Denmark: representativeness of the European social partners – Personal services sector

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Published on: 20 Styczeń 2010



About
Country:
Denmark
Author:
Institution:

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the respective national and supranational actors (i.e. trade unions and employer organisations) in the field of industrial relations in the personal services sector in Denmark. In order to determine their relative importance in the sector’s industrial relations, this study will, in particular, focus on their representational quality as well as on their role in collective bargaining.

Introduction

1. Sectoral properties

  1995 2006**
Number of employers 5,848*** 6,400
Aggregate employment* 13,104 13,767
Male employment* 1,869 1,496
Female employment* 11,235 12,271
Aggregate employees 6,185 7,182
Male employees 489 458
Female employees 5,696 6,724
Aggregate sectoral employment as a % of total employment in the economy 0.5% 0.5%
Aggregate sectoral employees as a % of the total number of employees in the economy 0.3% 0.3%

* employees plus self-employed persons and agency workers

** or most recent data

*** The number is from 1999 since this is the earliest year that is available in the Firm Statistics, Statistics Denmark. Other numbers: Statistics Denmark, Employment Statistics.

2. The sector’s trade unions and employer associations

This section includes the following trade unions and employer associations:

1. trade unions which are party to sector-related collective bargaining (In line with the conceptual remarks outlined in the accompanying briefing note, we understand sector-related collective bargaining as any kind of collective bargaining within the sector, i.e. single-employer bargaining as well as multi-employer bargaining. For the definition of single- and multi-employer bargaining, see 4.2)

2. trade unions which are a member of the sector-related European Union Federation (i.e. UNI-EUROPA – Hair and Beauty)

3. employer associations which are a party to sector-related collective bargaining

4. employer associations (business associations) which are a member of the sector-related European Business Federation (i.e. COIFFURE EU)

2a Data on the trade unions

2a.1 Type of membership (voluntary vs. compulsory)

  • Danish Hairdresser and Cosmetic Union ( Dansk Frisør og Kosmetiker Forbund, DFKF): Voluntary
  • The Christian Trade Union (Kristelig fagforening , KF): Voluntary

2a.2 Formal demarcation of membership domain (e.g. white-collar workers, private-sector workers, personal services employees, etc.)

  • DFKF: Hairdressers and cosmeticians
  • KF: The union is interdisciplinary and covers all sectors

2a.3 Number of union members (i.e. the total number of members of the union as a whole)

  • DFKF: 4,906
  • KF: 92,802

2a.4 Number of union members in the sector

  • DFKF: 4,906
  • KF: 500-1,000 (E: KF)

2a.5 Female union members as a percentage of total union membership

  • DFKF: 4,704 (95.9 %)
  • KF: 49,930 (53.8 %)

2a.6 Domain density: total number of members of the union in relation to the number of potential members as demarcated by the union domain (see 2a.2)

  • DFKF: 85% (E)
  • KF: 5% (E)

2a.7 Sectoral density: total number of members of the union in the sector in relation to the number of employees in the sector, as demarcated by the NACE definition

  • DFKF: DFKF organises only hairdressers and cosmeticians, which means that domain density and sectoral density are identical.
  • KF: 9% (E)

2a.8 Sectoral domain density: total number of members of the union in the sector in relation to the number of employees which work in that part of the sector as covered by the union domain

  • DFKF: DFKF organises only hairdressers and cosmeticians, which means that domain density and sectoral density are identical.
  • KF: In this case 2a7 and 2a.8 are identical.

2a.9 Does the union conclude collective agreements?

  • DFKF: Yes
  • KF: Yes

2a.10 For each association, list their affiliation to higher-level national, European and international interest associations (including cross-sectoral associations)

  • The Danish Confederation of Trade Union (Landsorganisationen i Danmark, LO)
  • Hairdressers’ Union, UNI-Europa Hair & Beauty
  • At the national level KF is independent, but with Christian Unemployment Fund forms the Christian Trade Union Movement.
  • Trade Union Movement is a member of four branch groups in WCL (World Confederation of Labour): WFCW - World Federation of Clerical Workers; WFIW - World Federation of Industrial Workers; IFTC - International Federation of Textile and Clothing; EUROFEDOP - European Federation of Employees in Public Service

2b Data on the employer associations

Danish Hairdressing Federation (Danmarks Frisørmesterforening, DF)

The Christian Employers’ Association (Kristelig Arbejdsgiverforening, KA)2b.1 Type of membership (voluntary vs. compulsory)

  • DF: Voluntary
  • KA: Voluntary

2b.2 Formal demarcation of membership domain (e.g. SMEs, small-scale crafts/industry, personal services enterprises, etc.)

  • DF: An employers’ organisation for independent hairdresser companies, cosmetic companies, nailcare companies and other companies related to wellbeing in Denmark.
  • KA: Small and medium-sized companies

2b.3 Number of member companies (i.e. the total number of members of the association as a whole)

  • DF: 3,500
  • KA: 1,000

2b.4 Number of member companies in the sector

  • DF: 3,500
  • KA: 20

2b.5 Number of employees working in member companies (i.e. the total number of the association as a whole)

  • DF: 5,317
  • KA:100,000 (E)

2b.6 Number of employees working in member companies in the sector

  • DF: 5,317
  • KA: 200 (E)

2b.7 Domain density in terms of companies: total number of member companies of the association in relation to the number of potential member companies as demarcated by the association’s domain (see 2b.2)

  • DF: 58% (E)
  • KA: 10% (E)

2b.8 Sectoral density in terms of companies: total number of member companies of the association in the sector in relation to the number of companies in the sector, as demarcated by the NACE definition

DF: 58 % (E); DF only has members in the hairdressing and cosmetic sector which means that domain and sectoral density are identical.KA: 1% (E)

2b.9 Sectoral domain density in terms of companies: total number of member companies of the association in the sector in relation to the number of companies which operate in that part of the sector as covered by the association’s domain

DF only has members in the hairdressing and cosmetic sector which means that domain and sectoral density are identical.

KA covers the whole sector

2b.10 Domain density in terms of employees represented: total number of employees working in the association’s member companies in relation to the number of employees working in potential member companies, as demarcated by the association’s domain (see 2b.2)

DF: n.a.

KA: n.a.

2b.11 Sectoral density in terms of employees represented: total number of employees working in the association’s member companies in the sector in relation to the number of employees in the sector, as demarcated by the NACE definition

DF: n.a.

KA: n.a.

2b.12 Sectoral domain density in terms of employees represented: total number of employees working in the association’s member companies in the sector in relation to the number of employees working in companies which operate in that part of the sector as covered by the association’s domain

2b.13 Does the employer association conclude collective agreements?

  • DF is a mixed association. At the national level DF is a member of the Association of Small Employers’ Associations in Denmark (Sammenslutningen af Mindre Arbejdsgiverforeninger, SAMA) which is a member of the Confederation of Danish Employers (Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, DA). DF is also a member of the Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Håndværksrådet, HVR), which is purely a professional association.
  • KA is a member of the Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Håndværksrådet, HVR) at national level.

2b.14 For each association, list their affiliation to higher-level national, European and international interest associations (including the cross-sectoral associations).

  • DF is a member of OMC Europe and Coiffure EU.
  • KA is not affiliated to a European or International association (but indirect membership of EUAPME via HVR).

3. Inter-associational relationships

3.1. Please list all trade unions covered by this study whose domains overlap.

DFKF and KF both have the same type of members in the sector.

3.2. Do rivalries and competition exist among the trade unions, concerning the right to conclude collective agreements and to be consulted in public policy formulation and implementation?

There is a certain rivalry between DFKF and KF, not about the right to conclude collective agreement, because they both enjoy the right, but about actually signing collective agreement in the sector. Besides, membership is voluntary in Denmark and free concerning the choice of union. According to public consultation this quality is only attributed to the traditional trade union movement and not the Christian trade union movement or other independent movements.

3.3. If yes, are certain trade unions excluded from these rights?

See 3.2.

3.4. Same question for employer associations as 3.1.

The domains of DF and KA overlap.

3.5. Same question for employer associations as 3.2.

The answer is in line with 3.2. KA is independent and the counterpart to KF. DF is member of an employers’ association under the umbrella of DA and recognised by the LO-unions as the representative employers’ association in the sector. Only the organisations connected to LO/DA are consulted in sector-specific question.

3.6. Same question for employer associations as 3.3.

See 3.5.

3.7. Are there large companies or employer associations which refuse to recognise the trade unions and refuse to enter collective bargaining?

No, not precisely, but see Commentary.

4. The system of collective bargaining

4.1. Estimate the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage (i.e. the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector).

E: 85%

4.2. Estimate the relative importance of multi-employer agreements and of single-employer agreements as a percentage of the total number of employees covered. (Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer association on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, it is the company or its subunit(s) which is the party to the agreement. This includes the cases where two or more companies jointly negotiate an agreement.)

The multi-employer agreement between DFKF and DF covers most of the sector. There are only a few adoption agreements, e.g. a company agreement with the Comwell Group.

4.2.1. Is there a practice of extending multi-employer agreements to employers who are not affiliated to the signatory employer associations?

No

4.2.2. If there is a practice of extending collective agreements, is this practice pervasive or rather limited and exceptional?

No

4.3. List all sector-related multi-employer wage agreements* valid in 2006 (or most recent data), including for each agreement information on the signatory parties and the purview of the agreement in terms of branches, types of employees and territory covered.

* Only wage agreements which are (re)negotiated on a reiterated basis.

Sector-related multi employer wage agreements
Bargaining parties Purview of the sector-related multi-employer wage agreements
  Sectoral Type of employees Territorial
DFKF – DF Personal service Hairdressers National
DFKF – DF Personal service Cosmeticians National
KF - KA Personal service Hairdressers National

4.4. List the sector’s four most important collective agreements (single-employer or multi-employer agreements) valid in 2006 (or most recent data), including for each agreement information on the signatory parties and the purview of the agreement in terms of branches, types of employees and territory covered. Importance is measured in terms of employees covered.

Four most important agreements in terms of employees covered
Bargaining parties Purview of the agreements
  Sectoral Type of employees Territorial
DFKF – DF Personal service Hairdressers National
DFKF – DF Personal service Cosmeticians National
KF - KA Personal service Hairdressers National
DFKF – Comwell Personal service Hairdressers and cosmeticians Company

5. Formulation and implementation of sector-specific public policies

5.1. Are the sector’s employer associations and trade unions usually consulted by the authorities in sector-specific matters? If yes, which associations?

No, not on a regular basis at sector level.

5.2. Do tripartite bodies dealing with sector-specific issues exist? If yes, please indicate their domain of activity (for instance, health and safety, equal opportunities, labour market, social security and pensions etc.), their origin (agreement/statutory) and the interest organisations having representatives in them:

Sector-specific public policies*
Name of the body and scope of activity Bipartite/tripartite Origin: agreement/statutory Trade unions having representatives (reps) Employer associations having reps.
Sectoral Health & Safety Committee for Services (Branchearbejds-miljørådet for Service og Tjenesteydelser) Bipartite Statutory Danish Clerical Union (Dansk Funktionær Forbund -Serviceforbundet, DFF-S) United workers’ Union (Fagligt Fælles Forbund, 3F) The Police Union in Denmark (Politiforbundet i Danmark) The Central Association of Permanent Defense Personnel (Centralforenin-gen for Stampersonel) Confederation of Professional Associations in Denmark (Akademikernes Centralorgani-sation, AC) The Civil Department of Defense( Forsvarets Civil-Etat) Danish Hairdresser and Cosmetic Union (substitute for one member of 3F) The ministry of Finance (Finansministeriet) Danish Industry (DI) Local Government Denmark (KL) Danish Regions (Danske Regioner) The Danish Association of Managers and Executives (Ledernes Hovedorganisation, LH)
Vocational Traning Committee (Erhvervsuddannelsesudvalg) Bipartite Statutory Danish Hairdresser and Cosmetic Union (DFKF) The Danish Hairdressing Federation (DF)
Hairdressers’ Joint Committee (Frisørfagets Fællesudvalg) Bipartite Agreement Danish Hairdresser and Cosmetic Union The Danish Hairdressing Federation (DF)
The Reference group for Hairdressers and Cosmeticians (Referencegrup-pen for Frisører og Kosmetikere) Bipartite Agreement Danish Hairdresser and Cosmetic Union The Danish Hairdressing Federation (DF)

* Sector-specific policies specifically target and affect the sector under consideration.

6. Statutory regulations of representativeness

6.1. In the case of the trade unions, do statutory regulations exist which establish criteria of representativeness which a union must meet, so as to be entitled to conclude collective agreements? If yes, please briefly illustrate these rules and list the organisations which meet them.

No

6.2. In the case of the trade unions, do statutory regulations exist which establish criteria of representativeness which a union must meet, so as to be entitled to be consulted in matters of public policy and to participate in tripartite bodies? If yes, please briefly illustrate these rules and list the organisations which meet them.

No

6.3. Are elections for a certain representational body (e.g. works councils) established as criteria for trade union representativeness? If yes, please report the most recent electoral outcome for the sector.

No

6.4. Same question for employer associations as 6.1.

No

6.5. Same question for employer associations as 6.2.

No

6.6. Are elections for a certain representational body established as criteria for the representativeness of employer associations? If yes, please report the most recent outcome for the sector.

No

7. Commentary

In the beginning of 2007 three large hairdressers’ chains (Stender, Kjær and Hos Peter) wanted to leave DF and join KA. They were dissatisfied with the collective agreement with DFKF and preferred to be covered by the (much cheaper) agreement between KA and KF. Consequently the chains cancelled the collective agreement with DFKF and served notice of a lockout in line with normal practice.

The problem was, however, that they were still member of DF when they served notice of the lockout. The chains had not respected the terms of notice for leaving KF, which subsequently took the three chains to court and won.

The three chains then faced a new serious problem. The lockout notice was not in accordance with the rules of notice concerning termination of a collective agreement (Basic Agreement between LO and DA). The lockout consequently was referred to the Labour Court in March 2007 by DFKF, and here the chains were ordered to pay DKK 960,000 to the DFKF and the employees involved for taking unofficial industrial action, i.e. action in conflict with the collective agreement. Furthermore the Court ruled that the three chains had pressed their employees to be member of the Christian union KF, which is against the provisions of the Act on freedom of association (Foreningsfrihedsloven). The chains were ordered to pay another DKK 340.000.

The Christian employers in KA encouraged the chains to take the steps they did even if it was not within the agreed framework of industrial conflict. LO reacted against the unofficial attempt to enter the personal services sector by ‘considering’ taking sympathetic action against the 800 member companies of KA. The three chains left KA, and the matter ended. The conclusion was that KA and KF did not succeed in having more than scattered agreements with single employers.

Anne Ley, Petra Frydensberg, Carsten Jørgensen, FAOS

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

Dodaj komentarz