Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Private security

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Stosunki pracy,
  • Representativeness,
  • Social partners,
  • Date of Publication: 28 Czerwiec 2012



About
Author:
Institution:

This study aims to provide the necessary information for assisting the existing sectoral social dialogue in the private security sector. It identifies the relevant national organisations on both sides of the industry and analyses the European organisations pertaining to the sector. The study comprises three parts: a summary of the sector’s economic background; an analysis of the social partner organisations in all EU Member States (with the exception of Latvia and Greece), focusing on membership, role in collective bargaining and public policy, and national and European affiliations; and, finally, an analysis of the relevant European organisations, particularly their membership composition and their capacity to negotiate. The EIRO series of representativeness studies aims to identify relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in selected sectors. They derive from the European Commission’s desire to recognise the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

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

Download the full report (449KB PDF)

National contributions may be available


Objectives of study

The aim of this representativeness study is to identify the relevant national and supranational associational actors – that is the trade unions and employer associations – in the field of industrial relations in the private security sector, and show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study 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 support sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of the European social dialogue depends on whether its participants are sufficiently representative in terms of the sector’s relevant national actors across the EU Member States. Only European associations which meet this precondition will be admitted to the European social dialogue.

Against this background, the study will first identify the relevant national social partner organisations in the private security sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations, 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 union’s/employer organisation’s domain embrace potentially all employees in the Private Security sector?

Yes/No

This question has not been asked directly in the questionnaire, but is considered to be ‘Yes’ if all of the five following sub-questions are ‘yes’. It is considered to be “No”, if at least one of the following sub-questions is answered with ‘no’.

…cover ‘basically all’ groups of employees (min.: blue collar, white collar) in the Private Security sector?

Yes/No

This question refers to the organisation’s scope of the sector with regard to different types of employment contracts etc. As the contractual forms are rather heterogeneous, the minimum requirement to answer this question with “yes” would be the fact that both blue-collar and white-collar workers are potentially covered by the organisation’s domain.

…cover the ‘whole’ Private Security sectorin terms of economic activities, (i.e. including all sub-activities)

Yes/No

This question refers to the economic sub- activities of the NACE code chosen. In the spreadsheet part of the questionnaire, correspondents have been provided a detailed breakdown of sub-activities down to the four-digit level.

… cover employees in all types of companies (all types of ownership: private, public…) in the Private Security sector?

Yes/No

This question refers to ownership. Some organisations might limit for instance their domain to domestically owned, or to public sector companies/employees only.

… cover employees in enterprises of all sizes in the Private Security sector?

Yes/No

Often, organisations limit their domain to enterprises by size class (e.g. SMEs only).

…cover all occupations in the Private Security sector?

Yes/No

Some organisations (notably trade unions) limit their domain to certain occupations only. This sub-question intends to identify these occupational organisations.

Domain of the organisation outside the sector

Does the union also represent members outside the Private Security sector?

Yes/No

This question is again being asked directly of the correspondents.

Source: Standardised Excel-based questionnaire, sent to EIRO National correspondents.

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

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

  • a party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining;
  • or 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 EC treaty;
  • or it must participate 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 implies that such an association may not be involved at all in industrial relations in its own country. Hence, this selection criterion may seem odd at first glance. However, if a national association is a member of a European social partner organisation, it becomes involved in industrial relations matters through its membership in the European organisation.

Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the national affiliates to the European social partner organisations are engaged in industrial relations in their respective countries. 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.

In terms of the selection criteria for the European organisations, this report:

  • includes those sector-related European social partner organisations that are on the Commission’s list of consultation;
  • 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 private security 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. More specifically, it is defined in accordance with NACE (Rev. 2) 80.1, so that it includes private security activities, such as guard and patrol services, picking up and delivering money, receipts, or other valuable items with personnel and equipment to protect such properties while in transit.

NACE Rev.2

 

80.1

Private security activities

According to the the EU-level employer association, Confederation of European Security Services (CoESS), ‘the sector includes private security services, including, but certainly not limited to: commercial manned guarding, beat patrol, in-house manned security, event security (crowd control), door supervision, bodyguarding, Cash-In-Transit (CIT) and the transport of valuables, cash processing, mobile alarm response and call-out services/response services, alarm and CCTV monitoring, monitoring centre and console operations, track and trace, aviation security, screening, canine (K9) services, maritime security, critical infrastructure protection, combined solutions, corporate investigation, emergency medical technician (first aid services), fire prevention and protection services, urban security, loss prevention, receptionist/concierge services, security consulting, specialised guarding, private security training and many others’.

It should be noted that the specification of the sectoral NACE (rev. 2) code at a three-digit level excludes the availability of Eurostat data on employment, since these are provided only for two-digit definitions, that is, in this case, for NACE 80 (Security and investigation activities) which also includes 80.2 (Security systems service activities) and 80.3 (Investigation activities). It must be underlined that the national reports which accompany this study cover the whole NACE 80 sector (following the indications they received at the beginning of the study); therefore, all national-level organisations which are not related to private security activites are excluded from this representativeness study. This change, which was implemented ‘in progress’, required a careful revision of the classification of the representational domain of national-level organisations and of the sectoral density rates.

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

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

Figure 1: Sector relatedness of social partner organisations: Domain patterns

Figure 1: Sector relatedness of social partner organisations: Domain patterns

Table 2: Pattern and scope 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 Private Security sector? Does the union/employer organisation also represent members outside the Private Security sector?
Congruence (C)

Yes

No

Sectionalism (S)

No

No

Overlap (O)

Yes

Yes

Sectional overlap (SO)

No

Yes

Note: The domain pattern results from the answers to the questions on the scope of the domain derived in Table 4 in the annex.

At European level, the European Commission established a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the private security sector in 1999, although the social partners had been cooperating in an informal working party since 1992. The Confederation of European Security Services (CoESS) on the employer side, as well as the UNI Global Union Europa-Section Property Services (UNI Europa-Property Services) on the employee side participate in the sector’s European social dialogue. Thus, affiliation to one of these European organisations is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a social partner organisation for the purpose of this study. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important, in particular, in the case of UNI Europa due to its multi-sectoral domain. Thus, the study will include only the organisations affiliated to UNI Europa-Property Services whose domain relates to the private security sector.

Collection of data

The collection of quantitative data, such as those on membership, is essential for investigating the representativeness of the social partner organisations. Unless otherwise stated, this study draws on the country studies provided by the EIRO national centres, based on a standard questionnaire in both Word and Excel format, which they complete through contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. The contact is generally made via telephone interviews in the first place, but might in certain cases be established via email. In case of non-availability of any representative, the national correspondents are asked to fill out the relevant questionnaire using 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, the EIRO correspondents are requested to give 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, namely:

  • 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 statistics from Eurostat or national statistical offices, 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. These organisations can, however, still be found in the national contributions, which will be published together with the overview report.

Quality assurance

In order to assure the quality of the information gathered, several verification procedures and feedback loops have been used.

  • First, staff at the European Foundation, together with the report’s author check the consistency of the figures provided, and make sure that the organisations listed match the criteria for inclusion for the purpose of this study (see Table 2).
  • Second, the European Foundation sends the national contributions to both their national members of the governing board and the European-level sector-related social partners’ 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 EU Member States, with the exception of Greece and Latvia. The Greek EIRO national correspondent was not able to contact the sectoral social partners, whereas Latvia was not part of the EIRO network at the time of collecting data for this REP. The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level.

Each section will contain a brief introduction explaining the concept of representativeness in greater detail, followed by the study findings. As representativeness is a complex issue, it requires separate consideration at national and European level for two reasons. Firstly, the method applied by national regulations and practices to capture representativeness has to be taken into account. Secondly, the national and European organisations differ in their tasks and scope of activities. The concept of representativeness must therefore be suited to this difference.

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the research and political aspects of this study. While providing data on the representativeness of the organisations under consideration, 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 a matter for political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.


Economic background

In the 2000s, private security and investigation activities have been a growing business sector in Europe. In recent years, employment in this sector has constantly grown at EU level, even during the recent economic downturn, although with variable trends at national level. Its expansion was a result of various factors, including the spread of the outsourcing phenomenon.

According to the latest edition of the CoESS Facts and Figures (1.65Mb PDF), there were 38,500 companies actively involved in private security in 2010. Since no Eurostat data for NACE rev.2 sector 80.1 are available, the CoeSS report represents the most comprehensive and reliable source of data on the private security market in Europe. The report includes countries outside the scope of this study, but the data presented in this section refer only to EU27 countries.

The companies are concentrated in Hungary, the Czech Republic, France, Poland and the UK. The turnover of private security activities in EU countries totalled over EUR 32 billion. The trend in 2010 was for greater growth than in 2009, although there was a slowdown since the economic downturn. The relative importance of the different subsectors varies across countries; in addition to general guard services, important activities include ‘cash-in-transit’ services, remote surveillance and airport security.

Employment characteristics

In 2010, there were more than 1.2 million security guards in employment in Europe. They were mainly concentrated in the UK (18.4%), Germany (13.7%) and France (10.7%), which together accounted for about 40% of the total security workforce. However, regarding the proportion employed in security relative to total population, the importance of private security employment was particularly high in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Luxembourg. Male employment was dominant, with an average share of female workers of just 17%. Private security workers were relatively young, as the average age was usually between 30–40 years (Table 3).

Table 3: Private security sector in the EU (2010)
  No. of active firms % No.of active guards % Guards/population Average firm size Average worker age % Women
AT

100

0.3

10,000

0.8

0.12

100.0

35-40

20.0

BE

187

0.5

15,411

1.3

0.14

82.4

35

14.8

BG

800

2.1

57,146

4.7

0.76

71.4

45

12.3

CY

60

0.2

1,700

0.1

0.21

28.3

-

25.0

CZ

5,629

14.6

51,542

4.2

0.49

9.2

-

-

DK

400

1.0

5,000

0.4

0.09

12.5

-

20.0

EE

252

0.7

4,627

0.4

0.35

18.4

40

20.0

FI

100

0.3

12,500

1.0

0.23

125.0

-

25.0

FR

3,859

10.0

131,542

10.7

0.20

34.1

37.5

16.0

DE

3,700

9.6

168,000

13.7

0.21

45.4

45

20.0

EL

1,200

3.1

30,000

2.4

0.27

25.0

25

20.0

HU

11,304

29.4

80,000

6.5

0.80

7.1

-

15.0

IE

280

0.7

20,000

1.6

0.45

71.4

-

2.0

IT

913

2.4

47,858

3.9

0.08

52.4

42

9.0

LV

450

1.2

11,000

0.9

0.49

24.4

35

20.0

LT

121

0.3

11,000

0.9

0.34

90.9

30

20.0

LU

13

0.0

2,700

0.2

0.54

207.7

38

20.0

MT

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

PL

3,000

7.8

58,000

4.7

0.15

19.3

38

5.0

PT

105

0.3

21,188

1.7

0.20

201.8

42

20.0

RO

1,282

3.3

96,500

7.9

0.45

75.3

35

15.0

SK

-

-

17,200

1.4

0.32

-

-

-

SI

113

0.3

6,364

0.5

0.31

56.3

-

5.0

ES

1,494

3.9

89,750

7.3

0.20

60.1

40

15.0

SE

250

0.6

20,000

1.6

0.21

80.0

30

30.0

NL

400

1.0

31,543

2.6

0.19

78.9

25-35

24.0

UK

2,500

6.5

225,000

18.4

0.59

145.8

-

-

Total

38,512

100.0

1,225,571

100.0

0.27

35.4

-

17.1

Source: CoESS, Facts & Figures 2011.


National level of interest representation

  • 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 bodies of social dialogue.

Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the membership strength of the organisations. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually 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, 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 effectiveness of European 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, setting an incentive for the governments to seek persistently 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 absent.

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

  • the membership domain of the social partner organisations;
  • their strength in terms of membership;
  • their recognised role in collective bargaining, as in public policymaking.

Membership domains 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 private security 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.

Regarding membership strength, a differentiation exists 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 actual to potential members.

Furthermore, 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 persons. However, in this context a clarification of the concept of ‘member’ should be made. Whereas in most countries recorded membership includes both employees in jobs and members who are not in active employment (such as unemployed people and retired workers) some countries provide information on employed membership only. Hence, two measures of trade union density have to be defined: gross union density (including inactive members) and net union density (referring to employed union members only). In addition to taking the total membership of a trade union as an indicator of its strength, it is also reasonable to break down this membership total according to gender.

However, measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely companies with employees. In this case, therefore, two possible measures of membership strength may be used – one referring to the companies themselves, and the other to the employees working in the member companies.

For a sector study such as this, measures of membership strength of both the trade unions and employer organisations have also to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, membership density in the sector under investigation will most likely differ from the overall density, since the reference population for delimiting the relevant membership – the numerator – and identifying the potential members – the denominator – will not be the same. This report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and will then consider those of the employer organisations.

To summarise, this report basically distinguishes between three types of organisational densities, as defined in Table 4, which are – depending on data availability – also broken down into net and gross rates.

Table 4: Definition of organisational density figures
Type of density Definition Breakdown
Domain density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation divided by total number of employees (companies) included in the organisation’s membership domain

Net and gross; employees (for trade unions); companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Sectoral density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation in the private security sector divided by total number of employees (companies) in the sector.

Net and gross; employees (for trade unions); companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Sectoral domain density

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation in the private security sector divided by total number of employees (companies) in the private security sector as demarcated by the organisation’s domain

Net and gross; employees (for trade unions); companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Trade unions

Tables 5 and 6 present the trade union data on their domains and density. The tables list all trade unions which meet at least one of the two criteria for classification as a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier.

Table 5: Domain coverage and membership of trade unions in private security, 2009/10

Country

Trade union

Type of membership

Domain coverage

Membership

Members total

Members active

Members sector

Members sector active

Female membership (%) of total

AT

GPA-djp*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

180,000

n.a.

n.a.

44

vida*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

152,000

n.a.

n.a.

35

BE

CCAS/CCVD*

voluntary

overlap

239,066

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

57

CGSLB/ACLVB*

voluntary

overlap

265,123

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CG/AC*

voluntary

sectional overlap

376,768

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SETca/BBTK*

voluntary

sectional overlap

382,291

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

GSENTU CL PODKREPA

voluntary

congruence

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

12

CY

OIYK/SEK*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

7,568

n.a.

175

n.a.

SEVETTYK/PEO*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

13,885

n.a.

85

n.a.

CZ

OS PPP

voluntary

n/a

9,160

8,537

0

0

n.a.

DE

ver.di*

voluntary

overlap

2,238,200

n.a.

18,000

n.a.

50

GÖD*

voluntary

overlap

56,068

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IG BAU*

voluntary

overlap

325,421

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

20

DK

VSL

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

19,500

n.a.

3,200

24

EE

ETKA*

voluntary

overlap

1,002

989

98

98

96

ESTAL*

voluntary

overlap

1,875

1,575

20

20

67

ES

ELA ZERBITZUAK*

voluntary

sectional overlap

24,909

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FTSP-USO*

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CIG*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FeS-UGT*

voluntary

overlap

135,000

101,250

26,000

25,421

n.a.

AADDCCOO*

voluntary

overlap

89,257

78,949

14,962

14,956

n.a.

FI

PAM

voluntary

overlap

221,000

154,000

4,610

4,560

80

.

FR

FCDS-CGT*

voluntary

sectional overlap

38,000

37,000

1,900

n.a.

50

CFE-CGC*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

3,000

3,000

n.a.

CFDT-Services*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FNMPSSA-UNSA*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SNEPS-CFTC*

voluntary

sectionalism

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

10

FEETS-FO*

voluntary

sectional overlap

21,000

21,000

1,800

1,800

5

HU

VSZSZ*

voluntary

congruence

3,500

3,200

3,500

3,200

10

ÉŐDSZ*

voluntary

congruence

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

10

IE

SIPTU

voluntary

sectional overlap

217,000

209,881

5,800

5,800

37

IT

FILCAMS*

voluntary

overlap

372,268

372,268

12,200

12,200

58

FISALS*

voluntary

sectional overlap

7,500

6,500

n.a.

n.a.

55

UILTuCS*

voluntary

overlap

111,600

111,600

10,200

10,200

50

FISASCAT*

voluntary

overlap

222,000

222,000

8,000

8,000

60

FESICA*

voluntary

overlap

375,000

375,000

4,500

4,500

40

LT

LPSDPS

voluntary

overlap

4,000

4,000

550

550

60

LU

OGB-L Services et Energie*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LCGB Gardiennage / Wach- und Sicherheitsdienst*

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

GWU*

voluntary

overlap

41,575

34,542

600

600

18

UHM*

voluntary

overlap

26,107

22,738

220

220

32

NL

CNV Dienstenbond*

voluntary

overlap

37,200

37,200

1,500

1,500

20

De Unie*

voluntary

overlap

64,500

64,500

2,080

2,080

20

FNV Bondgenoten*

voluntary

overlap

470,000

470,000

4,200

4,200

20

PL

OZZPO*

voluntary

congruence

600

600

600

600

0

MOZ NSZZ* Solidarność POCS*

voluntary

overlap

4,126

4,126

3,276

3,276

27

KP*

voluntary

overlap

10,000

10,000

60

60

n.a.

PT

STAD*

voluntary

overlap

7,900

7,900

2,500

2,500

75

SITESE*

voluntary

overlap

10,000

8,000

500

400

68

SE

Kommunal*

voluntary

sectional overlap

500,000

460,000

n.a.

190

81

Unionen

voluntary

sectional overlap

500,000

400,000

n.a.

1,900

n.a.

Transport*

voluntary

sectional overlap

63,100

56,900

8,600

7,900

16

Ledarna

voluntary

sectional overlap

95,000

80,000

n.a.

700

23

SI

SKVNS*

voluntary

overlap

6,000

6,000

1,200

1,200

50

KS90*

voluntary

overlap

40,000

40,000

940

940

50

UK

GMB

voluntary

overlap

601,730

601,730

50,000

50,000

47

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related trade unions.

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Table 6: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of trade unions in private security, 2009/10

Country

Trade unions

Union densities (%)

CB

Consultation

National a

and European affiliations

Domain total

Domain active

Sector

Sector active

Sectoral domain

Sectoral domain active

AT

GPA-djp

n.a.

16%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ÖGB ;

UNI Europa; EPSU; EMCEF; EFFAT; EFJ

vida

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

10-25%

n.a.

10-25%

yes

yes

ÖGB ;

UNI Europa; EFFAT; ETF; EPSU

BE

CCAS/

CCVD

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CSC/ACV ;

UNI Europa (via CSC/ACV)

CGSLB/

ACLVB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CGSLB/ACLVB; UNI Europa

CG/AC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

FGTB/ABVV; UNI Europa (via FGTB/ABVV)

SETca/BBTK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

FGTB/ABVV; UNI Europa (via FGTB/ABVV)

BG

GSENTU CL PODKREPA

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

yes

no

CL PODKREPA; UNI Europa;

CY

OIYK/SEK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

16%

n.a.

16%

yes

no

SEK;

UNI Europa;

SEVETTYK/PEO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

8%

n.a.

8%

yes

no

PEO;

None

CZ

OS PPP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

ČMKOS

Uni Europa

DE

ver.di

n.a.

n.a.

12%

n.a.

12%

n.a.

yes

no

DGB;

UNI Europa

GÖD

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CGB;

CESI (via CGB)

IG BAU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

no

DGB;

UNI Europa; EFFAT; EFBWW

DK

VSL

n.a.

65%

n.a.

70%

n.a.

85%

yes

yes

LO;

UNI Europa; EPSU

EE

ETKA

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

yes

no

EAKL; AHL; UNI Europa;

ESTAL

2%

1%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

yes

no

EAKL; Association of Baltic communication and Service Workers UNI Europa;

ES

ELA ZERBITZUAK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

 

FTSP-USO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UNI Europa

CIG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

 

FeS-UGT

n.a.

n.a.

18%

18%

18%

18%

yes

yes

UGT;

UNI Europa

AADDCCOO

n.a.

n.a.

10%

10%

10%

10%

yes

yes

CCOO;

UNI Europa

FI

PAM

55%

51%

47%

46%

47%

46%

yes

yes

SAK;

UNI Europa

FR

FCDS-CGT

1%

1%

1%

1%

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CGT;

UNI Europa; EFFAT

CFE-CGC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

yes

no

CFE-CGC; None

CFDT-Services

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CFDT;

UNI Europa

FNMPSSA-UNSA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

10-25%

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

UNSA

SNEPS-CFTC

n.a.

2%

n.a.

2%

n.a.

2%

yes

no

CFTC;

None

FEETS-FO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1%

1%

yes

yes

CGT-FO ;

UNI Europa; ETF

HU

VSZSZ

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

yes

yes

MSZOSZ;

UNI Europa

ÉŐDSZ

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

no

yes

Munkástanácsok ;

UNI Europa

IE

SIPTU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

45%

n.a.

45%

yes

yes

ICTU ;

UNI Europa

IT

FILCAMS

9%

9%

18%

18%

18%

18%

yes

yes

CGIL ;

UNI Europa; EFFAT; ETLC

FISALS

75%

65%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CONFSAl; CESI

UILTuCS

3%

3%

15%

15%

15%

15%

yes

yes

UIL;

UNI Europa; EFFAT

FISASCAT

6%

6%

12%

12%

12%

12%

yes

yes

CISL;

UNI Europa; EFFAT

FESICA

19%

19%

7%

7%

7%

7%

yes

yes

CONFSAL; CESI

LT

LPSDPS

4%

4%

4%

4%

25%

25%

yes

no

LPSK;

UNI Europa

LU

OGB-L Services et Energie

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

OGB-L ;

UNI Europa; Eurocadres

LCGB Gardiennage/Wach- und Sicherheitsdienst

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

LCGB ;

UNI Europa

MT

GWU

28%

23%

61%

61%

61%

61%

yes

yes

UNI Europa; EPSU; EURO WEA; FERPA

UHM

17%

15%

22%

22%

22%

22%

yes

no

CMTU; EUROFEDOP

NL

CNV Dienstenbond

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CNV ;

UNI Europa

De Unie

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CMHP

FNV Bondgenoten

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

FNV ;

UNI Europa

PL

OZZPO

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

yes

yes

None

MOZ NSZZ Solidarność POCS

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

yes

yes

NSZZ ;

UNI Europa

KP

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

n.a.

0-9%

yes

yes

OPZZ

PT

STAD

7%

7%

6%

6%

6%

6%

yes

yes

CGTP;

UNI EuropaNone

SITESE

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

yes

yes

UGT, FETESE ;

UNI Europa

SE

Kommunal

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1%

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

LO

Unionen

n.a.

29%

n.a.

8%

n.a.

95%

yes

no

UNI Europa; NFS; Eurocadres; EMF

Transport

53%

47%

38%

35%

n.a.

49%

yes

yes

LO;

UNI Europa; ETF

Ledarna

n.a.

16%

n.a.

3%

n.a.

14%

yes

yes

OFR;

CEC

SI

SKVNS

30%

30%

19%

19%

19%

19%

yes

yes

ZSSS;

UNI Europa

KS90

5%

5%

15%

15%

15%

15%

yes

no

 
UK

GMB

3%

3%

31%

31%

31%

31%

yes

yes

TUC;

UNI Europa;

a= 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 units.

Note: The figures have rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure of up to 0.49% and always more than 0%.

CB = collective bargaining

n.a. = not available

The majority of the countries included in the study record at least one sector-related trade union. The exceptions are:

  • Romania, where the only union mentioned in the national report (SIAS) neither participates in national collective bargaining nor is affiliated to sector-related social partners at EU-level;
  • Slovakia, where there are no sector-related industrial relations.

In the Czech Republic the only union engaged in sector-related collective bargaining is a firm-level union which signs the company agreement at G4S, covering 13% of sectoral employees. No further information on this firm-level union could be collected by the Czech NC.

In total, 56 sector-related trade unions could be identified. The qualification of the representational domain is available for 55 unions. The Czech OS PPP does not organise workers in the private security sector and therefore its representational domain could not be classified here. Of the 55, six (11%) have demarcated their domain in a way which is congruent with the sector definition. This low proportion underscores the fact that statistical definitions of business activities rather differ from the lines along which employees identify common interests and band together in trade unions. Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector occur in 32 of the cases (or 58%). This is the commonest situation in the private security sector. Overlap by and large arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first one refers to general (cross-sectoral) domains (such as ver.di in Germany and De Unie in the Netherlands). The second mode in the sector relates to various forms of multi-sector domains, covering contiguous sectors, frequently in the broader distribution or private services segments of the economy (such as Fisascat in Italy). Sectional overlaps involve 16 (29%) trade unions. This mode usually emanates from domain demarcations which focus on certain categories of employees in white and blue-collar unions which are then organised across several or all sectors. Employee categories are specified by various parameters, such as distinct occupations (such as. managers in the case of Ledarna of Sweden), employment status (such as white-collar workers, as is the case of GPA-DJP in Austria, Belgium’s SETca/BBTK and Sweden’s Unionen; or blue-collar employees, as is the case of vida of Austria, FGTB CG/ABVV AC of Belgium) and geographic region (such as CIG and Elala Zerbitzuak of Spain which are each active only in Galicia and the Basque Country respectively). The Italian FISALS represents a very particular case of sectional overlap, as it represents foreign national workers in all sectors. Finally, sectionalism, which ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions, which represent and organise only certain categories of employees in the sector, can be found only in the case of the French SNEPS-CFTC, whose representational domain is limited to the sector but excludes workers who transport valuables.

Figure 2: Private security sector related trade unions and their domain patterns (N=55)

Figure 2: Private security sector related trade unions and their domain patterns (N=55)

Source: EIRO national contributions

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their domains with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the private security sector. Table 5 also shows these inter-union domain overlaps. Inter-union overlaps of domains are endemic. In all countries with more than one sector-related trade union, the domain of any of them overlaps with the domain of all or most of the others. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in competition for members. Inter-union competition is recorded in several countries, such as Estonia, France, Germany, Italy (in part), Portugal, and Sweden. In many cases, however, trade unions cooperate in joint collective bargaining at sectoral and decentralised levels.

On average, female employees represent a minority of trade union members in the unions covered by this study, with a simple mean of 40% for the 37 cases where the information is available. Variations are wide across union organisations, due to the difference in their representational domains. The presence of women is higher when representation extends beyond the private security sector, which is characterised by prevalence of male employment, and includes female-dominated activities or professions. Indeed, in the few cases of congruence and sectionalism, where representation remains within the boundaries of the private security sector, the share of female membership is quite low and averages around 10%.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all cases of the Member States under consideration.

The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from about 2.2 million (in the case of Germany’s ver.di) to only a few hundred. 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. Therefore, density is the measure of membership strength which is more appropriate to a comparative analysis. In this context it should be noted that density figures in this section refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees rather than including union members who are not in work. This is mainly because net union densities are more informative than gross densities, since they better reflect the capacity to represent workers in their relationship to employers and also because trade unions do not always extend membership beyond active workers, so that gross rates do not represent a comparable indicator. Furthermore, only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action.

Membership rates (of active workers) are available for around 30 of the sector-related organisations. It should be noted that if a range of values was given instead of an exact figure, calculations used the lowest value. For instance, for the 0-9% range, 0% was used, and for the 10-25% class, 10% was used.

With this clarification, domain density (29 cases) tends to be rather low, since 17 unions are under 10% and only seven are above 20%. Compared with their overall domain densities, the sector-related trade unions’ density in the private security sector basically reflects the overall density, with a certain increase in the case of sectoral domain densities.

When looking at sector density (again referring only to active members), it is important to differentiate between the trade unions’ sectoral density on the one hand and their sectoral domain density on the other. Whereas the former measures the ratio of the total number of members of a trade union in the sector to the number of employees in the sector (as demarcated by the NACE classification), the latter indicates the total number of members of a trade union in the sector in relation to the number of employees who work in that part of the sector as covered by the union domain. This means that the sectoral domain density must be higher than the sectoral density if a trade union organises only a particular part of the sector – that is where the trade union’s membership domain is either sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping in relation to the sector.

When taking the trade unions’ sectoral domain density into account, the trade unions’ density in the private security sector tends to be higher compared with the density ratio referring to their domain on aggregate, up from a simple mean of 15% (29 cases) to 19% (35 cases). However, this is mostly due to the impact of one single union which reaches an almost total density rate in a quite narrow sectoral domain (the Swedish trade union Unionen which represents white-collar workers in the sector). Actually, more than half of the 35 unions for which sectoral domain density data are available are below 15%. It should be noted that for 21 (or almost 40%) of the sector-related trade unions no data on sectoral domain density are available. As for those trade unions for which figures on both measures (sectoral domain density and domain density on aggregate) are recorded (27 cases), there is a tendency to present higher densities in the private security sector, so that it can be regarded as a relative stronghold of those unions, despite the relatively low overall densities.

Employer organisations

Tables 7 and 8 present the membership data for the employer organisations in the private security sector. As is the case of the trade union side, for the majority of the 25 countries under consideration at least one sector-related employer organisation is documented, with the exception of Malta, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia. In at least seven of these countries, a proportion of the listed employer/business organisations are not a party to collective bargaining (see Table 8). It should be underlined that, according to our selection criteria outlined above, only the national organisations affiliated to CoESS, the EU-level sectoral employer association, will be considered in the study, if they are not part to collective bargaining.

Seventeen of the 21 countries for which employer associations were identified have one or more employer organisations engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. The remaining four cases are countries where only firm-level bargaining is present in the private security sector (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and UK) so that the identified employer associations are not involved in collective bargaining but are members of CoESS.

As for the other three countries where only company-level bargaining is present (Malta, Lithuania and Poland), no employer associations were reported in the case of Malta, whereas the existing business organisations in Lithuania and Poland (AVG and PZP Ochrona respectively) are not members of CoESS and therefore meet neither of the two criteria for inclusion in the study (involvement in sector-related bargaining or affiliation to the relevant EU-level employer association). Similarly, in Slovakia there are no sectoral industrial relations and the only business association reported (ZOMO) is not affiliated to CoESS.

Slovenia is a special case and was included in the first group (with industry-wide bargaining) because, even if there were no sectoral collective agreement when data for this study were collected, the two parties of industry were negotiating a new industry-wide agreement after the termination of the agreement in 2005 by ZRSZV.

Table 7: Domain coverage and membership of employer/ business organisations in private security, 2009–10

Country

Employer organisation

Domain coverage

Membership

Type Companies Companies in sector Employees Employees in sector
AT

VSÖ

overlap

voluntary

50

7

n.a.

7,365

WKÖ FVGD

Overlap

compulsory

3,895

342

91,052

12,191

BE

ACA

sectionalism

voluntary

11

11

500

500

APEG/BVBO

congruence

voluntary

17

17

12,099

12,099

BG

BKOS

overlap

voluntary

22

22

2,600

2,600

NAFTSO

overlap

voluntary

42

42

17,900

17,900

BNBCSD

overlap

voluntary

11

11

2,500

2,500

NAFOTS

overlap

voluntary

26

26

15,000

15,000

NALSICOD

overlap

voluntary

47

47

23,000

23,000

SFOS

overlap

voluntary

11

11

1,780

1,780

CY

CASC

congruence

voluntary

16

16

950

950

CZ

APSS, ASBS

sectional overlap

voluntary

65

65

6,182

6,182

Security Club

overlap

voluntary

7

7

11,052

11,052

UPSS

overlap

voluntary

2,000

2,000

10,000

10,000

DE

BDGW

sectional overlap

voluntary

73

42

n.a.

6,700

BDSW

overlap

voluntary

830

805

n.a.

100,000

DK

DI

overlap

voluntary

10,000

20

1,000,000

4,000

EE

ESA

congruence

voluntary

20

20

4,500

4,500

ES

ACAES

congruence

voluntary

66

66

7,500

7,500

APROSER

congruence

voluntary

13

13

70,000

70,000

FES

congruence

voluntary

150

150

12,000

12,000

FI

ASSI

overlap

voluntary

1,700

20

140,000

6,000

FR

FEDESFI

sectionalism

voluntary

7

7

10,000

10,000

SNES

congruence

voluntary

150

150

40,000

40,000

USP

congruence

voluntary

36

36

60,000

60,000

HU

MBVMSZ

congruence

voluntary

72

72

7,000

7,000

IE

IBEC

overlap

voluntary

7,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ISIA

congruence

voluntary

36

36

n.a.

n.a.

NUSE

congruence

voluntary

54

54

n.a.

n.a.

SCI

overlap

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

AGCI Servizi

sectional overlap

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ANIVP

congruence

voluntary

50

50

4,000

4,000

ASSIV

congruence

voluntary

154

154

18,000

18,000

ASSVIGILANZA

congruence

voluntary

100

100

9,000

9,000

FEDERLAVORO E SERVIZI

sectional overlap

voluntary

5,083

2

183,962

n.a.

FEDERSICUREZZA

congruence

voluntary

250

250

50,000

50,000

LEGACOOP SERVIZI (ex ANCST)

sectional overlap

voluntary

1,983

18

185,015

3,250

UNCI

sectional overlap

voluntary

7,825

n.a.

129,301

n.a.

UNIV

congruence

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

Fedil Security Services (ex-ALEGA)

congruence

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

NV– formerly VPB (Vereniging van Particuliere Beveiliging)

congruence

voluntary

49

49

21,610

21,610

PT

AES

congruence

voluntary

8

22,000

8

22,000

AESIRF

congruence

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

FSS

congruence

voluntary

400

400

60,000

60,000

PATROSEC

congruence

voluntary

70

70

30,000

30,000

SE

Almega Service Associations

overlap

voluntary

10,000

160

490,000

19,000

KFS

sectional overlap

voluntary

550

5

35,000

n.a.

SI

ZRSZV

congruence

voluntary

101

101

6,000

6,000

UK

BSIA

overlap

voluntary

470

470

150,000

150,000

n.a. = not available

Table 8: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/ business organisations in private security, 2009–10

Country

Employer organisation

Density (%)

CB

Consultation

National a and European affiliations

Companies

Employees

Domain

Sector

Sectoral

domain

Domain

Sector

Sectoral

domain

AT

VSÖ

n.a.

2%

4%

n.a.

60%

75%

no

yes

KSÖ;

CoESS; Euralarm; EUROSAFE

WKO FVGD

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

yes

yes

WKÖ;

None

BE

ACA

100%

n.a.

100%

100%

n.a.

100%

yes

yes

CoESS

APEG/BVBO

100%

91-100%

95%

n.a.

90%

n.a.

yes

yes

None;

CoESS

BG

BKOS

3%

2%

3%

5%

5%

5%

yesb

yes

BCCI; UEI ;

None

NAFTSO

5%

5%

5%

31%

31%

31%

yesb

yes

BIA; CEIBG; BCCI;

CoESS

BNBCSD

1%

1%

1%

4%

4%

4%

yes

yes

UEI;

n.a.

NAFOTS

3%

3%

3%

27%

26%

27%

yesb

yes

CEIBG;

Euralarm

NALSICOD

5%

5%

5%

40%

40%

40%

yes

yes

UPEB;

None

SFOS

1%

1%

1%

3%

3%

3%

yes

yes

UEI;

None

CY

CASC

44%

44%

44%

86%

86%

86%

no

yes

CCCI ;

CoESS

CZ

APSS, ASBS

n.a.

2%

n.a.

2%

26-50%

26-50%

no

yes

UPSS;

(CoESS)

Security Club

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

51-75%

51-75%

51-75%

no

yes

UPSS;

(CoESS)

UPSS

73%

73%

73%

28%

28%

28%

no

yes

SP ČR ;

CoESS

DE

BDGW

65%

n.a.

n.a.

66%

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

n.a.;

ESTA

BDSW

21%

n.a.

n.a.

61%

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

n.a.;

CoESS

DK

DI

n.a.

5%

5%

n.a.

87%

87%

yes

yes

DA;

(CoESS)

EE

ESA

24%

24%

24%

61%

61%

61%

no

no

ETTK;

CoESS

ES

ACAES

22%

3%

22%

n.a.

5%

n.a.

yes

yes

UAS

APROSER

1%

1%

1%

n.a.

48%

n.a.

yes

yes

CEOE;

CoESS

ES

FES

7%

6%

7%

n.a.

8%

n.a.

yes

yes

CEOE

FI

ASSI

5%

5%

5%

6%

61%

61%

yes

yes

EK;

CoESS

FR

FEDESFI

100%

0%

100%

100%

6%

100%

no

yes

ESTA

SNES

4%

3%

4%

30%

24%

30%

yes

yes

CGPME;

CoESS

USP

1%

1%

1%

60%

36%

60%

yes

Yes

CGPME; GSP;

CoESS

HU

MBVMSZ

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

10-25%

10-25%

10-25%

yes

yes

MGYOSZ

IE

IBEC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 

ISIA

n.a.

15%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

SCI;

(CoESS)

NUSE

n.a.

22%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

SCI;

(CoESS)

SCI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

CoESS

IT

AGCI Servizi

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

AGC

ANIVP

5%

2%

5%

8%

6%

8%

yes

yes

Federsicurezza;

(CoESS)

ASSIV

17%

6%

17%

37%

26%

37%

yes

yes

Confindustria; Anie

ASSVIGILANZA

11%

4%

11%

19%

13%

19%

yes

no

Federsicurezza;

(CoESS)

FEDERLAVORO E SERVIZI

9%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

Confcooperative;

CECOP

FEDERSICUREZZA

49%

16%

49%

73%

52%

73%

yes

yes

Confcommercio;

CoESS

LEGACOOP SERVIZI (ex ANCST)

8%

1%

n.a.

17%

5%

n.a.

yes

yes

Legacoop;

CECOP

UNCI

10%

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 

UNIV

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

yes

yes

Federsicurezza; Confcommercio;

(CoESS)

LU

Fedil Security Services (ex-ALEGA)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

Fedil;

CoESS

NL

NV (ex-VPB)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

VNO-NCW;

CoESS

PL

PZP ‘Ochrona’

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

0-9%

no

yes

PKPP Lewiatan

PT

AES

3%

3%

3%

56%

56%

56%

yes

yes

CCP ;

CoESS

AESIRF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 
RO

FSS

28%

28%

28%

53%

53%

53%

yes

yes

UGIR 1903;

CoESS

PATROSEC

5%

5%

5%

27%

27%

27%

yes

yes

UGIR 1903; PNR; FSS;

(CoESS)

SE

Almega Service Associations

n.a.

20%

62%

n.a.

76-90%

76-90%

yes

yes

Almega; SN;

(CoESS)

KFS

100%

1%

100%

100%

0%

100%

yes

no

None;

CEEP

SI

ZRSZV

60%

60%

60%

95%

95%

95%

yes

yes

CoESS

UK

BSIA

9%

9%

9%

95%

95%

95%

no

yes

CBI;

CoESS, Euralarm

a= 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 through higher- or lower order units.

b= BKOS, NAFTSO and NAFOTS are not signatories to the sectoral agreement, but they negotiated and signed the agreement on the minimum social insurance sectoral thresholds (see BG0406202T for more information)

Note: The figures have rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure of 0.49% to more than 0%.

CB = collective bargaining

n.a. = not available

Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations specialising in matters other than industrial relations are commonly defined as ‘trade associations’ (see TN0311101S). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the private security sector. In terms of their national scope of activities, all the associations which are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 8 either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. It is the decision to include all associational affiliates to CoESS, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study. Of the 49 employer/business organisations listed in Tables 7 and 8, at least nine organisations belong to this group.

In nine of the 21 countries for which full information on the sector-related associational landscape is given, only one employer has been identified (Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia, and UK). Pluralist associational systems thus prevail on both sides of the trade union/employer divide.

The employer organisations’ domains tend to be narrower than those of the trade unions (Figure 4). The two types of overlap cover around 49% of cases, compared to almost 90% in the case of unions and despite the quite narrow definition of the sector at three-digit level. Congruence is far more present as it concerns 47% of employer organisations instead of 11% of trade unions; sectionalism is similarly marginal for both employer association and trade unions as it involves two employer organisations and one trade union. This pattern is essentially linked to two features of employer representation. First, trade associations tend to focus on quite specific economic activities, since they essentially act in the political arena and they can benefit of relatively high specialisation in terms of more homogeneous interests and clearer objectives. Second, representation of different sizes or forms leads to either sectionalism or sectional overlap, depending on the sectoral scope of representation. The most evident case of sectional overlap in the sector refers to the representation of cooperative companies in Italy, where a number of employer associations covers the broad cooperative sector in a cross-industry way. In the case of employer representation, ‘overlap’ usually refers to contiguous sectors and especially NACE 80.2 (Security systems service activities), in relation to the operation of remote surveillance systems, whereas trade unions covering the private security sector with overlapping representational domains tend to represent broader sections of the economy and often the entire service sector.

Only the Austrian WKÖ FVGD has mandatory membership due to its status of public-interest body.

Figure 3: Private security sector related employer’s organisations/business associations and their domain patterns (N=49)

Figure 3: Private security sector related employer’s organisations/business associations and their domain patterns (N=49)

Source: EIRO national contributions

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have often managed to form collaborative relationships. In fact, they usually jointly negotiate multi-employer agreements.

As the figures on density show (Table 8), membership strength in terms of companies widely varies with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector-related densities. The same holds true of the densities in terms of employees. Except for UPSS in the Czech Republic, where a reverse relationship exists, both the domain and the sectoral domain densities, in terms of companies, tend to be a lot lower than the densities in terms of employees. This reflects the usual higher propensity of the larger companies to associate, as compared to their smaller counterparts. This can be particularly true in the private security sector where a large number of small and very small companies can be present alongside a handful of very large, sometimes multinational, enterprises.

The density rates in terms of employees of the employer/business organisations in the sector tend to be higher compared to trade union densities (see above). For the associations for which related data are available (35 cases), it is not unusual to register a sectoral density higher than 50%. This refers to 13 organisations, which is more than 25% of all listed employer associations. In general, the findings suggest that in the private security sector the employers are quite well organised in terms of both companies and employees represented. The average sectoral density in terms of companies is around 15% (37 cases) and it reaches almost 40% when employees are taken into account (35 cases). It must be underlined, however, that, since the employer/business association density data are available only for a limited number of countries, the data set should again be treated cautiously.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Tables 6 and 8 lists all the social partners engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. The data presented in Table 9 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 25 countries under consideration. 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.

Table 9: The system of sectoral collective bargaining (2009–10)
Country

CBC (%)

(estimates)

Share of MEB in total CBC (%) (estimates) Extension practicesa
AT

100

100

(2)

BE

100

100b

2

BG

2 - 100c

100b

0-2c

CY

25

0

n/a

CZ

13

0

n/a

DE

Around 50*

MEB prevailing

1

DK

90

Almost 100

0

EE

55

0

n/a

ES

Almost 100

100 b

2

FI

90

100%

2

FR

Almost 100

100 b

2

HU

25

SEB prevailing

0

IE

100 d

MEB prevailing

2

IT

80

MEB prevailingb

(2)

LT

0e

0

n/a

LU

Almost 100

100

2

MT

50

0

n/a

NL

100

100 b

2

PL

10

0

n/a

PT

100

100

2

RO

100

100

2

SE

95

100

1

SI

50

0

n/a

SK

0

0

n/a

UK

No information

0

n/a

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

a= Extension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings): 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are put in parentheses.

b= supplemented/complemented by single-employer agreements

c= Complete mandatory coverage concern the definition of ‘minimum social security thresholds’ which are aimed to tackle undeclared work. These agreements are enforced by law.

dThrough the sectoral Joint Labour Committee which sets universally binding wage rates and conditions of employment through Labour Court Employment Regulation Orders. The members of the sectoral JLC are ISIA, IBEC, NUSE and SIPTU.

eThe largest enterprise in the sector terminated in 2009 the only collective agreement which covered some 20% of sectoral employees. Following pressure from trade unions and employer organisations, in 2010 the company resumed talks to negotiate a new collective agreement.

* At the time of compiling this study, in Germany two agreements were expecting decision to make them generally binding.

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

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. 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.

  • Extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard of the International Labour Organization, aside from any national legislation.
  • If employers did not extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when not formally obliged to do so; 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 voluntary 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; such a move then enables them to participate in the bargaining process and to benefit from the organisation’s related services in a situation where the respective collective agreement will bind them in any case (see Traxler et al., 2001).

Collective bargaining coverage

In terms of the sector’s collective bargaining coverage, 13 of the 24 countries for which related data are available record a very high coverage rate of 80% or higher rates (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Sweden); ten of them record coverage rates of (almost) 100%. Bulgaria may also be added to this group, if we consider universally binding sectoral bargaining on ‘minimum social security thresholds’ which were introduced in early 2000s as a means to fight undeclared work (BG0406202T).

Conversely, there are six countries where collective bargaining coverage is, at most, 25% (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, and Poland), including Bulgaria if we do not consider the aforementioned agreement on mandatory ‘minimum social security thresholds’. In Slovakia there are no collective agreements in the private security sector.

There is a third group where countries record important sector-related collective bargaining coverage levels of around 50% (Germany, Estonia, Malta, and Slovenia).

One can see from these findings that, in more than half of the 25 countries under consideration, the sector’s industrial relations structures are well-established, while they appear to be weaker in 25% of the countries. Closer consideration of the different countries reveals that collective bargaining coverage rates tend to be (relatively) high in the ‘old’ EU-15, while sectoral bargaining standards widely vary in the 2004/7 accession countries.

Sector-related bargaining is rare in Bulgaria (except in the case mentioned above), Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland, and it is non existent in Slovakia. However, there are sector-related representative social partner organisations on the two sides of industry in at least some of these countries (see Tables 6 and 8). By contrast, collective bargaining arrangements cover a considerable part of the sector (50% or more) in Estonia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia. It is very important to underline, however, that such significant coverage rates are reached by way of the few company agreements in Estonia, Malta and Slovenia, where no sectoral agreements are in place. Also, in Lithuania, the only company-level agreement covers 20% of sectoral workers, as it concerns the largest private security company in the country, which is another indication of the sectoral importance of very large companies. Industry-wide bargaining is similarly absent in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, and the UK.

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

  • the predominance of multi-employer bargaining (see Table 10);
  • high density rates of the trade unions and/or employer organisations (such as in Austria);
  • the existence of pervasive extension practices, such as in Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Spain.

As for the aim of extension provisions (making multi-employer agreements generally binding) the establishment of obligatory membership in the chamber system of Austria should also be noted. Obligatory membership creates an extension effect, since the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKO) and its subunits 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 wage rates 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 policymaking

Interest associations may partake in public policy in two basic ways:

  • they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members;
  • they may be represented on tripartite committees and boards of policy concertation.

This study considers only cases of tripartite consultation and participation which explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and also, on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on an occasional rather than a regular basis. Given this variability, in Tables 6 and 8 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

Trade unions are regularly consulted by the authorities in at least 16 of the 23 countries where sector-related trade unions are recorded. Seven countries cite a lack of regular consultation of any of the trade unions (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg). In most countries with a multi-union system where a noticeable practice of consultation is observed, all the existing trade unions take part in the consultation process.

Employer organisations

Almost all of the sector-related employer/business organisations for which related data are available are involved in consultation procedures. Only in Estonia is no employer association consulted on sector-related policies.

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the findings reveal that a sector-specific tripartite body has been established in a number of countries (see Table 10). Some of them cover broad sectoral and regulatory issues, while others are more focussed on employment matters, such as training and skills. The former sort is present in Finland, Ireland, Italy and Portugal and is usually organised in connection with the Ministry of the Interior. The latter is present in Poland, where it covers broadly employment conditions but it is currently not active, and in the UK, where the focus is specifically on skills. In Belgium there are both types of tripartite bodies. In the UK an ad hoc body on sectoral security issues was also mentioned, but it was not included in the table as it is not a forum for continuing consultation. While the majority of such bodies have a statutory nature, those of Italy and Poland were set up by common agreement.

Table 10: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy (2009–10)
Country Name of body and scope of activity Origin Trade unions participating Business associations participating
BE

Training committee for guarding and private security companies, from the Ministry of interior

Three CIT Committees

Round Table on Guarding

Statutory

CCAS/CCVD, CG/AG, and CGSLB/ACLVB, Setca/BBTK

APEG/BVBO

FI

Advisory Board of Se curity Service of the Ministry of the Interior

Statutory

Service Union United (PAM)

ASSI

IE

The Private Security Authority (PSA) is the statutory body with responsibility for regulating and licensing the Irish private security industry.

Private Security Services Act 2004

SIPTU

TEEU

ISIA

NUSE

IT

Subcommission of consultancy at the Home Office in which the actors express views regarding normative reforms in the sector

Agreement

Filcams-Cgil

Fisascat-Cisl

Uiltucs-Uil

Federsicurezza

Assiv

Assvigilanza

Univ

Legacoop Servizi

Federlavoro e Servizi – Confcooperative

Agci Servizi

PL

Working Group for the Employment Conditions of Security Employees

(Employment regulation)

Currently activities are suspended

Agreement

NSZZ Solidarność

KP OPZZ

PZP Ochrona

PKPP Lewiatan

PT

Council of Private Security (Conselho de Segurança Privada / CSP)

Statutory (Decree-Law 35/2004)

STAD

FETESE

AES

AESIRF

UK

Skills for Security

Statutory

GMB

BSIA


European level of interest representation

At European level, eligibility for consultation and participation in the social dialogue is linked to three criteria, as defined by the European Commission. Accordingly, a social partner organisation must have the following attributes:

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

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 private security 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 – namely, UNI Europa-Property Services – and one on the employer side – namely, CoESS – are particularly significant in the private security sector; both of them are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these two organisations, while providing supplementary information on others which are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

UNI Europa-Property Services, which is affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), organises the private security segment of the economy and also the cleaning sector. Therefore its membership domain overlaps with the private security sector. In the case of CoESS, the representational domain consists entirely of private security activities; even though some of its members also cover business areas outside the private security sector (see Table 7). CoESS organises both employer and business organisations.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by UNI Europa-Property Services and CoESS extend beyond the 25 countries examined in this study. However, the report will only consider the members of these 25 countries. For UNI Europa-Property Services, Table 11 documents a membership list of sector-related trade unions drawn from the country reports. It should be underlined that, due to the small size of the sector, sometimes sector-related unions say that they are affiliated to other branches of UNI Europa, such as UNI Europa-Commerce. Also these national unions have been included in this report.

In the case of UNI Europa, there is at least one affiliate in each of the 23 countries with sector-related trade unions. In some countries – such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden – multiple memberships occur. On aggregate, UNI Europa-Property Services counts 41 direct affiliations from the countries under examination. More than half of the trade unions listed in Table 6 are directly affiliated to UNI Europa-Property Services. From available data on the strength of sectoral membership of the national trade unions, one can conclude that UNI Europa-Property Services covers the sector’s most important labour representatives. Exceptional cases of uncovered significant trade unions in the sector (with a sectoral density rate above 10%) can only be found in Malta and Slovenia (UHM and KS90 respectively). It should be underlined that in both cases, the main sector-related trade unions are affiliated to UNI Europa-Property Services (GWU in Malta and SKVNS in Slovenia). Some 38 of the 41 direct members of UNI Europa for which information is available are involved in collective bargaining related to the private security sector.

Table 12 lists the members of CoESS. Of the 25 countries under consideration, CoESS has all but five countries (Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia) under its umbrella through national associational members. Multiple active membership is found in Belgium and France. Table 8 indicates that affiliated and unaffiliated associations co-exist in most of countries with pluralist employer representation. Of course, this does not prevent the presence of indirect membership whereby sector-related organisations are linked to CoESS’ national members, which is illustrated in Table 8, at least for Czech Republic, Ireland and Romania.

Table 11: UNI Europa Property Services Membership (2010–11)+
Country Members

AT

GPA-djp*, vida*

BE

CG/AC*, SETCa/BBTK*, CCAS/CCVD*, CGSLB/ALCVB*

BG

GSENTU-PODKREPA*

CY

OIYK-SEK*

CZ

OSPPP**

DE

ver.di*, IG-BAU

DK

VSL-Service Forbundet* (formerly DFF-S)

EE

ETKA, ESTAL

ES

FTSP-USO*, FeS-UGT*, AADDCCOO*

FI

PAM*

FR

FEETSO-FO*, CFDT-Services*, CGT Commerce*

HU

VSZSZ*, ÉŐDSZ

IE

SIPTU*

IT

Fisascat*, Filcams*, UILTuCS*

LT

LP SDPS*

LU

OGBL*, LCGB*

MT

GWU*

NL

CNV Dienstenbond*, FNV Bondgenoten*, De Unie*

PL

NSZZ-Solidarność*

PT

SITESE*, STAD*

RO

(PROTECTOR joined UNI Europa in 2011 after the data collection for this study)

SE

Swedish Transport Workers' Union (Transport)*, Unionen*

SI

SKVNS*

SK

---

UK

GMB*

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

* Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

** No information available on collective bargaining involvement

Table 12: CoESS Membership (2010–11)+
Country Members
AT

VSÖ, Verband der Sicherheitsunternehmen Österreichs

BE

APEG-BVBO*, Association professionnelle des entreprises de gardiennage-Beroepsvereniging van bewakingsondernemingen

ACA*, Alarm Centrale Associatie-Association Centrale d'Alarme

BG

NAFTSO*, National Association of Industrial Security Companies

CY

CASC, Cyprus Association of Security Companies

CZ

UPSS, Union of Private Security Services of the Czech Republic

DE

BDSW*, Bundesverband der Sicherheitswirtschaft e.V.

DK

Danish Guarding and Security Association (DI* and DI Service) (Vagt- og SikkerhedsIndustrien)

EE

ESA, Estonian Security Association

ES

APROSER*, Asociación Profesional de Compañias Privadas de Servicios de Seguridad

FI

ASSI, Association of Support Services Industries

FR

SNES*, Syndicat National des Entreprises de Sécurité; USP, Union des entreprises de Sécurité Privée

GR

---

HU

---

IE

SCI**, Security Congress of Ireland

IT

FEDERSICUREZZA*, Federazione del Settore della Vigilanza e Sicurezza Privata

LT

---

LU

Fedil Security Services*

LV

---

MT

---

NL

NV*, Nederlandse Veiligheidsbranche

PL

---

PT

AES*, Associação de Empresas de Segurança (Portuguese Private Security Association)

RO

FSS*, Federatiei Serviciilor de Securitate (Romanian Federation of Security Services)

SE

ALMEGA Private Security (part of Almega Tjänsteförbunden, Almega Service Associations*)

SI

ZRSZV, Slovenian Chamber for Private Security*

SK

---

UK

BSIA, British Security Industry Association

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

* Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

** Collective bargaining involvement via lower-level unit(s)

One can see from the available sectoral membership data of the respective organisations that important national associations are affiliated.

In some countries some important employer organisations that conduct bargaining are not affiliated to CoESS (Table 8). There are also some countries (for instance, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, and UK) where the affiliate/s of CoESS is/are not engaged in bargaining. Employer/business organisations which are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than as industrial relations actors. Of the 30 direct and indirect members of CoESS, at least 22 are directly or indirectly (via lower or higher-order units) involved in sector-related collective bargaining. CoESS members cover collective bargaining in 15 of the 20 countries which record affiliations to CoESS (with the exclusion of only one country where industry-wide bargaining is present, that is Austria).

Capacity to negotiate

The third criterion of representativeness at the European level refers to the organisations’ capacity to negotiate on behalf of their own members. UNI Europa says its members have given it a permanent mandate to negotiate in matters of the European social dialogue.

On the employer side, CoESS represents its respective members in matters of the European sectoral social dialogue. CoESS negotiates on behalf of all its member federations with UNI Europa in relation to specific social dossiers. CoESS has a permanent mandate from its member federations to lobby for socio-economic and legal dossiers, which are of importance to the sector. In this respect, CoESS is bound by its statutes (330Kb PDF) and acts through a number of built-in control mechanisms and procedures, which involve, for instance, its Board of Directors

As a final proof of the weight of both UNI Europa-Property Services and CoESS, it is useful to look at other European organisations which may be important representatives of the sector. This can be done by reviewing the other European organisations to which national sector-related trade unions and employer associations are affiliated.

For the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table 6. Accordingly, European organisations other than UNI Europa-Property Services represent a relatively large proportion of both sector-related trade unions and countries. For the sake of brevity, only those European organisations which cover at least three countries are mentioned here.

These involve the European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agriculture and Tourism Sectors and Allied Branches (EFFAT), with seven affiliations covering four countries; the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), with four affiliations and three countries; and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), with three affiliations and three countries. Moreover, it should be noted that the affiliations listed in Table 6 may not necessarily be exhaustive. Nevertheless, and despite the large number of affiliations to European organisations other than UNI Europa, this overview underlines the principal status of the latter association as the sector’s labour representative. This is mainly because many of the aforementioned affiliations to other European organisations reflect the extension of the representational domains of the national organisations to other industries, rather than a real reference of the affiliations as such to the private security sector.

An analogous review of the membership of the national employer/ business associations can be derived from Table 8. Most of them have few affiliations to European associations other than CoESS. There is only one European association which covers at least three countries, The Association of European Manufacturers and Installers of Fire and Security Systems (Euralarm) with three affiliations in three countries. As in the case of trade unions, this affiliation reflects the extension of the representational domain of the national organisations outside the private security sector (NACE 80.1).

In conclusion, UNI Europa-Property Services and CoESS are clearly the the most important sector-related European organisations.


Commentary

Along with many other private service sectors, trade union density rates tend to be relatively low in the private security industry, even if there are quite large companies in several countries which favour union presence. Densities in terms of employer representation tend to be significantly higher. The sector is characterised by a relative polarisation with regard to collective bargaining coverage. Whereas in more than 50% of the countries for which related data are available collective bargaining is extensive, at least 25% of the countries under examination record low coverage rates.

In this respect, there is a pattern: In the ‘old’ EU-15, the sector’s industrial relations structures are generally well-established, with prevalent multi-employer bargaining settlements and high collective bargaining coverage rates. The only exception here is the UK, where there is no information about collective bargaining coverage. By contrast, in the 2004–7 accession countries the robustness and effectiveness of the industrial relations structures within private security vary widely.

Despite high collective bargaining coverage rates in most of the EU-15 countries, unionisation rates within the sector tend to be also low in these countries. The trade unions’ difficulties in recruiting workers in the sector may result from different factors, such as the high incidence of non-standard work, high staff turnover and the limited capacity of the trade unions involved to set incentives for potential members.

Overall, CoESS and UNI Europa-Property Services have to be regarded as the most important, if not the only, EU-wide representatives of the sector’s employers and employees.

Roberto Pedersini, Università degli Studi di Milano


Bibliography

Traxler, F. (2004), ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism’, in European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 571-598.

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


Annex

               
Table 13: List of organisations
Supra-national level

Organisation

Acronym

 

Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff

Eurocadres

 

Council of Nordic trade Unions

NFS

 

European Trade Union Confederation

ETUC

 

European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation

EMCEF

 

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

EFFAT

 

European Federation of Journalists

EFJ

 

European trade union federation for services and communication

UNI Europa

 

European Public Services Union

EPSU

 

European Transport Workers’ Federation

ETF

 

European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions

CESI

 

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

EFBWW

 

European Trade Union Liaison Committee on Tourism

ETLC

 

European Workers’ Education Association

EURO WEA

 

European Federation of Retired and Older Persons

FERPA

 

European Organisation of Public Service Employees

EUROFEDOP

 

European Metalworkers’ Federation

EMF

 

European Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff

CEC

 

Association of European Manufacturers and Installers of Fire and Security Systems

Euralarm

 

European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion

EUROSAFE

 

Confederation of European Security Services

CoESS

 

European Security Transport Association

ESTA

 

European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services

CEEP

National level  
Country Organisation

Acronym

AT

Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten - Druck, Journalismus, Papier

GPA-djp

Gewerkschaft vida

vida

Kuratorium Sicheres Österreich

KSÖ

Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

ÖGB

Verband der Sicherheitsunternehmen Österreichs

VSÖ

Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Fachverband Gewerbliche Dienstleister

WKÖ FVGD

Wirtschaftskammer Österreichs

WKÖ

BE

Association Centrale d'Alarme/ Alarm Centrale Associatie

ACA

Association Professionelle des Entreprises de Gardiennage/ Beroepsvereniging van Bewakingsondernemingen

APEG/BVBO

Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/ Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond

FGTB/ABVV

Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/ Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond

CSC/ACV

Centrale Chretienne de l'Alimentation et des Services/ Christelijke Central Voeding en Diensten

CCAS/CCVD

Centrale Générale des Syndicaux Libéraux de Belgique/ Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België

CGSLB/ACLVB

Centrale Générale/ Algemene Centrale, General Federation

CG/AC

Syndicat des Employés, Techniciens et Cadres/ Bond der Bedienden, Technici en Kaders, Union of White-collar, Technical and Executive Employees

SETca/BBTK

BG

Branch for Protection and Security

BKOS

Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

BCCI

Bulgarian Industrial Association

BIA

Bulgarian National Branch Chamber Security and Dedectives

BNBCSD

Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria

CEIBG

Confederation of Labour

CL PODKREPA

Guards and Security Employees National Trade Union CL Podkrepa

GSENTU CL PODKREPA

National association of industrial security companies

NAFTSO

National Association of the Person and Associations implementing Private Security Activities

NALSICOD

National Association of Technical Equipment Based Security Companyes

NAFOTS

Union for Economic Initiative

UEI

Union of Companies for Protection and Security

SFOS

Union of Private Entrepreneurs in Bulgaria ‘Vuzrazhdane’

UPEB

CY

Cyprus Association of Security Companies

CASC

Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry

CCCI

Cyprus Federation of Private Employees

SEVETTY/PEO

Cyprus Union of Workers in Industry, Trade, Press and Printing and General Services

OIYK/SEK

Cyprus Workers’ Confederation

SEK

Pancyprian Federation of Labour

PEO

CZ

Association of Private Security Services of the Czech Republic

APSS-ASBS

Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic

SP ČR

Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions

ČMKOS

Security Club

 

Trade Union of Banking and Insurance Workers

OS PPP

Union of Private Security Services

UPSS

DE

Bundesverband der Sicherheitswirtschaft e.V.

BDSW

Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Geld- und Wertdienste

BDGW

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

CGB

Confederation of German Trade Unions

DGB

Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst und Dienstleistungen

GÖD

Industriegewerkschaft Bauen Agrar Umwelt

IG BAU

Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

ver.di

DK

Confederation of Danish Industry

DI

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

LO

Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening

DA

Service Industries Federation

DI Service

Vagt- og Sikkerhedsfunktionærernes Landssammenslutning

VSL

EE

Association of Baltic communication and Service Workers

 

Estonian Communication and Service Workers´ Trade Union

ESTAL

Estonian Employers’ Confederation

ETTK

Estonian Security Association

ESA

Estonian Trade Union Confederation

EAKL

Estonian Trade Union of Commercial and Service Employees

ETKA

Open Education Union

AHL

ES

Association of Security Services Private Companies Professionals

APROSER

Catalan Association of Security Enterprises

ACAES

ELA Zerbitzuak

 

Federation of Diverse Activities of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

AADDCCOO

Federation of Workers of Private Security of the Trade Unionist Confederation

FTSP-USO

Galician Inter-union Confederation

CIG

General Workers’ Union

UGT

Joint Security Associations

UAS

Services Federation of Galician Inter-union Confederation

 

Services Federation of the General Workers Confederation

FeS-UGT

Spanish Federation of Security Enterprises

FES

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

CEOE

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

CCOO

FI

Association of Support Service Industries

ASSI

Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions

SAK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

EK

Service Sector Employers

PALTA

Service Union United

PAM

FR

Confédération Française de l'Encadrement - Confédération Générale des Cadres

CFE-CGC

Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail

CFDT

Confédération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens

CFTC

Confédération Générale des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises

CGPME

Confédération Générale du Travail

CGT

Confédération Générale du Travail Force Ouvrère

FO

Fédération des Entreprises de la Sécurité Fiduciaire

FEDESFI

Fédération des Services CFDT

CFDT-Services

Fédération du Commerce de la Distribution et des Services CGT

FCDS-CGT

Fédération Equipement Environnement Transports et Services FO

FEETS-FO

Fédération Nationale de l'Encadrement du Commerce et des Services CFE-CGC

FNECS

Fédération Nationale des Métiers de la Prévention,de la Sécurité et des Services Annexes UNSA

FNMPSSA-UNSA

Groupement des Entreprises de Services MEDEF

GSP

Mouvement des Entreprises de France

MEDEF

Syndicat National des Employés de la Prévention et de la Sécurité

SNEPS-CFTC

Syndicat National des Entreprises de Sécurité

SNES

Union des Entreprises de Sécurité Privée

USP

Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes

UNSA

HU

Confederation of Hungarian Employers and Industrialists

MGYOSZ

Employers Association of Hungarian Security Companies

MBVMSZ

Federation of the Property Protection Trade Unions

VSZSZ

National Association of Hungarian Trade Unions

MSZOSZ

National Federation of Workers’ Councils

Munkástanácsok

Trade Union of Value Delivery Protection and Guarding Security Employees

ÉŐDSZ

IE

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

IBEC

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

ICTU

Irish Security Industry Association

ISIA

National Union of Security Employers

NUSE

Security Congress of Ireland

SCI

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

SIPTU

IT

Associazione Generale dell Cooperative Italiane

AGCI

Associazione Generale delle Cooperative Italiane Servizi

AGCI Servizi

Associazione Italiana Vigilanza

ASSIV

Associazione Nazionale Cooperative Servizi e Turismo

LEGACOOP SERVIZI

Associazione Nazionale Istituti di Vigilanza Privata

ASSVIGILANZA

Associazione nazionale Istituti di Vigilanza Privata

ANIVP

Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

CONFCOOPERATIVE

Confederazione Generale dei Sindacati Autonomi dei Lavoratori

CONFSAL

Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana

CONFINDUSTRIA

Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro

CGIL

Confederazione Generale Italiana delle Imprese, delle Attività Professionali e del Lavoro Autonomo

CONFCOMMERCIO - IMPRESE PER L’ITALIA

Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori

CISL

Federazione del settore della vigilanza e sicurezza privata

FEDERSICUREZZA

Federazione Italiana Lavoratori Commercio Alberghi Mense e Servizi

FILCAMS

Federazione Italiana Sindacati Addetti Servizi Commerciali Affini e del Turismo

FISASCAT

Federazione Italiana Sindacati Autonomi Lavoratori Stranieri

FISALS

Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro, Artigiane e dei Servizi

FEDERLAVORO E SERVIZI

Federazione Nazionale Imprese Elettrotecniche ed Elettroniche

ANIE

Federazione Sindacati Industria, Commercio e Artigianato

FESICA

Lega Nazionale delle Cooperative

LEGACOOP

Unione Italiana del Lavoro

UIL

Unione Italiana Lavoratori Turismo Commercio e Servizi

UILTuCS

Unione Nazionale Cooperative Italiane

UNCI

Unione Nazionale Istituti di Vigilanza

UNIV

LT

Lithuanian Service Workers Trade Union

LPSDPS

Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation

LPSK

Security Business Group

AVG

LU

Onofhängege Gewerkschaftsbond Lëtzebuerg/ Confédération Syndicale Indépendante du Luxembourg

OGB-L

Onofhängege Gewerkschaftsbond Lëtzebuerg Services et Energie

OGBL-L Services er Energie

Lëtzebuerger Chrëschtleche Gewerkschaftsbond Gardiennage/ Wach- und Sicherheitsdienst

LCGB Gardiennage/ Wach- und Sicherheitsdienst

Lëtzebuerger Chrëschtleche Gewerkschaftsbond

LCGB

Fedil Security Services

 

Fedil - Business Federation Luxembourg

Fedil

MT

Confederation of Malta Trade Unions

CMTU

General Workers’ Union

GWU

Union of United Workers

UHM

NL

CNV Dienstenbond

 

Confederation of Middle and Higher Personnel Unions

CMHP

Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers

VNO-NCW

De Unie

 

Dutch Trade Union Federation

FNV

Federation of Christian Trade Unions

CNV

FNV Bondgenoten

 

Nederlandse Veiligheidsbranche

NV

PL

All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions

OPZZ

All-Poland Trade Union of Security Employees

OZZPO

All-Poland Workers' Trade Union Confederation of Labour

KP

General Workers’ Union

NSZZ Solidarność

Intercompany Union Organisation of Independent Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarność - Security, Catering and Cleaning Workers

MOZ NSZZ Solidarność POCS

Polish Confederation of Private Employers Lewiatan

PKPP Lewiatan

Polish Employers' Union Security

PZP Ochrona

PT

Associação de Empresas de Segurança/ Portuguese Private Security Association

AES

Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses

CGTP

Confederation of Commerce and Services of Portugal

CCP

Federation of Service Workers’ Trade Unions

FETESE

Federation of Service Workers’ Unions

UGT

Sindicato do Trabalhadores e Técnicos de Serviços

SITESE

Sindicato dos Trabalhadores de Serviços de Portaria, Vigilância, Limpeza, Domésticas e Actividades Diversas

STAD

RO

General Union of Romanian Industrialists 1903

UGIR 1903

Romanian National Employers

PNR

Security Services Employer Organisation

PATROSEC

Security Services Federation

FSS

SE

Almega Service Associations

 

Almega

 

Confederation of Swedish Enterprises

SN

Kommunal

 

Ledarna

 

Public Employees’ Negotiation Council

OFR

Swedish Organisation for Local Enterprises

KFS

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

LO

Transport

 

Unionen

 
SI

Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia

ZSSS

Chamber for development of Slovenian private security

ZRSZV

Confederation of Trade Unions ’90 of Slovenia

KS90

Trade Union of communal services, private security and real estate workers

SKVNS

SK

Association of Property and Personal Protection

ZOMO

UK

British Security Industry Association

BSIA

Confederation of British Industry

CBI

GMB

 

Trades Union Congress

TUC

EF/12/33

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

Dodaj komentarz