Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Banking

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Industrial relations,
  • Representativeness,
  • Social partners,
  • Date of Publication: 07 August 2011



About
Author:
Georg Adam
Institution:

This study sets out to provide the necessary information for assisting the existing sectoral social dialogue in the banking sector. First, the report identifies the relevant national organisations on both sides of the industry. Second, it analyses the sector’s relevant organisations at European level. The study consists of three main parts: a summary of the sector’s economic background; an analysis of the social partner organisations in all of the EU Member States (with the exception of Latvia), with special emphasis on their membership, their role in collective bargaining and public policy, and their national and European affiliations; and finally, an analysis of the relevant European organisations, in particular their membership composition and their capacity to negotiate. The aim of the EIRO series of studies on representativeness is to identify the relevant national and supranational social partner organisations in the field of industrial relations in selected sectors. The impetus for these studies arises from the goal of the European Commission to recognise the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the EC Treaty provisions. Hence, this study is designed to provide the basic information required to establish and support sectoral social dialogue.

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 (951KB 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 banking sector, and show how these actors relate to the sector’s European interest associations of labour and business. The impetus for this study, and for similar studies in other sectors, arises from the aim of the European Commission to identify the representative social partner associations to be consulted under the provisions of the EC Treaty. Moreover, in the case of the banking sector, a request for re-assessing the associational ‘landscape’ at European level was issued by the European Banking Federation (EBF) and its Banking Committee for European Social Affairs (BCESA), after the latter body had been established in the mid-2000s. The enlargement of the European Union in the course of the 2004/7 accession of the new Member States constituted another impetus for this study. Hence, this study seeks to provide basic information needed to set up and assist 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. Hence, 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 banking 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’ (see below). At both national and European levels, a multiplicity of associations exist which are not considered as social partner organisations as they do not essentially deal with industrial relations. Thus, there is a need for clear-cut criteria which will enable analysis to differentiate the social partner organisations from other associations.

As regards the national-level associations, classification as a sector-related social partner organisation implies fulfilling one of 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, and/or which participates in the sector-related European social dialogue.

Taking affiliation to a European social partner organisation as 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 country. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation and/or involvement in national collective bargaining are of utmost importance to the European social dialogue, since they are the two constituent mechanisms that can systematically connect the national and European levels.

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 to identify 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 banking sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne, NACE), to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. More specifically, the banking sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev. 2) 64 (i.e. financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding), except for 64.11 (i.e. central banking).

This includes the following activities:

NACE Rev. 2

 

64.19

Other monetary intermediation

64.20

Activities of holding companies  

64.30

Trusts, funds and similar financial entities

64.91

Financial leasing

64.92

Other credit granting

64.99

Other financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding not elsewhere classified  

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 above 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 1: Domain 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 banking sector?

Does the union/employer organisation also represent members outside the banking 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 5 in the annex.

At European level, the European Commission established a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the banking sector in 1999. The Banking Committee for European Social Affairs (BCESA) of the European Banking Federation (EBF), the European Savings Banks Group (ESBG) and the European Association of Cooperative Banks (EACB) on the employer side as well as the UNI Global Union Europa – Section Finance (UNI Europa – Finance) on the employees’ 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 relevant interest 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 – Finance (i.e. those organisations whose domain relates to the banking 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. The EIRO correspondents are provided with standardised questionnaires in both Word and Excel format by the European Foundation, 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 asked 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, 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 included in the process of drawing up this study.

  • First, staff of the European Foundation together with the author of this report carry out consistency checks of the figures provided, and make sure that the organisations listed match the criteria for inclusion for the purpose of this study (see above).
  • 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 the report

The study consists of three main parts, beginning with a very 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 Latvia which has not been part of the EIRO network (and thus has not provided any data) since March 2010. The study therefore covers 26 European countries in total. In the case of Latvia, only one sector-related employer/ business organisation is considered which could be found by applying the ‘top-down’ approach (see above). The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level.

Each section contains 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

Until the late 2000s, banking was a growing business sector in Europe. Its expansion was a result of several factors, including the liberalisation of the financial services sector, the third phase of monetary union and the introduction of the European single currency the euro in 1999. Moreover, the development of ITC technologies has promoted the sector’s growth. On this basis, the banking industry has undergone large-scale consolidation and merger processes (European Commission, 2009). In 2007–8, the European banking sector (including central banking) accounted for more than 7,300 banking companies and more than four million employees in the EU27, according to EBF and Eurostat, LFS. The European banking market tripled from 1998 to 2007 in terms of both assets and loans. In contrast to market growth, however, the sector witnessed only a very moderate increase of employment during the same period, due to ongoing economies of scale. Moreover, with the global financial crisis of 2007/8 onwards, many of the jobs gained over the past few decades were lost, particularly in Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and – most prominently – the UK. Overall, the sector still employs about 2–3% of the European workforce. Banking is a very productive sector, which is reflected in comparatively high pay levels in most countries for which related data are available.

Employment characteristics

As far as relevant information can be drawn from the country reports, standard employment seems to prevail in the European banking industry. Compared with other private service activities, banking records relatively low shares of part-time work. At the end of the 2000s, more than 85% of European banking employees worked on a full-time basis, even though their share has been decreasing slightly over recent years. This is despite the fact that in most of the EU27 the sector’s workforce is dominated by female employees. More than half of the workers within EU banking are women, although there are marked differences between the individual countries with respect to the gender balance. In spite of a relatively high proportion of women and, especially in the CEE countries, young workers, employment conditions within the sector tend to be more favourable than those of most other private service sectors across the Member States. This is for a variety of reasons: first, in several countries favourable employment terms originate in the fact that the sector was for many years dominated by public ownership and also protected from international competition. Since the sector has, after privatisation and restructuring, adjusted itself successfully to the new circumstances in most countries and has yielded high profitability, pay is higher than average in most countries. Moreover, the educational levels of the majority of European banking employees have been rising continuously, as the sector needs increasing numbers of finance and business experts as well as technicians and IT specialists.

Long-term trends

Liberalisation of the EU financial market has paved the way for the banking industry’s tremendous growth during the last two decades. Growth was strongly supported by a multiplicity of factors, such as the enlargement of the EU and the development of new markets in the field of investment banking, private equity and asset management. Although the European Commission’s goal of an integrated market for banks has not yet been fully achieved, common standards for banks (Basel I and II) constitute important steps in integration. Global trading in new business areas, along with IT-based innovations which have opened up the opportunity for ‘real-time’ trading, has intensified competition further within the sector. Hence, many banking companies have found themselves compelled to achieve even greater economies of scale. As a result, a considerable movement towards market concentration has been observed in many countries, in that the big players have expanded into new countries and acquired regional competitors. At the same time, cooperative and savings banks have also sought to develop their regional basis and their European cooperation. Despite the tremendous expansion of the market during the past few decades, EU employment within the sector has almost stagnated since the late 1990s. This is because of the increasing importance of economies of scale, which have been manifested in large-scale consolidation processes and internal restructuring. The introduction of ICT, increasing automation in back office administration and the rising use of internet as well as outsourcing measures have been the main determinants for curbing the sector’s dynamics in terms of employment (see European Commission, 2009).

Tables 3 and 4 give an overview of the development from the late 1990s to the late 2000s (just before the economic crisis had fully evolved), presenting figures on companies, employment and employees in the sector and in relation to the national economy, mainly stemming from national sources. These figures have been collected through the national EIRO centres. Regarding the numbers of companies, it should be noted that the numbers listed in Table 4, which are drawn from the country reports, in many cases clearly exceed the (anyhow incomplete) sectoral Eurostat data. Most national centres may have used national statistics counting banking branches rather than banking companies, even though they were asked to give the company numbers. The general trend in Europe in recent years has been a fall in the number of banking institutions and a rise in the number of branches. Due to this uncertainty regarding the unit of observance, the company figures should be treated very cautiously, since the growth of the number of companies as indicated above may actually mirror an increase in the number of branches rather than the number of banking institutions, due to ongoing market concentration processes observable in virtually all Member States. In most Member States (12 out of 17), for which relevant data are available, the number of companies/branches more or less increased, reflecting the general expansion of the sector in most countries, in particular the new Member States, since, as already said, most of these data refer to the number of branches instead of institutions. By contrast, in five countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg and Poland) the number of companies fell – in Poland by more than 50%. These falls appear to be attributable at least partially to a general trend of market consolidation, which can be observed in almost all EU Member States, since in these countries data seem to refer in fact to the number of institutions.

All countries with available data with the exception of five (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia and the UK) record an increase in overall employment from the late 1990s to the late 2000s. The same holds true for the numbers of sectoral employees – regarding this indicator the five countries listed above record declining tendencies during the period of observance. Spain holds an outstanding position in this respect, with a growth of sectoral employment of well over 30% within a decade, even though some of this rise was lost during the current crisis. Regarding countries for which comparable data are available, in all but two (the Czech Republic and Germany) the number of employees corresponds to or falls only slightly short of the total number of employment. This indicates that the sector is characterised by a high incidence of standard employment in most countries. Tables 3 and 4 also show that women represent the majority of workers in the sector in about two-thirds of the countries for which data are available. In several countries, such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia, female employment clearly exceeds male employment. On the contrary, clearly higher male employment shares in relation to those of women are recorded in Italy and Spain, while the relationship between the sexes is more or less balanced in most other countries. The tables also indicate that the sector is not very large, even though it continued to grow in most countries up to the late 2000s. Its share in aggregate employment and/or number of employees is no higher than around 3% in all countries under examination with the exception of Luxembourg. The latter country is a specific case with a very large financial services sector; banking accounts for about 8% of the total number of employees of Luxembourg’s national economy. In a few countries, employment shares of the sector are extraordinarily low. In the Czech Republic, for instance, it does not exceed 1% of total employment of the entire economy.

Recent developments

Over the past one or more decades virtually all Member States have recorded considerable business expansion within the banking industry. The impact of the global economic downturn on the sector as of the late 2000s varies from one country to the other. In most countries, both profitability and employment within the sector declined in the period 2008–10, while an upward trend at least in terms of the former was observable in 2010 in some of them. In the course of the global financial crisis, it soon became clear that European financial institutions had suffered from losses similar to those of US institutions. A collapse of the world financial system could only be avoided by unprecedented rescue programmes from governments and central banks worldwide. As a consequence, the health of the EU financial system has improved since 2009. In the meantime, financial institutions have adapted their business models, concentrating on the strengths of their core business, accompanied by significant deleveraging processes. Banks covered by the public rescue programmes have been substantially restructured, by selling off risky activities. However, in many cases a return to profitability has meant considerable job cuts. According to a Eurofound study carried out in 2010 (Eurofound, 2010), around 10% and 5%, respectively, of jobs in state-owned and private banks surveyed were cut in 2009.

Figure 2: Development of employment (workforce aged 15 years or over) in the banking sector (NACE Rev.2 64) 2009–10, percentage change from previous year

Figure 2: Development of employment (workforce aged 15 years or over) in the banking sector (NACE Rev.2 64) 2009–10, percentage change from previous year

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

According to both the country reports and Figure 2, in a few countries such as Italy and Malta the banking sector has been relatively unshaken by the economic recession. Nevertheless, in most EU Member States banking has been badly affected by the crisis. In terms of sectoral employment, there have been significant job losses in a number of countries. Job losses during the two consecutive years 2009 and 2010 or a significant decline in employment in at least one of these two years are recorded for a number of countries including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland (at least according to the country report), Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and, in particular, the UK (see Figure 2). In some of these countries, a considerable part of the employment growth of the past decade(s) was lost within a two-year period. This very unfavourable economic situation has, at least in a few countries, also affected industrial relations within the sector. For instance, in Ireland, in 2009 the sector’s most important employer organisation, IBEC, withdrew from the national pay agreement, with the consequence that many employers in the sector have refused to pay the terms of this agreement. However, on the other hand, the withdrawal of the IBEC from the bargaining table has prompted some employers to seek cooperation with trade unions at company level and thus grant trade union recognition, which they had resisted doing before. Following the revocation of the national pay agreement by IBEC in 2009, a number of banks have renegotiated the terms of the national agreement at local level as a single-employer agreement since then. Smaller-scale disputes among the sectoral industrial relations actors which have evolved as a result of the current downturn have also been reported from other countries, such as France, where the trade unions refused to sign a sectoral wage agreement for the commerce banks in 2010, and Slovenia, where the employer organisation ZBS revoked the sectoral collective agreement in 2009.


National level of interest representation

In many Member States, statutory regulations explicitly refer to the concept of representativeness when assigning certain rights of interest representation and public governance to trade unions and/or employer organisations. The most important rights addressed by such regulations include: formal recognition as a party to collective bargaining; extension of the scope of a multi-employer collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; and 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 persistently seek the cooperation of the social partner organisations. If single-employer bargaining prevails in a country, none of the collective agreements will have a noticeable effect on the economy due to their limited scope. As a result, the basis for generalised tripartite policy concertation will be absent.

In summary, representativeness is a multi-dimensional concept that embraces three basic elements: the membership domain and strength of the social partner organisations; their role in collective bargaining; and their role 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 banking sector. However, there is insufficient room in this report to delineate the domain demarcations of all the organisations. Instead, the report notes how they relate to the sector by classifying them according to the four patterns of ‘sector-relatedness’, as specified earlier. A more detailed description of how an organisation may relate to the sector can be found in Figure 1 above and in the annex.

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 persons or retired workers), some countries provide information on employed membership only. Hence, two measures of trade union density have to be differentiated: gross union density (including inactive members) on the one hand and net union density (referring to employed union members only) on the other hand. 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 sex. However, measuring the membership strength of employer organisations is more complex since they organise collective entities, namely companies that employ 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 of an employer organisation.

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, the organisation’s total density; that is, the density referring to its overall domain, may differ from sector-specific density; that is, the organisation’s density referring to the sector. This report will first present the data on the domains and membership strength of the trade unions and will then consider those of the employer organisations.

Summarising, this report basically distinguishes between three types of organisational densities, as defined in Table 2, which are – depending on data availability – also broken down into net and gross rates.

Table 2: Definition of organisational density figures

Type of density

Definition

Breakdown

Domain density

Total number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation divided by potential number of employees (companies) as demarcated by 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 banking 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 banking sector divided by potential number of employees (companies) in the sector as demarced by the organisation’s domain

Net and gross;

Employees (for trade unions)

Companies and employees (for employer organisations)

Trade unions

Tables 6 and 7 present the trade union data on their domains and membership strength. The tables list all trade unions which meet at least one of the two criteria for classification of a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier. All of the 26 countries under consideration but two (Estonia and Lithuania) record at least one sector-related trade union. In total, 74 sector-related trade unions could be identified. Of these 74 unions, 13.5% have demarcated their domain in a way which is more or less congruent with the sector definition. This relatively low proportion underscores the fact that statistical definitions of business activities differ somewhat from the lines along which employees identify common interests and band together in trade unions, even in relatively clearly demarcated sectors with a long tradition such as banking. Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector prevail in banking and occur in exactly 44.6% of the cases. Overlap by and large arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first one refers to general (that is, cross-sectoral) domains (for example, LBC-NVK, CNE and ACLVB-CGSLB of Belgium, GWU of Malta, FNV Bondgenoten and De Unie of the Netherlands and Unite of the UK). The second and more frequent mode in the sector relates to various forms of multi-sector domains, covering contiguous sectors, frequently in the broader financial services (including insurance activities) or more general private services segments of the economy (for example, GPA-djp of Austria, OSPPP of the Czech Republic, Ver.di and DBV of Germany, COMFIA-CCOO and FeS-UGT of Spain, FSPBA of France, HFBEU of Greece, FISAC, FIBA, UILCA, FABI, FALCRI, SINFUB and UGL CREDITO of Italy, ALEBA, OGBL-SBA and LCGB-SESF of Luxembourg, CNV Dienstenbond of the Netherlands, FSAB of Romania and Finansförbundet of Sweden). Sectional overlaps in the banking sector occur in 18.9% of the cases. This mode usually emanates from domain demarcations which focus on certain categories of employees which are then organised across several or all sectors. Such employee categories are specified by various parameters, such as distinct occupations (for example clerks, as is the case of Germany’s DHV; or managers and highly skilled staff, as in Italy’s DIRCREDITO and Sweden’s SACO), type of financial institution (for example cooperatives, as in the case of Hungary’s KASZ; or a specific financial business group, such as Portugal’s STEC), and geographic region (for example, ELA ZERBITZUAK and FESIBAC-CGT of Spain, which are each active only in certain regions). Employment status plays hardly any role as a parameter in this respect, since virtually all sectoral employees are white-collar workers. Finally, sectionalism, which ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions, which represent and organise only certain categories of employees in the sector (such as employees of a specific business group, see Bulgaria’s ITUE Unicredit Bulbank and UEWUBB as well as Poland’s ZZZ Banku Pekao, ZZP Banku Pekao and ZZP BGZ, or of only a subsector of banking, see France’s SNB-CFE-CGC, Italy’s SILCCO and SINADI and Spain’s CSICA, or of only a region, such as SBN, SBSI and SIBACE of Portugal), while they do not organise employees outside the sector, can be found in 23.0% of the cases.

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, their domains also overlap with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the banking sector. Table 6 shows these inter-union domain overlaps. Inter-union overlaps of domains are endemic. In all countries but two (Hungary and Ireland) 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. Some form of inter-union competition is recorded from several countries, such as France (where the support in the workplace elections determines the number of seats in the works councils), Germany (between ver.di and the CGB affiliates DBV and DHV, in particular with regard to the cooperative banking sector), as well as Malta, Portugal and Sweden.

Looking at the trade union membership data, it becomes apparent that female employees comprise the majority group in most unions for which membership figures by sex are available. This finding is in line with the fact that women employees prevail in the sector in most Member States (see Tables 3 and 4). Moreover, as outlined earlier, the domain of most trade unions overlaps or sectionalistically overlaps with regard to the sector and often covers areas of the services sector other than banking which are clearly dominated by women employees. Hence, the predominance of female members in these trade unions is likely to originate in areas of their domains other than the banking sector.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all of the 26 Member States under consideration.

The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from more than 2.2 million (in the case of Germany’s ver.di) to only around 1,000. 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 only rather than taking all union members (those in jobs and those who are not) into account. This is mainly because research usually considers net union densities as more informative compared to gross densities, since the former measure tends to reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce quicker and more appropriately (only the employed members are capable of taking industrial action) than the latter. Domain density is over 50% in the case of one-third (33.3%) of the trade unions which document figures on density. 20.0% of the unions gather 70% or more of the active employees covered by their domain. Again one-third of the trade unions (33.3%) for which data are available organise fewer than 15% of the active employees within their domain; and exactly the same share of the sector-related trade unions record a density of in between 15% and 50% of their potential active members. These results indicate that overall domain density of the sector-related trade unions is neither very high nor very low. However, it should also be noted that for only 30 out of the 74 sector-related trade unions domain density data are recorded. Therefore these figures should be treated cautiously.

Compared with their medium-level overall domain densities, the sector-related trade unions’ density in the banking sector tends to be lower. 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 (see Table 2). 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 overlaps either sectionalist or sectionalistically with regard to the sector. Even when taking into account the trade unions’ sectoral domain density (which tends to be higher than their sectoral density for the reasons outlined above), the trade unions’ density in the banking sector tends to be lower compared with the density ratio referring to their domain on aggregate. Sectoral domain density is over 50% in the case of 26.3% of the trade unions for which data are available. 39.5% of the trade unions record a sectoral domain density lower than 15%, and 34.2% of them record a sectoral domain density of in between 15% and 50%. Again, it should be noted that no data are available regarding the sectoral domain density for almost half of the sector-related trade unions. With regard to those trade unions for which figures on both measures (that is, sectoral domain density and domain density on aggregate) are recorded, no clear picture in terms of tendencies can be drawn. There are approximately as many trade unions with a sectoral domain density higher compared with aggregate density as unions showing the reverse relationship between the two densities. Therefore one can infer that the banking sector is neither a stronghold nor a weak point in terms of membership within the (broader) membership domains of the sector-related trade unions.

At first glance, the moderate unionisation rates in the banking industry may seem surprising, given the favourable working conditions and high pay levels within the sector in most Member States, which may suggest well-established bipartite labour relations. However, in several countries, in particular among the new Member States, relatively high wages paid in the sector (often by foreign-owned banks) together with other, country-specific factors may prevent many employees from joining a trade union, since there are no major selective incentives to unionise. Such a situation appears to apply to Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungaria and Romania. Closer consideration of the sectoral union densities shows a highly polarised picture. Whereas in countries such as Denmark, Finland, Italy and Spain sectoral unionisation rates tend to be very high, the converse holds true of several other countries; in particular, as outlined above, among the new Member States. However, bearing in mind that in the private service sector unionisation rates generally tend to be low, trade union density in banking compares favourably with most other private sectors in most countries under consideration. The relatively favourable situation in this regard within the private service sector may be attributable to the larger average firm size (and the existence of a few large multinational companies) in most countries as well as the existence of a tradition of trade union recognition and negotiation within larger firms in those countries with decentralised industrial relations systems. This is despite the relatively high proportion of female employees – who generally tend to be less inclined to unionise compared to men within the sector (Sinclair, 1995).

Employer organisations

Tables 8 and 9 present the membership data for the sector-related employer organisations in the banking sector. As opposed to the trade union side, for all of the 27 countries under consideration at least one sector-related employer organisation is documented. Since, in contrast to the trade union side, complete lists of affiliations have been provided by all of the three European-level employer associations, the single national sector-related employer organisation of Latvia (which did not participate in this study) could also be included in this report. However, national organisations in Latvia which are not affiliated to any of the three listed European-level organisations are not included in this study. Therefore, applying the top-down approach as outlined earlier, coverage of this report in terms of national employer organisations is all of the EU27; applying the bottom-up approach, coverage is the EU27 except for Latvia. In 18 of these countries with available information, at least a proportion of the listed employer/ business organisations are not a party to collective bargaining (See Table 9). They are classified here as social partner organisations only because of their European-level affiliation to EBF/BCESA, EACB or ESBG. At least 17 of the 27 countries have one or more employer organisations engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Generally, business interest organisations may also deal with interests other than those related to industrial relations. Organisations specialised in matters other than industrial relations are commonly defined as ‘trade associations’ (see TN0311101S). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the banking sector. In terms of their national scope of activities, all of the associations which are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 9 either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to EBF/BCESA, EACB and ESBG, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them the status of a relevant interest organisation within the framework of this study. Of the 63 employer/business organisations listed in Tables 8 and 9, at least 25 organisations belong to this group. In 12 of the 27 countries where employer organisations exist, only one employer organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established (please note, however, that for Latvia no full picture of the associational ‘landscape’ is available). Pluralist associational systems thus prevail both on the trade union and on the employer side, even though more strongly in the case of trade unions. This is in line with the fact that the number of sector-related employer/ business organisations falls slightly short of the number of sector-related trade unions.

Moreover, the employer organisations’ domains tend to be narrower than those of the trade unions: 8.2% and 13.1%, respectively, of these associations rest on overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping domains with regard to the sector. None of these organisations has a domain which is cross-sectoral. Alternatively, all cases of domain overlaps ensue from coverage of the broader financial services sector (including insurance activities, etc.). Overlaps of this kind can be found, in particular, in the Czech Republic (SBP’), Ireland (IBC-FSI), Luxembourg (ABBL), Malta (MBA) and Sweden (BAO). Sectionalism or sectionalist overlaps (in case of broader domain demarcation in terms of sector) are mainly caused by domain demarcations which focus on the kind of service the institution specialises in. For instance, in Austria and Germany there are several distinct employer organisations each specialising in narrowly defined business activities. This associational fragmentation echoes the sector’s differentiation by type of bank and ownership. For instance in Austria distinct employer organisations exist for the commercial banks, the savings banks, the mortgage banks owned by the federal states (Länder), and cooperative banks of the ‘Raiffeisen’ type as well as the ‘Schulze-Delitzsch’ type (in Austria and Germany, cooperatives are run on these two different sets of principles). The German associational ‘landscape’ also distinguishes between private and public banking institutions. A similar fragmentation of the associational ‘landscape’ on the employer side can be observed in countries such as France, Italy and Spain. In line with this fragmentation, almost two-thirds (65.6%) of the associations have a membership domain which is sectionalist with regard to the sector. 13.1% of the employer organisations show a domain which is more or less congruent with the sector definition. This means that the domain of these organisations largely focuses on the banking sector as defined earlier, while one cannot rule out the possibility that these associations may also organise companies of contiguous sectors or do not really organise the entire banking sector. The clear predominance of membership domains which are sectionalist with regard to the sector indicates that the technocratic definition of the sector according to the NACE classification system is broader than the lines along which most sector-related employers identify their common interests and band together in associations.

Only one of the six existing sector-related employer organisations of Austria (the FVB) as well as ASNEF of Spain can rely on obligatory membership. In the case of Austria’s FVB, this is due to its public-law status as chamber unit.

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have usually managed to arrive at non-competing relationships. Their activities are complementary to each other as a result of inter-associational differentiation by either membership demarcation (as is the case of Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain) or functions and tasks (in the Czech Republic, Denmark, partially Germany and Ireland).

As the figures on density show (Table 9), membership strength in terms of companies varies widely 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 a few associations of France and the UK, where a reverse relationship exists, both the domain and the sectoral domain densities of companies tend to be equal to or – where they differ – lower than the densities of employees. This indicates a higher propensity of the larger companies to associate, as compared to their smaller counterparts. In general, overall densities of the employer/ business organisations in the sector tend to be significantly higher compared to trade union densities (see above). More than 70% and almost 100%, respectively, of the associations for which related data are available register a sectoral domain density higher than 50% in terms of companies and employees. Many of them record densities close to 100% in terms of both companies and employees. This indicates that in several countries the sector-related employer/ business organisations manage to gather not only the sector’s most significant (measured in terms of employment) companies, but also their smaller counterparts. In general, the findings suggest that in the banking sector the employers are quite well organised in terms of both companies and employees represented in most countries. However, it should be noted that only for slightly more than half of the employer/ business associations are density data available. Therefore the figures should again be treated cautiously.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 7 lists all of the trade unions engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. In line with numerous cases of inter-union domain overlap and of unclear domain demarcation, in several countries (France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Sweden) inter-union rivalry and competition for bargaining capacities have been identified. In the case of the sector-related employer organisations, competition over collective bargaining capacities has not been reported from any of the countries under consideration.

The data presented in Table 10 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 26 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.

To delineate the bargaining system, two further indicators are used. The first indicator refers to the relevance of multi-employer bargaining, compared with single-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining is defined as being conducted by an employer organisation on behalf of the employer side. In the case of single-employer bargaining, the company or its divisions is the party to the agreement. This includes cases where two or more companies jointly negotiate an agreement. The relative importance of multi-employer bargaining, measured as a percentage of the total number of employees covered by a collective agreement, therefore provides an indication of the impact of the employer organisations on the overall collective bargaining process.

The second indicator considers whether statutory extension schemes have been applied to the sector. For reasons of brevity, this analysis is confined to extension schemes which widen the scope of a collective agreement to employers not affiliated to the signatory employer organisation; extension regulations targeting the employees are therefore not included in the research. Regulations concerning the employees are not significant to this analysis for two reasons. On the one hand, extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard of the ILO, aside from any national legislation. Secondly, employers have good reason to extend a collective agreement concluded by them, even when they are not formally obliged to do so; otherwise, they would set an incentive for their workforce to unionise.

In comparison with employee-related extension procedures, schemes that target the employers are far more significant for the strength of collective bargaining in general and multi-employer bargaining in particular. This is because the employers are capable of refraining from both joining an employer organisation and entering single-employer bargaining in the context of a purely voluntaristic system. Therefore, employer-related extension practices increase the coverage of multi-employer bargaining. Moreover, when it is pervasive, an extension agreement may encourage more employers to join the controlling employer organisation; 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, about two-thirds (16) of the 23 countries for which related data are available record high coverage rates of 80% or higher. Eleven of them record extraordinarily high rates of more than 95%. At the other end of the scale there are at least two countries (Bulgaria and the UK) with rather low collective bargaining rates of about 25% or lower. It is estimated that coverage rates are also low in two Baltic countries, namely Estonia and Lithuania; however, no data are available in these two cases. A third group of countries records sector-related collective bargaining from medium low to medium high levels, with bargaining coverage rates of about 30% (as is the case of Poland) up to nearly 80% (as may be the case in Germany). One can infer from these findings that in clearly more than half of the 26 countries under consideration the sector’s industrial relations structures are well established. Closer consideration of the different countries reveals that collective bargaining coverage rates tend to be (relatively) high in the ‘old’ EU15 (with the notable exception of Ireland and the UK), while sectoral bargaining standards vary widely from one of the 2004/7 accession countries to the other. In Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland sector-related bargaining is rarely conducted, although there are sector-related representative social partner organisations on the two sides of industry in all of these countries (see Tables 7 and 9). By contrast, collective bargaining arrangements cover a major part of the sector in Malta and (almost) the entire sector in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

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 (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia); and the existence of pervasive extension practices, such as in Belgium, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. While (with the exception of Ireland) coverage in countries with prevalent multi-employer bargaining is generally high, single-employer bargaining arrangements in the sector are the exclusive type of bargaining in Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and the UK. In the latter group of countries (with the exception of Malta), collective bargaining coverage tends to be low. In addition, in two countries de facto bargaining coordination or collective wage regulation within the sector takes place, although multi-employer bargaining in a genuine sense is lacking. In Greece, wage determination within the banking sector was set by a national arbitration board in the years 2008 and 2009, covering the whole sector; in Portugal, company-level collective bargaining is de facto coordinated by an employer organisation (APB), which has an effect in terms of adjustment of wage accords across the sector similar to multi-employer bargaining. Accordingly, sectoral collective bargaining coverage in Portugal comes close to 100%, while all employees in Greece were covered in 2008 and 2009.

Due to the prevalence of multi-employer settlements in the sector, the use of extension practices is significant. Pervasive extension practices in the banking sector are reported for several countries (see Table 10). In Slovenia, new legislation on the extension of collective agreements has recently been introduced, with the effect of complete coverage at least in the banking sector. Referring to the aim of extension provisions; that is, making multi-employer agreements generally binding, the provisions for obligatory membership in the chamber system of Austria should also be noted. Obligatory membership creates an extension effect, as the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, WKO) and its subunits are parties to multi-employer bargaining – even though in banking this standard pattern is partially suspended since for historical reasons most sector-related employer organisations are based on voluntary membership (AT0104213F). Another functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. According to the country’s constitution, minimum conditions of employment must apply to all employees. The country’s labour court rulings relate this principle to the multi-employer agreements, to the extent that they are regarded as generally binding.

Participation in public policymaking

Interest associations may partake in public policy in two basic ways: they may be consulted by the authorities on matters affecting their members; or they may be represented on ‘corporatist’, in other words tripartite, committees and boards of policy concertation. This study considers only cases of consultation and corporatist 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 over time, depending 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 7 and 9 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

At least some of the trade unions are regularly consulted by the authorities in at least 21 of the 24 countries where sector-related trade unions are recorded. Three countries cite a lack of regular consultation of any of the trade unions (Cyprus, Romania and Spain). Since a multi-union system has been established in 17 of the 24 countries with sector-related trade unions, one cannot rule out the possibility that the authorities favour certain trade unions over others or that the unions compete for participation rights. In most countries with a multi-union system where a noticeable practice of consultation is observed, any of the existing trade unions may take part in the consultation process. By contrast, in Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands only some of the sector-related trade unions are consulted. Nevertheless, little evidence of inter-union conflicts over participation in public policy matters can be found within the banking sector.

Employer organisations

The vast majority of the sector-related employer/ business organisations for which relevant data are available are involved in consultation procedures. In countries with multi-organisation systems, no cases of conflicts over participation rights of employer organisations are reported. In the multi-organisation systems of Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania and Poland, where related data of all employer organisations are available, all of the sector’s organisations are consulted. By contrast, in the pluralist systems of France and Germany at least one of the employer organisations is regularly consulted, while others are not.

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the findings reveal that genuinely sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in only two of the 26 countries under consideration – France and the UK. Table 11 lists a total of only two bodies of this kind – namely the Advisory Committee for the Financial Sector of France and the UK-based Financial Services Skills Council. The origin of both bodies is based on statutory provisions. The Financial Services Skills Council addresses the issue of skills and lifelong learning of the workforce within the UK banking sector. The Advisory Committee for the Financial Sector of France follows up the relationship between companies and consumers and may organise hearings of professional or customer organisations on various sector-specific issues. Other tripartite bodies listed in some country reports are not taken into account in this study, since they all cover broader industry segments such as the entire private services sector or the entire national economy and thus do not specifically target the banking sector. However, bipartite sector-related bodies exist in several countries.


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 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 banking 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 – Finance – and three on the employer side – namely, EBF-BCESA, ESBG and EACB – are particularly significant in the banking sector; all four of them are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation consulted under Article 154 of the EC Treaty. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these four organisations, while providing supplementary information on others which are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

As indicated by its name, UNI Europa – Finance, which is affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), organises the entire financial sector of the economy, including insurance and pension funding activities. Therefore its membership domain overlaps with regard to the banking sector. On the employer side, the domain of all of the three sector-related European associations is sectional with regard to the banking industry. EBF-BCESA covers the commercial banking segment of the sector; ESBG organises and represents the savings and retail banks; and EACB so does with regard to the cooperative banking segment. EACB and ESBG organise both employer/ business organisations and individual companies (in particular, large institutions). EBF has only associations as members; however, the EBF-BCESA, which is the voice of European commercial banks on social policy issues and thus acts as the representative of commercial banks on behalf of EBF within the European social dialogue (see below), is composed of both associations and, in two countries, of individual companies. The latter participate within the BCESA on behalf of the associational members of EBF in Malta and the UK.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by UNI Europa – Finance, EBF-BCESA, EACB and ESBG extend beyond the 26 (in the case of employer organisations 27, see above) countries examined in this study. However, the report will consider only membership of these 26/27 countries.

For UNI Europa – Finance Table 12 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions drawn from the country reports. Accordingly, at least one affiliation is recorded in each country under consideration except for Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania. In some countries – such as Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden – multiple memberships occur. On aggregate, UNI Europa – Finance counts 39 direct affiliations from the countries under examination. Hence, more than half of the trade unions listed in Tables 9 and 10 are directly affiliated to UNI Europa – Finance. However, since UNI Europa did not provide a list of members of its finance section when this study was launched, only some of the relevant sector-related trade unions affiliated to UNI Europa are considered in this report (see footnote 1). Nevertheless, insofar as available data on sectoral membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength, it may be concluded that UNI Europa – Finance generally covers the sector’s most important labour representatives in most countries. All of the 39 direct members of UNI Europa – Finance listed are involved in sector-related collective bargaining.

Table 13 lists the members of EBF-BCESA, EACB and ESBG. As regards EBF and EBF-BCESA, this federation (EBF) and its committee (EBF-BCESA) together cover 26 of the 27 countries under examination through members from these countries (all but Slovenia). Taking only EBF (rather than its committee EBF-BCESA which consists of units and companies partially – but not always – acting on behalf of the EBF members), multiple memberships do not occur. In the case of the EBF-BCESA, multiple memberships can be found only in the UK, where two individual banking companies (HSBC and RBS) represent the associational EBF member (the BBA) within the committee. It should be noted that it is EBF-BCESA rather than the EBF that is the umbrella organisation which engages in the sectoral social dialogue (see below). Therefore this study focuses mainly on the EBF-BCESA. Taking only the committee (EBF-BCESA), coverage in terms of countries is 20 out of the EU27. Accordingly, in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia no committee members exist. With regard to EBF-BCESA only, Table 9 indicates that affiliated and unaffiliated associations co-exist in a series of countries, such as Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Sectoral membership data of the sector-related employer organisations do not clearly indicate whether the most important associations are affiliated to EBF-BCESA or to EBF. The same holds true of their role in collective bargaining as an indicator of an association’s significance. In several countries some or even all employer organisations that conduct bargaining are not affiliated either to EBF or EBF-BCESA. Since the committee (that is, EBF-BCESA) is the sectoral industrial relations actor at the European level on behalf of EBF, the former organisation is particularly relevant in terms of membership characteristics. In this respect it is important to note that all direct EBF-BCESA members which are associations rather than individual companies – directly engage in sector-related collective bargaining, except for four (HBA of Greece, Bankszövetség of Hungary, ZBP of Poland and APB of Portugal, which are only involved in de facto coordination of enterprise-level bargaining without any signatory competence). Employer/ business organisations which are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than industrial relations actors. As meantioned above, of the 18 direct associational members of EBF-BCESA, four are not involved in sector-related collective bargaining. This contrasts somewhat with the situation of UNI Europa – Finance, all of whose members engage in sector-related collective bargaining (see above).

With regard to EACB and ESBG, these organisations have 10 and six countries, respectively, under their umbrella through associational members from these countries. EACB thus covers countries such as Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain, while associational members of ESBG can be found in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. However, the two European-level employer organisations have not only national associations but also individual companies as members. Taking into account also single-enterprise members, coverage of EACB and ESBG in terms of countries is in both cases 20 out of the EU27. EACB and ESBG count 25 and 22 associational and company members, respectively, in total across the Member States. With regard to associational members only, multiple memberships of EACB are found in Austria, France and Italy, but there are none for ESBG. Taking sectoral membership data of the sector-related employer organisations as well as their involvement in collective bargaining as indicators for their significance (see Table 9), it is not clearly evident whether the most important associations are affiliated. Both European-level organisations appear to organise not the largest national associations (measured in terms of companies and employees represented), and a majority of affiliates are involved in sector-related collective bargaining only in the case of EACB.

Overall, although EBF-BCESA’s domain covers the largest segment of the banking sector, representativeness of all of the three European organisations on the employer side – related to their membership domain – appears to be relatively equal. Altogether, they represent a vast majority of the sector-related national employer and business organisations, including the most important at least in terms of size, in all countries but Slovenia. However, in terms of industrial relations involvement, as can be seen from Table 9, there are a number of sector-related employer organisations across the EU that are not affiliated to any of the three European associations which engage in sector-related collective bargaining.

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 has indicated that its members have obtained a permanent mandate to negotiate in matters of the European social dialogue.

On the employer side, EBF, via its Banking Committee for European Social Affairs (EBF-BCESA), represents its respective members in matters of the European sectoral social dialogue. However, the situation is somewhat difficult, since EBF-BCESA is a body in its own right, even though within the EBF structure, equipped with its own specific governance rules. Moreover, membership of EBF and EBF-BCESA differs somewhat, in that only those EBF members that are real employer organisations dealing with industrial relations issues participate directly in the EBF-BCESA. Those EBF affiliates which are pure national banking business associations (that is, trade associations) do not participate directly in the committee. In the case of Malta and the UK, they are represented by single employers which act on behalf of the EBF affiliates within the committee. In Cyprus, Denmark and Germany, membership of EBF on the one hand and EBF-BCESA on the other hand differs, in that there are two distinct associational members to the respective European organisations in each country; however, it has remained unclear whether in these countries the committee members act on behalf of the EBF members or in their own responsibility. Basically, EBF-BCESA is not fully independent from EBF, since, according to the EBF-BCESA statutes, the EBF secretariat participates ‘in meetings with the EU Commission and (…) other European institutions’ and the EBF bodies are regularly informed about the EBF-BCESA activities. Moreover, the EBF Executive Committee is equipped with the right to interfere to some extent in the process of decision-making within the EBF-BCESA. Apart from that, since the EBF-BCESA members are, in countries where they are not identical with the EBF members, at least partially considered to act on behalf of the national EBF affiliates, this study considers not only the associational members of EBF-BCESA but also the affiliates of the ‘parent’ association EBF, according to the ‘top-down’ approach outlined above. With regard to the European sectoral social dialogue, the delegates of the EBF-BCESA decide on a case-by-case basis whether to engage in negotiations at European level and on the scope of the negotiating mandate. The committee’s chairperson, together with the EBF secretariat, can then enter into negotiations.

In the case of both ESBG and EACB, these organisations are not equipped by their members with a general mandate to negotiate on behalf of them in matters of the European social dialogue. However, the respective members may, on a case-by-case basis, be asked by the organisations for permission to do so.

As a final proof of the weight of UNI Europa – Finance on the employee side and EBF-BCESA, EACB and ESBG on the employer side, 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 the sector-related trade unions and employer associations are affiliated.

For the trade unions, these affiliations are listed in Table 7. Accordingly, European organisations other than UNI Europa – Finance represent only a small number of sector-related trade unions and countries. For reasons of brevity, only those European organisations which cover at least three countries are mentioned here. This involves only the European Confederation of Executive and Managerial Staff (CEC), with four affiliations covering two countries; and the Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff (Eurocadres), with three affiliations covering three countries. In addition, there are about 15 European organisations which cover only one or two countries. Moreover, it should be noted that the affiliations listed in Table 7 may not necessarily be exhaustive. Nevertheless, this overview underlines the dominant status of UNI Europa – Finance as the sector’s labour representative. This is mainly because many of the affiliations to other European organisations reflect the overlapping domains of the affiliates rather than a real reference of the affiliations as such to the banking sector.

An analogous review of the membership of the national employer/ business associations can be derived from Table 9. Most of them entertain rather few affiliations to European associations other than EBF-BCESA, EACB and ESBG. There is no European association which covers at least three countries.

In conclusion, UNI Europa – Finance on the employee side and EBF-BCESA, EACB and ESBG on the employer side are obviously the by far most important sector-related European organisations.


Commentary

Despite thorough restructuring of the banking sector in many countries, including mergers and takeovers, during the past two decades, often unleashed by deregulation and privatisation processes, industrial relations tend to be relatively strongly organised in this industry, in particular compared with most other private service sectors of the economy. Whereas unionisation within the sector is not outstanding in most Member States (although it tends to be higher than the average for the private service sector), the study reveals both a strong presence of employer associations and a high level of collective bargaining coverage in most countries. Even though the global financial crisis as of 2007 onwards has badly affected the banking sector, with job cuts reported from virtually all Member States, no major impacts on the national (perhaps with the exception of Ireland) or supranational industrial relations systems have been observed. This buttresses the assumption of relatively robust industrial relations structures in most countries.

The fact that sectoral unionisation rates lag somewhat behind the employer organisations’ densities may be explained by a multiplicity of factors, such as the high incidence of female employment and highly skilled, younger-than-average staff, the emergence of a number of new banking businesses in particular in new niches of the market, as well as the limited capacity of the trade unions to set selective incentives for potential members in an anyhow well remunerated segment of the labour market.

Examining the figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the EU27, as presented in the EIRO industrial relations profiles for each Member State, shows that the banking industry’s bargaining coverage is higher than the country average in 16 of the 23 countries for which comparable data are available. Closer examination reveals the following pattern regarding collective bargaining coverage: it tends to be high in the ‘old’ EU15 – with the exception of Ireland and the UK – with prevalent multi-employer bargaining settlements, while sectoral bargaining standards vary widely among the new Member States. In Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland sectoral bargaining takes place only rarely. Conversely, collective bargaining settlements cover a major part of the sector in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Generally, high coverage rates are reinforced by the predominance of multi-employer arrangements and a significant use of extension practices.

In spite of the sector’s relatively favourable position in terms of industrial relations standards, the banking industry has encountered a series of major problems in the wake of the 2007/8 global economic downturn, when at least in some countries part of the workforce was made redundant. This has stimulated social partner cooperation at both national and European level in order to cope with the challenges of the financial crisis and related problems. However, even prior to the financial crisis the sector-related European social partners launched joint initiatives in the framework of social dialogue. In this context, a number of joint programmes, guidelines and declarations, including a declaration on lifelong learning in the banking sector (2002) and an agreement on CSR (2005), have been drawn up since 1998. Within the European social dialogue, the organisational structures changed somewhat in the mid-2000s when EBF felt prompted to adjust its structures to the emerging requirements of the European social dialogue. Therefore the pre-existing ad hoc working group on social affairs – a rather informal body – was transformed into the BCESA under the aegis of the EBF and the so-called Liaison Committee for European Social Affairs. Against the background of these changes, the European Commission commissioned the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to conduct this study aimed at re-examining the representativeness of the relevant sector-related European organisations.

As a result of this study, UNI Europa – Finance on the employee side and EBF-BCESA, EACB and ESBG on the employer side – the latter organisations each for their specific segment of the banking sector – have to be regarded as by far the most important EU-wide representatives of the sector’s employees and employers.

Georg Adam, Vienna, in cooperation with the Università degli Studi di Milano


References

European Commission (2009), Financial Services. Comprehensive sectoral analysis of emerging competences and economic activities in the European Union. Executive Summary. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=782&newsId=535&furtherNews=yes

Eurofound (2010) Financial services: Challenges and prospects. Overview report. Available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1048.htm

Sinclair, Diane M. (1995), ‘The Importance of Sex for the Propensity to Unionise’, British Journal of Industrial Relation s, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 173–190.

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: Tables 3–15

Table 3: Total employers and employment in banking, 1998 and 2008 (approximately)

Country

Year

Number of Companies+

Total Employment

Female Employment

Male Employment

Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy

AT

2000

923

74,347

37,319

37,028

n.a.

AT

2008

896

81,725

43,013

38,712

n.a.

BE

1998

120

79,370

n.a.

n.a.

2.0

BE

2008

106

71,049

33,392

37,657

1.6

BG

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2008

1,483

43,006

30,558

12,451

n.a.

CY

1997

335

11,800a

n.a.

n.a.

3.1a

CY

2008

353

13,000

n.a.

n.a.

3.2

CZ

1998

1,132

49,880

33,380

16,500

1.0

CZ

2008

2,110

40,480

26,190

14,290

0.8

DE

1998

n.a.

773,000

423,000

350,000

2.4

DE

2007

9,905

724,000

394,000

330,000

1.8

DK

1998

3,048b

53,110

28,502

24,608

2.0

DK

2008

9,912

64,951

32,997

31,954

2.2

EE

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

2008

30

7,322

n.a.

n.a.

1.1

ES

1998

n.a.

234,581*

62,185*

172,396*

1.7

ES

2008

4.078

315,076*

132,238*

182,938*

1.6

FI

1998

2.908

28,842

22,483

6,359

n.a.

FI

2008

2.874

31,880

22,988

8,892

n.a.

FR

2000

n.a.

420,244

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2008

722c

486,070

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

2000

93

65,556

31,467

34,089

1.9

GR

2008

117

74,153

38,904

35,249

1.8

HU

2000

517

48,458

n.a.

n.a.

1.3

HU

2008

589

63,228

n.a.

n.a.

1.6

IE

2003

n.a.

35,658

n.a.

n.a.

1.8

IE

2008

n.a.

40,507

n.a.

n.a.

1.9

IT

1996

n.a.

390,301

138,085

252,216

1.8

IT

2008

5,973

392,177

138,748

253,429

1.6

LT

1998

117d

17,500

11,800

5,700

1

LT

2008

244c

19,500

14,500

5,000

1

LU

2003

169

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2008

152

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

2002

155

3,585

1,732

1,853

2.3

MT

2008

160a

4,029

2,077

1,952

2.3

NL

1998

n.a.

151,000**

71,000**

80,000**

n.a.

NL

2008

89

157,000**

74,000**

83,000**

n.a.

PL

1998

1,475e

174,043

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2008

645c

181,295

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

1998

362

65,000

n.a.

n.a.

2.6

PT

2008

1,062

71,500

n.a.

n.a.

2.2

RO

1998

786

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2008

6,680

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

1998

808

53,963

32,584

21,379

1.4

SE

2008

981

55,478

31,263

24,215

1.3

SI

1998

346

11,352

8,707

2,645

1.5

SI

2008

472

13,931

10,005

3,926

1.6

SK

1998

294f

24,798

18,215

6,583

1.2

SK

2008

356

23,805

17,164

6,641

1.0

UK

1998

n.a.

659,296

383,116

276,180

2.5

UK

2009

61,522

589,602

307,612

281,990

2.0

Back to where it was first mentioned

+The EIRO national centres were asked to give the sectoral number of companies. However, in most cases it appears that the number of establishments or banking branches has been provided. Therefore, in most countries, these figures clearly exceed the numbers of companies as revealed by Eurostat. Moreover, they are not directly comparable.

a= 2005; b = 2000; c = 2007; d = 2002; e = 1996; f = 1999

* Data questioned by COMFIA CCOO and AEB (they claim it is too high)

** Data questioned by NVB (it claims it is too high)

Table 4: Total employees in banking, 1998 and 2008 (approximately)

Country

Year

Total Employees

Female Employees

Male Employees

Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy

AT

2000

74,347

37,319

37,028

2

AT

2008

81,725

43,013

38,712

3

BE

1998

76,274

n.a.

n.a.

2.3

BE

2008

69,160

30,560

36,271

1.8

BG

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2008

43,006

39,558

12,451

n.a.

CY

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

1998

46,930

31,820

15,110

1.1

CZ

2008

30,840

20,450

10,390

0.7

DE

1998

728,245

417,775

310,470

3

DE

2007

657,982

380,780

277,264

2

DK

1998

53,017

28,496

24,521

2.0

DK

2008

64,894

32,292

31,902

2.5

EE

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

2008

7,322

n.a.

n.a.

1.1

ES

1998

232,502d

62,047d

170,455d

2

ES

2008

308,976d

130,438d

178,538d

2

FI

1998

28,841

22,482

6,358

1.3

FI

2008

31,540

22,905

8,635

1.3

FR

2000

420,244

n.a.

n.a.

2

FR

2008

486,070

n.a.

n.a.

2

GR

2000

65,226

30,627

34,599

2.4

GR

2008

73,870

38,768

35,102

2.5

HU

2000

46,831

n.a.

n.a.

2

HU

2008

55,024

n.a.

n.a.

2

IE

2003

35,658

n.a.

n.a.

2

IE

2008

40,507

n.a.

n.a.

2

IT

1996

375,737a

139,244 a

236,493 a

2

IT

2008

384,889a

142,636 a

242,253 a

2

LT

1998

17,300

11,700

5,600

2

LT

2008

19,000

14,100

4,900

1

LU

2003

22,529

10,300

12,229

8

LU

2008

27,205

12.431

14.774

8

MT

2002

3,546

1,696

1,850

3

MT

2008

3,985

2,036

1,949

3

NL

1998

151,000b

71,000b

80,000b

n.a.

NL

2008

157,000b

74,000b

83,000b

2.2

PL

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

1998

63,797

21,991

41,806

3

PT

2008

70,014

31,771

38,243

2

RO

1998

49,522c

n.a.

n.a.

0.8c

RO

2008

71,622

n.a.

n.a.

1.1

SE

1998

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2008

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

1998

11,348

8,705

2,643

2

SI

2008

13,891

9,988

3,903

2

SK

1998

24,798

18,215

6,583

1.3

SK

2008

23,805

17,164

6,641

1.2

UK

1998

643,026

375,071

267,965

3

UK

2009

570,229

309.222

261,007

2

Back to where it was first mentioned

a= Data questioned by UNI Italian affiliates (they claim it is too high)

b= data questioned by NVB (it claims it is too high)

c= 2004

d= Data questioned by COMFIA CCOO and AEB (they claim it is too high)

Table 5: 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 banking 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 banking 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' banking 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 with 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 banking sector?

Yes/No

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

… cover employees in enterprises of all sizes in the banking sector?

Yes/No

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

...cover all occupations in the banking sector?

Yes/No

Some organisations (notably trade unions) delimit 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 banking sector?

Yes/No

This question is again being asked directly to the correspondents.

Back to where it was first mentioned

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

Table 6: Domain coverage and membership of trade unions in banking, 2008/9/10

Coun-try

Trade Union

Type of mem-bership

Domain coverage

Membership

Members

Members active

Members sector

Members sector active

Female member-ship (%) of total member-ship

AT

GPA-djp

voluntary

overlap

260,000

180,000

n.a.

20,700

44

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB

voluntary

overlap

265,123

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

BBTK-SETCA*

voluntary

overlap

382,291

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

CNE*

voluntary

overlap

157,190

104,172

n.a.

n.a.

64

BE

LBC-NVK*

voluntary

overlap

315,056

252,045

9,763

n.a.

60

BG

ITUE- Unicredit Bulbank*

voluntary

sectionalism

1,970

1,970

1,970

1,970

n.a.

BG

NBU /CITUB*

voluntary

congruence

1,798

1,798

1,798

1,798

84

BG

UEWUBB*

voluntary

sectionalism

2,805

2,805

2,805

2,805

n.a.

CY

ETYK

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

10,671

n.a.

10,671

56

CZ

OSPPP

voluntary

overlap

9,160

8,357

7,246

6,587

83

DE

DBV*

voluntary

overlap

20,400

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

DHV-Die Berufsgewerkschaft*

voluntary

sectional overlap

77,180

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

verdi*

voluntary

overlap

2,238,200

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

54

DK

Finansforbundet, FF

voluntary

overlap

54,685

46,632

53,300

45,300

54

ES

CIG-BANCA*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

COMFIA-CCOO*

voluntary

overlap

118,447

105,268

75,255

67,060

45

ES

CSICA*

voluntary

sectionalism

12,000

n.a.

12,000

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ELA-ZERBITZUAK*

voluntary

sectional overlap

24,909

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FESIBAC-CGT*

voluntary

sectional overlap

8,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FeS-UGT*

voluntary

overlap

135,000

101,250

74,913

62,214

45

ES

FITC*

voluntary

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

Suora*

voluntary

sectional overlap

30,700

25,300

25,000

17,500

n.a.

FI

Sefe*

voluntary

sectional overlap

47,200

27,000

2,200

2,200

n.a.

FR

CFDT Banques et Sociétés Financières*

voluntary

congruence

18,000-20,000

18,000-20,000

18,000-20,000

18,000-20,000

54

FR

CFTC-Banques*

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FO Banques*

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

60

FR

FSPBA*

voluntary

overlap

11,000

10,000

11,000

10,000

60

FR

SNB-CFE-CGC*

voluntary

sectionalism

17,500

16,000

17,500

16,000

45

GR

OTOE*

voluntary

overlap

54,000

54,000

56,663

56,663

49

HU

BBDSZ

voluntary

sectional overlap

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

70

HU

KASZ

voluntary

sectional overlap

19,000

18,000

3,500

3,000

80

IE

IBOA

voluntary

overlap

15,052

n.a.

14,600

n.a.

77

IE

Mandate

voluntary

sectional overlap

45,206

n.a.

600

n.a.

66

IE

SIPTU

voluntary

sectional overlap

216,881

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

37

IE

Unite

voluntary

sectional overlap

40,363

n.a.

3,500

n.a.

41

IT

DIRCREDITO*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FABI*

voluntary

overlap

92,000

92,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FALCRI*

voluntary

overlap

20,000

20,000

19,000

19,000

50

IT

FIBA*

voluntary

overlap

90,000

90,000

70,000

70,000

50

IT

FISAC*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

SILCCO*

voluntary

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

SILCEA*

voluntary

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

SINADI*

voluntary

sectionalism

1.060

897

1.060

897

30

IT

SINFUB*

voluntary

overlap

7,680

4,794

5,023

4,646

11

IT

UGL CREDITO*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

UILCA*

voluntary

overlap

44,698

44,698

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

ALEBA*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

12,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

LCGB SESF*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

OGB-L SBA*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

GWU*

voluntary

overlap

41,343

34,543

1,450

1,450

18

MT

MUBE*

voluntary

overlap

3,020

2,920

2,870

2,770

50

NL

BVV*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

600

n.a.

NL

CNV Dienstenbond*

voluntary

overlap

37,143

n.a.

n.a.

2,810

32

NL

De Unie*

voluntary

overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

8,500

n.a.

NL

FNV BG*

voluntary

overlap

480,000

380,000

n.a.

12,443

22

PL

NSZZ Solidarnosc – Banking Section*

voluntary

congruence

5,200

n.a.

5,200

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZZZ Banko Pekao S.A.*

voluntary

sectionalism

1,620

1,600

1,620

1,600

50

PL

ZZP Banku Pekao S.A.*

voluntary

sectionalism

2,600

2,500

2,600

2,500

n.a.

PL

ZZP BGZ S.A.

voluntary

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

SBN*

voluntary

sectionalism

17,900

9,800

17,900

9,800

40

PT

SBSI*

voluntary

sectionalism

47,909

25,009

47,909

25,009

36

PT

SIB*

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

SIBACE*

voluntary

sectionalism

5,000a

2,500a

5,000a

2,500a

n.a.

PT

SINTAF*

voluntary

congruence

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

SNQTB*

voluntary

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

STEC*

voluntary

sectional overlap

4,914

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

FSAB

voluntary

overlap

8,000

8,000

7,800

7,800

75

SE

Finansförbundet*

voluntary

overlap

38,700

30,500

30,000

25,000

57

SE

SACO*

voluntary

sectional overlap

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

SBS*

voluntary

sectionalism

5,500

5,500

5,500

5,500

75

SI

Sindikat NLB*

voluntary

sectionalism

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

75

SK

OZ PPaP

voluntary

overlap

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,500

70

UK

Alliance for Finance*

voluntary

congruence

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

n.a.

UK

Unite*

voluntary

overlap

1,572,995

1,572,995

150,000

150,000

24

Back to where it was first mentioned

* Domain overlap.

n.a. = not available

a= 2005

Table 7: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of trade unions in banking, 2008/9/10

Country

Trade unions

Union densities (%)

Collective bargaining

Consultation

National and European affiliationsa

Domain total

Domain active

Sector

Sector active

Sectoral domain

Sectoral domain active

AT

GPA-djp

23

16

n.a.

25

n.a.

25

yes

yes

ÖGB; EPSU, EFFAT,

EFJ, EMCEF, UNI Europa – Finance

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UNI Europa – Finance

BE

BBTK-SETCA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ABVV-FGTB; UNI Europa – Finance

BE

CNE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ACV-CSC; UNI Europa – Finance

BE

LBC-NVK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

16

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ACV-CSC; UNI Europa – Finance

BG

ITUE- Unicredit Bulbank

49

49

5

5

49

49

yes

yes

FTUFB

BG

NBU /CITUB

4

4

4

4

4

4

yes

yes

CITUB

BG

UEWUBB

86

86

7

7

86

86

yes

yes

FTUFB

CY

ETYK

n.a.

82

n.a.

82

n.a.

82

yes

no

UNI Europa – Finance

CZ

OSPPP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

21

n.a.

21

yes

yes

CMCTU; UNI Europa – Finance

DE

DBV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

---

DE

DHV-Die Berufsgewerkschaft

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CGB; CESI

DE

verdi

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

DGB; UNI Europa – Finance

DK

Finansforbundet, FF

68

58

82

70

82

70

yes

yes

FTF; UNI Europa – Finance

ES

CIG-BANCA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

---

ES

COMFIA-CCOO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

22

n.a.

22

yes

no

UNI Europa – Finance, Eurocadres

ES

CSICA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

---

ES

ELA-ZERBITZUAK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

UNI Europa – Finance

ES

FESIBAC-CGT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

---

ES

FeS-UGT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

20

n.a.

20

yes

no

UNI Europa – Finance

ES

FITC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

---

FI

Suora

n.a.

75

n.a.

75

n.a.

70

yes

yes

STTK; UNI Europa – Finance

FI

Sefe

n.a.

70

n.a.

7

n.a.

64

yesb

yes

AKAVA; UNI Europa – Finance

FR

CFDT Banques et Sociétés Financières

4

4

4

4

4

4

yes

no

CFDT; UNI Europa – Finance

FR

CFTC-Banques

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CFTC

FR

FO Banques

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CGT-FO; UNI Europa – Finance

FR

FSPBA

n.a.

n.a.

2

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CGT; UNI Europa – Finance

FR

SNB -CFE-CGC

10

9

4

3

10

9

yes

no

CFE-CGC; EFPCC

GR

OTOE

85

85

85

85

85

85

yes

yes

GSEE; UNI Europa – Finance

HU

BBDSZ

35

30

12

11

13

12

yes

yes

MSZOSZ; UNI Europa – Finance

HU

KASZ

19

17

8

7

9

8

yes

yes

MSZOSZ; UNI Europa – Commerce

IE

IBOA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

37

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU; UNI Europa – Finance

IE

Mandate

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

ICTU

IE

SIPTU

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU

IE

Unite

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU

IT

DIRCREDITO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

FEDERDIRIGENTI; FECEC, CEC, EFES, UNI Europa – Finance

IT

FABI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

UNI Europa – Finance

IT

FALCRI

5

5

5

5

5

5

yes

yes

CONFSAL; UNI Europa – Finance

IT

FIBA

n.a.

n.a.

18

18

18

18

yes

yes

CISL; UNI Europa – Finance

IT

FISAC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CGIL; UNI Europa – Finance

IT

SILCCO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

FIDICC

IT

SILCEA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

---

IT

SINADI

4

3

1

0

1

0

yes

n.a.

FIDICC; CEC

IT

SINFUB

n.a.

n.a.

1

1

1

1

yes

yes

CUQ; CEC

IT

UGL CREDITO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

UGL

IT

UILCA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

UIL; UNI Europa – Finance

LU

ALEBA

n.a.

38

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

NGL-SNEP; UNI Europa – Finance

LU

LCGB SESF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

LCGB; UNI Europa – Finance

LU

OGB-L SBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

OGB-L; UNI Europa – Finance

MT

GWU

24

20

36

36

36

36

yes

yes

EPSU, UNI Europa – Finance, EURO WEA, FERPA, Eurocadres, ETF, EFBWW, EMF, EFFAT

MT

MUBE

70

68

72

70

72

70

yes

yes

CMTU; UNI Europa – Finance

NL

BVV

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

0

yes

yes

Vakcentrale MHP

NL

CNV Dienstenbond

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2

n.a.

2

yes

no

CNV; UNI Europa – Finance

NL

De Unie

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

5

n.a.

5

yes

yes

Vakcentrale MHP; UNI Europa – Finance

NL

FNV BG

12

12

n.a.

8

n.a.

8

yes

no

FNV; UNI Europa – Finance

PL

NSZZ Solidarnosc – Banking Section

3

n.a.

3

n.a.

3

n.a.

yes

yes

NSZZ Solidarnosc; UNI Europa – Finance

PL

ZZZ Banku Pekao S.A.

8

8

1

1

8

8

yes

n.a.

FZZ

PL

ZZP Banku Pekao S.A.

14

13

1

1

14

13

yes

n.a.

OPZZ

PL

ZZP BGZ S.A.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

---

PT

SBN

100

58

26

14

100

58

yes

yes

UGT, FEBASE; UNI Europa – Finance, SCECBU

PT

SBSI

100

57

68

36

100

57

yes

yes

UGT, FEBASE; UNI Europa – Finance

PT

SIB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

USI

PT

SIBACE

57

28

7

4

57

28

yes

yes

UGT, FEBASE; UNI Europa – Finance

PT

SINTAF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

---

PT

SNQTB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

USI; CEC

PT

STEC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

---

RO

FSAB

7

7

11

11

11

11

noc

no

CNS Cartel Alfa

SE

Finansförbundet

n.a.

45

n.a.

45

n.a.

45

yes

yes

TCO; UNI Europa – Finance

SE

SACO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

PTK; UNI Europa – Finance, EMF, EMCEF, Eurocadres

SI

SBS

50

50

40

40

50

50

yes

yes

UNI Europa – Finance

SI

Sindikat NLB

75

75

21

21

75

75

yes

yes

---

SK

OZ PPaP

n.a.

n.a.

21

19

21

19

yes

yes

KOZ SR; UNI Europa – Finance

UK

Alliance for Finance

35

35

35

35

35

35

yes

yes

---

UK

Unite

6

6

26

26

26

26

yes

yes

TUC; UNI Europa – Finance

Back to where it was first mentioned

a= National affiliations placed in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only.

n.a. = not available

b= collective bargaining involvement via higher-order unit

c= collective bargaining engagement envisaged for 2010, therefore this trade union is included in this report

Table 8: Domain coverage and membership of employer/ business organisations in banking, 2008/9/10

Coun-try

Employer Organisation

Domain coverage

Membership

Type

Companies

Companies in sector

Employees

Employees in sector

AT

FVB

sectionalism

Compulsory

134

134

24,062

24,062

AT

ÖGV (corresponds to WKO-FVVB)

sectionalism

Voluntary

73

73

6,599

6,599

AT

ÖRV (corresponds to WKO-FVRB)

sectionalism

Voluntary

553

553

25,505

25,505

AT

ÖSV (corresponds to WKO-FVS)

sectionalism

Voluntary

63

63

15,535

15,535

AT

VÖBB

sectionalism

Voluntary

65

65

20,317

20,317

AT

VÖLHB (corresponds to WKO-FVLHB)

sectionalism

Voluntary

13

13

4,238

4,238

BE

FEBELFIN – BVB

congruence

Voluntary

84

84

61,532

61,532

BG

ABB

congruence

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

KEST*

congruence

Voluntary

10

10

8,921

8,921

CY

ACCB*

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ

CBA*

congruence

Voluntary

33

33

27,800

27,800

CZ

SBP*

overlap

Voluntary

18

7

45,426

30,000

DE

AGV Banken

sectionalism

Voluntary

140

140

160,000

160,000

DE

AVR

sectionalism

Voluntary

1,050

1,050

146,000

146,000

DE

BdB

sectionalism

Voluntary

220

220

n.a.

n.a.

DE

BVR

sectionalism

Voluntary

1,170

1,170

158,300

158,300

DE

DSGV

sectionalism

Voluntary

620

620

366,500

366,500

DE

VKA*

sectional overlap

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DE

VÖB*

sectionalism

Voluntary

50

50

70,000

70,000

DK

FA

sectional overlap

Voluntary

224

171

71,776

52,854

DK

DBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DK

SDA

sectionalism

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

Eesti Pangaliit

sectionalism

Voluntary

11

11

4,500

4,500

ES

ACARL

sectionalism

Voluntary

45

45

81,000

81,000

ES

AEB

sectionalism

Voluntary

96

96

107,822

107,822

ES

AEF*

sectionalism

Voluntary

26

26

n.a.

n.a.

ES

AEL*

sectional overlap

Voluntary

42

38

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ASNEF*

sectional overlap

Compulsory

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

CECA

sectionalism

Voluntary

45

45

132,000

132,000

ES

UNACC

sectionalism

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

FK

sectional overlap

voluntary

470

300

43,000

25,000

FI

FSBA

sectionalism

n.a.

40

40

n.a.

n.a.

FR

AFB

sectionalism

Voluntary

243

243

205,000

205,000

FR

ASF

sectionalism

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

BPCE

sectionalism

Voluntary

37

37

126,000

126,000

FR

FNCA

sectionalism

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CNCM

sectionalism

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

GR

AGCB

sectionalism

Voluntary

26

25

1,100

1,100

GR

HBA

sectionalism

Voluntary

28

28

49,000

49,000

HU

Bankszövetség

sectionalism

Voluntary

38

38

10,000

10,000

HU

OTSZ

sectionalism

Voluntary

158

158

10,000

10,000

IE

IBEC – FSI*

overlap

Voluntary

7,500

150

n.a.

n.a.

IE

IBF*

congruence

Voluntary

100

100

40,000

40,000

IT

ABI

sectional overlap

Voluntary

1,418

559

383,000

343,432

IT

ACRI

sectionalism

Voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

AGCI*

sectional overlap

Voluntary

6,874

75

21,418

1,002

IT

ASSOPOPOLARI

sectionalism

Voluntary

102

102

83,500

83,500

IT

FEDERCASSE*

sectionalism

Voluntary

480

480

35,000

35,000

LT

LBA

sectionalism

Voluntary

11

11

11,000

11,000

LT

LCKU

sectionalism

Voluntary

61

61

500

500

LU

ABBL

overlap

Voluntary

133

105

29,915

23,084

LV

ACB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

MBA

overlap

Voluntary

22

22

3,900

3,900

NL

NVB

congruence

Voluntary

89

89

157,000

157,000

PL

KZBS*

sectionalism

Voluntary

270

270

n.a.

n.a.

PL

ZBP*

congruence

Voluntary

~160

~160

~165,000

~165,000

PT

APB*

congruence

Voluntary

25

25

55,000

55,000

PT

FENACAM*

sectional overlap

Voluntary

91

91

n.a.

n.a.

RO

ARB

sectionalism

Voluntary

6,552

6,552

65,000

65,000

SE

BAO

overlap

Voluntary

150

70

55,000

28,000

SI

ZBS

sectionalism

Voluntary

34

34

10,000

10,000

SK

SBA

sectionalism

Voluntary

25

25

21,024

21,024

UK

BBA

sectionalism

Voluntary

260

260

419,400

419,400

Back to where it was first mentioned

* Domain overlap

n.a. = not available

Table 9: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/ business organisations in banking, 2008/9/10

Country

Employer organisation

Density (%)

Col-lec-tive bar-gai-ning

Consultation

National and European affiliationsa

Companies

Employees

Do-main

Sec-tor

Sec-toral do-main

Do-main

Sec-tor

Sec-toral do-main

AT

FVB

100

15

100

100

29

100

yes

yes

WKO

AT

ÖGV (corresponds to FVVB)

100

8

100

100

8

100

yes

yes

WKO; EACB

AT

ÖRV (corresponds to FVRB)

100

6

100

100

31

100

yes

yes

WKO; EACB

AT

ÖSV (corresponds to FVS)

100

7

100

100

19

100

yes

yes

WKO, ESBG

AT

VÖBB

49

7

49

84

25

84

yes

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA

AT

VÖLHB (corresponds to FVLHB)

100

1

100

100

5

100

yes

yes

WKO; EAPB

BE

FEBELFIN – BVB

98

98

98

99

99

99

yes

yes

VBO-FEB; EBF, EBF-BCESA

BG

ABB

76-90

76-90

76-90

76-90

76-90

76-90

no

yes

EBF

CY

KEST

3

3

3

69

69

69

yes

no

EBF-BCESA

CY

ACCB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EBF

CZ

CBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EBF

CZ

SBP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

EBF-BCESA

DE

AGV Banken

n.a.

1

n.a.

n.a.

24

n.a.

yes

n.a.

BDA; EBF-BCESA

DE

AVR

91-100

11

91-100

91-100

22

91-100

yes

no

---

DE

BdB

n.a.

2

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EBF

DE

BVR

91-100

12

91-100

91-100

24

91-100

no

yes

DGRV; EACB

DE

DSGV

76-90

6

76-90

76-90

56

76-90

no

yes

VKA; ESBG

DE

VKA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CEEP

DE

VÖB

n.a.

1

n.a.

n.a.

11

n.a.

yes

n.a.

---

DK

FA

10-25

–n.a.

26-50

91-100

76-90

91-100

yes

yes

EBF-BCESA, EBTN, EFPA

DK

DBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EBF

DK

SDA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

EACB

EE

Eesti Pangaliit

51-75

26-50

51-75

91-100

51-75

91-100

no

yes

EBF, EPC

ES

ACARL

100

n.a.

100

100

26

100

yes

no

---

ES

AEB

n.a.

43

n.a.

n.a.

35

n.a.

yes

no

CEOE; EBF, EBF-BCESA

ES

AEF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

---

ES

AEL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

LEASEUROPE

ES

ASNEF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

---

ES

CECA

100

n.a.

100

100

43

100

no

no

CEOE; ESBG

ES

UNACC

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

EACB

FI

FK

12

 

n.a.

60

62

n.a.

yes

yes

EK; EBF, EBF-BCESA, CEA

FI

FSBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

ESBG

FR

AFB

73

34

73

53

42

53

yes

yes

MEDEF; EBF, EBF-BCESA

FR

ASF

97

50

97

96

5

96

yes

no

MEDEF; EUROFINAS, LEASEUROPE

FR

BPCE

100

5

100

100

26

100

yes

n.a.

EACB, ESBG

FR

FNCA

100

7

100

100

15

100

yes

yes

EACB

FR

CNCM

100

2

100

100

7

100

yes

n.a.

EACB

GR

AGCB

91-100

10-25

91-100

91-100

0 – 9

91-100

no

yes

EACB

GR

HBA

26-50

10-25

26-50

76-90

51-75

76-90

no

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA

HU

Bankszövetség

10-25

6

26-50

26-50

18

51-75

no

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA

HU

OTSZ

91-100

27

91-100

91-100

18

91-100

no

yes

EACB

IE

IBEC – FSI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

IBEC

IE

IBF

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

91-100

91-100

91-100

no

yes

EBF

IT

ABI

n.a.

n.a.

29

n.a.

89

97

yes

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA, EMF

IT

ACRI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

n.a.

ESBG

IT

AGCI

8

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

yes

yes

CECOP, COGECA, Cooperatives Europe

IT

ASSOPOPOLARI

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

22

n.a.

yesc

yes

ABI; EACB

IT

FEDERCASSE

96

n.a.

96

n.a.

9

n.a.

yes

yes

CONFCOOPERATIVE; EACB

LT

LBA

65

n.a.

65

79

58

79

no

yes

ICC Lithuania; EBF, EPC

LT

LCKU

90

n.a.

90

96

3

96

no

yes

EACB

LU

ABBL

20

70

70

70

87

87

yes

yes

UEL; EBF, EBF-BCESA

LV

ACB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a

EBF

MT

MBA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

91

98

98

no

yes

EBF, (EBF-BCESA)

NL

NVB

100

100

100

100

100

100

yes

no

VNO-NCW, AWVN; EBF, EBF-BCESA

PL

KZBS

n.a.

42

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

EACB

PL

ZBP

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

90

90

90

no

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA

PT

APB

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

80-90

80-90

80-90

nob

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA

PT

FENACAM

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

EACB

RO

ARB

91-100

98

98

91-100

91

91

no

yes

ACPR; EBF, EMF

SE

BAO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

50

50

yes

yes

EBF, EBF-BCESA

SI

ZBS

40

n.a.

40

90

80

90

yes

yes

EBTN

SK

SBA

96

n.a.

96

99

89

99

yes

yes

RUZ SR; EBF, EBF-BCESA

UK

BBA

76-90

n.a.

76-90

51-75

74

51-75

no

yes

CBI; EBF, (EBF-BCESA)

Back to where it was first mentioned

a= National affiliations placed in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via lower-order units.

b= de facto coordination of individual enterprise collective bargaining, but no formal signatory competence

c= currently not involved in collective bargaining (employees of institutions affiliated to Assopolari, and ACRI, are covered by the agreement signed by ABI), but Assopolari is still equipped with the capacity to conclude collective agreements

n.a. = not available

Table 10: The system of sectoral collective bargaining (2009/10)

Country

CBC (%)

(estimates)

Share of MEB in total CBC (%) (estimates)

Extension practicesa

AT

100

>98

(2)

BE

100

100b

2

BG

25

0

n/a

CY

98

70

0

CZ

80-90

100b

0

DE

64-88

MEB prevailing

0

DK

80

100b

0

EE

n.a.

n.a.

0

ES

~95

~95

2

FI

~90

100

2

FR

Almost 100

99b

2

GR

100c

0c

(2)

HU

39

0

0

IE

50-55d

MEB prevailingd

0

IT

100

100b

(2)

LT

n.a.

0

n/a

LU

100

100

2

MT

58

0

n/a

NL

Almost 100

~13

0

PL

~30

0

n/a

PT

Almost 100

0 (70e)

0

RO

100

100

2

SE

Almost 100

Almost 100

1

SI

98

100b

2

SK

Almost 90

100b

0

UK

20

0

0

Back to where it was first mentioned

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

Extension practices (including functional equivalents to extension provisions, i.e. obligatory membership and labour court rulings):

a= 0 = no practice, 1 = limited/exceptional, 2 = pervasive. Cases of functional equivalents are put in parentheses.

b= supplemented/complemented by single-employer agreements

c= refers to the years 2008 and 2009, where wage was determined by national arbitration board rather than genuine collective bargaining

d= up to December 2009

e= de facto coordination of enterprise collective bargaining by APB

n.a. = not available

n/a = not applicable

Table 11: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy (2009/10)
Country Name of the body and scope of activity Origin Trade unions participating Business associations participating

FR

Advisory Committee for the Financial Sector

Statutory

CFTC, CGT, CGT-FO, CFE-CGC, CFDT

FBF, FNCA, CNCM, ASF, etc.

UK

Financial Services Skills Council – addresses the issue of skills and lifelong learning

Statutory

Unite

BBA

Back to where it was first mentioned

Table 12: UNI Europa – Finance Membership (2009/10)+

Country

Members

AT

GPA-djp

BE

BBTK/SETCa, CNE/GNC, LBC/NVK, ACLVB/CGSLB

BG

---

CY

ETYK

CZ

OSPPP

DE

Ver.di

DK

FF

EE

---

ES

COMFIA-CCOO, FeS-UGT

FI

Suora, Sefe

FR

CFDT Banques, FO Banques, FSPBA

GR

HFBEU

HU

BBDSZ

IE

IBOA

IT

FIBA, FISAC, FALCRI, UILCA

LT

---

LU

OGB-L SBA, LCGB SESF, ALEBA

MT

GWU, MUBE

NL

FNV Bondgenoten, De Unie

PL

NSZZ Solidarnosc – Banking Section

PT

SBN, SBSI, SIBACE

RO

---

SE

Finansförbundet, SACO

SI

SBS

SK

OZ PPaP

UK

Unite

Back to where it was first mentioned

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

All unions listed are involved in sector-related collective bargaining.

Table 13: Membership of sector-related European employer organisations (2009/10)+

Country

EBF/ EBF-BCESA

EACB

ESBG

AT

VÖBB*

ÖGV (FVVB)*, ÖRV (FVRB)*

ÖSV (FVS)*

BE

FEBELFIN-BVB*

---

---

BG

ABBa

Central Co-operative Bankd

---

CY

KEST*b, ACCBa

Co-operative Central Bankd

---

CZ

CBAa, SBP*b

---

Ceska Sporitelna ASd

DE

AGV Banken*b, BdBa

BVR, DZ Bankd

DSGV

DK

FA*, DBAa

SDA

3 S Groupd

EE

Eesti Pangaliita

---

---

ES

AEB*

UNACC*

CECA

FI

FK*

OP-Pohjola Group & Pohjola Bank p.l.c.d

FSBA

FR

AFB*

BPCE*, FNCA*, CNCM*

BPCE*

GR

HBA

AGCB

Hellenic Postbankd

HU

Bankszövetség

OTSZ

OTP Bank p.l.c.d

IE

IBFa

---

---

IT

ABI*

ASSOPOPOLARI***, FEDERCASSE*

ACRI

LT

LBAa

LCKU

---

LU

ABBL*

Banque Raiffeisend

Banque et Caisse d’Epargne de l’Etatd

LV

ACB**a

---

Latvijas Krajbankad

MT

MBAc, HBSCb,d

---

Bank of Valletta p.l.c.d

NL

NVB*

Rabobank Nederlandd

SNS Reaald

PL

ZBP

KZBS

PKO Bank Polski SAd

PT

APB

FENACAM*

Caixa Económica da Misericórdia de Angra do Heroísmod, Montepiod, Caixa Gerald

RO

ARBa

Central Co-operatist Bank Creditcoopd

Casa de Economii si Consemnatiunid

SE

BAO*

Landshypotek ABd

Swedbankd

SI

---

DeIelna banka Slovenije d.d.d

---

SK

SBA*

---

Slovenska Sporitelna ASd

UK

BBAc, HSBCb,d, RBSb,d

The Co-operative Bank p.l.c.d

Lloyds Banking Groupd

Back to where it was first mentioned

+ 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

*** Capable of conducting collective bargaining, but currently not directly involved in bargaining

a= only EBF member

b= only BCESA member

c= EBF member and indirectly affiliated to BCESA via lower-level unit

d= company member rather than association; no information available on collective bargaining involvement

Table 14: Complete List of UNI Europa – Finance members in the EU27
(not all included in this study)[5]

Country

Abbreviation

Full name

AT

GPA-DJP-AT

Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten, Druck, Journalismus, Papier

BE

CGSLB / ALCVB-BE

Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique

 

CGSLB / ALCVB-BE

Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique

 

CGSP-POSTE-BE

Centrale Générale des Services Publics – Secteur Poste

 

CNE-CSC-BE

Centrale Nationale des Employés

 

LBC-NVK-BE

Landelijke Bediendencentrale – Nationaal Verbond voor Kaderpersoneel

 

SETCA-BBTK-BE

Syndicat des Employés, Techniciens et Cadres de Belgique

CY

BASS-CY

Cyprus Turkish Office, Bank, Insurance and Commerce Employees Union

 

ETYK-CY

Cyprus Union of Bank Employees

 

OVIEK-SEK-CY

Cyprus Industrial Workers Federation

CZ

OSPPP-CZ

Trade Union of Banking and Insurance Employees

DK

DFL-DK

Danske Forsikringsfunktionærers Landsforening

 

DJOF-DK

The Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists

 

FINSANSFORBUNDET-DK

Finansforbundet

 

KS-DK

Forbundet Kommunikation og Sprog

FI

BOF-SU-FI

Bank of Finland Staff Union

 

SEFE-FI

The Finnish Association of Graduates in Economics and Business

 

SUORA-FI

Ammattiliitto Suora

 

VVL-FI

Vakuutusväen Liitto VvL ry

FR

CFDT-CADRES-FR

Union Confédérale des Ingénieurs et Cadres CFDT

 

FDS-CFDT-FR

Fédération des Services CFDT

 

FEC-FO-FR

Fédération des Employés et Cadres, Force Ouvrière

 

FFSBSF-CFDT-FR

Fédération Française des Syndicats de Banques et Sociétés Financières CFDT

 

FGA-CFDT-FR

Fédération générale agroalimentaire – CFDT

 

FINANCES-CGT-FR

Fédération des Finances CGT

 

FO-FINANCES-FR

Fédération des Finances – FO

 

FSPBA-CGT-FR

Fédération CGT des Syndicats du Personnel de la Banque et de l'Assurance

 

UGICT-CGT-FR

Union Générale des Ingénieurs, Cadres et Techniciens – CGT

DE

VER.DI-DE

Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

GR

OASE-GR

Greek Federation of Insurance Employee Unions

 

OTOE-GR

Greek Federation of Bank Employee Unions

HU

BBDSZ-HU

Federation of Unions of the Finance Sector

 

BBDSZSZ-HU

Bankok, Biztositok Dolgozoi Szakszervezeteinek Szovetsege

IE

AMICUS-IE

Amicus the Union

 

IBOA-IE

IBOA – The Finance Union

 

IPG-IE

Irish Print Group Siptu

 

MANDATE-IE

Mandate, The Union of Retail, Bar and Adminsitrative Workers

 

SIPTU-IE

Service Industrial Professional And Technical Union

IT

DIRCREDITO-IT

DIRCREDITO

 

FABI-IT

Federazione Autonoma Bancari Italiani

 

FALCRI-IT

Federazione Autonoma Lavoratori del Credito e del Risparmio Italiani

 

FIBA-CISL-IT

Federazione Italiana Bancari e Assicurativi

 

FISAC-CGIL-IT

Federazione Italiana Sindacale Lavoratori Assicurazioni e Credito

 

FNA-IT

Federazione Nazionale Assicuratori

 

SNFIA-IT

Sindicato Nazionale Funzionari Imprese Assicuratrici

 

UILCA-IT

Credito e Assicurazioni UIL C.A.

LT

LFU-LT

Lithuania Finance Union

 

LTUCCE-LT

Lithuanian Trade Union of Commercial and Cooperative Employees

LU

A-BCL-LU

Association Professionnelle des Agents de la BCL

 

ALEBA-LU

Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de Banque et d'Assurance a.s.b.l.

 

LCGB-CLSC-LU

Confédération Luxembourgeoise des Syndicats Chrétiens

 

OGB-L-LU

Confédération Sydicale Indépendante du Luxembourg

MT

GWU-MT

General Workers' Union

 

MUBE-MT

Malta Union of Bank Employees

NL

DE UNIE-NL

De Unie

 

DE UNIE-NL

De Unie

 

DIENSTENBOND-NL

Dienstenbond CNV

 

FNV BONDGENOTEN-NL

FNV Bondgenoten

 

FNV ZZP-NL

FNV Zelfstandigen

PL

BANKOWIEC-PL

NSZZ Pracowników Bankowosci ‘BANKOWIEC’

 

NSZZ-COMMERCE-PL

National Section of Commerce Workers of NSZZ Solidarnosc

 

SKB NSZZ-PL

National Section of Bank Workers of NSZZ ‘Solidarnosc’

PT

SBC-PT

Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro

 

SBN-PT

Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte

 

SBSI-PT

Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas

 

SERS-PT

Sindicato dos Engenheiros da Regiao Sul

 

SINAPSA-PT

Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

 

STAS-PT

Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da Actividade Seguradora

SK

OZ PPAP-SK

Odborovy Zväz Pracovníkov Penazníctva a Poist'ovníctva

SI

SBU / SBS-SI

Slovenian Banking Union

ES

COMFIA CC.OO-ES

Federación de Servicios Financieros y Administrativos de CC.OO.

 

ELA/STV-ES

ELA/STV Euskal Langileen Alkartasuna / Solidarity of Basque Workers

 

FES-UGT-ES

Federación de Servicios

SE

CIVILEKONOMERNA-SE

Swedish Association of Graduates in Business Administration and Economics

 

FSU-S-SE

Finansförbundet – Financial Union Sector of Sweden

 

FTF-SE

FTF – Facket föf försäkring och finans

 

FTF-SE

FTF – Facket föf försäkring och finans

 

JUSEK-SE

JUSEK

 

SEKO-SE

Facket för Service och Kommunikation

 

ST-SE

Fackförbundet ST

 

UNIONEN-SE

Unionen

UK

ACCORD-UK

ACCORD

 

CWU-UK

Communication Workers Union

 

GMB-UK

GMB

 

UNITE THE UNION-UK

Unite the Union

Table 15: List of abbreviations used in Banking

Country

Abbreviation

Full Name

AT

FVB

Federal Association of Banks and Bankers

 

GPA-djp

Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

ÖGV

Austrian Association of Co-operative Banks

 

ÖRV

Austrian Association of Raiffeisen type Banks

 

ÖSV

Austrian Association of Savings Banks

 

VÖBB

Austrian Association of Banks and Bankers

 

VÖLHB

Association of Mortgage Banks of the Federal States

 

WKÖ

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

BE

ABVV-FGTB

Belgian Socialist Trade Union

 

ACLVB/CGSLB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

ACV-CSC

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

BBTK/SETCa

Belgian Union of White-Collar Staff, Technicians and Managers

 

CNE/GNC

National Employee Federation

 

FEBELFIN – BVB

Belgian Association of Banks and Stock Exchange Traders

 

LBC/NVK

National Federation of White-collar Workers

 

VBO/FEB

Federation of Belgian Enterprises

BG

ABB

Association of Banks in Bulgaria

 

CITUB

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria

 

FTUFB

Federation of Trade Unions of the Financial Sector in Bulgaria

 

ITUE – Unicredit Bulbank

Independent Trade Union of Unicredit Bulbank

 

NBU

National Banking Union

 

UEWUBB

Union of Employees and Workers in United Bulgarian Bank

CY

ACCB

Association of Cyprus Commercial Banks

 

KEST

Cyprus Bankers Employers’ Association

 

ETYK

Cyprus Union of Bank Employees

CZ

CBA

Czech Banking Association

 

CMKOS

Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions

 

OSPPP

Trade Union of Banking and Insurance Workers

 

SBP

Union of Banks and Insurance Companies

DE

AGV Banken

Arbeitgeberverband des privaten Bankengewerbes

 

AVR

Employers’ Association of Popular Banks and Raiffeisen type Banks

 

BDA

German Confederation of Employers’ Associations

 

BdB

Federal Association of German Banks

 

BVR

Federal Association of German Popular Banks and Raiffeisen type Banks

 

CGB

Christian Trade Union Federation

 

DBV

Deutscher Bankangestellten Verband

 

DGB

German Trade Union Confederation

 

DGRV

German Co-operative and Raiffeisen type Association

 

DHV

DHV-Die Berufsgewerkschaft

 

DSGV

German Association of Savings Banks

 

ver.di

Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

 

VKA

Vereinigung der kommunalen Arbeitgeberverbände

 

VÖB

Tarifgemeinschaft öffentlicher Banken/Bundesverband öffentlicher Banken

DK

DBA

Danish Bankers Association

 

FA

Danish Employers’ Association for the Financial Sector

 

FF

Financial Services Union Denmark

 

FTF

Confederation of Professionals in Denmark

 

SDA

Danish Amalgation of Co-operative Banks

EE

Eesti Pangaliit

Estonian Banking Association

ES

ACARL

Association of Savings Banks for Industrial Relations

 

AEB

Spanish Banking Association

 

AEF

Spanish Association of Factoring

 

AEL

Spanish Association of Leasing and Renting

 

ASNEF

National Association of Credit Establishments

 

CCOO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CECA

Spanish Confederation of Savings Banks

 

CEOE

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

 

CGT

General Federation of Labour

 

CIG-BANCA

Federation of Banking, Saving, Insurance and Offices of hte Galician Interunion Confederation

 

COMFIA-CCOO

Federation of Financial and Administrative Services of the CCOO

 

CSICA

Confederation of Savings Banks Independent Unions

 

ELA-ZERBITZUAK

Services Federation of the Basque Workers’ Solidarity

 

FeS-UGT

Services Federation of the UGT

 

FESIBAC-CGT

National Federation of Banking of the CGT

 

FITC

Independent Federation of Credit Workers

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

 

UNACC

National Union of Credit Cooperatives

FI

AKAVA

Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland

 

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

FK

Federation of Finnish Financial Services

 

FSBA

Finnish Savings Banks Association

 

Sefe

Finnish Association of Business School Graduates

 

STTK

Finnish Confederation of Professionals

 

Suora

Trade Union Suora

FR

AFB

French Association of Banks

 

ASF

French Financial Societies Association

 

BPCE

Banque Populaire Caisse d’Epargne

 

CFDT Banques

French Democratic Confederation of Labour – Banks

 

CFE-CGC

French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff

 

CFTC Banques

French Christian Workers’ Confederation – Banks

 

CGT

General Confederation of Labour

 

CGT-FO

General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière

 

CNCM

National Confederation of Mutual Credit

 

FNCA

National Federation ‘Crédit Agricole’

 

FO Banques

Force Ouvrière – Banks

 

FSPBA

Federation of Workers in Bank and Insurance

 

MEDEF

Movement of French Enterprises

 

SNERS

National Employer Association of Catering and Services

 

SNB

National Union of Banks and Credits

GR

AGCB

Association of Greek Co-operative Banks

 

GSEE

Greek General Confederation of Labour

 

HBA

Hellenic Banking Association

 

HFBEU

Hellenic Federation of Banking Employees Unions

HU

Bankszövetség

Hungarian Banking Association

 

BBDSZ

Financial Sector Trade Union Association

 

KASZ

Hungarian Trade Workers Union

 

MSZOSZ

National Association of Hungarian Trade Unions

 

OTSZ

National Association of Co-operative Banks

IE

IBEC – FSI

Irish Business and Employers Confederation – Financial Services Ireland

 

IBF

Irish Banking Federation

 

IBOA

Irish Bank Officials Association

 

IBEC

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

MANDATE

MANDATE

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

 

UNITE

UNITE

IT

ABI

Italian Banking Association

 

ACRI

Association of Foundations and of Savings Banks

 

AGCI

General Association of Italian Co-operatives

 

ASSOPOPOLARI

National Association of Popular Banks

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

CONFCOOPERATIVE

Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

 

CUQ

Confederazione Unitaria Quadri

 

DIRCREDITO

National Trade Union Association for Credit, Financial and Banking Management Staff

 

FABI

Independent Federation of Italian Banking Workers

 

FALCRI

Independent Federation of Italian Credit and Savings Workers

 

FEDERCASSE

Italian Federation of the Banks of the Cooperative Credit – Agricultural and Artisan Banks

 

FIBA

Italian Banking and Insurance Workers’ Federation

 

FIDICC

Federazione Intersindacale Dipendenti Credito Cooperativo

 

FISAC

Italian federation of Insurance and Credit Workers’ Unions

 

SILCCO

Italian Trade Union of Workers of the Credito Cooperativo

 

SILCEA

Autonomous Credit and Allied Services Union

 

SINADI

National Trade Union of Managers of the Credito Cooperativo

 

SINFUB

National Federation of Independent Trade Unions – Credit, Finance and Insurance Personnel

 

UGL

General Union of Workers

 

UGL Credito

General Union of Workers – Credit

 

UIL

Union of Italian Workers

 

UILCA

Union of Italian Credit, Collection and Insurance Workers

LT

ICC Lithuania

 
 

LBA

Association of Lithuanian Banks

 

LCKU

Lithuanian Central Credit Union

LU

ABBL

Luxembourg Banking and Bankers Association

 

ALEBA

Banking and Insurance Workers’ Trade Union of Luxembourg

 

CGT-L

General Confederation of Labour of Luxembourg

 

LCGB SESF

Luxembourg Christian Union Federation – Financial Services Employees’ Trade Union

 

NGL-SNEP

 
 

OGB-L SBA

Independent Luxembourg Union Federation – Banks and Insurance Union

 

UEL

Union of Luxembourg Companies

MT

CMTU

Confederation of Malta Trade Unions

 

GWU

General Workers’ Union

 

MBA

Malta Bankers’ Association

 

MUBE

Malta Union of Bank Employees

NL

AWVN

 
 

BVV

Professional Organisation Banks and Insurance

 

CNV

Christian Trade Union Federation

 

CNV Dienstenbond

Sectoral Affiliate of the Christian Trade Union Federation

 

De Unie

De Unie – Trade Union for Industry and Services

 

FNV

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions

 

FNV BG

FNV Bondgenoten

 

NVB

Dutch Association of Banks

 

Vakcentrale MHP

Vakcentrale – Middle and Higher Staff

 

VNO-NCW

Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers

PL

FZZ

Trade Unions Forum

 

KZBS

National Association of Co-operative Banks

 

NSZZ Solidarnosc – Banking Section

Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarnosc – Banking Section

 

OPZZ

All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions

 

ZBP

Polish Banking Association

 

ZZP Banku Pekao S.A.

Trade Union of Employees of PEKAO S.A. Bank

 

ZZP BGZ S.A.

Trade Union of BGZ S.A. and Bank Co-operatives Employees

 

ZZZ Banku Pekao S.A.

Company Trade Union of Bank PEKAO S.A.

PT

APB

Portuguese Association of Banks

 

FEBASE

Federation of the Financial Sector

 

FENACAM

National Federation of Mutual Agricultural Credit Banks

 

SBN

Bank Employees Unions of Northern Portugal

 

SBSI

Bank Employees Unions of Southern Portugal and Islands

 

SIB

Independent Union in Banking

 

SIBACE

Bank Employees Unions of Central Portugal

 

SINTAF

Union of Workers in Financial Activities

 

SNQTB

National Union of Qualified Banking Employees

 

STEC

Union of Workers in the Companies of the Caixa Geral de Depósitos Group

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

 

USI

Union of Independent Trade Unions

RO

ACPR

Alliance of Employer Confederations of Romania

 

ARB

Romanian Banking Association

 

CNS Cartel Alfa

National Trade Union Confederation

 

FSAB

Trade Union Federation of Insurance and Banking

SE

BAO

Employers Association of Swedish Banking Institutions

 

Finansförbundet

Financial Sector Union of Sweden

 

PTK

Council for Negotiation and Cooperation

 

SACO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

SI

SBS

Slovenian Banking Union

 

Sindikat NLB

Trade Union of Nova Ljubljanska Banka

 

ZBS

Bank Associations of Slovenia

SK

KOZ SR

Confederation of Trade Unions

 

OZ PPaP

Trade Union Association of Banking and Insurance Workers

 

RUZ SR

National Employer Association

 

SBA

Slovak Banking Association

UK

Alliance for Finance

Alliance for Finance

 

BBA

British Bankers’ Association

 

CBI

Confederation of British Industry

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

UNITE

Unite the Union

EUROPE

BCESA

Banking Committee for European Social Affairs

 

CEA

European Insurance and Reinsurance Federation

 

CEC

Conféderation Européenne des Cadres

 

CECOP

European Confederation of Co-operatives and Worker-owned Enterprises Active in Industry and Services

 

CEEP

European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest

 

CESI

European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions

 

COGECA

European Agri-Cooperatives

 

Cooperatives Europe

Cooperatives Europe

 

EACB

European Association of Co-operative Banks

 

EAPB

European Association of Public Banks

 

EBF

European Banking Federation

 

EBTN

European Banking and Financial Services Training Association

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFES

European Federation of Employee Share Ownership

 

EFJ

European Federation of Journalists

 

EFPA

European Financial Planning Association

 

EFPCC – FECEC

European Federation of Professionals of Credit Companies

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EMCEF

European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation

 

EMF

European Metalworkers’ Federation

 

EMF

European Mortgage Federation

 

EPC

European Payments Council

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ESBG

European Savings Banks Group

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

ETUC

European Trade Union Confederation

 

EUROCADRES

Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff

 

EUROFINAS

European Federation of Finance House Associations

 

EUROWEA

European Workers’ Education Association

 

FERPA

European Association of Retired and Older Persons

 

LEASEUROPE

European Federation of Leasing Company Associations

 

SCECBU

European Central Banks Employees’ Federation

 

UNI-Europa

Union Network International – Europe

EF/11/52/EN

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

Add new comment