussels and Flanders, respectively; UP, JARC and IACSI of Spain, all organising their respective members in Catalonia only; and NFU and UFU of the UK, representing farmers of England/Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively).

Finally, 7.4% of the associations show a membership domain that is more or less congruent with the sector definition. This means that the domain of these organisations largely focuses on the agriculture sector as defined for the purpose of this study.

In several countries, the sectoral employers have managed to establish specific employer/business organisations as a particular voice of narrow and clearly distinct business activities within the agriculture sector. Accordingly, almost 40% of the employer/business organisations with available information (and most of these organisations with a domain sectional or sectionally overlapping relative to the sector) have delimited their domain in terms of business activities, such that they do not cover all activities within the agriculture sector. Moreover, almost 38% of the organisations for which information has been provided do not represent all (legal) forms of companies in the sector (in most cases focusing either on cooperatives or particular size classes of enterprises), while domain demarcations in terms of territorial coverage tend to occur less frequently. In countries with a highly fragmented and differentiated associational ‘landscape’ on the employer side, such as Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain, the associations’ domains tend to be tailor-made for a particular sub-group of employers and businesses within the sector. In contrast to the side of organised labour, this may enable these associations to perform a particularistic interest representation on behalf of their members, although their membership strength may widely vary from one organisation to the other. Such a fragmented associational configuration tends to favour the (bargaining) power of organised business in small segments of the economy.

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations with regard to the agriculture sector (N=94)

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents

Note: Percentages are rounded

In Austria, two types of employer organisations in agriculture can be found: the Chambers of Agriculture, which are based on obligatory membership, and voluntary associations. Their respective national peak associations are the Chamber of Agriculture of Austria (LKÖ) and the Standing Committee of the Presidents of the Employers’ Associations of Agriculture (OALF). The latter consists of both voluntary employer organisations and two provincial Chambers of Agriculture (which rely on obligatory membership) and thus has a mixed membership structure. The National Council of Agricultural Chambers (KRIR) of Poland and the Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry (KGZS) of Slovenia can also rely on obligatory membership; this is due to their public law status as chamber units. All other sector-related employer/business organisations are – as far as related information has been provided – voluntary associations.

As the figures on membership totals (Table A5) and density (Table A6) indicate, membership strength in terms of both companies and employees widely varies with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector. Again, as outlined earlier in the context of the trade unions, density figures rather than absolute membership numbers are informative in terms of membership strength. In the case of the sector-related employer/business organisations, sectoral densities, in terms of companies and employees (employed by these companies), can be calculated. However, due to a lack of absolute numbers of sectoral members in terms of both companies and employees in the case of many associations (and due to a lack of sectoral company and employment data in some countries), sectoral densities can be calculated only for a relatively small part of them. According to the figures available, about 70% and about 24%, respectively, of the employer/business organisations record a sectoral density in terms of companies and employees of 10% or below. While the median of the organisations’ sectoral densities in terms of companies lies at 3.7%, the corresponding median in terms of employees stands at 27.3%. This does not necessarily allow inferences on overall relatively low densities of the sector-related employer/business organisations in the sector, since sectoral densities of individual associations tend to decline with increasing levels of associational fragmentation. (In European agriculture, with 100 sector-related employer/business organisations across the EU 28, the level of associational fragmentation is relatively high.) Higher sectoral densities in terms of employees compared to those in terms of companies indicate a higher propensity of the larger companies to associate, as compared to their smaller counterparts.

Collective bargaining and its actors

The data presented in Table A7 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 28 countries. The importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation is measured by calculating 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 (Traxler et al, 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, the company or its divisions is the party to the agreement. This includes cases 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, therefore provides an indication of the impact of the employer organisations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes have been applied to the sector. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes which widen the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; extension regulations targeting the employees are therefore not included in the research. Regulations concerning the employees are not significant to this analysis for two reasons. On the one hand, extending a collective agreement to employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is standard in most European countries. 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.

In comparison with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are far more significant for the strength of collective bargaining in general and multi-employer bargaining in particular. This is because the employers are capable of refraining from both joining an employer organisation and 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; enabling 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, in any case, bind them (ibid.).

Collective bargaining coverage

In terms of the sector’s collective bargaining coverage (Table A7), 12 of the 22 countries with available data record a rate of 80% and more. These countries are Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain. Seven of the counties even register a coverage rate of 90% or more. Such high coverage rates are notable, given the relatively low unionisation rates in the sector.

Conversely, there are five countries where the rate of collective bargaining coverage is 15% at most. These countries are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. A third group of countries records medium-range rates between almost 30% and 60%; these countries are Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Sweden. For six countries, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Romania and the UK, no data have been provided.

In Greece, the social partners in the agriculture sector – even though they are formally entitled to do so since 1990 – have never concluded a branch collective agreement, such that the provisions of the National General Collective Agreement setting the minimum terms and conditions of employment apply. With the introduction of the Economic Stability Mechanism and the First and Second Memoranda of Understanding 2011 and 2012 agreed with the so-called ‘Troika’ (IMF, ECB, EC) (see Eurofound, 2012a) a package of measures curtailing labour law and overturning all valid collective agreements was implemented. The measures issued within the framework of Memorandum 2 in 2012 provided for severe cuts to the minimum wages agreed under the National General Collective Agreement. Hence, although the agriculture sector’s collective bargaining coverage rate of 100% has not been changed, the sector’s workforce has since had to face dramatic losses of income.

In Ireland, there were a number of individual employer collective agreements in the mushroom subsector which had been registered with the Labour Court as binding Registered Employment Agreements (REAs) up until 2013. However, the Supreme Court struck down REAs in May 2013, ruling that the REA system was unconstitutional. This move is thought to have led to a notable drop in the collective bargaining coverage rates in the agriculture sector overall.

In Portugal, it appears likely that the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage dropped since 2011, as a result of the reform of the collective bargaining regulation enacted under the regime of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ‘Troika’ and the Portuguese government (see Eurofound 2011 and Eurofound 2012b). Accordingly, in 2011 the government suspended the practice of issuing extension decrees in general. In autumn 2012, the government passed a resolution that stipulates new rules for the extension of collective agreements; only those agreements signed by employer organisations representing 50% or more of the workers of a particular sector may be extended. Nevertheless, in the agriculture sector, a number of agreements have been extended recently. Yet, collective bargaining coverage in the sector is relatively low, standing at about 28%.

Similarly, in Romania, the Social Dialogue Act of 2011 abolished the national unique collective agreement, which served as a reference point for collective bargaining at all levels, as well as the practice of extending multi-employer agreements at sectoral level (see Eurofound 2011a). Moreover, for individual trade unions very restrictive thresholds for recognition as representative parties to collective bargaining were introduced. As a consequence, nonsignificant multi-employer collective agreement is currently in force in the agriculture sector and the collective bargaining coverage rate in the sector has fallen dramatically since 2011. The current actual rate is not available but is likely to be low.

In most of the countries with available information, several factors, which sometimes interact with each other, account for higher coverage rates:

  • the predominance of multi-employer bargaining (Table A7);
  • the presence of (relatively) strong sector-related trade unions and employer/business organisations;
  • the existence of pervasive extension practices (Table A7).

There are 10 Member States with no sector-related multi-employer bargaining; these are Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and the UK. All of them, with the exception of Croatia and Luxembourg, have low, or no, information on collective bargaining coverage within the agriculture sector. In countries where collective bargaining does take place it is based exclusively on company-level arrangements. These countries are mainly new Member States. Here, due to the lack of strong, encompassing, social partners (at least on one of the two sides of industry within the sector) in most of these countries, sectoral industrial relations tend to be relatively poorly developed. On the other hand, there are 15 countries with exclusive or prevailing multi-employer arrangements in the sector. Most, but not all of them, record high or even full collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector. In countries such as Denmark, Finland, Portugal and Sweden, however, predominant multi-employer arrangements in the sector do not prevent significant parts of the sector from remaining uncovered. This may ensue from the main industrial relations actors’ lack of comprehensiveness in terms of membership domain, relative to the sector, in these countries.

Taking the collective bargaining coverage rate and the share of multi-employer bargaining as indicators for the effectiveness and strength of sectoral industrial relations structures, one can infer from these findings that, in slightly more than half of the EU28, the sector’s industrial relations structures are quite well-established. In some countries (such as the Czech Republic, Italy and Slovenia), there is a multi-level bargaining system, which combines comprehensive multi-employer bargaining with single-employer agreements. In such cases, the single-employer settlements either complement the multi-employer agreements in matters not regulated by the latter, or contain more favourable employment terms than the multi-employer agreements.

The prevalence of multi-employer settlements in the sector is, in some countries, backed by a significant use of extension practices. According to Table A7, pervasive extension practices in the agriculture sector are reported in several countries, (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden). As the aim of extension provisions is to make multi-employer agreements generally binding, the provisions for obligatory membership in the chamber system of Austria should also be noted. Obligatory membership creates an extension effect, since the regional subunits of the Chamber of Agriculture of Austria (LKÖ) as well as their chamber counterparts for agricultural workers are parties to multi-employer bargaining. Another functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. According to the country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. The country’s labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, to the extent that they are regarded as generally binding.

Participation in public policy

Interest associations may influence public policy in two ways:

  • they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members;
  • they may be represented on ‘corporatist’, in other words tripartite, committees and policy consultation boards.

This study considers only cases of consultation and corporatist participation that explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes can be wide-ranging and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues and also depend on changes in government. Moreover, consultation may be occasional rather than regular. Given this variability, in Tables A4 and A6 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

In all of the 25 Member States recording at least one sector-related trade union, except Malta, at least part of the sector-related trade unions is either regularly or occasionally consulted. Authorities consult 88% of the sector-related trade unions, for which information is available, through participation in existing tripartite structures and/or in the form of unilateral consultation by the authorities. While, for around 57% of those trade unions (for which related information has been provided) consultation is carried out regularly (generally at least once a year), about 43% are consulted occasionally. Since a multi-union system has been established in 15 of the 25 Member States with sector-related trade unions, one cannot rule out the possibility that the authorities may favour certain trade unions or that the unions compete for participation rights. In at least seven of the 15 countries with a multi-union system (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Poland and Romania) any of the existing trade unions may take part in the consultation process. However, in at least three countries, such as France, Luxembourg and Sweden, only part of the sector-related trade unions is usually consulted, while at least another union is not. (For a few countries, such as Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain no conclusions on possible un/equal consultation practices can be drawn due to a lack of information.)

Employer organisations

Authorities consult almost 98% of sector-related employer/business organisations for which related information is available. About 68% of the employer/business organisations, for which information is available, are consulted regularly, with about 32% consulted occasionally. As outlined earlier in this report, there are 22 countries with a multi-organisation system on the employer side. In the multi-organisation systems of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and the UK, where related data of all employer/business organisations are available, all of the sector’s organisations are consulted. Conversely, in the pluralist systems of the Czech Republic and Finland, at least one of the employer organisations is usually consulted, while one other is not. Strikingly, in all of the EU28 (each recording at least one sector-related employer organisation) at least one of them is involved in consultation procedures. However, for some countries, such as Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain, with a pluralist system of employer representation, no information about consultation practices is available for at least some of the organisations, such that it remains unclear for these countries whether consultation rights are being attributed to the national organisations in a selective manner.

As far as information is provided, in all countries which record sector-related associations of interest representation on both sides of industry (except Malta) consultation rights are equally attributed to organised labour and business, in that at least one organisation on each side is consulted. For Portugal, however, no evidence can be provided on this point, due to a lack of information about one trade union.

Tripartite participation

The findings reveal that genuine sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in five countries; Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the UK. Table A8 lists a total of nine bodies – one in each country but Denmark (with two) and the UK (with four). The legal basis of these tripartite bodies is either a statute or an agreement between the parties involved. Their tasks largely comprise advice to, and consultation of, administrative bodies dealing with matters related to agriculture and food. In terms of their scope of activities, some bodies specifically focus on health and safety issues (as is the case of one in Denmark and two in the UK); other bodies specialise in the administration of supplements to the retirement pensions of farm workers (as is the case of one in Germany), skills and training issues in agriculture (as is the case of one in Denmark), while for other bodies no specification has been provided. In the UK, so-called statutory wages boards were established, comprising representatives of employers and trade unions, along with independent members appointed by the government. Until 2013, these boards covered the whole of the UK, have setting minimum pay rates and other conditions of employment for agricultural workers. However, now, the boards exist only in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Other bodies listed in some country reports are not taken into account in this study, since they are either bipartite, rather than tripartite, in terms of composition, or sector-unspecific – in other words, cross-sectoral – tripartite bodies for concertation of economic and social policy. These bodies may also address the sector, depending on the particular circumstances and issues that may arise.

European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria defined by the European Commission communication on adapting and promoting social dialogue at Community level. Accordingly, social partner organisations must have the following attributes. They must

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 have the capacity to negotiate agreements, and which are representative of several Member States;
  • have adequate structures to ensure their effective participation in the work of the Sectoral Dialogue Committees.
  • Regarding social dialogue, the constituent feature is the ability of such organisations to negotiate on behalf of their members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section on European associations of the agriculture sector will analyse these organisations’ membership domain, the composition of their membership and their ability to negotiate.

As outlined in greater detail below, one sector-related European association on the employee side (EFFAT) and one on the employer side (GEOPA-COPA, including COGECA) are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation to be consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these two organisations, while providing supplementary information on others that are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

The European Trade Union EFFAT is affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and organises European national trade unions representing workers in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, environment, fishery, horticulture, landscape architecture, business horticulture, wine-growing, the food industry, the beverages and tobacco industry, tourism, hotel, restaurant and catering. Its membership domain is thus multi-sectoral and overlaps relative to the sector under consideration.

COPA represents the interests of EU agricultural producers. Its membership domain includes mainly professional agricultural organisations and thus is largely congruent relative to the agriculture sector. COPA exclusively organises employer/business organisations rather than individual enterprises. The same holds true of GEOPA-COPA, which is COPA’s employer group under the umbrella of COPA. GEOPA-COPA specialises in dealing with employer interests and social dialogue, as opposed to the interests of farmers in other policy areas. Both GEOPA-COPA and COPA also organise national associations of cooperatives, even though most of them are affiliated to COGECA, an organisation closely tied to COPA. COGECA’s membership domain comprises mainly agricultural cooperatives, but also cooperatives beyond the agriculture sector, and thus sectionally overlaps relative to the agriculture sector.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by EFFAT and GEOPA-COPA/COGECA extend beyond the 28 Member States. In the case of GEOPA-COPA/COGECA, however, associations only from the Member States are granted full membership. With regard to EFFAT whose membership domain overlaps relative to the sector under examination, only those members with a domain related to the agriculture sector are included in this overview report.

EFFAT

Table A9 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions for EFFAT drawn from the national reports.It should be noted that the list of EFFAT’s sector-related affiliates as compiled on the basis of the national reports does not include all of the sectoral members listed by EFFAT itself. This is because this study includes only those affiliates whose membership domain is related to the agriculture sector as defined for the purpose of this study. Accordingly, at least one direct affiliation is recorded in 25 countries. Only Estonia, Greece and Latvia do not record any affiliation to EFFAT. Multiple memberships occur in 12 countries. On aggregate, EFFAT counts 45 direct sector-related affiliations from the countries under examination. EFFAT thus covers about 71% of the trade unions listed in Tables A35 and A4 through direct affiliation. All of EFFAT’s members are involved in collective bargaining related to the agriculture sector. They thus cover collective bargaining in 25 of the EU28. Insofar as available data on sectoral membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength, it may be concluded that EFFAT covers the sector’s most important labour representatives. Exceptional cases of uncovered major trade unions in the sector may involve only a few unions, such as Austria’s LAK and Portugal’s FESAHT.

GEOPA-COPA/COGECA

Table A10 lists the members of COPA-COGECA (including those of GEOPA-COPA). Although GEOPA-COPA, as COPA’s employer group, is the employer representative in the European sectoral social dialogue, the Commission and the sectoral European social partners decided to include all COPA/COGECA members of the EU28 in this study. In formal terms, COPA and COGECA are two distinct organisations, even though they merged their respective secretariats in 1962 and coordinate their policies. Moreover, in formal terms GEOPA-COPA is the employer group of only COPA and not of COGECA. The fact that COPA/COGECA rather than GEOPA-COPA has been chosen as reference for the top-down approach on the employer side applied in this study somewhat impairs the comparability of the study’s findings with those of the 2008 predecessor representativeness study on the agriculture sector. Strikingly, COPA/COGECA has all EU28 under its umbrella through direct associational members from these countries. Multiple memberships of COPA/COGECA occur in 20 countries. On aggregate, according to the reports from Eurofound’s network of European correspondents, COPA/COGECA counts 72 direct associational members (and three indirect members affiliated via a higher-order unit) from the EU 28. This number is lower than the number of associational affiliates included in the membership list provided by COPA/COGECA. It appears that this list also contains members not related to the sector as demarcated for the purpose of this study as well as non-active members.Table A6 indicates that associations affiliated to COPA/COGECA and unaffiliated associations coexist in a series of countries. Sectoral membership data of the respective organisations of these countries do not provide a clear indication of whether the most important associations are affiliated. In almost all countries with a pluralist associational ‘landscape’ in the sector some important employer organisations that conduct bargaining are not affiliated to COPA/COGECA, such as OALF of Austria, NUACB of Bulgaria, GLS-A of Denmark, Unima of Italy, AEDF and APDF of Portugal, GZS-ZKZP of Slovenia and Union de Uniones of Spain. In most countries at least one COPA/COGECA affiliate can be found that is not engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Only in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France and Italy all affiliates are genuine social partner organisations in that they engage in bargaining. Those that do not may regard themselves as a trade association rather than an industrial relations actor. Only 29 of the 72 direct COPA/COGECA members are involved in sector-related collective bargaining. The 72 direct COPA/COGECA members cover collective bargaining in 16 of the EU28 that record affiliations to this organisation. Nevertheless, as can be seen from Table A6, as many as 25 sector-related employer organisations across the EU involved in sector-related collective bargaining are not affiliated to COPA/COGECA. Hence, a significant part of relevant national actors within the sector is not under the umbrella of this European organisation. Nevertheless, direct and indirect affiliations to COPA/COGECA together represent three-quarters of the total of sector-related employer/business organisations, which underscores the outstanding position of this organisation in the agriculture sector.

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at European level refers to the organisations’ capacity to negotiate on behalf of their members.

On the side of organised labour, Article 2 of the EFFAT Constitution of 2009 (74.8KB PDF) includes the statutory mandate to negotiate. The article highlights that EFFAT is committed to

representation and assertion of members’ interests in the sectors covered by EFFAT in addressing and negotiating with the European institutions, employers’ federations, management of companies and other organisations; negotiations in sector- and TNC-specific questions at European level; coordination of collective bargaining activities and policies concerning minimum agreements and framework agreements at European level (…).

Article 7 of the EFFAT Constitution stipulates that the sector-specific Assembly on Agriculture is responsible for the actual representation, negotiation and decision-making in sector related EU social dialogue. All the concerned member organisations are represented in the Assembly on Agriculture, which have to meet at least once a year. This means that EFFAT is mandated by its member organisations in agriculture through the decisions of the annual sectoral assembly.

On the employer side, Article 2f of the Statutes of COPA of 2012 specifies that COPA’s objective is:

to facilitate and coordinate links between its members and between its members’ offices in Brussels and assist them, where appropriate, in pooling resources’. Article 5 of the Internal Rules of Procedure of GEOPA-COPA adopted in 2013 provides the capacity to negotiate in accordance with Article 2 f of the COPA Statute. This non-statutory mandate underlines that the Working Party of GEOPA-COPA has the power to negotiate in areas that are covered by Article 153 TFEU (ex article 137 TEC). This mandate is exercised in the framework of the European sectoral social dialogue. COGECA as such does not participate in the European social dialogue.

As a final proof of the weight of EFFAT and COPA/COGECA, it is useful to look at the other European organisations to which the sector-related trade unions and employer associations are affiliated.

The affiliations of the trade unions are listed in Table A4. European organisations other than EFFAT represent 15 of the 63 sector-related trade unions and thus a relatively small proportion of both unions and countries. For reasons of brevity, only those European organisations are mentioned here which cover at least three countries or at least five trade unions. These are the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), with six affiliations covering six countries; UNI Europa, with six affiliations from five countries; the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), with six affiliations covering four countries and IndustriAll Europe, with five affiliations covering four countries. Although the affiliations listed in Table 6 are unlikely to be exhaustive, this overview still underlines the principal status of EFFAT as the sector’s labour representative at European level. This is not only due to the relatively low numbers of affiliations per organisation, other than EFFAT, but also because the presence of these organisations usually results from the multi-sector domains of the respective trade unions.

A similar review of the membership of the national employer/business associations can be derived from Table A6. Most of them have no, or few, affiliations to European associations other than COPA/COGECA. Overall, there is no alternative European association with more than two affiliations. Hence, the position of COPA/COGECA within the agriculture sector in terms of both the number of affiliations as well as territorial coverage appears to be unchallenged.

Conclusions

As already highlighted in the previous representativeness study on the European social partners in the agriculture sector (2008), this sector records a number of distinct characteristics compared with other sectors. In terms of product market, the agriculture sector is highly regulated within the framework of the CAP, which has been – not least due to the associated considerable costs – highly disputed since its launch in 1962 and recurrently reformed, with the most recent move in 2013. With regard to the labour market, the sector’s salient feature is the extraordinarily high proportion of self-employed people, as well as part-time, seasonal, casual and migrant workers and there is some indication of a relatively high incidence of illegal work practices. Farming is also characterised by informal work carried out by farmers’ spouses and other family members. In line with these labour market characteristics, it is often difficult to classify farms in the general categories of companies and businesses. As a production unit, a farm often resembles a household unit, especially since many farmers work only part time in their small-scale agricultural business while they have their main occupation (often as dependent employees) outside agriculture.

All these economic characteristics impact on industrial relations in the agriculture sector. The spread of atypical employment has resulted in relatively low unionisation rates. As farming is often practised as ‘own account’ employment it often does not fit into the dual categories of trade unions on the one hand and business interest organisations on the other when it comes to collective interest representation. For that reason, in many countries, cooperatives – as self-help farmers’ organisations – have flourished.

In spite of these conditions, generally deemed unfavourable for developing good industrial relations, collective bargaining coverage in the sector is relatively high in most countries. However, there is also a smaller group of countries with low coverage rates, which means that, in this respect, the situation in the European agriculture industry is quite polarised. While 12 of the 22 countries with available data record high rates of collective bargaining coverage – reaching 80% to 100% – five countries record rates of 15% or less. High collective bargaining coverage can be found mainly among the ‘old’ Member States, whereas low rates prevail among the Baltic countries, Poland and Slovakia. Comparing the figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the EU28, as compiled by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents in the working life profiles for each Member State, with the agriculture sector’s bargaining coverage of each Member State indicates that the agriculture sector’s bargaining coverage is more or less higher in nine out of the 18 countries for which comparable data are available. This means that, overall, industrial relations in European agriculture appear to be as highly developed as in most other sectors of the economy. Comparatively high levels of collective bargaining coverage in the sector occur in those countries where multi-employer bargaining prevails and where extension practices are applied. Single-employer bargaining, in turn, – with the exception of Croatia and Luxembourg – only leads to low coverage rates, due to the lack of large companies and the low degree of economic concentration and unionisation in the sector. It is important to note that the data, provided in the working life profiles by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents have not undergone a thorough validation procedure. However, since more reliable information on national cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage rates tends to be outdated, this report refers to information provided by Eurofound’s network of European correspondents

With regard to the national industrial relations actors, this study largely corroborates the findings of the 2008 representativeness study as far as membership domain and relative strength are concerned. The employer organisations’ membership domains tend to be far narrower than those of the trade unions, often specialising in terms of business activities, type of company (for instance cooperatives) or firm size. Since the questionnaire, on which the findings of this study are based, provides far more information regarding the national associations’ membership domains compared with the 2008 study, indicating that famers’ organisations tend to organise the broader agriculture sector as a whole (and sectionalist domains mainly result from the separate organisation of cooperatives) has to be somewhat qualified. Moreover, the predominance of trade unions with multi-sector domains is less striking than suggested in the 2008 study. Nevertheless, the core findings of the 2008 study according to which the sector-related trade unions often record relatively encompassing membership domains that combine agriculture with other sectors (such as food-processing), while the employer organisations tend to specialise in terms of activities and type of business, can be confirmed. The same holds true of the relative organisational weakness of the trade unions in relation to the highly particularistic employer/business organisations in the sector.

At European-level, EFFAT and GEOPA-COPA/COGECA not only tend to organise the most important national actors in the sector but also cover 25 and 20, respectively, of the Member States. Thus, both can be regarded as the main and unchallenged EU-wide representatives of the sector’s workforce and businesses, as no other European organisations exist which can compare with them in terms of organising relevant sector-related trade unions and employer/business organisations across the European Member States. In this respect, the situation has remained completely unchanged since 2008.

Georg Adam, FORBA 

Bibliography

All Eurofound publications are available at www.eurofound.europa.eu

Müller-Jentsch, W. (1988), ‘Industrial relations theory and trade union strategy’, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 177–190.

Schnabel, C. (2013), ‘Union membership and density: some (not so) stylized facts and challenges’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 255–272.

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

Traxler, F. (2004), ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism: From classical to lean patterns’, European Journal of Political Research, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 571–598.

Annex 1: Data tables

Table A1: Total companies and employment in agriculture, 2008 and 2013 (approximately)

 

Year

No. of companies

Year

Total employment

Women

Men

Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy

AT*

2007

187,034

2008

220,100

101,000

119,100

5.4%

AT*

2013

166,317

2013

197,600

84,900

112,700

4.7%

BE

2008

81,279

2008

83,271

25,488

57,783

n.a.

BE

2013

77,145

2013

79,529

22,669

56,860

1.8%

BG

2008

147,500

2008

251,200

91,200

160,000

7.5%

BG

2013

113,800

2013

195,500

61,700

133,800

6.7%

CY

2008

n.a.

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2013

3,539

2013

7,383h

n.a.

n.a.

2.1%h

CZ

2008

113,489

2008

125,000

43,700

81,300

2.5%

CZ

2013

92,056

2013

118,900

38,100

80,800

2.4%

DE

2010

299,134a

2008

1,080,256b

408,670b

671,586b

n.a.

DE

2013

285,000a

2013

1,020,500b

386,100b

634,500b

n.a.

DK

2008

35,382

2008

69,116

15,386

53,730

2.4%

DK

2012

29,507

2013

63,904

13,337

50,567

2.4%

EE

2008

n.a.

2008

17,300

6,500

10,800

2.6%

EE

2013

n.a.

2013

17,700

6,000

11,600

2.9%

EL

2008

n.a.

2008

493,674

210,014

283,660

10.6%

EL*

2013

n.a.

2013

464,423

194,773

269,650

13.1%

ES

2008

n.a.

2008

743,700e

210,500e

536,800e

3.7%

ES

2013

n.a.

2013

676,000

168,200

507,800

3.9%

FI

2008

52,915

2008

69,201

24,866

44,335

2.7%

FI

2012

49,962

2012

61,858

21,340

40,518

2.4%

FR

2008

365,000

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2013

330,000

2013

1,740,475i

n.a.

n.a.

6.1%i

HR

2008

n.a.

2008

56,547d

24,338d

32,209d

3.6%d

HR*

2013

n.a.

2013

43,871d

17,077d

26,794d

3.2%d

HU*

2008

23,081

2008

168,100

40800

127300

4.3%

HU*

2013

14,896

2013

184,600

46,900

137,700

4.7%

IE

2008

n.a.

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2010

139,829

2010

272,016f

74,092f

197,924f

14.4%f

IT

2007

1,678,756

2008

877,303g

263,067g

614,236g

3.7%g

IT

2010

1,620,884

2013

813,704g

229,785g

583,919g

3.6%g

LT

2007

230,270

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

2013

171,800

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2008

2,268

2008

4,582

1,630

2,952

1.3%

LU

2012

2,137

2012

4,228

1,448

2,780

1.1%

LV**

2008

29,191

2008

45,088

n.a.

n.a.

4.5%

LV**

2013

24,221

2013

38,981

n.a.

n.a.

3.9%

MT

2008

3,123

2008

3,333

n.a.

n.a.

2.3%

MT

2013

2,331

2013

2,529

n.a.

n.a.

1.7%

NL

2008

75,151

2008

204,000

66,000

138,000

2.3%

NL

2013

67,481

2013

194,000

63,000

131,000

2.2%

PL

2008

n.a.

2008

2,007,100

910,800

1,096,400

12.7%

PL

2013

1,498,100

2013

1,702,800

711,900

990,900

10.9%

PT

2008

46,345

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

2013

49,329

2011

110,393

35,924

74,472

2.5%

RO

2010

31,000

2008

1,321,100

423,700

897,400

29.7%

RO

2013

27,880

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

30.0%

SE

2008

90,836

2008

50,925

n.a.

n.a.

1.2%

SE

2013

108,453

2012

57,483

n.a.

n.a.

1.3%

SI

2008

47,040

2008

35,881

11,011

24,870

4.1%

SI

2013

36,013

2013

35,787

11,879

23,908

4.5%

SK

2008

13,316

2008

70,600

19,500

51,100

2.9%

SK

2013

13,829

2013

52,800

13,000

39,800

2.3%

UK***

2008

149,100

2008

379,600

93,200

286,400

1.3%

UK***

2013

136,500

2013

289,500

81,000

208,200

1.0%

* = all figures include forestry and fishing activities; ** = different sources of information; company, employment and employee figures not directly comparable; *** =2008 and 2013 figures not fully comparable; a = figure includes only part of NACE code (Rev.2) 1.6 and does not include NACE code (Rev.2) 1.7; 2010 and 2013 figures not directly comparable; b = figure includes assisting family members and seasonal workers; c = without seasonal workers; d = without temporary agency workers and part of self-employed; e = figure for females and males do not sum up correctly to the aggregate number, although these data stem from the official Spanish LFS; f = figure includes holders, spouses, family members and regular non-family workers; g = figure includes forestry and fishing activities; h = figure probably underestimated; i = figure includes holders, spouses and family members; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), national statistics. For a detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Table A2: Total employees in agriculture, 2008 and 2013 (approximately)

 

Year

Total employees

Female employees

Male employees

Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy

AT*

2008

30,600

11,100

19,600

0.8%

AT*

2013

26,700

9,700

17,000

0.7%

BE

2008

3,799

775

3,024

n.a.

BE

2013

4,433

933

3,500

0.1%

BG

2008

112,500

33,600

78,800

1.5%

BG

2013

98,900

26,600

72,300

1.0%

CY

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

2008

103,300

36,900

66,400

2.5%

CZ

2013

95,000

31,200

63,800

2.3%

DE

2008

193,401c

64,472c

128,929c

n.a.

DE

2013

200,700c

63,800c

136,900c

n.a.

DK

2008

32,745

9,620

23,125

1.2%

DK

2013

32,733

8,579

24,154

1.3%

EE

2008

11,300

4,200

7,100

1.9%

EE

2013

13,100

4,900

8,200

2.3%

EL

2008

30,758

8,144

22,614

1.0%

EL*

2013

36,309

8,263

28,046

1.6%

ES

2008

370,800

109,600

261,200

2.2%

ES

2013

362,500e

88,400e

240,700e

2.6%

FI

2008

14,690

n.a.

n.a.

0.7%

FI

2012

15,092

n.a.

n.a.

0.7%

FR

2008

964,895

382,763

582,132

4.0%

FR

2010

983,335

370,586

612,749

4.1%

HR

2008

16,845

5,704

11,141

1.4%

HR*

2013

13,974

4,658

9,316

1.3%

HU*

2008

75,700

n.a.

n.a.

2.7%

HU*

2013

62,200

n.a.

n.a.

2.3%

IE

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

2008

422,772g

129,361g

293,311g

2.4%g

IT

2013

407,621g

120,415g

287,206g

2.4%g

LT

2007

180,100

n.a.

n.a.

14.8%

LT

2013

144,800

n.a.

n.a.

12.9%

LU

2008

634

104

530

0.2%

LU

2012

840

161

679

0.2%

LV**

2008

10,930

4,856

6,074

1.1%

LV**

2013

10,028

4,492

5,536

1.0%

MT

2008

514

n.a.

n.a.

0.5%

MT

2013

418

n.a.

n.a.

0.3%

NL

2008

100,000

33,000

67,000

1.3%

NL

2013

93,000

30,000

62,000

1.3%

PL

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2013

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

2011

54,988

20,371

34,617

1.6%

RO

2008

100,000

n.a.

n.a.

2.2%

RO

2013

97,400

n.a.

n.a.

1.9%

SE

2008

21,667

n.a.

n.a.

0.5%

SE

2013

24,490

n.a.

n.a.

0.6%

SI

2008

3,165

1,380

1,785

0.4%

SI

2013

2,613

1,143

1,470

0.4%

SK

2008

64,500

18,500

46,000

3.1%

SK

2013

49,200

12,300

36,900

2.5%

UK***

2008

167,800

44,400

123,500

0.7%

UK***

2013

126,800

44,700

82,100

0.5%

* = all figures include forestry and fishing activities; ** = different sources of information; company, employment and employee figures not directly comparable;  *** =2008 and 2013 figures not fully comparable; a = figure includes only part of NACE code (Rev.2) 1.6 and does not include NACE code (Rev.2) 1.7; 2010 and 2013 figures not directly comparable; b = figure includes assisting family members and seasonal workers; c = without seasonal workers; d = without temporary agency workers and part of self-employed; e = figure for females and males do not sum up correctly to the aggregate number, although these data stem from the official Spanish LFS; f = figure includes holders, spouses, family members and regular non-family workers; g = figure includes forestry and fishing activities; h = figure probably underestimated; i = figure includes holders, spouses and family members; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports.

Table A3: Domain coverage, membership and density of trade unions in agriculture, 2013/14/15

 

Trade union

Type of membership

Domain coverage*

Membership

Density

Members in largest companies

Members active

Members sector active

Sector density (%)

AT

PRO-GE

voluntary

SO

229,776

2,209

8.3%

yes

AT

GPA-djp

voluntary

SO

275,455

n.a.

n.a.

yes

AT

GÖD

voluntary

SO

235,566

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

AT

LAK

obligatory

SO

60,000–100,000

40,000–70,000a

> 80%b

yes

AT

LFB

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

CGSLB-ACLVB

voluntary

O

221,000

890

20.1%

yes

BE

FGTB-ABVV-Horval

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

BE

ACV-CSC-Alimentation

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

BG

FITUA

voluntary

C

5,100–6,000

5,100–6,000

5.2–6.1%

yes

BG

FAF

voluntary

O

2000

1000

1.0%

yes

CY

OMEPEGE-SEK

voluntary

SO

5,777c

n.a.

n.a.

yes

CY

SEGDAMELIN-PEO

voluntary

SO

7,700

n.a.

n.a.

yes

CZ

OSPZV-ASO CR

voluntary

SO

42,000

3,000

3.2%

yes

DE

IG BAU

voluntary

O

280,926

n.a.

n.a.

yes

DK

3F

voluntary

SO

253,430

n.a.

n.a.

yes

DK

Serviceforbundet

voluntary

SO

18,982

n.a.

n.a.

yes

EE

no trade union

-

-

-

-

-

-

EL

no trade union

-

-

-

-

-

-

ES

FEAGRA-CCOO

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

ES

FITAG-UGT

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

ES

USO

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ELA-STV

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

ES

LAB-Sindicatua

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

FI

PL

voluntary

SO

37,000

3,000

19.9%

yes

FI

MTJL

voluntary

SO

319

300

2.0%

n.a.

FI

METO

voluntary

SO

5,000

60

0.4%

yes

FI

Jyty

voluntary

SO

60,000

74

0.5%

n.a.

FI

YTN

voluntary

SO

160,000

400

2.7%

yes

FR

FGA-CFDT

voluntary

O

60,000

n.a.

n.a.

yes

FR

FGTA-FO

voluntary

O

30,000

n.a.

n.a.

yes

FR

CFTC-AGRI

voluntary

C

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

FR

SNCEA-CFE-CGC

voluntary

SO

7,000

850

0.1%

yes

FR

FNAF-CGT

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UNSA2a

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HR

PPDIV

voluntary

O

20,000

5,000

35.8%

yes

HU

MEDOSZ

voluntary

SO

6,053

4850

7.8%

yes

IE

SIPTU

voluntary

O

199,881e

n.a.

n.a.

yes

IT

FLAI-CGIL

voluntary

O

277,346

138,000

33.9%

yes

IT

FAI-CISL

voluntary

O

194,035

n.a.

n.a.

yes

IT

UILA-UIL

voluntary

O

221,588

180,000

44.2%

yes

IT

Confederdia

voluntary

SO

9,212

n.a.

<2.3%

yes

IT

UILTUCS-UIL

voluntary

SO

122,276

n.a.

n.a.

yes

IT

Sinalcap

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

LZUDPSF

voluntary

O

2,010

1,500

1.0%

yes

LU

LCGB Services et Commerce

voluntary

O

4,300

n.a.

n.a.

yes

LU

OGBL SAH

voluntary

O

3,800

500

59.5%

yes

LV

no trade union

 

 

 

 

 

 

MT

GWU

voluntary

SO

39,201

n.a.

n.a.

yes

NL

CNV Vakmensen

voluntary

O

290,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

FNV

voluntary

O

1,100,000

38,800

41.7%

n.a.

NL

DeUnie

voluntary

O

45,000g

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

HZC

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

SR NSZZ Solidarnosc

voluntary

SO

3,200

1,600

n.a.

no

PL

ZZPR

voluntary

SO

1900

1,200

n.a.

no

PT

SETAA

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

FESAHT

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

RO

AGROSTAR

voluntary

O

48,000

n.a.

n.a.

yes

RO

CNS Cartel Alfa

voluntary

O

400,000

30,752

31.6%

yes

SE

Kommunal

voluntary

SO

506,118

3,800

15.5%

yes

SE

Unionen

voluntary

SO

472,255

570

2.3%

yes

SE

Naturvetarna

voluntary

SO

27,238

569

2.3%

yes

SE

Ledarna

voluntary

SO

91,164

900

3.7%

yes

SE

SLF

voluntary

SO

850

450

1.8%

yes

SI

KZI

voluntary

SO

n.a.f

n.a.f

n.a.

yes

SK

OZ PP

voluntary

SO

2,028

1,200

2.4%

yes

UK

Unite

voluntary

O

1,240,000

12,000

9.5%

n.a.

* = domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism (For details see Table 2 / page 4); a = figures doubtful; include non-active members, seasonal workers, etc.; b = according to compulsory membership in seven out of nine Austrian regions; c = figures refer to 2008; d = indirectly involved in collective bargaining via higher-level unit; e = figure refers to 2011; f = answer deliberately refused; g = includes non-active members; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), administrative data and estimates.

Table A4: Collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of trade unions in agriculture, 2013/14/15

 

Trade union

Collective bargaining (CB)*

CB coverage (total)**

Consultation/ frequency

National and European affiliations***

AT

PRO-GE

M+S

n.a.

regularly

ÖGB; EFFAT, IndustriAll-Europe

AT

GPA-djp

M+S

n.a.

n.a.

ÖGB; EFFAT, EPSU, EFJ, UNI-Europa, IndustriAll-Europe

AT

GÖD

M+S

n.a.

n.a.

ÖGB; EFFAT, EPSU, CES

I

AT

LAK

M+S

n.a.

regularly

 

AT

LFB

M+S

n.a.

n.a.

 

BE

CGSLB-ACLVB

M

4,433

regularly

EFFAT

BE

FGTB-ABVV-Horval

M

4,433

regularly

FGTB-ABVV; EFFAT

BE

ACV-CSC-Alimentation

M

4,433

regularly

ACV-CSC; EFFAT

BG

FITUA

S

5,100

regularly

CITUB; EFFAT

BG

FAF

S

2,000

regularly

CL Podkrepa; EFFAT

CY

OMEPEGE-SEK

M+S

n.a.

yes

SEK; EFFAT, ETF

CY

SEGDAMELIN-PEO

M+S

3,500

ad-hoc

PEO; IDC

CZ

OSPZV-ASO CR

M+S

80,000

regularly

ASO CR; EFFAT

DE

IG BAU

M+S

n.a.

regularly

DGB; EFFAT

DK

3F

M+S

17,000

ad-hoc

LO; EFFAT, EPSU, ETF, EFBWW, IndustriAll

DK

Serviceforbundet

M

n.a.

ad-hoc

LO; EFFAT

EE

no trade union

-

-

-

-

EL

no trade union

-

-

-

-

ES

FEAGRA-CCOO

M

~362,500

ad-hoc

CCOO; EFFAT

ES

FITAG-UGT

M

~362,500

yes

UGT; EFFAT

ES

USO

M

3,800

n.a.

 

ES

ELA-STV

M

1,700

n.a.

ELA; EFFAT

ES

LAB-Sindicatua

M

1,700

n.a.

 

FI

PL

M

10,000

regularly

SAK; EFFAT

FI

MTJL

M

400

regularly

STTK; EFFAT

FI

METO

S

74

regularly

STTK; UEF

FI

Jyty

S

74

ad-hoc

STTK; EPSU

FI

YTN

M+S

370

ad-hoc

AKAVA

FR

FGA-CFDT

M+S

983,335

regularly

CFDT; EFFAT

FR

FGTA-FO

M+S

983,335

regularly

FO; EFFAT

FR

CFTC-AGRI

M+S

983,335

regularly

CFTC; EFFAT

FR

SNCEA-CFE-CGC

M+S

983,335

regularly

CFE-CGC; EFFAT

FR

FNAF-CGT

M+S

983,335

n.a.

CGT

FR

UNSA2a

M+S

n.a.

no

UNSA

HR

PPDIV

S

17,500

ad-hoc

SSSH; EFFAT

HU

MEDOSZ

M+S

50,000–60,000

ad-hoc

LIGA; EFFAT

IE

SIPTU

S

n.a.

ad-hoc

ICTU; EFFAT

IT

FLAI-CGIL

M+S

n.a.

ad-hoc

CGIL; EFFAT

IT

FAI-CISL

M+S

n.a.

ad-hoc

CISL; EFFAT

IT

UILA-UIL

M+S

n.a.

ad-hoc

UIL; EFFAT

IT

Confederdia

M+S

15,000–18,600

ad-hoc

EFFAT

IT

UILTUCS-UIL

M+S

3,000

ad-hoc

UIL; EFFAT, UNI Europa

IT

Sinalcap

yes

3,000

n.a.

 

LT

LZUDPSF

M+S

n.a.

ad-hoc

LPSK; EFFAT

LU

LCGB Services et Commerce

S

465

no

LCGB

LU

OGBL SAH

S

465

regularly

OGBL; EFFAT

LV

no trade union

 

 

 

 

MT

GWU

S

n.a.

no

EFFAT, EPSU, IndustriAll Europe

NL

CNV Vakmensen

M+S

85,286

regularly

CNV; EFFAT, UNI Europa

NL

FNV

M+S

85,286

regularly

EFFAT, UNI Europa

NL

DeUnie

M

8,552

n.a.

UOV

NL

HZC

yes

21,572

n.a.

 

PL

SR NSZZ Solidarnosc

S

n.a.

regularly

NSZZ Solidarnosc; EFFAT

PL

ZZPR

S

1,000

regularly

EFFAT

PT

SETAA

M+S

11,744

n.a.

UGT; EFFAT

PT

FESAHT

M+S

10,893

no

CGTP-IN

RO

AGROSTAR

M+S

n.a.

regularly

BNS; EFFAT

RO

CNS Cartel Alfa

M+S

n.a.

regularly

EFFAT

SE

Kommunal

M

10,000

ad-hoc

LO; EFFAT, EPSU, ETF

SE

Unionen

M

n.a.

no

TCO; EFFAT, UNI Europa, ETF

SE

Naturvetarna

M

569

regularly

SACO

SE

Ledarna

M

n.a.

no

CEC, ETF

SE

SLF

M

1,800

ad-hoc

TCO; (EFFAT)

SI

KZI

M+S

n.a.

ad-hoc

ZSSS; EFFAT

SK

OZ PP

S

8,000

ad-hoc

KOZ SR; EFFAT

UK

Unite

S

n.a.

regularly

TUC; EFFAT, EFBWW, EPSU, ETF, IndustriAll Europe, UNI Europa

* = Collective bargaining involvement: S = single-employer bargaining; M = multi-employer bargaining;** = Number of employees covered by collective agreements concluded by the union within the agriculture sector; *** = National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher- or lower-order unit. a = figures doubtful; include non-active members, seasonal workers etc.; b = according to compulsory membership in seven out of nine Austrian regions; c = figures refer to 2008; d = indirectly involved in collective bargaining via higher-level unit; e = figure refers to 2011; f = answer deliberately refused; g = includes non-active members; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), administrative data and estimates.

Table A5: Domain coverage and membership of employer/ business organisations in agriculture, 2013/14/15

 

Employer organisation

Domain coverage*

Membership

Type

Companies

in sector

Employees

in sector

AT

LKÖ

O

obligatory

166,000

n.a.

27,000

n.a.

AT

OALF

O

mixed

n.a. (at least 21,300)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

AT

ÖRV

SO

voluntary

62

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

FWA

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

BB

S

voluntary

17,000

17,000

n.a.

n.a.

BE

LS-AS

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

CBAO

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

BAAP

C

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

NUACB

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

30,000

30,000

CY

EKA

SO

voluntary

7,500f

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

NFU

SO

voluntary

500f

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

Panagrotikos

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

PEK

SO

voluntary

1,500f

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

ZS CR

SO

voluntary

820

n.a.

40,000

n.a.

CZ

CMSZP

n.a.

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

AK CR

O

voluntary

2,969

2,636

n

n.a.

CZ

ASZ CR

S

voluntary

6,500

6,500

n.a.

n.a.

DE

GLFA

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

AGAVLG

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

AgA

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

DRV

SO

voluntary

2,385

n.a.

82,000

n.a.

DE

DBV

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DK

GLS-A

O

voluntary

1,400

1,060

28,000

18,000

DK

DAFC

O

voluntary

300

300

169,000

n.a.

EE

ETKL

O

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

EPK

O

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

EPKK

O

voluntary

101

70

n.a.

n.a.

EL

PASEGES

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

3,000

3,000

ES

CAA

S

voluntary

3,397

3,397

98,999

98,999

ES

ASAJA

O

voluntary

200,000b

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

COAG

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

UPA

S

voluntary

80,000b

80,000b

n.a.

n.a.

ES

Union de Uniones

C

voluntary

15,541

15,541

98,800

98,800

ES

FEPEX

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

UP

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

JARC

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

IACSI

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

MTA

SO

voluntary

1,300

1,222

10,200

10,000

FI

PALTA

SO

voluntary

1725

10

150,000

560

FI

MTK

O

voluntary

420,000b

140,000b

n.a.

n.a.

FI

SLC

SO

voluntary

32,000b

12,000b

n.a.

n.a.

FI

Pellervo

SO

voluntary

260

45

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FNSEA

C

voluntary

~300,000

~300,000

~1,000,000

~1,000,000

HR

CEA-Food and Agriculture

O

voluntary

n.a.

18

n.a.

2,309

HR

CCA

C

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

MOSZ

S

voluntary

600

600

30,000

30,000

HU

MAGOSZ

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

Agrarkamara

O

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

IFA

C

voluntary

88,000

88,000

n.a.

n.a.

IE

ICOS

SO

voluntary

150,000

n.a.

12,000

n.a.

IT

Confagricoltura

O

voluntary

668,400

367,400

598,320

500,000

IT

Coldiretti

O

voluntary

1,500,000

1,500,000

n.a.

n.a.

IT

CIA

O

voluntary

900,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

AIA

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Assocap

S

voluntary

45

45

3,000

3,000

IT

AGCI Agrital

SO

voluntary

1000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

Fedagri

SO

voluntary

3,350

904

65,000

10,950

IT

ANCA Legacoop

SO

voluntary

1,063

350

27,310

n.a.

IT

Unima

SO

voluntary

8,000

6,500

25,000

20,000

LT

ZUR

O

voluntary

47d

38d

n.a.

n.a.

LT

LZUBA

O

voluntary

214

170

10,800

n.a.

LT

LZUKA

S

voluntary

10

10

n.a.

n.a.

LT

LUS

S

voluntary

5,000

5,000

n.a.

n.a.

LU

CPL

O

voluntary

2,500

2,500

n.a.

n.a.

LV

LLKA

SO

voluntary

56

56

n.a.

n.a.

LV

LSA

C

voluntary

60

60

3,000

3,000

LV

LZF

O

voluntary

119e

n.a.

>5,000

n.a.

LV

ZSA

O

voluntary

900

n.a.

>4,000

n.a.

LV

LOSP

O

voluntary

59

50

n.a.

n.a.

MT

KM

SO

voluntary

5,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

CUMELA

SO

voluntary

1,930

1,900

20,000

16,210

NL

LTO

S

voluntary

50,000

50,000

50,875

50,875

NL

LTO Glaskracht

S

voluntary

1,247

1,247

25,109

25,109

NL

PLANTUM

SO

voluntary

350

n.a.

15000–20000

n.a.

NL

NFO

S

voluntary

256k

256k

n.a.

n.a.

NL

NCR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

NSZZRI Solidarnosc

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

FBZPR

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

KRIR

S

obligatory

2,000,000

2,000,000

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZZR Samoobrona

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

KZRKiOR

SO

voluntary

1,100,000g

1,100,000g

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZZR Ojczyzna

S

voluntary

n.a.h

n.a.h

n.a.

n.a.

PT

CAP

C

voluntary

446

446

n.a.

n.a.

PT

CONFAGRI

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

APDF

n.a.

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AEDF

n.a.

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AVRCF

n.a.

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

FPAS

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

AIBSV

n.a.

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

PRO AGRO

O

voluntary

1,300

628

61,613

24,480

SE

SLA

O

voluntary

4,000

2,088

35,000

20,000

SE

LRF

O

voluntary

90,000

n.a,

n.a.

n.a.

SI

KGZS

O

obligatory

90,000i

n.a.

12,000

n.a.

SI

ZZS

SO

voluntary

67

n.a.

2,500

n.a.

SI

GZS-ZKZP

O

voluntary

170

40

9,000

1,600

SI

ZDS

O

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SK

SPPK

O

voluntary

1,541

1,397

n.a.

n.a.

UK

NFU

S

voluntary

47,496j

47,496j

n.a.

n.a.

UK

NFUS

SO

voluntary

8,500

almost 8,500

n.a.

n.a.

UK

UFU

S

voluntary

11,700

11,700

n.a.

n.a.

* = domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism (For details see Table 2 / page 4). a = indirect collective bargaining involvement via lower-level units; b = figure includes companies and individuals/family members; c = collective agreement signed by Union de Uniones has been contested and currently is not in force; d = associations rather than individual companies; e = 119 individual companies and 37 associations; f = figure includes only individual holders; g = KZRKiOR organises about 22,500 machinery rings covering approximately 1.100,000 individual farmers; h = ZZR Ojczyzna organises not only private farms owned by individual farmers but also a few dependent employees in agriculture; i = figure includes natural and legal persons, among whom are 1,275 legal persons; j = figure includes farmers and growers with management responsibilities for a farm and excludes partners, family members and farmers’ spouses etc.; k = estimate; l = no legal basis for collective bargaining; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), administrative data and estimates.

Table A6: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/business organisations in agriculture, 2013/2014/2015

 

 

 

Density (%)

in largest comp.

CB*

CB coverage**

Consultation/ frequency

NEA***

Comp.

 

Empl.

 

Comp.

Empl.

 

 

AT

LKÖ

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M+Sa

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

COPA-COGECA

AT

OALF

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M+Sa

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

 

AT

ÖRV

n.a.

n.a.

yes

S

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

WKÖ, IV; COPA-COGECA

BE

FWA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

3,051

regularly

COPA-COGECA

BE

BB

22.0%

n.a.

yes

M

18,000

3,051

regularly

COPA-COGECA

BE

LS-AS

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

1,382

regularly

 

BG

CBAO

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

BIA; COPA-COGECA

BG

BAAP

n.a.

n.a.

yes

S

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

CEIB

BG

NUACB

n.a.

30.3%

yes

S

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

AICB

CY

EKA

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

CY

NFU

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

CY

Panagrotikos

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

CY

PEK

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

CZ

ZS CR

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M+S

820

55,000

ad-hoc

KZPS, DA CR; COPA-COGECA

CZ

CMSZP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M+S

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CAK

CZ

AK CR

2.9%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

CZ

ASZ CR

7.1%

n.a.

no

no

0

0

no

COPA-COGECA, ELO

DE

GLFA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

50,000

n.a.

ad-hoc

BDA; COPA-COGECA

DE

AGAVLG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

50,000

n.a.

n.a.

(COPA-COGECA)

DE

AgA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

50,000

n.a.

n.a.

(COPA-COGECA)

DE

DRV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

n.a.

COPA-COGECA

DE

DBV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

n.a.

COPA

DK

GLS-A

3.6%

55.0%

yes

M

1,060

18,000

ad-hoc

 

DK

DAFC

1.0%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA

EE

ETKL

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

EE

EPK

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA

EE

EPKK

4.2%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

GR

PASEGES

n.a.

8.3%

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

ES

CAA

n.a.

27.3%

no

no

0

0

regularly

CEPES; COGECA

ES

ASAJA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

yes

CEOE; COPA

ES

COAG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

COPA

ES

UPA

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

COPA

ES

Union de Uniones

n.a.

27.3%

no

Mc

0c

0c

regularly

 

ES

FEPEX

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Ma

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CEOE; EUCOFEL

ES

UP

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

25,000

regularly

 

ES

JARC

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

25,000

n.a.

 

ES

IACSI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

25,000

n.a.

CEOE

FI

MTA

2.4%

66.3%

yes

M

1,222

10,000

regularly

COPA

FI

PALTA

0.0%

3.7%

yes

M+S

11

560

no

EK

FI

MTK

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

FI

SLC

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

FI

Pellervo

0.1%

n.a.

no

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

FR

FNSEA

90.9%

~100%

yes

M

330,000

983,335

regularly

COPA

HR

CEA-Food and Agriculture

0.3%

16.5%

yes

S

18

2309

ad-hoc

CEA; COPA

HR

CCA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

HU

MOSZ

4.0%

48.2%

no

M

600

30,000

regularly

COPA

HU

MAGOSZ

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

0

0

n.a.

COPA

HU

Agrarkamara

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

regularly

COPA

IE

IFA

62.9%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA

IE

ICOS

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA

IT

Confagricoltura

22.7%

100%

yes

M

200,000

n.a.

regularly

Agrinsieme; COPA

IT

Coldiretti

92.5%

n.a.

yes

M

200,000

n.a.

regularly

COPA

IT

CIA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

200,000

n.a.

regularly

Agrinsieme; COPA, Euromontana

IT

AIA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M+S

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

 

IT

Assocap

0.0%

0.7%

yes

M

45

3000

ad-hoc

 

IT

AGCI Agrital

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

Agrinsieme; COGECA

IT

Fedagri

0.1%

2.7%

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

Confcooperative, Agrinsieme; COGECA

IT

ANCA Legacoop

0.0%

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

Legacoop, Agrinsieme; COGECA

IT

Unima

0.4%

4.9%

yes

M+S

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

Confindustria, CEETTAR

LT

ZUR

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

LT

LZUBA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

<5,000

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

LT

LZUKA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

LT

LUS

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

LU

CPL

100%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

LV

LLKA

4.1%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA

LV

LSA

4.4%

29.9%

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA

LV

LZF

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

LDDK; COPA

LV

ZSA

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA

LV

LOSP

3.7%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA

MT

KM

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

NL

CUMELA

2.8%

17.4%

yes

M

2,020

21,215

regularly

VCO-NCW; CEETTAR

NL

LTO

74.1%

54.7%

yes

M

7,630

79,730

regularly

COPA

NL

LTO Glaskracht

1.8%

27.0%

yes

M

2,473

37,277

regularly

VNO-NCW; (COPA)

NL

PLANTUM

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

150

42,000

regularly

VNO-NCW; ESA

NL

NFO

0.4%k

n.a.

n.a.

M

n.a.

23,266

n.a.

 

NL

NCR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

n.a.

COGECA

PL

NSZZRI Solidarnosc

n.a.

n.a.

no

nol

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

PL

FBZPR

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

nol

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

PL

KRIR

100%

n.a.

yes

nol

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

PL

ZZR Samoobrona

n.a.

n.a.

no

nol

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

PL

KZRKiOR

73.4%

n.a.

no

nol

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

PL

ZZR Ojczyzna

n.a.

n.a.

no

nol

0

0

ad-hoc

COPA-COGECA

PT

CAP

0.9%

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

COPA, USSE; CEPF

PT

CONFAGRI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

n.a.

COGECA

PT

APDF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

3,000

4,000

n.a.

 

PT

AEDF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

5,000

6,000

n.a.

 

PT

AVRCF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

200

500

n.a.

 

PT

FPAS

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

750

1,750

n.a.

 

PT

AIBSV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

M

21

1,530

n.a.

 

RO

PRO AGRO

2.3%

25.1%

no

no

0

0

regularly

CONCORDIA; COPA

SE

SLA

1.9%

81.7%

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

SN; COPA

SE

LRF

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA

SI

KGZS

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

SI

ZZS

n.a.

n.a.

no

M

n.a.

n.a.

regularly

COPA-COGECA

SI

GZS-ZKZP

0.1%

61.2%

yes

M

40

1,600

regularly

FoodDrink Europe

SI

ZDS

n.a.

n.a.

yes

M

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

 

SK

SPPK

10.1%

n.a.

yes

no

0

0

ad-hoc

AZZZ SR; COPA, FoodDrink Europe

UK

NFU

34.8%

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

regularly

CBI; COPA-COGECA

UK

NFUS

6.2%

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

UK

UFU

8.6%

n.a.

n.a.

no

0

0

regularly

COPA-COGECA

* = Collective bargaining involvement: S = single-employer bargaining; M = multi-employer bargaining; ** = number of companies/employees covered by collective agreements concluded by the employer organisation within the agriculture sector; *** = National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit. Comp. = companies; Empl. = employees; NEA = National and European affiliations. a = indirect collective bargaining involvement via lower-level units; b = figure includes companies and individuals/family members; c = collective agreement signed by Union de Uniones has been contested and currently is not in force; d = associations rather than individual companies; e = 119 individual companies and 37 associations; f = figure includes only individual holders; g = KZRKiOR organises about 22,500 machinery rings covering approximately 1.100,000 individual farmers; h = ZZR Ojczyzna organises not only private farms owned by individual farmers but also a few dependent employees in agriculture; i = figure includes natural and legal persons, among whom are 1,275 legal persons; j = figure includes farmers and growers with management responsibilities for a farm and excludes partners, family members and farmers’ spouses etc.; k = estimate; l = no legal basis for collective bargaining; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), administrative data and estimates.

Table A7: System of sectoral collective bargaining (2013–2014)

 

Collective bargaining coverage (CBC)

 (%) (estimates)

Share of multi-employer bargaining (MEB) in total CBC (%) (estimates)

Extension practicesa

AT

90%–100%

~75%

(2)

BE

100%

100%

2

BG

n.a.

0%

0

CY

n.a.

SEB prevailing

0

CZ

84.2%

100%b

2

DE

100%

MEB prevailing

2

DK

53%

MEB prevailing

0

EE

at least 2.3%

0%

0

EL

100%c

100%c

0

ES

100%

almost 100%

2

FI

55%

99.5%

2

FR

100%

almost 100%

2

HR

85%

0%

0

HU

about 80%

about 70%

0

IE

n.a.d

SEB prevailinge

0f

IT

100%

100%b

(2)

LT

<5%

0%

0

LV

0%

0%

0

LU

55%

0%

0

MT

n.a.

0%

0

NL

>80%

MEB prevailing

2

PL

<1%

0%

0

PT

28%

almost 100%

2

RO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

60%

MEB prevailing

2

SI

80%–100%g

100%b

0

SK

15%

0%

0

UK

n.a.d

0%

0

CBC = 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; SEB = single-employer bargaining; Extension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings): a = 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are put in parentheses. b = complemented by single-employer bargaining; c = National General Collective Agreement setting the minimum terms and conditions of employment; d = probably very low; e = since 2013; f = since 2011; g = until April 2014 when the sector agreement expired; n.a. = not available.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015), administrative data and estimates.

Table A8: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy (2014–2015)

 

Name of body and scope of activity

Origin

Trade unions involved

Business associations involved

BG

Sectoral Council for Tripartite Cooperation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Statutory

FITUA, FAF

NUACB, BAAP, CBAO

DE

Agricultural and Forestry Workers Social Fund – administers supplements to the retirement pensions of farm workers

Statutory + agreement

IG Bau

GLFA

DK

 

Vocational Committee for Education in Agriculture

Statutory

3F

GLS-A

Health and Safety Council in Agriculture

Statutory

3F, HK Privat, Serviceforbundet

GLS-A, DAFC, DA

FI

Working Group of Developing the System of Farm Relief Workers – aims to improve the cost effectiveness of the system of farm relief workers

Agreement

MTK

Local Government Employers

UK

 

 

 

Scottish Agricultural Wages Board – sets minimum wages and certain other conditions of employment

Statutory

Unite

NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates

Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland – sets minimum wages and certain other conditions of employment

Statutory

Unite

UFU

Agriculture Industry Advisory Committee – advises Health and Safety Executive on health and safety

Statutory

Unite

NFU

Farm Safety Partnership – broad-based collaboration aimed at improving farm safety

Agreement

Unite

NFU, NFUS, UFU

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015)

 

Table A9: EFFAT Membership (2015)+

AT

PRO-GE, GPA-djp, GÖD

BE

CGSLB-ACLVB, FGTB-ABVV-Horval, ACV-CSC-Alimentation

BG

FITUA, FAF

CY

OMEPEGE-SEK

CZ

OSPZV-ASO CR

DE

IG-Bau

DK

3F, Serviceforbundet

EE

---

EL

---

ES

FEAGRA-CCOO, FITAG-UGT, ELA-STV

FI

PL, MTJL

FR

FGA-CFDT, FGTA-FO, CFTC-AGRI, SNCEA-CFE-CGC

HR

PPDIV

HU

MEDOSZ

IE

SIPTU

IT

FLAI-CGIL, FAI-CISL, UILA-UIL, Confederdia, UILTUCS-UIL

LT

LZUDPSF

LU

OGBL-SAH

LV

---

MT

GWU

NL

CNV Vakmensen, FNV

PL

SR NSZZ Solidarnosc, ZZPR

PT

SETAA

RO

AGROSTAR, CNS Cartel Alfa

SE

Kommunal, Unionen, (SLF)

SI

KZI

SK

OZ PP

UK

Unite

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration; affiliation put in parenthesis means non-active membership. All EFFAT members listed in this table are involved in sector-related collective bargaining.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015)

Table A10: COPA/GEOPA-COPA/COGECA membership (2015)+

AT

LKÖ*, ÖRV*

BE

FWA*, BB*

BG

CBAO

CY

EKA*, NFU*, Panakrotikos*, PEK*

CZ

ZS CR*, AK CR, ASZ CR

DE

GLFA*, (AGAVLG*), (AgA*), DRV, DBV

DK

DAFC

EE

ETKL, EPK, EPKK

EL

PASEGES

ES

CAA, ASAJA*, COAG*, UPA*

FI

MTA*, MTK, SLC, Pellervo

FR

FNSEA*

HR

CEA-Food and Agriculture*, CCA

HU

MOSZ*, MAGOSZ, Agrarkamara

IE

IFA, ICOS

IT

Confagricoltura*, Coldiretti*, CIA*, AGCI Agrital*, Fedagri*, ANCA Legacoop*

LT

ZUR*, LZUBA*, LZUKA, LUS

LU

CPL

LV

LLKA, LSA, LZF, ZSA, LOSP

MT

KM

NL

LTO*, (LTO Glaskracht*), NCR

PL

NSZZRI Solidarnosc, FBZPR, KRIR, ZZR Samoobrona, KZRKiOR, ZZR Ojczyzna

PT

CAP*, CONFAGRI

RO

PRO AGRO

SE

SLA*, LRF

SI

KGZS, ZZS*

SK

SPPK

UK

NFU, NFUS, UFU

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit. * = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining.

Source: Eurofound’s network of European correspondents (2015)

Annex 2: List of abbreviations

 

Abbreviation

Full Name*

AT

GÖD

Union of Public Employees

 

GPA-djp

Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists

 

IV

Federation of Austrian Industry

 

LAK

Chamber of Agricultural Employees

 

LFB

Agriculture and Forestry Workers Association

 

LKÖ

Chamber of Agriculture of Austria

 

OALF

Standing Committee of the Presidents of the Employers’ Associations of Agriculture

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

ÖRV

Austrian Raiffeisen Association

 

PRO-GE

Production Workers’ Union

 

WKO

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

BE

ACV/CSC

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

ACV/CSC-Alimentation et Services

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions – Food and Services

 

BB

Union of Belgian Farmers

 

CGSLB-ACLVB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

FGTB-ABVV

Belgian General Federation of Labour

 

FGTB-ABVV-Horval

Belgian General Federation of Labour – Horval

 

FWA

Wallon Federation of Agriculture

 

LS-AS

Agri-Service

BG

AICB

Association of Industrial Capital in Bulgaria

 

BAAP

Bulgarian Association of Agricultural Producers

 

BIA

Bulgarian Industrial Association

 

CBAO

Confederation of Bulgarian Agricultural Organisations

 

CEIB

Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria

 

CITUB

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria

 

FAF

Federation Agriculture and Forestry

 

FITUA

Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Agriculture

 

NUACB

National Union of Agricultural Cooperatives in Bulgaria

 

CL Podkrepa

Confederation of Labour Podkrepa

CY

EKA

Union of Cypriot Farmers

 

NFU

New Farmers’ Movement

 

OMEPEGE

Federation of Transport, Petroleum and Agriculture Workers

 

Panagrotikos

Panagrotikos Farmers’ Union

 

PEK

Panagrarian Union of Cyprus

 

PEO

Pancyprian Federation of Labour

 

SEGDAMELIN

Cyprus Agriculture, Forestry, Transport, Port, Seamen and Allied Occupations Trade Union

 

SEK

Cyprus Workers’ Federation

CZ

AK CR

Czech Agricultural Association and Agrarian Chamber

 

ASO CR

Association of Autonomous Unions of the Czech Republic

 

ASZ CR

Association of Private Farming

 

CAK

Czech-Moravian Agrarian Confederation

 

CMSZP

Czech-Moravian Association of Agricultural Enterpreneurs

 

DA CR

Cooperative Association of the Czech Republic

 

KZPS CR

Confederation of Employer and Entrepreneur Associations of the Czech Republic

 

OSPZV-ASO CR

Association of Agriculture and Food Workers of the Association of Autonomous Unions of the Czech Republic

 

ZS CR

Agricultural Association of the Czech Republic

DE

AgA

Association of Employer Organisations in Gardening

 

AGAVLG

Association of Employer Organisations for Agricultural Cooperatives

 

BDA

German Confederation of Employers’ Associations

 

DBV

German Farmers’ Association

 

DGB

German Trade Union Confederation

 

DRV

German Raiffeisen Federation

 

GLF-A

Confederation of the German Employers’ Associations in Agriculture and Forestry

 

IG Bau

Trade Union for Construction Agriculture and Environment

DK

3F

United Federation of Danish Workers

 

GLS-A

Employer Association in Nursery, Agriculture and Forestry

 

DAFC

Danish Agriculture and Food Council

 

LO

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

 

Serviceforbundet

Danish Clerical Union

EE

EPK

Central Union of Estonian Farmers

 

EPKK

Estonian Chamber of Agriculture and Commerce

 

ETKL

Estonian Farmers Federation

EL

PASEGES

Pan-Hellenic Confederation of Agricultural Cooperative Unions

ES

ASAJA

Agriculture Association of Young Farmers

 

CAA

Agri-Food Cooperatives

 

CCOO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CEOE

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

 

CEPES

Spanish Business Confederation of Social Economy

 

COAG

Coordinator of Farmer Organisations

 

ELA

Basque Workers’ Solidarity

 

ELA-STV

Services Federation of the Basque Workers’ Solidarity

 

FEAGRA-CCOO

Federation of Agri-Food of the Trade Union Federation of Workers’ Commissions

 

FEPEX

Spanish Federation of Associations of Producers and Exporters of Fruits, Vegetables, Flowers and Live Plants

 

FITAG-UGT

Federation of Industry and Farmer Workers of the General Workers’ Confederation

 

IACSI

Catalan Agriculture Institute of Sant Isidre

 

JARC

Young Farmers from Catalonia

 

LAB Sindikatua

Abertzales Workers Commission

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

 

Union de Uniones

Union of Unions of Farmers

 

UP

Union of Farmers

 

UPA

Union of Small Farmers

 

USO

Workers’ Trade Unionist Confederation

FI

AKAVA

Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland

 

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

Jyty

Federation of Public and Private Sector Employees Jyty

 

METO

Forestry Experts’ Association

 

MTA

Finnish Agricultural Employers’ Organisation

 

MTJL

Association of Salaried Agricultural Employees Organisations MTJL

 

MTK

Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners

 

PALTA

Service Sector Employers PALTA

 

Pellervo

Pellervo Society

 

PL

Wood and Allied Workers’ Union

 

SLC

Central Union of Swedish Speaking Agricultural Producers in Finland

 

STTK

Finnish Confederation of Professionals

 

YTN

Federation of Professional and Managerial Staff

FR

CFDT

French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

CFE

French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff

 

CFTC

French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CFTC Agri

Agriculture Federation – French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CGC

General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff

 

CGT

General Federation of Labour

 

FGA-CFDT

General Federation of Agro-Food Industry – French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

FGTA-FO

General Federation of Workers from Agriculture, Agro-Food Industry, Tobacco and related Activities – Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière

 

FNAF-CGT

National Federation of Agro-Food and Forestry Industries – General Federation of Labour

 

FNSEA

National Federation of Agricultural Holders’ Unions

 

SNCEA-CFE-CGC

National Union of Agriculture Companies’ Managers – French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff

 

UNSA2a

National Union of Autonomous Trade Unions – Agriculture, Food and Drink Industry

HR

CCA

Croatian Chamber of Agriculture

 

CEA

Croatian Employers’ Association

 

CEA Food and Agriculture

Croatian Employers’ Association – Food and Agriculture Association

 

PPDIV

Trade Union of Employees in Agriculture, Food, Tobacco and Water Industries of Croatia

 

SSSH

Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia

HU

Agrárkamara

Hungarian Chamber of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

 

LIGA

League of Independent Trade Unions

 

MAGOSZ

National Association of Hungarian Farmers’ Societies and Cooperatives

 

MEDOSZ

Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Water Management Workers’ Federation

 

MOSZ

National Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives and Producers

 

MSZOSZ

National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions

IE

ICOS

Irish Cooperative Organisation Society

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

IFA

Irish Farmers’ Association

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

IT

AGCI Agrital

General Association of Italian Cooperatives Agriculture and Fish

 

Agrinsieme

Agrinsieme

 

AIA

Italian Breeders Association

 

ANCA Legacoop

National Association of Agri-Food Cooperatives for Rural Development

 

Assocap

Farmers’ Union National Federation

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

CIA

Italian Farmers’ Confederation

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

Coldiretti

National Independent Farmers’ Confederation

 

Confagricoltura

General Confederation of Italian Farmers

 

Confcooperative

Confederation of Italian Cooperatives

 

Confederdia

Italian Confederation of Agricultural Sector Managers and White-collar Workers

 

Confindustria

Confindustria

 

Fai - CISL

Federation of Agriculture and Food Industry Workers – Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

Fedagri

National Federation of Agricultural and Agro-Food Cooperatives

 

Flai - CGIL

Agri-Food Industry Workers’ Federation – General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

Legacoop

National League of Cooperatives

 

Sinalcap

National Unitary Farmers’ Workers Trade Union

 

UGL

General Union of Work

 

UIL

Italian Union of Workers

 

UILA - UIL

Italian Union of Food and Agriculture Workers – Italian Union of Workers

 

Uiltucs - UIL

Italian Union of Tourism, Commerce and Service Workers – Italian Union of Workers

 

Unima

National Union of Farm Mechanisation Enterprises

LT

LPSK

Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation

 

LUS

Lithuanian Farmers’ Union

 

LZUBA

Lithuanian Association of Agriculture Companies

 

LZUDPSF

Trade Union Federation of Lithuanian Agricultural Workers

 

LZUKA

Lithuanian Association of Agricultural Cooperatives

 

ZUR

Chamber of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania

LU

CPL

Luxembourg Farmers’ Union

 

LCGB

Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Unions

 

LCGB – Services et Commerce

Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Unions – Services and Commerce

 

OGBL

Independent Trade Union Confederation of Luxembourg

 

OGBL - SAH

Independent Trade Union Confederation of Luxembourg – Food and Hotels Union

LV

LDDK

Latvian Employers’ Confederation

 

LLKA

Latvian Agricultural Cooperatives Association

 

LOSP

Cooperation Council of Agricultural Associations

 

LSA

Association of Agriculture Statutory Companies

 

LZF

Latvian Farmers Federation

 

ZSA

Farmers Parliament

MT

GWU

General Workers’ Union

 

KM

Maltese Cooperatives

NL

CNV

Christian Federation of Trade Unions

 

CNV Vakmensen

Christian Federation of Trade Unions – Vakmensen

 

CUMELA

CUMELA

 

De Unie

The Union

 

FNV

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions

 

HZC

Professional Association of the Black Corps

 

LTO

Organisation of Agricultural and Horticultural Entrepreneurs in the Netherlands

 

LTO Glaskracht

Agricultural and Horticultural Organisation Greenhouse Power

 

NCR

National Cooperative Council for Agriculture and Horticulture

 

NFO

Dutch Fruit Growers Organisation

 

PLANTUM

Plantum

 

UOV

Union of Independent Trade Unions

 

VNO-NCW

Confederation of Netherlands Industries and Employers

PL

FBZPR

Federation of Agricultural Producers’ Union

 

KRIR

National Council of Agricultural Chambers

 

KZRKiOR

National Union of Farmers’ Circles and Agricultural Organisations

 

NSZZ Solidarnosc

Independent Self-governing Trade Union ‘Solidarnosc’

 

NSZZRI Solidarnosc

Independent Self-governing Union of Individual Farmers ‘Solidarnosc’

 

SR NSZZ Solidarnosc

Agricultural Workers’ Secretariat of the Independent Self-governing Trade Union ‘Solidarnosc’

 

ZZPR

Trade Union of Agricultural Workers

 

ZZR Ojczyzna

Farmers Labour Union

 

ZZR Samoobrona

Agricultural Union ‘Samoobrona’

PT

AEDF

Association of Evora District Farmers

 

AIBSV

Association of Irrigators and Beneficiaries Sorraia Valley

 

APDF

Association of Portalegre District Farmers

 

AVRCF

Association of Vila Real County Farmers

 

CAP

Portugal Farmers Confederation

 

CONFAGRI

National Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives and Agricultural Credit of Portugal

 

CGTP-IN

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers

 

FESAHT

Federation of Unions in Food, Beverages, Hotels and Tourism of Portugal

 

FPAS

Portuguese Federation of Pig Breeders’ Associations

 

SETAA

Trade Union of Agriculture, Food and Forestry

 

UGT

General Union of Workers

RO

AGROSTAR

National Union Federation in Agriculture, Food, Tobacco and Other Related Areas

 

BNS

National Trade Union Block

 

CNS Cartel Alfa

National Trade Union Confederation ‘Cartel ALFA’

 

CONCORDIA

CONCORDIA

 

PRO AGRO

National Federation of Producers in Agriculture, Food and Related Services in Romania

SE

Kommunal

Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union

 

Ledarna

Sweden’s Organisation for Managers

 

LO

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

 

LRF

Federation of Swedish Farmers

 

Naturvetarna

Swedish Association of Professional Scientists

 

SLA

Swedish Forestry and Agricultural Employers

 

SLF

Federation of Swedish Forestry and Agricultural Employees

 

SACO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

SN

Confederation of Swedish Enterprises

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

 

Unionen

Trade Union for Professionals in the Private Sector

SI

GZS-ZKZP

Chamber of Commerce and Industry Slovenia – Chamber of Agricultural and Food Enterprises

 

KGZS

Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia

 

KZI

Trade Union of Agriculture and Food Industry of Slovenia

 

ZDS

Association of Employers of Slovenia

 

ZSSS

Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia

 

ZZS

Cooperative Union of Slovenia

SK

AZZZ SR

Federation of Employers’ Associations

 

OZ PP

Trade Union Association of Agricultural Employees

 

KOZ SR

Confederation of Trade Unions

 

SPPK

Slovak Agriculture and Food Chamber

UK

CBI

Confederation of British Industry

 

NFU

National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales

 

NFUS

National Farmers’ Union of Scotland

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

UFU

Ulster Farmers’ Union

 

UNITE

Unite Trade Union

EUROPE

 

 

 

CEETTAR

European Organisation of Agricultural and Rural Contractors

 

CEPF

Confédération Européenne des Propriétaires Forestiers

 

CESI

European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions

 

COGECA

General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union

 

COPA

Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EFJ

European Federation of Journalists

 

ELO

European Landowners’ Organisation

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ESA

European Seed Association

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

EUCOFEL

European Fruit and Vegetables Trade Association

 

Euromontana

European Association of Mountain Areas

 

Food Drink Europe

Food Drink Europe

 

GEOPA

Employers’ Group of the Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union

 

IDC

International Dockworkers Council

 

IndustriAll Europe

IndustriAll European Trade Union

 

UEF

Union of European Foresters

 

UNI Europa

Union Network International – Europe

 

USSE

Union of Foresters of Southern Europe

* In English where provided; otherwise in the language of the country of origin.

 

EF/15/80

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

Dodaj komentar