- Observatory: EurWORK
- Published on: 02 April 2008
Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.
Firstly, recent research on social dialogue and the OHS issue is summarised. . The OHS topic is high on the agenda of social dialogue. These studies make furthermore clear that the Workplace Prevention and Protection Committee is an accepted instrument at company level. The functioning is considered as satisfactory. Nevertheless, influence on OHS decision making is not considered always as high by employees. Trade union presence makes a difference in this regard, but differences remain high according to occupational status. Secondly, opinions of the social partners on the question ‘social dialogue and OHS issues’ are presented. They consider the contribution of social dialogue in the OHS field as very important and productive. This point of view is illustrated by good examples of national and sectoral activities. As important factors of the success are mentioned the representativity of the social partners, the enforceability of the system and the political support (trade unions), the available expertise and broadly based support (employers’ side). As prior improvement is mentioned by the unions the extension of formal dialogue at workplace level to SMEs. Respondents from the employers’ side suggest as possible improvements a further professionalisation or stronger possibilities to obtain custom-made measures within a general agreed framework.
A. Mapping of existing research and administrative reports
Present a summary of the survey(s), its findings and methodology, including any caveats about the research
Present, where relevant, the exact wording of the questions that address the relationship between working conditions and social dialogue
This section could also include secondary analyses based on survey data
Is there a predominance of cases or more information available in certain sectors? Are any particular issues emerging? Has any monitoring or evaluation been carried out?
The works cited below are ad hoc studies, in which social dialogue at the workplace level was not always the main focus of the research. Belgium has no tradition of a survey like the British workplace industrial relations survey, or of a nation-wide working conditions survey.
Studies of the 90s made already clear that working conditions is one of the key issues (besides wages and working time) that employee representations at the workplace deal with. These studies made also clear that the prescribed formalities are most of the time followed on this matter. All available studies point out that the key role in the Belgian social dialogue about OHS is reserved for the Workplace Prevention and Protection Committees (Comité pour la prévention et protection du travail/Comité voor preventie en bescherming op het werk, CPPT/CPBW). No in-depth research has been conducted in recent years on the activities and performance of these Committees. Nevertheless, fragmented insights can be compiled from more general surveys.
PASO: organisational survey of HR-managers with a social dialogue module (2003)
The objective of the PASO Flanders-research (Theunissen & Ramioul, 2005) was to map out contemporary trends in human resource management and the organisation of work. The panel survey was organized on a yearly basis, at establishment level, and covered over 2000 Flemish organizations. It had a broad scope focusing not only on privately owned companies, but also on ‘non profit' organizations and the public sector. HR-managers were the respondents. The survey took place in 2002 and 2003, but was afterwards abolished. The 2003 questionnaire contained a limited module on social dialogue, reserved to establishments with more than 10 employees (n= approx. 500). Besides the question about the availability or not of the legally-provided bodies of workplace representation, the module contained one set of questions on what kind of issues were dealt with in the company social dialogue. The exact question for each of the 15 items: Is it a matter of social dialogue? If yes, is it central or not in the dialogue?
The results for the topic ‘working conditions, health and safety’ reveal a great importance attached to this issue in the social dialogue. 29% of the panel responded that it is not taken in consideration; 10% says it is taken in consideration, but with an inferior priority, while 61% evaluates it as a central topic in the social dialogue. As such, it was indicated as the most important topic dealt with in social dialogue at company level.
Trade union survey on employee participation in SMEs (2005)
De Weerdt et al. (2005) undertook a postal survey of 3000 employees of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are members of the Belgian Christian trade union ACV/CSC. The response rate was about 50%. The main results related to social dialogue on working conditions were as follows:
- All the respondents were rather satisfied about how their enterprise dealt with safety- and health regulations. This result was not related to the presence or not of a trade union.
- The researchers found out that the information-flow to workers was better if the respondents worked in a firm having a trade union present. This conclusion could be made in general, but also specifically for the information-flow on health and safety matters.
- More than one third of the respondents indicated they never have influence on managerial decisions related tot OHS-topics, while only about ten percent answers ‘often’ or ‘always’ on this question. In companies with a trade union presence, the degree of influence was higher, but the main determinant in this matter was occupational status. Middle-managers and white-collar workers were more satisfied about their participation in and influence on working conditions than blue-collar workers; especially in small SMEs were no trade union delegation is installed.
Randstad-survey on employee participation (2004)
Randstad Holding N.V. is a private company that specializes in offering solutions in the field for flexible work and human resources. In 2004, their work solutions branch conducted a study on employee participation in businesses (Randstad, 2004).
The only condition for the selection of the respondents was that they had to have at least one year experience in the company. This was done to ensure that the respondents had a complete picture of the available options to participate in their company. From July to September 2003, three thousand questionnaires were filled out at random work spots. No response figures were reported. The survey-methodology was on the one hand to assess propositions on a scale from 1 to 10, and on the other hand to divide, based on importance, thousand points over an amount of given themes. The goal of this research was to map the importance of and satisfaction with different forms of employee participation.
One of the main conclusions of this study was that Belgian employees are especially interested in direct participation when it concerns a topic which has a direct influence on their actual and concrete working conditions. The most mentioned issues were working hours' regulations, hygiene and available tools. The importance of direct participation in OHS-matters scored less (only 5%), a finding that amazed the researchers. Especially because the blue-collar workers, which they assumed to have a lot of interests in that part of working conditions, even scored the importance of OHS less than white-collar workers or professional and managerial staff.
The survey contained also some specific questions about the activities and functioning of the CPBW/CPPT. The questions were only asked to employees, which indicated that such CPBW/CPPT is present at their workplace.
82% of these employees claimed to be well informed on the working conditions-decisions which are taken within the CPBW/CPPT. The committee obtains in this Randstad-survey furthermore higher employee satisfaction figures then the works council, especially in the blue-collars workers segment. The average union members appreciation for the CPBW/CPPT is also a little higher then the non-union members appreciation (6.9 versus 6.7 out of 10).
In contrast with this rather high general satisfaction concerning the CPBW/CPPT, the employees are convinced that they do not have much effective participation in the health and safety policy of their company. The average score for participation in the OHS policy of their company is 4.6 whereas 60% of the scores are 5 or less. This lack of participation in the OHS-dialogue may not be a major problem according to the survey results, because only one out of four employees effectively wants participation concerning the security and the well-being within the company and only one out of five within their own department. The sector where prevention and safety gets the highest importance score, is the construction sector
Workers were in this survey also asked to indicate the main topics that have to be dealt with by the CPBW/CPPT. As main priorities are mentioned ‘working tools and working environment’ and ‘hygiene on the job spot’. If we take a closer look to these mentioned priorities, there is a difference between sexes. The former is a male priority, while the latter is more often mentioned by women.
One of the general conclusions of this study is that social dialogue about working conditions in Belgium is preferred to be held in the CPBW/CPPT, although it is also the second most important topic (after ‘the future of the company’) that respondents mention as important to discuss in the works council.
Acerta opinion survey on social dialogue (2007)
A second private company which has held a recent survey on social dialogue in Belgium is Acerta (Acerta Legal consult, 2007). Acerta is an organisation which offers advice on all areas of human resources (HR) policy. In this survey for commercial purposes they interrogated HR-managers (47% of the sample), CEO’s (24%) and other HR key players, 563 in total. The company sample consisted of 265 companies of all sizes, of which 60 percent has a works council (almost all of them organisations with more than 100 employees), and 66 percent has a CPBW/CPPT. Companies where a CPBW/CPPT is elected, have in almost every case also a formal trade union delegation set-up in the company. For HR-managers, the works council is the best platform to give financial and economical information to the workers, while the CPBW/CPPT is the ideal discussion platform for OHS-related topics.
2. Qualitative research
This section could include case studies and specific research work
Present a summary of the research, its findings and methodology, including any caveats about the research
Is there a predominance of cases or more information available in certain sectors? Are any particular issues emerging? Has any monitoring or evaluation been carried out?
There are (almost) no specific recent Belgian qualitative studies or case study reports available about the link between social dialogue and working conditions. Especially about the issue of OHS there are no publications known by us after 2000. We can only refer to some conclusions that are made by two studies, which dealt with the changes in working life of specific sectors or occupations.
A very recent ethnographical research (Ferreras, 2007) investigated the changes in the labour situation of cashiers in Belgian super- and hypermarkets. Three cases were analysed ethnographically. A chapter is devoted to the influence and effectiveness of the trade unions and social dialogue.
No conclusions are made about qualitative aspects of working conditions. The efforts of the trade union delegation concentrate especially on quantifiable aspects. In all three cases the dialogue was narrowed to salary-issues, the union premium, the amount of vacation days and the pensions. These are all matters which are negotiated at sector level, and the union delegations within the particular hypermarket-units just monitored the correct compliance of it. One gives little or no attention to not quantifiable aspects such as the labour organisation, career possibilities and other aspects of working conditions. According to the researcher this was due to the lack of social dialogue and union tradition at establishment level in this sector, and, moreover the hierarchical domination of union representatives by their direct supervisors.
The Belgian labour-institute FTU (Fondation Travail-Université) took part in another qualitative research which had some relevant paragraphs for this CAR (Vendramin et al., 2000). This so called FLEXCOT project (1998-2000) was supported by the European Commission under the Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme (TSER) of the Fourth Framework Programme for R&D. The overall objective of the FLEXCOT project was to determine to what extent the new generation of information and communication technologies (ICT) can be used in order to develop new flexible work practices, which would be socially more sustainable than the current ones. Case studies were carried out focusing on four distinct sectors: printing and publishing, civil engineering, banking and insurance and decentralised health services. The third section of the report put forward a number of policy recommendations, directed to public authorities, trade unions and firms. One recommendation states that the move towards the individualisation of work relationships should be kept under control. Otherwise the lower qualified workers will get in a situation of less contractual power. As a consequence, they will be more exposed to increasing workloads and exploitation. The researchers stress the fact that social dialogue and concertation should be encouraged in order to avoid “zero-sum” strategies. New types of bargained regulation, targeting these flex-workers, would have to cover crucial aspects which are usually less controversial, but crucial in strategies to sustain employability or to stimulate career development of these workers (such as training and OHS-provisions).
3. Administrative reports
Public reports, such as reports from the health and safety authority or labour inspectorate, including reports drawn up by consultancy firms made on demand and financed by public authorities may be a relevant source of information on the relationship between working conditions and social dialogue
Do reports from Labour Inspectorate / Health and Safety Authorities exist where the absence of dialogue between the two sides of industry on OHS matters is mentioned? (present the findings briefly)
Is there predominance in a certain sector?
When so, mention the five most quoted sectors.
The role of Labour Inspectorate in an advice / information role to get the social dialogue going whether establishment-specific or not.
Is the gender aspect taken up in OHS, is it taken up in the OHS social dialogue, who puts it on the agenda and what is its outcome, if any?
The health and safety inspectorate is a part of the Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue. They publish every year a brief annual report. The Inspectorate has the task/the ability to consult the workplace representation, when they inspect a company on-site. The annual report of 2005 mentions however very briefly that this is not happening very often in practice due to lack of a spokesman, assigned by the representation; no representation in the company; or the decision of the Inspector that this contact would bring no added-value to the inspection.
These reports contain further no extensive and no systematic accounts on the practice of the CPBW/CPPT.
The High Council of Prevention and Protection at work is the Federal advisory body of the social partners on OHS matters. The Council is consulted on all new legislative steps related to this matter. However, the Council is not involved in a systematic monitoring or reporting of the social dialogue on working conditions at workplace level.
B. Actual examples of social dialogue influencing working conditions
The objective of this section of the CAR is to find out the views of the social partners on the influence of social dialogue on working conditions and to report real-life examples of where social dialogue has had an influence on working conditions. Our focus is on the “success stories”, where there has been a positive and reported outcome, but we would also welcome “failure stories” where, for whatever reason, social dialogue either broke down or did not have the desired influence on working conditions, or a particular intervention was tried and failed. Bear in mind that failure stories may be under-reported and success stories may be over-reported.
Please limit your answers to this second section (questions 4 and 5) to 2,500 words. National centres are asked to report at least two, but no more than four, cases in this framework. Please report, where possible, cases that are considered to be typical for your country.
4. Examples of social dialogue
Please ask the social partners in your country for what they consider to be successful or unsuccessful examples of social dialogue influencing working conditions and the criteria on which they make these judgements. This section could also include social partner views on which case studies are representative of the situation in your country.
The reporting for this section of the CAR should include:
The actors involved;
A description of the issue;
The level (national, sectoral, company, other). For example, there might be some evidence of sector-level experience transferring down successfully to company-level experience; and
The outcomes. If the intervention was a success, please list the success factors. If the intervention was not a success, please list the reasons or presumed reasons, why it was not a success.
The results of any relevant research findings.
In the opinion of the respondents there are a lot of successful OHS-interventions due to social dialogue in Belgium. Social partners have the capacity and expertise to reach better regulative framework agreements (national/sector level) or context-specific solutions at company level than the legal initiatives.
Both sides – unions and employers’ organisations – stress in this regard in the first place initiatives taken at supra-company level. National and sectoral social dialogue has made in Belgium according to both sides important contributions to the improvement of working conditions. On the one hand, this national and sectoral social dialogue plays an important and positive role in the preparation of new OHS-law in Belgium. This law is still the main regulative instrument of working conditions in Belgium. On the other hand, this national and sector social dialogue plays a complementary role to existing legal regulations. Bi-partite negotiated agreements exist on a range of OHS-matters. Specific sectoral bodies are involved in campaigning for better working conditions and coaching companies to obtain better working conditions results and comply to a higher degree with the existing rules and regulations.
Union respondents to the questionnaire pinpoint also to the positive effects of Workplace Prevention and Protection Committees. These joint committees have to be set up in establishments (technical units of an enterprise) with more than 50 employees. Statutory provisions regulate the activities of these committees. As already stated in section A of this report, scientific and/or administrative monitoring of the concrete practice of these committees is low in the country. As a result, respondents had difficulties to present ‘best practices’ in this regard. Nevertheless, especially the respondents from the union side are convinced that, where present, these committees contribute in an extensive way to better OHS-policies of companies.
National social dialogue
From a social dialogue perspective, two national bodies play a key role. The Higher Council for Prevention and Protection at Work is composed of representatives of the social partners and experts. This council is the consultative channel for the social partners, when OHS-laws are revised or innovated. The National Labour Council is the other important body. The highest members of both sides – trade union and employers’ confederations – are present in this body. In this Council, national intersectoral collective agreements are negotiated for the whole private economy. Dozens of regulations about OHS are based on consensus-advices in the Higher Council for Prevention and Protection at Work or negotiations in the National Labour Council.
The key event in the last decade of positive, tripartite social dialogue on OHS-matters was the (renewed) codification of the OHS-regulations in Belgium, which took place in the mid-90s. Although this regulative renewal was induced by the need to comply with EU Directives, a range of innovations were introduced. Consultations and negotiations between government, administration, experts, employers’ organisations and trade unions were the driving force of this renewal. A greater stress of prevention and a broadening of the OHS-concept to well-being at work were the biggest changes obtained. Another major innovation was the legal provision of external services for prevention and protection on the shop floor. An important aspect of these external services for prevention and protection is the multidisciplinary ‘prevention’ approach, whereas the former inter-company health services mainly focused to the ‘curative’ aspect of the OHS concept. Although differences of opinion exist on the quality and impact of these services, one is convinced that these services have contributed to a higher professionalisation of OHS-polices by Belgian companies (especially SMEs, see infra).
Recent other examples of national social dialogue are:
- The Royal Decree about the prohibition of smoking on the shop floor: this new law emerged from a dialogue initiated by the trade unions. A coalition of trade unions brought the matter on the agenda of the Higher Council for Prevention and Protection on the shop floor. Talks in the Council lead to a consensus which resulted in the Royal Decree of 19 January 2005 concerning the protection of employees against tobacco smoke.
- Intersectoral national collective agreement on stress-at-work: the National Labour Council they negotiated a successful collective regulation about stress (Collective Agreement 72, 30 march 1999). A recent evaluation was made by the social partners of this agreement. The measures seemed efficient, so the social partners decided to continue with their provisions.
- The on-going negotiations in the National Labour Council on drugs-and alcohol related problems at the workplace. The dialogue will probably result in cross-sector guidelines and codes of conduct in handling these kinds of problems at the workplace, taking into account existing privacy-regulations.
Also at sector level there are plenty of examples of social dialogue influencing OHS: These examples have to do with (complementary) regulations (collective sector agreements), but also with training, coaching and monitoring of OHS-practices in these sector. ‘Classic’ examples of this OHS-approach of sector social dialogue are:
- National action committee for Health and Safety in the construction sector (Nationaal Actiecomité voor Veiligheid en Hygiëne in het Bouwbedrijf/Comité National d'Action pour la Sécurité et l'Hygiène dans la Construction, NAVB/CNAC): It has been set-up in 1965 by the social partner of the construction sector. The main activities are sensibilisation, training and coaching on OHS-matters in the sector. It has also a research and development task in the OHS-field. In this regard, it plays an advisory role to advice the joint sector committee and other bodies (state administrations) on OHS trends and developments in the sector. Current prevention campaigns of the NAVB/CNAC have to do with work accidents at road construction activities and lower-backache problems.
- Central Prevention Service for the temporary employment agencies (Centrale Preventiedienst voor de Sector van de Uitzendarbeid/Service Central de Prévention pour le Secteur du Travail Intérimaire, PI): The service was installed in 1998 by national collective agreement. The goal of this OHS-service is to reduce the degree of working accidents in the sector by enhancing the amount of prevention campaigns and health & safety investigations in the sector.
- Initiative by the social partners (client companies, contractors, trade unions) to implement on a large scale the Safety Certificate Contractors (Veiligheidscertificaat Aaannemers, VCA) in sectors like the (petro)chemicals, construction and cleaning. 1,700 compagnies are already certified and aprrox. 200,000 workers have obtained a basic VCA certificate.
Additional comments by the respondents
The two union respondents mention the following elements, when ask which factors determine the – in their eyes – successful social dialogue on OHS in Belgium.
- Representative and equal representation of both employer and employee side on the bodies of social dialogue;
- Legal enforcement of the outcomes of national and sectoral social dialogue, especially the ‘automatic’ legal extension of sector or national agreements (binding not only the members of the signing organisations).
- Continuous political support and respect for the obtained results and outcomes. The government only interferes if the dialogue fails to find a compromise.
Although Fonck and Philips indicate that the influence of Belgian social dialogue on OHS-issues is strong, they add also an example of a recent failure. When the social partners wanted to make a binding collective agreement about mobbing at work, they failed. Some of the negotiating participants thought to reach a better solution (looking from their perspective), when the decision would be made by the government. Social dialogue about that issue failed.
The VBO respondent mentioned in his reply that it is very important to have broadly based and supported accords and agreements between the social partners, not only on paper or in the heads of the organisational leaders, but also in the minds of the people on the shop floor (employer and employees). A strong agreement starts with a good problem recognition and definition at the workplace level.
UNIZO respondents stressed in particular the intermediary role played by the external prevention services. These services have often links with employers’ organisations. Two ‘good practices’ were mentioned:
- Employees of hardwood sawmills often suffer from sinus disorders due to dust, frequently with deathly consequences in the long term. New investigations and development at sector level of better solutions, coordinated by these external services, resulted in a significant decrease of the sinus disorder problems in the sector. The inter-organisational co-operation, organised by the external services, lead to better policies at individual company level.
- Another example is the tackling of backache problems of nurses in the hospital sector. These problems are caused by ‘wrong’ uplifting patients. Co-ordinated efforts of the Fund for Occupational Diseases and the involved external prevention services have made it possible to detect the main causes and to implement better measures. This dialogue resulted in a pilot project about preventing and healing back disorders in the hospital sector. Both trade union and employer representatives (sector and company level) took part in this project.
5. Social partner views
Please ask the social partners in your country for their general views on the type, nature and quality of the social dialogue in your country in terms of its influence on working conditions. This could include, for example, their assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the social dialogue, as it is organised in your country, as a tool for improving working conditions. Please report who you have contacted and in what form. The level of organisation (confederation, federation) that is relevant may differ between countries, although it is most likely that the organisation to be contacted will be a peak organisation.
Trade union perspective
The trade union respondents (ACV/CSC and FGTB/ABVV) based their joint opinion on three main arguments:
- In general, the Belgian mechanisms of social dialogue have a lot of influence on effective OHS measures.
- Strong unions make a difference. A strong trade union representation and high trade union density lead to a powerful voice in the social dialogue, and as a consequence more favourable working (and OHS) conditions in a sector. In sectors (such as catering, cleaning, couriers) where a strong trade union tradition is absent, the opposite situation occurs.
- The implementation of social dialogue in Belgium is hampered by the absence of a statutory provision for employee representation in SMEs. The trade unions are convinced that the absence of a recognised trade union delegation at company level increases the probability of having bad working conditions. The respondents substantiate this opinion by referring to research about the relative amount and severity of work related accidents, complaints addressed to coordinating OHS-inspection services and procedures at labour courts. These statistics are worse in SMEs and would be lower when a trade union representation would be (more) recognised in these small enterprises.
Based on this latter opinion, the unions are already striving for a couple of years to lower the employee threshold to implement a statutory recognised Workplace Prevention and Protection Committee from 50 to 20 employees. This demand has been raised in relation to the – still pending - implementation of the European Directive of information and consultation of employees (EC/2002/14).
View of the employers’ organisations
Generally, the three-step model (national, sectoral, company) of social dialogue in Belgium is very efficient. It creates on the one hand a simple and general framework; on the other hand it makes differences between sectors, companies, regions possible. Custom-made measures are possible (an important strength of the system).
In this regard, it is important that the higher-level rules and regulations leave possibilities for such custom-made measures at lower levels. The VBO/FEB spokesman regrets that these possibilities are not always there. Although there is a consensus at company level on such a custom-made measure, this kind of agreement can be hampered by blockades at sector level. In other words: an important strength of the system is not always possible and can be a weakness in reality.
First of all, the interviewee underlined that the OHS issue is more important for a (labour-intensive) SME, than a large (capital-intensive) company. Size matters in this regard. When a working accident or an occupational sickness occurs in a small company, the employer looses immediately a relatively much larger part of its available workforce or human capital.
Secondly, they once again stressed the importance of the external services for the prevention and protection at work. Since they are created and active, knowledge and specialisation on OHS matters are improved. This professionalisation has contributed to the decrease of labour accidents and occupational sickness in the country.
Thirdly, although one can never loose sight of the general aims (everybody wants safe and motivating working conditions, and we need them to improve in an equal way) improving them on equality based way), they emphasized the specificities of SMEs. In this regard the following statements were made:
- The inferior safety reputation of SMEs is not the result of an inferior attention of the social dialogue to this topic. SMEs are the driving force of the employment increase in Belgium. More young and inexperienced employees are employed in these firms. Additionally, sectors which consist almost totally of SMEs (like construction) are also more risk-sensitive activities.
- UNIZO as employers’ organisation is in favour of an equal representation and power of the partners in the social dialogue on company level, with the remark that this consultation must be expertly, which certainly within a small SME can not always be the case. Management has to take up too many roles in such a company, so it can not be (the needed) specialist in OHS-matters. Trade union representatives (if any on the shop floor) are often not well informed or have a lack of interest in changes which have no direct and visible consequences.
- As in Belgium 70% of the companies can be classified as an SME, the informal and direct consultation on OHS-matters will always be (more) important at company level than the organised trade-union-based dialogue. As a consequence, this situation has to be supported by a specialized and sector-specific support of external services and a legal framework that is discussed on national level, taking into account this SME-driven economical situation. For this reason it is a good thing that there are both strong trade unions, and strong employers' organisations at sector level. This is certainly the case in the present Belgian social dialogue.
In a general conclusion the UNIZO respondents stated that OHS-matters in SMEs are discussed today in a very thorough manner, causing improved working conditions mainly due to the coordinating efforts of the prevention services and the stringent framework of legal regulations and collective sector agreements. Larger companies need this type of mechanisms less, because they have their own powerful internal trade union delegations and strongly developed internal OHS-regulations, which are both not plausible in a small company.
De Weerdt Y., Pauwels F. & Van Gyes G. (2005). Werknemersinspraak in kleine bedrijven, instellingen en vestigingen. Leuven: Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid-K.U.Leuven, 128p.
Ferreras, I (2007). Critique politique du travail: Travailler à l’heure de la société de services. Paris: Les Presses, 253p.
Randstad Work Solutions (2004), hoe participeren werknemers in het bedrijfsleven? Brussel: Randstad Belgium, 76p.
Theunissen G. & Ramioul M., PASO (2005). Sociaal overleg in Vlaamse organisaties: prisoner’s dilemma of win-win. Leuven: Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid-K.U.Leuven: Departement TEW: Departement Sociologie, 79p.
Vendramin P., Valenduc G., Rolland I. (FTU), Richardson R., Gillespie A., Belt V. (CURDS), Carré D., Maugéri S., Combès Y. (LabSIC), Ponzellini A., Pedersini R., Neri S. (Fond. Seveso) (2000). Flexible work practices and communication technology. Brussels: European Commission, 164p.
Names of interviewed persons available upon request: