OGB-L criticises Clearstream over employee representation

Download article in original language : LU0011149NFR.DOC

In October 2000, Clearstream, a Luxembourg-based finance group, attracted severe criticism from the OGB-L trade union confederation over its employee representation arrangements. The company is accused of "interfering" with the operation of the law on employee committees and joint company councils.

On 14 October 2000, the Luxembourg Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (Onofhängege Gewerkschafts-Bond Lëtzebuerg, OGB-L) condemned employee representation arrangements at the Luxembourg-based Clearstream finance group, previously known as Cedel, which has now restructured into three companies: Clearstream International, Clearstream Services and Clearstream Banking.

OGB-L claims that since 1990, when there were changes at senior management level in Clearstream, it has constantly met with problems in its attempts to establish trade union representation at the company. The union alleges that there is a "totalitarian system" affecting all levels of the firm - including management and supervisory levels, employees, employee representatives and union activists - and that the pressure is quite "intolerable". OGB-L accuses Clearstream of interference (délit d'entrave) by undermining the operation of staff representative bodies, and particularly by refusing to set up a company joint committee (comité mixte d'entreprise).

Company joint committees are made up equally of employer and employee representatives, and are obligatory in all private-sector companies in Luxembourg which employ 150 or more workers. They have a range of information, consultation and co-decision rights (LU9810172F).

The Labour and Mines Inspectorate (Inspection du Travail et des Mines, ITM) is responsible for overseeing the law governing the establishment of company joint committees. After carrying out an enquiry, the ITM reached the conclusion that Clearstream was obliged to set up committee. When the employer refused to do so, the ITM threatened to appoint the committee itself and refer the matter to the State Prosecutor with a view to seeking criminal sanctions. According to OGB-L, both the Minister of Labour and the ITM have put considerable into the affair over the previous few months.

A second issue has now arisen at Coldstream. It is alleged that, following the recent dismissal of a member of the employee committee/works council (délégation du personnel), the company suggested re-engaging the person concerned on condition that she "resigned as an employee committee member and promised not to stand in elections in future". OGB-L describes this action as yet another "interference in breach of the law on employee committees". No reply has been received to a letter sent to the company by the ITM on this matter.

OGB-L has said that it "has confidence" in the ITM and the Ministry of Labour, but that it will "leave no stone unturned" in demanding the establishment of "respectful" relations within the group, the lifting of the employee committee member's dismissal, and the establishment of a company joint committee.

OGB-L's demand to negotiate a collective agreement with Clearstream has fallen by the wayside since 24 October 2000, when the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal administratif), declared that a collective agreement concluded between Clearstream and the Association of Banking and Insurance Staff (Association des employés de banques et d'assurances, Aleba) was valid, following the recognition of Aleba's nationally representative trade union status (this issue - LU0002128F- will be covered in a November EIRO feature).

The dispute over employee representation at Clearstream is extremely unusual in Luxembourg, whose highly developed scheme of tripartism and employee representation is well established, with its operation normally eliciting little comment.