Representativeness of the European social partner organisations: Cleaning activities industry

  • National Contribution:

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Industrial relations,
  • Representativeness,
  • Social partners,
  • Date of Publication: 23 September 2012



About
Author:
Georg Adam
Institution:

This study sets out to provide the necessary information for assisting the existing sectoral social dialogue in the cleaning activities sector. The report identifies the national organisations on both sides of the industry, and analyses the sector’s relevant European organisations. Following a brief overview of the sector’s economic background, the study describes the social partner organisations in all of the EU Member States, focusing on membership, their role in collective bargaining and public policy, and national and European affiliations. It then goes on to look at the relevant European organisations, focusing in particular on membership levels and capacity to negotiate. The impetus for these EIRO series of studies on representativeness arises from the European Commission’s goal of recognising the representative social partner organisations to be consulted under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Hence, this study is designed to provide the basic information required to establish 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 (534KB 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 organisations – in the field of industrial relations in the cleaning activities 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 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (1.41Mb PDF). Hence, this study seeks to provide basic information needed to set up sectoral social dialogue. The effectiveness of 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 cleaning activities sector, subsequently analysing the structure of the sector’s relevant European organisations, in particular their membership composition. This involves clarifying the unit of analysis at both the national and European level of interest representation. The study includes only organisations whose membership domain is ‘sector-related’ (Table 1).

Table 1: Determining the ‘sector relatedness’ of an organisation

Scope

Question in the standardised questionnaire to all correspondents

Possible answers

Notes and Explanations

.

Domain of the organisation within the sector

Does the union’s/employer organisation’s domain embrace potentially all employees in the cleaning 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 cleaning 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’ cleaning sectorin terms of economic activities, (i.e. including all sub-activities

Yes/No

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

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

Yes/No

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

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

Yes/No

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

...cover all occupations in the cleaning sector?

Yes/No

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

Domain of the organisation outside the sector

Does the union also represent members outside the cleaning sector?

Yes/No

This question is again being asked directly of the correspondents

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

At both national and European levels, many associations are not considered as social partner organisations as they do not deal with industrial relations. Thus, there is a need for clear-cut criteria to differentiate the social partner organisations from other associations.

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

  • party to ‘sector-related’ collective bargaining;
  • 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 TFEU, and/or which participates in the sector-related European social dialogue.

The criterion that a national association can be a social partner if it is affiliated to a European social partner implies that such an association may not be involved at all in industrial relations in its own country. This criterion may seem odd, but a national association does become involved in industrial relations through its membership of such a European organisation.

Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the national affiliates to the European social partner organisations are engaged in industrial relations in their respective countries. Affiliation to a European social partner organisation and/or involvement in national collective bargaining are vital 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 cleaning activities sector is defined in terms of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE), to ensure the cross-national comparability of the findings. More specifically, the cleaning activities sector is defined as embracing NACE (Rev. 2) 81.2 (Table 2).

Table 2: NACE classification
NACE Rev. 2 Description

81.2

Cleaning activities

81.21

General cleaning of buildings

81.22

Other building and industrial cleaning activities

81.29

Other cleaning activities

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

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

Figure 1: Sector-relatedness of social partner organisations: domain patterns

Figure 1: Sector-relatedness of social partner organisations: domain patterns

Table 3: 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 cleaning activities sector? Does the union/employer organisation also represent members outside the cleaning activities 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 1

At European level, the European Commission established a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for the cleaning activities sector in 1999. The European Federation of Cleaning Industries (EFCI) on the employer side, as well as the Union Network International (UNI Europa) – Property Services Sector on the employee side, participate in the sector’s European social dialogue. Therefore, affiliation to one of these European organisations is a sufficient criterion for classifying a national association as a social partner organisation for the purpose of this study. However, it should be noted that the constituent criterion is one of sector-related membership. This is important, in particular, in the case of UNI Europa due to its multi-sectoral domain. Thus, the study will include only those organisations affiliated to UNI Europa which are related to the cleaning activities sector, in terms of worker representation and collective bargaining, following the definition of ‘sector-relatedness’ illustrated above.

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 cited otherwise, this study draws on the country studies provided by the EIRO national centres. The EIRO correspondents were provided with standardised questionnaires in both Word and Excel format by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), which they completed through contacting the sector-related social partner organisations in their countries. The contact is generally made via telephone interviews, but might also – 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 based on 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 national centres are requested to provide 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 official statistics (mainly from EUROSTAT or national statistical offices) the figures for 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. Yet, these organisations can 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 have been put in place.

  • Eurofound staff, together with the author of this report, checked the figures provided for consistency, and ensured the organisations listed met the criteria for the scope of this study (see above).
  • Eurofound sent the national contributions to national members of the governing board, as well as to the European-level sector-related social partners’ organisations. The peak-level organisations then asked their affiliates to verify the information. Feedback received from the sector-related organisations was then taken into account, if it was in line with the methodology of the study.
  • The complete study was finally evaluated by the European-level sectoral social partners and Eurofound’s Advisory Committee on Industrial Relations, which consists of representatives from both sides of industry, governments and the European Commission.

Structure of report

The study consists of three main parts, beginning with a brief summary of the sector’s economic background. The report then analyses the relevant social partner organisations in all EU Member States. The study therefore covers all 27 European countries. The third part of the analysis considers the representative associations at European level.

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

Finally, it is important to note the difference between the research and political aspects of this study. While providing data on the representativeness of the organisations under consideration, the report does not reach any definite conclusion on whether the representativeness of the European social partner organisations and their national affiliates is sufficient for admission to the European social dialogue. The reason for this is that defining criteria for adequate representativeness is a matter for political decision rather than an issue of research analysis.


Economic background

The cleaning industry covers services provided by specialised contractors, building maintenance and associated cleaning, cleaning of public transport vehicles, waste management services and disinfecting and extermination activities. The European cleaning sector employs, according to the European Commission, some three million people, who perform a broad range of cleaning activities from dusting and vacuuming to cleaning windows, factory roofs and industrial equipment. Contract cleaning has grown steadily over the past 20 years, mainly as a direct consequence of outsourcing of services by organisations and companies. At the same time, markets have developed towards a more global and integrated service delivery, with the provision of facilities management and support services rather than just simple cleaning services, especially among larger companies. Nevertheless, according to EFCI, although diversification of cleaning activities has significantly increased over the past one or two decades, simple ‘office’ cleaning activities still represents the bulk of the cleaning market in Europe. EFCI estimated, from figures given by their national members, that there were 3.75 million employees within the cleaning sector in 20 European countries in 2008. Eurostat provides employment figures solely for the whole NACE (Rev. 2) code 81 (including combined facilities support activities, cleaning activities and landscape service activities) but nevertheless counts less than 3.6 million people working in this more encompassing segment of the economy in 2009 (see Figure 2 below).

As in many other sectors, it appears that the financial crisis has had some repercussions on the sector’s labour market at least in some of the Member States. According to the country reports, major negative employment effects have been observed, particularly in France, Greece, Italy and Spain. For the entire NACE (Rev. 2) class 81, according to Eurostat, overall employment of the EU 27 grew in the period 2008–2011 (see Figure 2 below; for the cleaning sector as demarcated for the purpose of this study no Eurostat employment figures are available.) However, even though it appears from both the country reports and Eurostat (see Figure 3 below) that in most countries the financial crisis did not affect, or only marginally affected, the sector in terms of employment, it may have worsened the business environment within the sector in several countries, in that the recent economic downturn has tightened competition, which has resulted in falling profit margins within the sector and increased pressure on costs. This, in turn, has resulted in reduced working hours and/or cuts in pay and premiums rather than direct job losses (for example in Bulgaria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK). Moreover, the crisis may also have led to an increase in irregular and undeclared work in the cleaning industry (for example, Italy). Apart from that, according to several country reports, the crisis may have had negative effects on the public procurement policies of many administrations. Accordingly, against the background of increasingly restrictive austerity programmes imposed by national governments, the administrations have increasingly tended to award contractors offering the lowest price rather than the best value. As a consequence, the quality of work in the sector may have decreased in many instances.

The cleaning sector’s business structure is dominated by small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). Whereas Eurostat calculated that in 2009, there were about 189,000 companies in the cleaning sector in the EU27, according to EFCI, about 10% of the sector’s companies have 50 or more employees. Apart from this, the cleaning industry is a highly labour-intensive sector with labour accounting for about three-quarters of the total employers’ costs. For individual companies, pressure on labour costs thus constitutes the core element of improving competitiveness.

The national social partner organisations within the sector, where they exist, tend to record relatively low levels of organisation (see below), in particular on the employee side. This is because the sector’s predominant employment structure (low-skilled, female, often migrant service workers) tends to be quite unfavourable to high unionisation rates.

Employment characteristics

As indicated in most country reports, employment in the cleaning industry is characterised by relatively high rates of illicit and non-standard forms of employment, in particular part-time work and (bogus) self-employment, and relatively low levels of qualification. Moreover, the high incidence of migrant workers, as well as their ease of replacement, makes them particularly vulnerable to exploitation – especially since trade union membership in the sector tends to be fairly low. According to EFCI, at European level about 75% of the sector’s workforce are women and about 70% of cleaners work part time. Most country reports show that pay and working conditions tend to be fairly poor.

Long-term trends

As indicated earlier, at least over the past two decades, the EU cleaning industry has undergone a process of steady and sustainable growth, which has mainly been caused by an increasing market penetration due to the continuous outsourcing of cleaning services. Moreover, the continuing diversification of activities towards integrated services and facilities management has attracted a number of cleaning staff who are highly skilled, particularly in the field of industrial cleaning and specialised hygiene and cleaning services (such as hygiene maintenance in food chains, and cleaning of hospitals, façades and certain modes of public transport). However, fierce competition over low labour costs together with the trend of outsourcing are thought to have exacerbated the sector’s incidence of precarious working conditions.

Tables 4 and 5 present an overview of figures on companies, employment and employees in the sector and in relation to the national economy, mainly stemming from national sources from around 2000–2010 (that is, the situation just after the peak of the Great Recession of the late 2000s). These figures have been collected through the EIRO national centres. In all 17 Member States but one (Denmark), for which related data are available, the number of companies more or less increased, generally reflecting an expansion of the sector in these countries. In a few countries, such as Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia, the number of companies at least doubled within the decade to 2010.

Table 4: Total employers and employment in cleaning, 2000 and 2010 (approximately)
  Year No. of companies Year Total employment Female employment Male employment Total sectoral employment as % of total employment in economy
AT

2000

1,541

2000

35,595

n.a.

n.a.

1.0

AT

2008

2,671

2008

55,430

n.a.

n.a.

1.4

BE

2002

1,183

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BE

2010

1,744

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2009

860

2010

32,170

18,253

13,917

n.a.

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

2009

214

2009

1,403

n.a.

n.a.

0.4

CZ*

2000

2,837

2000

26,000

21,000

5,000

0.5

CZ*

2010

3,015

2010

78566

63,638

14,928

1.5

DE

n.a.

n.a.

2001

393,000

290,000

103,000

1.0

DE

2008

35,896**

2009

565,000***

397,000

168,000

1.5

DK

2000

5,819

2001

48,299

28,629

19,670

1.7

DK

2008

5,718

2009

52,430

28,877

23,553

1.9

EE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

2010

1,654

2010

23,275

15,858

7,417

0.5

ES

2001

14,825

2001

272,300

218,600

53,700

1.7

ES

2010

25,700

2010

431,600

338,400

93,000

2.3

FI

2000

2,609

2000

29,020

21,494

7,526

1.3

FI

2010

4,306

2010

36,851

26,313

10,538

1.6

FR

2000

12,780

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

2010

20,039

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

2000

5,323

2000

15,116

n.a.

n.a.

0.5

HU

2010

5,857

2010

38,355

n.a.

n.a.

1.5

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

n.a.

n.a.

2010

25,000

n.a.

n.a.

1.3

IT

2001

24,311

2001

339,574

216,818

122,756

1.4

IT

2008

28,756

2008

435,083

277,800

157,283

1.7

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2000

75

2000

3,891

3,222

669

1.5

LU

2010

123

2010

7,516

6,276

1,240

2.1

LV****

2000

96

2000

1,309

837

472

0.2

LV****

2010

260

2010

5,764

2,945

2,819

0.7

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT*****

n.a.

n.a.

2010

507

325

182

0.3

NL

2000

6,200

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

2010

7,195

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

2010

23,875

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

1999

716

1999

40,261

35,349

4,912

1.6

PT

2009

1,559

2009

62,275

54,513

7,762

2.0

RO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2008

2,679

2008

28,336

n.a.

n.a.

0.3

SE

2000

2,085****

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SE

2010

3,036****

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

SI

2000

234

2000

6,133

4,647

1,486

0.8

SI

2010

1,243

2010

6,722

5,094

1,628

0.8

SK

2000

130

2000

600

500

100

0.0

SK

2010

849

2010

14,300

8,900

5,400

0.6

UK*

2000

7,790

2000

226,800

122,800

104,000

0.8

UK*

2010

14,075

2010

345,200

206,900

138,300

1.2

* = 2000 and 2010 figures are not strictly comparable.

** = 14,276 in 2008, 15,746 in 2009 and 17,194 in 2010 according to BIV. The difference obviously ensues from different methods of data collection applied by the Federal Statistical Office.

*** 549,591 in 2008, 540,248 in 2009 and 532,144 in 2010 according to BIV. The difference obviously ensues from different methods of data collection applied by the Federal Statistical Office.

**** = Without self-employed persons

***** = Figures are likely to be underestimated

Source: EIRO national centres, national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports

All of the 14 countries with available data record an often notable increase in overall employment in the same period. In terms of the number of sectoral employees, only the Netherlands records a slight decrease during the period, while in 16 countries this indicator increased, again remarkably in most of the countries (for 10 countries no comparable data are available). There are at least three Member States (the Czech Republic, Germany and the UK) where the number of employees clearly falls short of the total number of employment. One can infer from these findings that at least in these countries, the sector is characterised by a high incidence of non-standard employment. (For several other countries no comparable data are available. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of several country reports implies that many cleaning workers, in particular those engaged in private households, are illicitly employed and thus do not show up in official statistics).

Table 5: Total employees in cleaning, 2000 and 2010 (approximately)
Country Year Total employees Female employees Male employees Total sectoral employees as % of total employees in economy
AT

2000

34,469

n.a.

n.a.

1.1

AT

2008

53,006

n.a.

n.a.

1.6

BE

2002

38,978

25,350

13,628

n.a.

BE

2010

46,122

27,616

18,506

1.2

BG

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

2010

32,170

18,253

13,917

1.4

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CY

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CZ*

2000

9,700

7,500

2,200

0.2

CZ*

2010

31,800

17,400

14,400

0.8

DE

2001

387,581

256,733

130,848

1.4

DE

2009

405,033

267,180

137,853

1.5

DK

2001

43,030

26,518

16,512

1.7

DK

2009

47,583

27,168

20,415

1.8

EE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EL

2010

17,634

13,716

3,918

0.6

ES

2001

250,700

206,100

44,600

2.0

ES

2010

409,600

323,800

85,800

2.6

FI

2000

26,636

20,254

6,382

1.2

FI

2010

33,203

24,222

8,981

1.4

FR

2000

200,000

130,000

70,000

0.9

FR

2010

436,000

298,000

138,000

1.8

HU

2000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

2010

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

2010

25,000

n.a.

n.a.

1.3

IT

2001

303,593

200,876

102,717

1.8

IT

2008

393,764

260,539

133,225

2.0

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LU

2000

3,839

3,179

660

1.6

LU

2010

7,435

6,209

1,226

2.2

LV**

2000

1,309

837

472

0.2

LV**

2010

5,701

2,931

2,788

0.8

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

MT

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

NL

2000

150,300

99,000

51,300

2.2

NL

2010

141,700

93,500

48,200

1.8

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PL

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

PT

1999

39,747

35,141

4,606

1.7

PT

2009

60,244

53,131

7,113

2.1

RO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

2008

27,846

n.a.

n.a.

0.6

SE

2000

29,382

n.a.

n.a.

0.8

SE

2010

72,926

n.a.

n.a.

1.8

SI

2000

5,754

4,485

1,269

0.8

SI

2010

6,067

4,692

1,375

0.8

SK

2000

500

500

0

0.0

SK

2010

13,300

8,200

5,100

0.7

UK

2000

193,200

112,900

70,300

0.8

UK

2010

251,300

149,900

101,400

1.0

* 2000 and 2010 figures are not strictly comparable.

** Without self-employed persons

Source: EIRO national centres, national statistics. For detailed description of sources please refer to the national reports

Tables 4 and 5 also show that women represent a clear majority of the workers in this sector in all countries with available data. In most countries, for which data are available, the numbers of female employees clearly exceed those of male employees and, in some countries, such as Finland, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain, women employees within the workforce outnumber men by at least two to one. Relatively small gaps between the sexes in terms of the number of sectoral employees can be found only in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Latvia, while in Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Sweden, no comparable data are available. The tables also indicate that the sector is not very large but nevertheless quite significant in most of the Member States and – in terms of employment share – continued to grow in almost all countries with available data during the decade to 2010. Its share in aggregate employment is below 2% in all countries under examination with available data but Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. In the latter, this share lies at between 2% and 2.3%. In terms of absolute numbers of sectoral workers, Germany holds an outstanding position, reporting that more than half a million people are in paid employment in the sector.

Recent developments

As indicated earlier in this report, the impact of the financial crisis on the cleaning sector varies from one country to the other. Overall, at least in terms of employment, the sector appears to have suffered less from the crisis compared with most other industries.

Figure 2 shows that, overall in the European Union, the entire services to buildings and landscape activities sector was – in terms of employment – hardly hit by the crisis, in that employment continued to grow during 2008–2011. While total employment (for the age group 15–64) stood at slightly more than 3.2 million in the first quarter of 2008, it peaked at almost 3.7 million in the second quarter of 2011. Figure 2 shows a cyclical development of employment each year, indicating a seasonal fluctuation of employment, rather than an effective impact of the global economic downturn. However, it is important to note that Figure 2 refers to the entire services to buildings and landscape activities sector according to NACE (Rev.2) code 81 rather than to the cleaning activities sector only, as defined for the purpose of this study, since Eurostat does not provide distinct employment data for NACE code 81.2.

Figure 2: Overall development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during and after the Great Recession in the EU27 services to buildings and landscape activities sector (including the cleaning industry), total numbers

Figure 2: Overall development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during and after the Great Recession in the EU27 services to buildings and landscape activities sector (including the cleaning industry), total numbers

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

Figure 3: Member States’ development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during and after the Great Recession in the services to buildings and landscape activities sector (including the cleaning industry), percentage change to quarter two of the previous year

Figure 3: Member States’ development of employment (workforce aged 15–64) during and after the Great Recession in the services to buildings and landscape activities sector (including the cleaning industry), percentage change to quarter two of the previous year

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, and own calculations. No data available for MT. For a few countries, in particular EE, LT, LU and SI, the data may be unreliable

Compared with Figure 2, Figure 3 provides a far more differentiated picture of sectoral employment, in that the annual percentage changes of sectoral employment to the second quarter of the previous year for the period 2008–2011 are indicated for each individual Member State. Figure 3 shows that – while in some countries, such as Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, the entire NACE class 81 has been relatively unshaken by the Great Recession (in that employment within the sector increased in 2009, 2010 and 2011) – in most EU Member States the sector declined to some extent in terms of employment in at least one of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. In part of this group of countries, in particular in Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, there was a decline in sectoral employment in 2009, with an upward trend in employment for at least one of the years 2010 and 2011. Nonetheless, the crisis appears to have had a delayed effect on the sector’s labour market in countries such as Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In these countries, significant redundancies were not experienced until 2010 at the earliest. Slovenia is the only country that records job losses for each of the three consecutive years 2009–2011. However, the data for Slovenia are assessed by Eurofound to be unreliable, as is also the case for figures given for Estonia, Lithuania and Luxembourg. Apart from that, increases in sectoral employment of more than 60% within one year only, as is the case, for instance, in Denmark and Latvia, appear to be doubtful and thus in need of explanation. Moreover, it is not possible to trace back job losses to a single cause, such as the financial crisis. Rather, it seems to be likely that outsourcing practices and other restructuring measures affecting employment in the sector are caused by several factors and would have been likely to occur in a more positive global economic context, even though perhaps on a smaller scale.


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;
  • participation in public policy and tripartite bodies of social dialogue.

Under these circumstances, representativeness is normally measured by the strength of the organisations’ membership. For instance, statutory extension provisions usually allow for extension of collective agreements to unaffiliated employers only when the signatory trade union and employer association represent 50% or more of the employees within the agreement’s domain.

As outlined, the representativeness of the national social partner organisations is of interest to this study in terms of the capacity of their European umbrella organisations for participation in European social dialogue. Hence, the role of the national actors in collective bargaining and public policy-making constitutes another important component of representativeness. The effectiveness of European social dialogue tends to increase with the growing ability of the national affiliates of the European organisations to regulate the employment terms and influence national public policies affecting the sector.

A cross-national comparative analysis shows a generally positive correlation between the bargaining role of the social partners and their involvement in public policy (Traxler, 2004). Social partner organisations that are engaged in multi-employer bargaining are incorporated in state policies to a significantly greater extent than their counterparts in countries where multi-employer bargaining is lacking. This can be attributed to the fact that only multi-employer agreements matter in macroeconomic terms, setting an incentive for the governments to seek 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 social partners’ membership domain and their strength;
  • their recognised role in collective bargaining;
  • 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 cleaning activities 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 and in Table 1.

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

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

For a sector study such as this, measures of membership strength of both the trade unions and employer organisations have also to consider how the membership domains relate to the sector. If a domain is not congruent with the sector demarcation, the organisation’s total density – that is, the density referring to its overall domain – may differ from sector-specific density, or 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.

To summarise, this report basically distinguishes between three types of organisational densities, as defined in Table 6, which are – depending on data availability – also broken down into net and gross rates.

Table 6: 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 domain

Number of employees (companies) organised by the organisation 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 cleaning 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 cleaning sector divided by potential number of employees (companies) in the cleaning sector as demarcated by the organisation’s domain

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

Trade unions

Tables 7 and 8 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 as a sector-related social partner organisation, as defined earlier. All of the 27 countries under consideration but six (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia) record at least one sector-related trade union. In total, 64 sector-related trade unions were identified. Of these 64 unions, none has demarcated its domain in a way that is congruent with the sector definition. This does not come as a surprise, given that artificially defined demarcations of business activities for statistical purposes differ from the lines along which employees identify common interests and gather in associations. Domain demarcations resulting in overlap in relation to the sector are common in the sector and occur in exactly 40.6% of cases. Overlap mostly arises from two different modes of demarcation. The first one refers to general (cross-sectoral) domains (for example, ACLVB/CGSLB of Belgium, SEVETTYK-PEO of Cyprus, UNSA of France and GWU of Malta). The second mode relates to domains covering part of a broader or the entire services sector (such as OIYK-SEK of Cyprus, Serviceforbundet of Denmark, CFDT-Services and CFTC-CSFV of France, FILCAMS and FISASCAT of Italy, STAD and SITESE of Portugal, and Services Area-USO of Spain).

Table 7: Domain coverage and membership of trade unions in cleaning, 2009/2010/2011
Country Trade Union Type of membership Domain coveragea Membership
Members Members active Members sector Members sector active Female membership (%) of total membership

AT

Vida

voluntary

SO

n.a.

155,000

n.a.

13,000

33

AT

GPA-djp

voluntary

SO

n.a.

180,000

n.a.

n.a.

44

AT

GBH

voluntary

SO

n.a.

180,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

AT

GdG-KMSfB

voluntary

SO

n.a.

119,000

n.a.

n.a.

49

BE

AC-CG*

voluntary

SO

370,000

n.a.

n.a.

15,000

n.a.

BE

CCVD-CCAS*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

165,000

n.a.

15,000

n.a.

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB*

voluntary

O

260,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

BG

FITUSGO*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

167

n.a.

57

BG

ITUFECCTCS*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

345

n.a.

58

BG

PSU*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

120

n.a.

56

CY

OIYK-SEK*

voluntary

O

n.a.

7,568

n.a.

58

n.a.

CY

SEVETTYK-PEO*

voluntary

O

n.a.

13,885

n.a.

45

n.a.

CZ

no

             

DE

IG BAU*

voluntary

SO

314,568

n.a.

58,691

53,765

21

DE

Ver.di*

voluntary

SO

2,094,455

n.a.

n.a.

1,4123

51

DE

ZDS

voluntary

S

5,071

n.a.

5,071

n.a.

n.a.

DK

3F*

voluntary

O

n.a.

30,1172

n.a.

n.a.

35

DK

Serviceforbundet*

voluntary

O

n.a.

17,500

n.a.

3,000

n.a.

EE

no

             

EL

OIYE*

voluntary

SO

44,800

44,800

5,200

5,200

n.a.

EL

POE OTA*

voluntary

SO

70,000

70,000

5,000

5,000

n.a.

ES

FES-UGT*

voluntary

SO

136,000

n.a.

30,000

n.a.

n.a.

ES

FSP-UGT*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

AADD-CCOO*

voluntary

O

87,636

n.a.

33,682

n.a.

54

ES

Services Area-USO*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ELA-ZERBITZUAK*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

ESK*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

ES

LAB*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FI

PAM*

voluntary

SO

221,000

154,000

19,000

17,000

80

FI

Trade Union Pro*

voluntary

SO

130,000

110,000

850

800

55

FR

CGT Ports et Docks*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

10,000

10,000

n.a.

FR

FO-FEETS*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CFDT Services*

voluntary

O

70,000

70,000

5,000

n.a.

n.a.

FR

CSFV-CFTC*

voluntary

O

23,000

23,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

FNECS*

voluntary

SO

3,000

3,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FR

UNSA*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

HU

HVDSZ 2000

voluntary

SO

10,000

10,000

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IE

SIPTU

voluntary

SO

217,000

n.a.

5,500

n.a.

37

IT

FILCAMS*

voluntary

O

372,268

372,268

85,000

85,000

58

IT

FISASCAT*

voluntary

O

233,887

233,887

n.a.

n.a.

60

IT

UIL Trasporti*

voluntary

O

107,846

107,846

n.a.

n.a.

20

IT

UGL Igiene Ambientale*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FESICA*

voluntary

O

375,000

375,000

9,765

9,765

40

IT

FISALS*

voluntary

SO

7,500

6,500

n.a.

n.a.

55

IT

USAE*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

USSPI*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

CEL*

voluntary

O

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

LT

no

             

LU

LCBG-Commerce*

voluntary

SO

n.a.

n.a.

935

935

n.a.

LU

OGBL-SSPN*

voluntary

S

n.a.

n.a.

4,000

4,000

n.a.

LV

no

             

MT

GWU

voluntary

O

41,575

34,543

100

100

18

NL

FNV Bondgenoten*

voluntary

O

460,000

460,000

15,000

15,000

80

NL

CNV Vakmensen*

voluntary

O

140,000

140,000

2,437

2,437

70

PL

MOZ Solidarność POCS*

voluntary

O

n.a.

5,000

800

800

30

PT

STAD*

voluntary

O

7,900

7,900

5,300

4,800

75

PT

SITESE*

voluntary

O

10,000

8,000

100

80

68

RO

no

             

SE

Kommunal*

voluntary

SO

500,000

465,000

20,000

20,000

81

SE

Fastighets*

voluntary

SO

33,500

30,500

12,000

10,800

50

SE

SEKO*

voluntary

SO

130,000

130,000

250

250

30

SE

Unionen*

voluntary

SO

500,000

465,000

1,500

1,500

65

SE

Ledarna*

voluntary

SO

84,800

83,600

1,200

1,200

24

SI

SODS

voluntary

O

8,000

8,000

300

300

30

SK

no

             

UK

GMB*

voluntary

SO

602,212

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

48

UK

Unison*

voluntary

SO

1,374,500

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

69

UK

Unite*

voluntary

SO

1,474,564

n.a.

n.a.

11,000

24

UK

PCS*

voluntary

SO

292,091

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

60

UK

RMT*

voluntary

SO

79,499

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

11

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

a = domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism

n.a. = not available

Table 8: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of trade unions in cleaning, 2009/10/11
Country Trade union Union densities (%) Collective bargaining

Consult-

ation

National and European affiliations**
Domain total Domain active Sector Sector active Sectoral domain Sectoral domain active

AT

Vida

n.a.

44

n.a.

25

n.a.

37

yes

yes

ÖGB; UNI Europa, EFFAT, ETF, EPSU

AT

GPA-djp

n.a.

16

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ÖGB; UNI Europa, EFFAT, EMCEF, EPSU, EFJ

AT

GBH

n.a.

16

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ÖGB; EFBWW

AT

GdG-KMSfB

n.a.

68

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

ÖGB; UNI Europa, EFJ, ETF, Eurofedop, EPSU

BE

AC-CG*

n.a.

51–75

n.a.

30–40

n.a.

35-45

yes

yes

ABVV-FGTB; UNI Europa

BE

CCVD-CCAS*

n.a.

51–75

n.a.

30–40

n.a.

35-45

yes

yes

ACV-CSC; UNI Europa

BE

ACLVB-CGSLB*

n.a.

9–11

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

0-9

no

yes

UNI Europa

BG

FITUSGO*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

1

n.a.

0-9

yes

no

CITUB; EPSU

BG

ITUFECCTCS*

n.a.

n.a.

1

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CITUB; UNI Europa

BG

PSU*

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CL Podkrepa; EPSU

CY

OIYK-SEK*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

4

n.a.

4

yes

no

SEK; UNI Europa

CY

SEVETTYK-PEO*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

3

n.a.

3

yes

no

PEO

CZ

none

                 

DE

IG BAU*

n.a.

n.a.

14

13

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

DGB; UNI Europa

DE

Ver.di*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

3

25

n.a.

yes

yes

DGB; UNI Europa, EPSU

DE

ZDS

n.a.

n.a.

1

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

 

DK

3F*

n.a.

75

n.a.

26–50

n.a.

26–50

yes

yes

LO; UNI Europa, EFFAT, EMCEF

DK

Serviceforbundet*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

0–9

yes

yes

LO; UNI Europa

EE

none

                 

ES

FES-UGT*

n.a.

n.a.

7

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UGT; UNI Europa

ES

FSP-UGT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

UGT; EPSU

ES

AADD-CCOO*

n.a.

n.a.

8

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CCOO; UNI Europa, EPSU

ES

Services Area-USO*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

USO

ES

ELA-ZERBITZUAK*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

ELA

ES

ESK*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 

ES

LAB*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 

FI

PAM*

n.a.

n.a.

57

51

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

SAK; UNI Europa

FI

Trade Union Pro*

n.a.

n.a.

3

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

STTK; UNI Europa, EFFAT, EMF, EFBWW

FR

CGT Ports et Docks*

n.a.

n.a.

2

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CGT

FR

FO-FEETS*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

FO; UNI Europa, ETF, EPSU

FR

CFDT Services*

n.a.

n.a.

1

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CFDT

FR

CSFV-CFTC*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CFTC

FR

FNECS*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CFE-CGC

FR

UNSA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 

GR

OIYE*

n.a.

n.a.

29

29

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

GSEE; UNI Europa

GR

POE OTA*

n.a.

n.a.

28

28

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

ADEDY

HU

HVDSZ 2000

43

43

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

MSZOSZ; EPSU

IE

SIPTU

n.a.

n.a.

22

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

ICTU; UNI Europa

IT

FILCAMS*

23

23

22

22

22

22

yes

yes

CGIL; UNI Europa, EFFAT, ETLC

IT

FISASCAT*

14

14

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CISL; UNI Europa, EFFAT

IT

UIL Trasporti*

9

9

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

UIL; ETF

IT

UGL Igiene Ambientale*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

UGL

IT

FESICA*

n.a.

n.a.

2

2

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CONFSAL; CESI

IT

FISALS*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CONFSAL; CESI

IT

USAE*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 

IT

USSPI*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 

IT

CEL*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 

LT

none

                 

LU

LCBG-Commerce*

11

11

13

13

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

LCGB; EFFAT

LU

OGBL-SSPN*

n.a.

26–50

54

54

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

OGBL; UNI Europa

LV

none

                 

MT

GWU

25

21

20

20

20

20

no

no

UNI Europa, EFFAT, EFBWW, EMF, EPSU, ETF, EURO WEA, Eurocadres

NL

FNV Bondgenoten*

n.a.

n.a.

11

11

11

11

yes

yes

FNV; UNI Europa

NL

CNV Vakmensen*

n.a.

n.a.

2

2

2

2

yes

yes

CNV; (UNI Europa)

PL

MOZ Solidarność POCS*

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

0–9

yes

yes

NSZZ Solidarność; UNI Europa

PT

STAD*

7

7

9

8

9

8

yes

no

CGTP; UNI Europa

PT

SITESE*

1–4

1–3

0

0

0

0

yes

n.a.

UGT; UNI Europa

RO

none

                 

SE

Kommunal*

71

51–75

26–50

26–50

86

76–90

yes

yes

LO; EPSU, ETF, EFFAT

SE

Fastighets*

71

26–50

10–25

10–25

36

26–50

yes

yes

LO; UNI Europa

SE

SEKO*

76

76–90

0

0

91–100

91–100

yes

no

LO; UNI Europa, EPSU, ETF, EFBWW

SE

Unionen*

80–83

51–75

2

2

51–75

51–75

yes

yes

TCO; EFBWW, ETF

SE

Ledarna*

17

10–25

2

2

10–25

10–25

yes

yes

CEC

SI

SODS

3

3

5

5

5

5

yes

no

ZSSS

SK

none

                 

UK

GMB*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

TUC; UNI Europa, EFBWW, EFFAT, EPSU, EMF, EMCEF, ETF

UK

Unison*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

TUC; UNI Europa, EPSU, ETF

UK

Unite*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

0–9

yes

no

TUC; UNI Europa, EFBWW, EFFAT, EPSU, EMF, EMCEF, ETF

UK

PCS*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

TUC; UNI Europa, EPSU, Eurocadres

UK

RMT*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

TUC; ETF

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related trade unions

** = National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit.

n.a. = not available

Note: The figures have been rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure lower than 0.5%.

Sectional overlaps prevail in the sector and occur in exactly 56.3% of cases. This mode usually arises from domain demarcations that focus on certain categories of employees which are then organised across several or all sectors. Moreover, this mode can be found with trade unions representing employees in segments of the economy across the cleaning sector. Employee categories are specified by various parameters. These can be distinct occupations, such as:

  • managers and professionals (FNECS of France and Ledarna of Sweden);
  • public service staff and municipal employees (GdG-KMSfB of Austria, ADEDY of Greece, HVDSZ 2000 of Hungary, FSP-UGT of Spain and Kommunal of Sweden);
  • transport services workers, (vida of Austria, CGT-Ports et Docks of France, UIL Trasporti of Italy and RMT of the UK).
  • They can also be employment status:
  • white-collar workers (GPA-djp of Austria, Finland’s STTK and Sweden’s Unionen);
  • blue-collar workers (AC-CG of Belgium).

They can also be defined by geographic region, for example ELA-ZERBITZUAK of Spain). Other trade unions’ domains cover part of the cleaning sector in terms of business activities (rather than in terms of employee categories) in addition to parts of at least one other sector. Such domains may, for instance, cover local governments, public utilities and specific parts of the broad private and/or public service sector (also including part of the cleaning sector).

Finally, sectionalism is virtually non-existent within the sector, with only two trade unions (3.1%) recording this mode of domain demarcation. Sectionalism ensues from the existence of sector-specific trade unions whose domain is – in terms of business activities – confined to one specific segment within the sector, such as chimney sweeping in the case of Germany’s ZDS and private cleaning services in the case of Luxembourg’s OGBL-SSPN. An explanation for the very low incidence of sector-related trade unions with a membership domain focussing specifically either on the cleaning sector or just on a segment of it may be found in the fact that cleaning workers have proved too weak to gather in small, highly specialised organisations that would be able to represent their particular interest. Rather, more general trade unions representing service employees usually tend to include cleaning workers within their domain, often without paying specific attention to this weak and vulnerable group of employees.

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related trade unions with regard to the cleaning sector (N=64)

Figure 4: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related trade unions with regard to the cleaning sector (N=64)

Source: EIRO country reports

As the domains of the trade unions often overlap with the demarcation of the sector, so do their sectoral domains with one another in the case of those countries with a pluralist trade union ‘landscape’ in the cleaning sector. Tables 7 and 8 also show these inter-union sectoral domain overlaps. Inter-union overlaps of domains are endemic. In all countries but one (Austria) with more than one sector-related trade union, the sectoral domain of any of them overlaps with the sectoral domain of at least another one. Depending on the scale of mutual overlap, this results in competition for members. Noticeable inter-union competition within the sector is recorded in six countries, namely Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland and Portugal.

Looking at the trade union membership data, it becomes apparent that female employees comprise the majority group in only about half of the unions for which membership figures by gender are available. This finding starkly contrasts with the fact that the sector’s employment is clearly dominated by female employees (see Tables 4 and 5). In those sector-related trade unions, where male membership prevails, this predominance – due to the fact that the domain of all these unions (sectionalistically) overlaps with regard to the sector – is likely to originate in areas of their domains other than the cleaning activity sector.

Membership of the sector-related trade unions is voluntary in all 21 Member States that record at least one sector-related trade union. The absolute numbers of trade union members differ widely, ranging from about 2.1 million (in the case of Germany’s ver.di) to around 3,000 (in the case of France’s FNECS). 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 that is more appropriate for a comparative analysis. In this context, it should be noted that density figures in this section refer to net ratios, which means that they are calculated on the basis of active employees rather than including union members who are not in work. This is mainly because net union densities are more informative than gross densities, since they better reflect unionisation trends among the active workforce (only the active workforce is capable of taking industrial action) than the latter.

However, there are some methodological factors to be aware of when calculating and comparing associational densities. Social partner organisations frequently tend to be hesitant in providing these density figures as they reveal an interest organisation’s relative strength to its counterpart on the employer/employee side or the state. Therefore, the density data set for this study is far from complete and has to be treated with cautious. Moreover, one cannot rule out the possibility that a trade union or employer organisation might give inflated figures in order to exaggerate their organisational strength.

Domain density is over 50% in the case of around 29% of the trade unions which document figures on density. For some unions, densities cannot be indicated by discrete figures but have to be estimated by a range (where the density is estimated to lie between a value ‘x’ and a value ‘y’). If this range overlaps with two or more intervals used for describing the distribution of trade union densities, the lowest value of this range (for example, ‘x’ rather than ‘y’) is used, in order to clearly assign this estimate to one of the intervals. This method applies to the entire section examining union densities, and also to the corresponding section dealing with employer organisations (see below).

Only about 8% of the unions gather 70% or more of the active employees covered by their domain. About 38% of the trade unions for which data are available organise fewer than 15% of the active employees within their domain; and one-third of the trade unions record a density of 15%–50% of their potential active members. These results indicate that overall domain density of the sector-related trade unions tends to be rather low. However, it should also be noted that for clearly less than 40% of the 64 sector-related trade unions domain density data are recorded. Therefore these figures should be treated very cautiously, as indicated earlier.

Comparing the trade unions’ overall domain densities with their sector density figures, provides an indication of whether the cleaning sector tends to be a stronghold of those sector-related trade unions which also organise employees in sectors other than the cleaning industry. 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 Tables 3 and 4). This means that the sectoral domain density must be higher than the sectoral density if a trade union organises only a particular part of the sector – that is where the trade union’s membership domain is either sectionalist or sectionalistically overlapping relative to the sector.

When taking the trade unions’ sectoral domain density into account, the trade unions’ density in the cleaning 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 about 13% of the trade unions for which data are available. About 9% of the unions attract 70% or more of the active employees covered by their sectoral domain. More than half of the trade unions (around 57%) record a sectoral domain density lower than 15%, and about 30% record a sectoral domain density of in between 15% and 50%.

In this context it should be noted that a more appropriate measure of the relationship between the trade unions’ overall domain density and their sectoral domain density would also relate to the union membership domain patterns (see Figure 4). For unions with a membership domain congruent or sectionalist with regard to the sector, domain density and sectoral domain density must be equal. This means that only for unions with a domain which overlaps or sectionalistically overlaps with regard to the cleaning sector it is reasonable to compare domain density and sectoral domain density when assessing whether the sector under examination is a stronghold of the relevant unions or not. Such a measure adjusted for domain patterns corroborates and accentuates the above finding, according to which the trade unions’ density in the cleaning sector tends to be lower compared with their overall domain density. Taking another very tentative measure –the median – into account reveals the same result. The median of the trade unions’ overall domain densities (22%) clearly exceeds that of their sectoral domain densities (10%), when taking all trade unions with available data into account irrespective of their membership domain patterns relative to the sector.

As for those few trade unions for which figures for both sectoral domain density and domain density on aggregate are recorded, the same tendency can be revealed. There are more trade unions with an aggregate density higher compared with sectoral domain density as unions showing the reverse relationship between the two densities. This result confirms the above finding according to which the trade unions’ sectoral densities tend to fall short of their low overall domain densities. However, again, it is important to note that for most trade unions no density data are available, and there are only very few unions for which data on both densities are recorded.

Despite these shortcomings in relation to the data set, one can nevertheless infer from the figures that density rates in the sector tend to be rather low. This is tentatively indicated by a median of the trade unions’ sectoral domain densities that no more than 10%. Although it is reasonable to assume that this measure may be biased (for most countries trade union density figures are almost completely lacking), the finding of low overall density rates of the sector-related trade unions is supported by anecdotal evidence provided by several country reports. Low densities within the sector are unsurprising, given the:

  • frequently dispersed nature of employment;
  • low average skill levels;
  • low pay;
  • large numbers of non-standard, part-time, female and migrant workers;
  • high labour turnover.

All these factors – at least in the context of most European countries – tend to make union membership less likely.

Employer organisations

Tables 9 and 10 present the membership data for the employer organisations in the cleaning sector. As in the trade union side, not all sector-related employer organisations are documented in the 27 countries under consideration. In Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania, no sector-related employer organisation matching at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (see above) has been identified, while in the remaining 20 Member States at least one sector-related employer organisation could be found. In six of the latter group of countries, there is at least one employer/ business organisation which is not a party to collective bargaining (see Table 10). These associations are classified as social partner organisations in this report only due to their affiliation to the sector-related European-level employer organisation participating in the European sectoral social dialogue (EFCI). In 14 of the 20 countries which record one or more sector-related employer/ business organisations at least one of them is 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’ (TN0311101S). Such sector-related trade associations also exist in the cleaning sector. In terms of their national scope of activities, all the associations which are not involved in collective bargaining according to Table 9 either primarily or exclusively act as trade associations in their country. Put very simply, trade associations’ main reference is the ‘product’ market (where business has interests in relation to customers and suppliers) rather than the labour market. It is only the conceptual decision to include all associational affiliates to EFCI, regardless of whether they have a role in national bargaining, which gives them the status of a social partner organisation within the framework of this study.

Table 9: Domain coverage and membership of employer/business organisations in cleaning, 2009/2010/2011
Country Employer Organisation Domain coverage** Membership
Type Companies Companies in sector Employees Employees in sector
AT

BIRB

SO

compulsory

1,192

665

4,086

2,825

AT

FVAA

SO

compulsory

3,317a

1,289a

33,000a

5,400a

AT

BICGDFG

SO

compulsory

8,250

1250

40,000

33,000

BE

ABSU-UGBN

C

voluntary

185

185

34,875

34,875

BG

none

           
CY

none

           
CZ

CAC

O

voluntary

63

n.a.

70,000

n.a.

DE

BIV

S

voluntary

2,540

2,540

777,556

n.a.

DE

VKA

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

~2,000,000

n.a.

DE

ZIV

S

voluntary

7,630

7,630

n.a.

n.a.

DK

SBA*

SO

voluntary

170

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

DK

RSBA*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

EE

none

           
EL

PEOK

S

voluntary

2,500b

2,500b

45,000b

45,000b

ES

AFELIN*

S

voluntary

1,000

1,000

100,000

100,000

ES

ASPEL*

S

voluntary

16

16

130,803

130,803

ES

ASELIP

SO

voluntary

36

36

110,000

n.a.

FI

Kiinteistöpalvelut ry

SO

voluntary

400

300

40,000

25,000

FR

FEP

S

voluntary

2,000

2,000

261,600

261,600

HU

MATISZ

S

voluntary

62

62

50,000

n.a.

IE

ICCA*

S

voluntary

30

30

18,000

18,000

IE

IBEC*

O

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

FISE*

O

voluntary

821

250

95,434

90,000

IT

ANCST-Legacoop*

SO

voluntary

2,177

338

185,015

68,626

IT

FNIP*

C

voluntary

1,500

1,500

95,000

95,000

IT

FeS*

SO

voluntary

5,083c

n.a.

183,962c

n.a.

IT

Unionservizi*

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

PSL-AGCI*

SO

voluntary

2,567d

n.a.

8,981d

n.a.

IT

UNCI*

SO

voluntary

7,825e

n.a.

129,301e

n.a.

IT

ANIP*

S

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

USC*

SO

voluntary

3,936

2,360

11,700

7,000

IT

Casartigiani*

SO

voluntary

84,663c

n.a.

35,587c

n.a.

IT

CLAAI*

SO

voluntary

115,976

n.a.

266,744

n.a.

IT

FENAPI*

SO

voluntary

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

IT

CAPIMED*

SO

voluntary

58,000

1,200

220,000

40,000

LT

none

           
LU

FLEN

S

voluntary

49

49

6,501

6,501

LV

none

           
MT

none

           
NL

OSB

C

voluntary

750

750

110,000

110,000

PL

PIGC

SO

voluntary

100

80

80,000

n.a.

PT

APFS

O

voluntary

50

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

RO

none

           
SE

Almega SA*

SO

voluntary

10,000

786

500,000

32,696

SE

KFO*

SO

voluntary

3,643

15

87,264

2,000

SE

SALAR

SO

voluntary

320

320

920,000

12,385

SE

Fastigo*

SO

voluntary

2,000

125

20,000

1,100

SI

OZS - Section Building Cleaners*

C

compulsory

1,120

1,120

7,217

7,217

SI

ZDOPS*

O

voluntary

2,700

n.a.

22,000

n.a.

SI

PTZ*

O

voluntary

3,389

36

n.a.

n.a.

SK

SAC

O

voluntary

38

30

6,000

5,500

UK

CSSA

SO

voluntary

100

90

300,000

275,000b

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisations

**= domain coverage: C = Congruence; O = Overlap; SO = Sectional Overlap; S = Sectionalism

a= figure refers to 2006

b= figure appears to be inflated

c= figure refers to 2007

d= figure refers to 2008

e= figure refers to 2004

n.a. = not available

Table 10: Density, collective bargaining, consultation and affiliations of employer/ business organisations in cleaning, 2009/2010/2011
Country Employer organisation Density (%) Collective bargaining Consultation National and European affiliations**
Companies Employees
Domain Sector Sectoral domain Domain Sector Sectoral domain
AT

BIRB

100

25

100

100

5

100

yes

yes

WKO; ESCHFOE

AT

FVAA

100

48a

100

100

10a

100

yes

yes

WKO

AT

BICGDFG

100

47

100

100

62

100

yes

yes

WKO; EFCI, CEPA

BE

ABSU-UGBN

10

10

10

76

76

76

yes

yes

VBO-FEB; EFCI

BG

none

                 
CY

none

                 
CZ

CAC

0–9

0–9

0–9

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

no

yes

HK CR; EFCI

DE

BIV

n.a.

7

n.a.

87

n.a.

87

yes

yes

BDA, ZDH, UDH; EFCI

DE

VKA

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

CEEP

DE

ZIV

n.a.

21

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

ZDH, UDH; ESCHFOE

DK

SBA*

50

n.a.

n.a.

75

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

DI; EFCI

DK

RSBA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

Dansk Erhverv

EE

no

                 
EL

PEOK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 
ES

AFELIN*

n.a.

4

n.a.

n.a.

24

n.a.

yes

yes

 
ES

ASPEL*

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

32

n.a.

yes

yes

CEOE; EFCI

ES

ASELIP

n.a.

0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

CEOE

FI

Kiinteistöpalvelut ry

n.a.

7

n.a.

n.a.

~75

n.a.

yes

yes

EK; EFCI

FR

FEP

11

10

n.a.

n.a.

60

n.a.

yes

yes

MEDEF, CGPME; EFCI

HU

MATISZ

1–2

1

1

50–100

50–71

50–71

no

yes

VOSZ; EFCI

IE

ICCA*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

75

72

75

yes

yes

IBEC

IE

IBEC*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

yes

Eurocommerce

IT

FISE*

n.a.

1

1

n.a.

23

23

yes

yes

Confindustria; EFCI

IT

ANCST-Legacoop*

9

1

n.a.

17

17

n.a.

yes

yes

Legacoop; EFCI, CECOP

IT

FNIP*

5

5

5

24

24

24

yes

n.a.

Confcommercio

IT

FeS*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

Confcooperative; CECOP

IT

Unionservizi*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

CONFAPI

IT

PSL-AGCI*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

AGCI

IT

UNCI*

9

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

ANIP*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

Confartigianato

IT

USC*

18

8

12

18

2

12

yes

yes

CNA

IT

Casartigiani*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

CLAAI*

8

n.a.

n.a.

8

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

FENAPI*

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

n.a.

 
IT

CAPIMED*

12

4

n.a.

22

10

n.a.

yes

yes

 
LT

no

                 
LU

FLEN

n.a.

40

n.a.

n.a.

87

n.a.

yes

yes

FDA; EFCI

LV

none

                 
MT

none

                 
NL

OSB

10

10

10

78

78

78

yes

yes

VNO-NCW; EFCI

PL

PIGC

0–9

0–9

0–9

10–25

10–25

10–25

no

yes

(PKPP Lewiatan); EFCI

PT

APFS

3

3

3

10–25

10–25

10–25

yes

no

CCP; EFCI

RO

none

                 
SE

Almega SA*

n.a.

10–25

26–50

n.a.

26–50

76–90

yes

yes

Svenskt Näringsliv; EFCI

SE

KFO*

n.a.

0

0–9

n.a.

0–9

26–50

yes

no

European Cooperatives

SE

SALAR

91–100

10–25

91–100

91–100

10–25

91–100

yes

yes

CEEP, CEMR, CLRAE, UCLG

SE

Fastigo*

26–50

0–9

n.a.

26–50

0–9

n.a.

yes

yes

CEEP

SI

OZS - Section Building Cleaners*

90

90

90

99

99

99

no

no

OZS; EFCI

SI

ZDOPS*

2

n.a.

n.a.

8

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

 
SI

PTZ*

2

3

3

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

yes

no

GZS

SK

SAC

0–9

4

4

n.a.

41

41

no

no

RUZ SR; EFCIb

UK

CSSA

n.a.

1

1

n.a.

60

60

no

yes

BCC, Asset Skills; EFCI

* = Domain overlap with other sector-related employer/ business organisations

**= National affiliations put in italics; for the national level, only cross-sectoral (i.e. peak-level) associations are listed; for the European level sectoral associations only; affiliation put in parenthesis means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit.

a= figure refers to 2006

b= EFCI membership until the end of 2010

n.a. = not available

Note: The figures have been rounded in all cases. Densities reported as 0% hence refer to a figure lower than 0.5%.

Of the 45 employer/business organisations listed in Tables 9 and 10, six organisations belong to this group. In 12 of the 20 countries where sector-related employer/ business organisations exist, only one single organisation (in the meaning of a social partner organisation as defined before) has been established. Thus, unlike the situation on the trade union side, where pluralist associational systems clearly prevail, the employer side is dominated by monopolistic associational systems. This is in line with the fact that the number of sector-related employer/business organisations across the Member States somewhat falls short of the number of sector-related trade unions.

The employer/business organisations’ membership domains tend to be significantly narrower than those of the trade unions, although, as is the case of the trade unions, membership domains sectionalistically overlapping the sector also prevail among the employer organisations. Exactly 15.6% and 51.1%, respectively, of the associations for which related information is available, rest on overlapping and sectionalistically overlapping domains relative to the sector. Only one of these organisations, namely Ireland’s IBEC, has a domain which is cross-sectoral. Alternatively, most cases of domain overlaps (in the case of organisations with domains either overlapping or sectionalistically overlapping relative to the sector) are caused by:

  • coverage of (part of) the broader services sector (as is the case of SBA of Denmark, FISE, FeS and Unionservizi of Italy, and Almega of Sweden);
  • coverage of (part of) the broader cleaning and facilities/property management sector, as is the case of CAC of the Czech Republic, Kiinteistöpalvelut ry of Finland, PIGC of Poland, APFS of Portugal and Fastigo of Sweden.

There are also several employer/business organisations whose domain is focused on a very particular segment of the economy transversally crossing the cleaning sector. Such organisations with a domain sectionalistically overlapping with regard to the sector may cover the cooperative sector (such as ANCST-Legacoop, PSL-AGCI and UNCI of Italy and KFO of Sweden), the local/regional authorities (such as Germany’s VKA, Italy’s USC, Spain’s ASELIP and Sweden’s SALAR) and the SMEs and a craft segment of the economy (as is the case of Italy’s CLAAI, FENAPI and CAPIMED and Slovenia’s PTZ and ZDOPS).

Sectionalism is caused by domain demarcations that focus on a particular subsegment of the cleaning sector, such as building cleaning or chimney sweeping. Overall, 24.4% of the associations have a membership domain that is sectionalist relative to the cleaning sector.

Finally, 8.9% of the associations show a membership domain that is more or less congruent with the sector definition. This means that the domain of these organisations largely focuses on the cleaning activities sector as defined for the purpose of this study.

In several countries, the sectoral employers have managed to establish specific employer organisations as a particular voice of the cleaning sector’s companies, distinct from other service businesses. This enables these associations to perform a focused interest representation on behalf of their members, even though their membership strength may widely vary from one organisation to the other. This finding contrasts with the sector’s associational ‘landscape’ on the trade union side, where associational representation of labour interests tends to be more dispersed and less focused. Such an associational configuration tends to favour the (bargaining) power of organised business and to weaken the labour side.

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations with regard to the cleaning sector (N=45)

Figure 5: Distribution of membership domain patterns of sector-related employer organisations with regard to the cleaning sector (N=45)

Source: EIRO country reports

All of the three existing sector-related employer organisations of Austria (BIRB, FVAA and BICGDFG) as well as one of Slovenia (OZS – Section Building Cleaners) can rely on obligatory membership. This is due to their public-law status as chamber units.

In those countries with a pluralist structure in relation to employer organisations, these associations have usually – with the exception of Slovenia’s OZS-Section of Building Cleaners, PTZ and ZDOPS – 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 and partially Italy) or functions and tasks (as is the case of Ireland, partially Italy, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden).

As the figures on membership totals (Table 9) and density (Table 10) indicate, membership strength in terms of both companies and employees widely varies with regard to both the membership domain in general and the sector. Again, as outlined earlier in the context of the trade unions, density figures are more informative in terms of membership strength than absolute membership numbers. Generally, both the domain and the sectoral domain densities of companies tend to be lower than the corresponding densities in terms 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 higher compared to trade union densities (see above) although they are not particularly high. Of the associations for which relevant data are available, 26.3% and 63.2%, respectively, register a sectoral domain density higher than 50% in terms of companies and employees. These findings suggest that the employers in the cleaning industry do not tend to be better organised than their counterparts in most other services sectors, at least in terms of companies. This is despite the fact that a number of employer organisations have tailored their membership domain to the cleaning sector or part of it, in order to align their policy of interest representation with the specific requirements of their members. Even when looking solely at those employer organisations with a membership domain congruent or sectionalist with regard to the sector, (sectoral) domain densities, in particular in terms of companies, in several instances remain relatively low. It must be stressed again, however, that since the data set in relation to the sector-related employer/business organisations is far from being complete, it should be treated cautiously.

Collective bargaining and its actors

Table 8 lists all the trade unions engaged in sector-related collective bargaining. Despite numerous cases of inter-union domain overlap and of unclear domain demarcation, in only a few countries (Belgium, France, Italy and Portugal) 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 been reported only from Slovenia.

The data presented in Table 11 provide an overview of the system of sector-related collective bargaining in the 27 countries under consideration. The importance of collective bargaining as a means of employment regulation is measured by calculating the total number of employees covered by collective bargaining as a proportion of the total number of employees within a certain segment of the economy (Traxler et al, 2001) Accordingly, the sector’s rate of collective bargaining coverage is defined as the ratio of the number of employees covered by any kind of collective agreement to the total number of employees in the sector.

Table 11: System of sectoral collective bargaining (2010/2011)
Country

CBC (%)

(estimates)

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

95

99

(2)

BE

100

100

2

BG

n.a.

0

0

CY

n.a.

0

0

CZ

0.25

0

0

DE

100

almost 100

2

DK

75

MEB prevailing

0

EE

~0

0

0

EL

100

100

2

ES

n.a.

MEB prevailing

2

FI

almost 90

100

2

FR

100

100b

2

HU

3.5

0

0

IE

almost 100c

almost 100b,c

2c

IT

100

100b

(2)

LT

~14

0

0

LU

94.5

100

2

LV

n.a.

0

0

MT

~0

0

0

NL

100

100

2

PL

n.a.

0

0

PT

~100

90–100

2

RO

~50d

0d

0

SE

70–75

~99

1

SI

almost 100

100

0

SK

0

0

0

UK

~10

SEB prevailing

0

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= complemented by single-employer bargaining

c= considering also forms of de facto bargaining conducted by the sectoral Joint Labour Committee

d = since January 2011, when the unique cross-sectoral national collective agreement expire d

n.a. = not available

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 the 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. First, extending a collective agreement to the employees who are not unionised in the company covered by the collective agreement is a standard practice 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 (Traxler et al, 2001).

Collective bargaining coverage

Due to the lack of strong, well established social partners within the sector in several countries, sectoral industrial relations tend to be relatively poorly developed in these countries. Where they have been established in these countries, they frequently cover only particular niches of the sector. Where they have not, collective bargaining activities within the sector are either almost non-existent or take place at single-company level only. For that reason, for some countries it has proved difficult or impossible even to roughly estimate the collective bargaining coverage rate of the entire cleaning industry. Accordingly, for five countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Poland and Spain) the sector’s collective bargaining coverage remains unknown, as none of the social partners contacted could provide an estimate for the entire cleaning sector. Countries lacking functioning social partner structures within the sector typically do have not only low, or no, collective bargaining coverage rates within the sector, but often also a lack of multi-employer bargaining. The 11 Member States with no sector-related multi-employer bargaining are Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. In all but Romania, the collective bargaining coverage rate is either very low or zero or no related information is available. It is clear from this list, that only the 2004/2007 accession countries are involved.

Nevertheless, there is a group of countries recording high or even full collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector. This group of countries comprises almost exclusively ‘old’ Member States, namely Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, with Slovenia as the only ‘new’ Member State. The UK records a mixture of both single- and multi-employer bargaining, although the former is prevalent, and it shows a very low bargaining coverage rate of about 10%. Taking the collective bargaining coverage rate and the share of multi-employer bargaining as indicators for the effectiveness and strength of sectoral industrial relations structures, one can infer from these findings that, in slightly more than half of the 27 Member States, the sector’s industrial relations structures are quite well-established, while they appear to be underdeveloped (and in some cases even non-existent) in all the other countries. To summarise, in terms of sectoral collective bargaining systems, the sector is characterised by a high polarisation of countries. Interestingly, this polarisation largely follows the demarcation line which divides the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Member States, with the exception of Slovenia and the UK.

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

  • the predominance of multi-employer bargaining (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden);
  • high density rates of the trade unions and/or employer organisations (Austria, Belgium and Sweden);
  • the existence of pervasive extension practices (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal).

Single-employer bargaining arrangements in the sector are the exclusive type of sector-related bargaining in Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. As far as related information is available, in these countries collective bargaining coverage tends to be very low.

In those countries with prevalent multi-employer settlements in the sector, the use of extension practices is often significant. Pervasive extension practices in the cleaning sector are reported for several countries (see Table 11). As the aim of extension provisions is to make 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, since the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKO) and its subunits are parties to multi-employer bargaining. Another functional equivalent to statutory extension schemes can be found in Italy. According to the country’s constitution, minimum 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;
  • they may be represented in tripartite committees and boards of policy concertation.

This study considers only cases of consultation and participation which explicitly relate to sector-specific matters. Consultation processes are not necessarily institutionalised and, therefore, the organisations consulted by the authorities may vary according to the issues to be addressed and also over time, depending on changes in government. Moreover, the authorities may initiate a consultation process on occasional rather than a regular basis. Given this variability, in Tables 8 and 10 only those sector-related trade unions and employer organisations are flagged that are usually consulted.

Trade unions

Trade unions are regularly consulted by the authorities in at least 13 of the 21 countries where sector-related trade unions are recorded. Four countries cite a lack of regular consultation of any of the trade unions (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia). Since a multi-union system has been established in 16 out of the 21 countries with sector-related trade unions, one cannot rule out the possibility that the authorities may favour certain trade unions over others or that the unions compete for participation rights. In six (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) of the 11 countries with a multi-union system where there is a noticeable practice of consultation, any of the existing trade unions may take part in it. By contrast, in France, Greece, Spain and Sweden, only some of the sector-related trade unions are usually consulted. In several countries, (Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and the UK) no information on consultation practices is available for at least one trade union. Nevertheless, evidence of major inter-union conflicts over participation in public policy matters in the cleaning sector cannot be found in any of the countries under consideration.

Employer organisations

Most sector-related employer/business organisations for which related data are available are involved in consultation procedures. There are no cases of conflict reported over participation rights of employer organisations in any of the eight countries with multi-organisation systems. In the multi-organisation systems of Austria, Denmark and Ireland, where related data of all employer organisations are available, all of the sector’s organisations are consulted. Conversely, in the pluralist systems of Spain and Sweden, at least one of the employer organisations is regularly consulted, while at least one other is not. In Slovenia, none of the three sector-related employer organisations is consulted. However, for Germany and Italy, which have a pluralist system of employer representation, no information about consultation practices is available for some of the organisations. Therefore, it remains unclear here whether consultation rights are being attributed to the national organisations in a selective manner or not.

In at least 12 of the 18 countries with relevant sector-related social partner organisations on both sides of industry, consultation rights are symmetrically attributed to the two sides of industry, in that at least one organisation on each side is consulted. However, there are at least four countries (France, Greece, Hungary and the UK) where representatives of only one side are consulted. A more precise and further quantitative analysis of consultation procedures is difficult due to the incomplete data set.

Tripartite participation

Turning from consultation to tripartite participation, the findings reveal that genuinely sector-specific tripartite bodies have been established in only Germany and the UK. Table 12 lists one in Germany and two in the UK. In Germany, the organisation is an alliance against all forms of illegal employment in building cleaning. In the UK, Asset Skills is the statutory tripartite Sector Skills Council (SSC) dealing with skills improvement initiatives targeting the cleaning sector, while the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has a specific advisory liaison forum for the cleaning sector. Other bodies listed in some country reports are not taken into account in this study, since they are either bipartite or do not specifically target the sector under consideration.

Table 12: Tripartite sector-specific boards of public policy (2009/2010)
  Name of the body and scope of activity Origin Trade unions participating Business associations participating

DE

Alliance against illegal employment in building cleaning

Agreement

IG BAU

BIV

UK

Asset Skills (sectoral skills and training council)

Statutory

Unison (in the past, position currently ‘pending’)

CSSA

UK

Health and Safety Executive – Cleaning Industry Liaison Forum

Statutory

Unison, Unite

CSSA


European level of interest representation

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

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

Regarding social dialogue, the constituent feature is the ability of such organisations to negotiate on behalf of their members and to conclude binding agreements. Accordingly, this section on European associations of the cleaning activities sector will analyse these organisations’ membership domain, the composition of their membership and their ability to negotiate.

As outlined in greater detail below, one sector-related European association on the employee side – namely, UNI Europa – Property Services Sector – and one on the employer side – namely, EFCI – are particularly significant in the cleaning sector. Both UNI Europa and EFCI are listed by the European Commission as a social partner organisation consulted under Article 154 of the TFEU. Hence, the following analysis will concentrate on these two organisations, while providing supplementary information on others which are linked to the sector’s national industrial relations actors.

Membership domain

The membership domain of UNI Europa – Property Services, as a division of the comprehensive skills and services trade union organisation UNI Europa, covers the cleaning sector as defined for the purpose of this study plus the security sector and therefore overlaps the sector under consideration. On the employer side, according to its web page, the membership domain of EFCI is largely congruent with the cleaning sector. It organises only employer organisations rather than individual companies.

Membership composition

In terms of membership composition, it should be noted that the countries covered by UNI Europa – Property Services and EFCI extend beyond the 27 countries examined in this study. However, the report will only consider the members of these 27 countries.

For UNI Europa – Property Services Table 13 documents a list of membership of sector-related trade unions drawn from the country reports. Accordingly, at least one affiliation in each country (except the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) is recorded. In some countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK) multiple memberships occur, so that in some cases it remains unclear whether the affiliation refers to the cleaning and security division or any other division of UNI Europa. On aggregate, UNI Europa – Property Services counts 35 direct and indirect sector-related affiliations from the countries under examination. More than half of the trade unions listed in Tables 7 and 8 are directly or indirectly affiliated to UNI Europa – Property Services. As far as available data on sectoral membership of the national trade unions provide sufficient information on their relative strength, one can conclude that UNI Europa – Property Services covers the sector’s most important labour representatives in most countries. An exception to this is Kommunal of Sweden. Some 33 of the 35 direct and indirect members of UNI Europa – Property Services are directly involved in collective bargaining related to the cleaning sector. Only two affiliates from countries such as Belgium and Malta are not.

Table 13: UNI Europa – Property Services Membership (2010/2011)+
Country Members
AT

GPA-djp*, Vida*, GBH*, GdG-KMSfB*

BE

AC/CG*, CCVD-CCAS*, ACLVB/CGSLB

BG

ITUFECCTCS*

CY

OIYK-SEK*

CZ

n.a.

DE

IG BAU*, Ver.di*

DK

3F*, Serviceforbundet*

EE

n.a.

EL

OIYE*

ES

FES-UGT*, AADD-CCOO*

FI

PAM*, Trade Union Pro*

FR

FO-FEETS*

HU

n.a.

IE

SIPTU*

IT

FILCAMS*, FISASCAT*

LT

n.a.

LU

OGBL-SSPN*

LV

n.a.

MT

GWU

NL

FNV Bondgenoten*, (CNV Vakmensen*)

PL

MOZ ‘Solidarność’ POCS*

PT

SITESE*, STAD*

RO

n.a.

SE

Fastighets*, SEKO*

SI

n.a.

SK

n.a.

UK

GMB*, Unison*, Unite*, PCS*

+ = Membership list confined to the sector-related associations of the countries under consideration; organisation put in brackets means indirect affiliation via higher-order unit.

* = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

Table 14 lists the members of EFCI. Of the 27 countries under consideration, EFCI has 17 under its umbrella through direct associational members from these countries. Multiple memberships occur only in Italy, where two affiliates co-exist. On aggregate, EFCI counts 18 direct associational members from the EU 27 (SAC of Slovakia ceased its membership in 2010 and is not considered here).

Table 14: EFCI Membership (2010/2011)+
Country Members
AT

BICGDFG*

BE

ABSU-UGBN*

BG

n.a.

CY

n.a.

CZ

CAC

DE

BIV*

DK

SBA*

EE

n.a.

ES

ASPEL*

FI

Kiinteistöpalvelut ry*

FR

FEP*

GR

n.a.

HU

MATISZ

IE

n.a.

IT

FISE*, ANCST-Legacoop*

LT

n.a.

LU

FLEN*

LV

n.a.

MT

n.a.

NL

OSB*

PL

PIGC

PT

APFS*

RO

n.a.

SE

Almega SA*

SI

OZS – Section Building Cleaners

SK

SACa

UK

CSSA

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

a= Membership until the end of 2010

* = Involved in sector-related collective bargaining

Table 10 indicates that affiliated and unaffiliated associations coexist in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Data on sectoral membership of the respective organisations of these countries do not show clearly whether the most important associations are affiliated. In Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden, some important or even all-employer organisations that conduct bargaining are not affiliated to EFCI. There are also several countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the UK) where the affiliate of EFCI is not engaged in bargaining. Employer/ business organisations which are not involved in collective bargaining may regard themselves as trade associations rather than as industrial relations actors. Of the 18 direct affiliates of EFCI, 13 are involved in sector-related collective bargaining. Thus, compared with its counterpart on the labour side, namely UNI Europa – Property Services, EFCI’s proportion of member organisations which are involved in sector-related collective bargaining is slightly lower. EFCI members cover collective bargaining in 13 of the 17 countries which record affiliations to this European-level employer organisation, which accounts for slightly less compared to the 17 countries where sector-related collective bargaining is conducted by affiliates of UNI Europa – Property Services. As can be seen from Table 10, many sector-related employer organisations across the EU not affiliated to EFCI are involved in sector-related collective bargaining and thus have to be regarded as relevant actors within the sector.

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. On the employee side, UNI Europa – Property Services is equipped with a permanent mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members in matters of European social dialogue through a general mandate laid down in the statutes of UNI Europa.

On the employer side, according to the Director General of EFCI, no provisions on a general negotiating mandate have been laid down in the EFCI statutes. However, an ad-hoc mandate to negotiate on behalf of its members can be assigned on a case-by-case basis. Thus, both of the sector-related European-level interest organisations on the two sides of industry are, at the time being, capable of negotiating and acting on behalf of their members with regard to the European social dialogue.

As a final proof of the weight of both UNI Europa – Property Services and EFCI, 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 (Property Services Sector) represent a relatively large proportion of both sector-related trade unions and countries. For reasons of brevity, only those European organisations are mentioned here which cover at least three countries. This involves:

  • the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), with 17 affiliations covering 9 countries;
  • the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), with 12 affiliations and 6 countries;
  • the European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agriculture and Tourism Sectors and Allied Branches (EFFAT), with 11 affiliations and 8 countries;
  • the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW), with 7 affiliations and 5 countries;
  • the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation (EMCEF) with 4 affiliations and 3 countries;
  • the European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF), with 4 affiliations and 3 countries.

Moreover, it should be noted that the affiliations listed in Table 8 are probably not exhaustive. Nevertheless, and despite the relatively large number of affiliations to European organisations other than UNI Europa – Property Services, this overview underlines the principal status of the latter association as the sector’s labour representative. This is mainly because many of the aforementioned affiliations to other European organisations reflect the overlapping domains of the affiliates (see Table 7) rather than a real reference of the affiliations as such to the cleaning sector.

An analogous review of the membership of the national employer/business associations can be derived from Table 10. Most of them have few affiliations to European associations other than EFCI. Correspondingly, there is no other European association which covers three countries.

In conclusion, UNI Europa – Property Services on the employee side and EFCI on the employer side, appear to be by far the most important sector-related European organisations.


Commentary

The cleaning industry has been a dynamic and fast-growing industry for many years. This trend is caused by several factors, including a diversification of cleaning activities as well as the continuing outsourcing of cleaning and hygiene services in administrations and companies. These developments have stimulated the emergence of new markets in the field of more global and integrated service delivery, providing highly qualified and encompassing facilities management and support services rather than simple cleaning. However, fierce competition over labour costs within the sector, as well as outsourcing, has frequently increased the number of temporary and vulnerable workers, often without legal contracts of employment.

Depending on the strength of the national social partner organisations within the sector, industrial relations standards widely vary from one country to the other. On the employee side, union density rates tend to be rather low across virtually all Member States. This may be explained by:

  • the often dispersed nature of employment;
  • low skill levels;
  • low pay;
  • the prevalence of female and part-time workers;
  • the presence of large numbers of migrant workers;
  • high labour turnover.

Sectoral employer organisations generally appear to be more prevalent in the sector than trade unions. This is partly because many have a membership domain that is relatively well tailored to the cleaning sector or part of it. This enables them to focus more on representing their members’ interests than more general associations, which promote high rates of member recruitment. However, there are also many employer/business organisations recording low density rates, particularly in terms of companies.

Overall, compared to most other sectors, industrial relations tend to be slightly less developed within the sector in most Member States. Examining the figures on cross-sectoral collective bargaining coverage in the EU27, as presented in the EIRO industrial relations profiles for each Member State, it can be clearly seen that the cleaning industry’s bargaining coverage is lower than the national overall collective bargaining coverage rates in 10 out of 21 countries for which comparable data are available. In turn, nine of these countries register higher sectoral than overall rates, while for two countries the two rates are largely equal. Closer consideration shows that the collective bargaining coverage within the cleaning sector tends to be high in the ‘old’ EU15 (with the exception of the UK) while it tends to be low among the 2004/2007 accession countries (with the exception of Romania and, in particular, Slovenia). Generally, high collective bargaining coverage rates in the sector are strengthened by the predominance of multi-employer arrangements and a significant use of extension practices.

Although the recession has to some extent affected the cleaning sector, shown by tightened procurement policies and increasing pressure on the labour market, no major effects on the national industrial relations systems within the sector have been observed. At European level, in order to cope with the challenges for the sector, the sector’s social partners – UNI Europa – Property Services on the employees’ side and EFCI on the employers’ side – formally set up a joint sectoral social dialogue committee in 1998 (active since 1999). Since then, the committee usually meets three to four times a year. The recent outcomes of the committee work of these two European associations include joint declarations, manuals and recommendations on issues such as awarding practices involving cleaning contracts, ergonomics in cleaning operations and procurement practices. Compared with all other European social partner organisations, according to the study findings, both UNI Europa – Property Services and EFCI remain unchallenged in their position as EU-wide representatives of the sector’s employees and employers.

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


Bibliography

Traxler, F. (2004) ‘The metamorphoses of corporatism: From classical to lean patterns’, in European Journal of Political Research, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2004, pp. 571–598

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


List of abbreviations

Country Abbreviation Full Name
AT

BICGDFG

Federal Association of Chemical Trade and Building Cleaners

 

BIRB

Federal Association of Chimney Sweeps and Undertakers

 

FVAA

Association of Waste and Sewage Management

 

GBH

Trade Union of Construction and Wood Workers

 

GdG-KMSfB

Union for Municipal Employees and the small Arts, Media, Sports and Liberal Professions

 

GPA-djp

Union of Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists

 

ÖGB

Austrian Trade Union Federation

 

vida

vida Trade Union

 

WKO

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

BE

ABSU-UGBN

General Belgian Cleaning Association

 

ABVV/FGTB

Belgian General Federation of Labour

 

ACLVB/CGSLB

Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium

 

ACV/CSC

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions

 

CCVD-CCAS

ACV Food and Services Trade Union

 

CG/AC

General Federation

 

VBO-FEB

Belgian Federation of Employers

BG

CITUB

Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria

 

CL Podkrepa

Confederation of Labour ‘Podkrepa’

 

FITUSGO

Federation of Independent Trade Unions of State Government and Organisations

 

ITUFECCTCS

Independent Trade Union Federation of Employees in Commerce, Cooperatives, Tourism, Credit and Social Serviecs

 

PSU

Podkrepa Services Union

CY

OIYK-SEK

Cyprus Federation of Private Employees

 

PEO

Pancyprian Federation of Labour

 

SEK

Cyprus Workers’ Federation

 

SEVETTYK-PEO

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

CZ

CAC

Czech Association of Cleaning

 

HK CR

Czech Chamber of Commerce

DE

BDA

German Confederation of Employers’ Associations

 

BIV

Bundesinnungsverband des Gebäudereiniger-Handwerks

 

DGB

German Trade Union Federation

 

IG Bau

Industriegewerkschaft Bauen-Agrar-Umwelt

 

ver.di

Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

 

VKA

Vereinigung der Kommunalen Arbeitgeberverbände

 

UDH

German Association of Skilled Crafts Confederations

 

ZDH

German Confederation of Skilled Crafts

 

ZDS

Zentralverband Deutscher Schornsteinfeger

 

ZIV

Bundesinnungsverband des Schornsteinfegerhandwerks – Zentralinnungsverband

DK

3F

United Federation of Danish Workers

 

DI

Confederation of Danish Industry

 

Dansk Erhverv

Danish Chamber of Commerce

 

LO

Danish Confederation of Trade Unions

 

RSBA

RenRengøringsselskabernes Branche- og Arbejdsgiverforening

 

SBA

Employers’ Association in the Service Sector within DI

 

Serviceforbundet

Danish Clerical Union

EE

---

 
EL

ADEDY

Confederation of Public Servants

 

GSEE

Greek General Confederation of Labour

 

OYIE

Hellenic Federation of Private Sector Employees

 

PEOK

Pan-Hellenic Federation of Cleaning Enterprises

 

POE OTA

Pan-Hellenic Federation of Local Government Organisations Employees

ES

AADD

Federation of Diverse Activities of the CCOO

 

AFELIN

Federation of Associations of Cleaning Employers

 

ASELIP

Association of Enterprises of Public Cleaning

 

ASPEL

Professional Association of Cleaning Enterprises

 

CCOO

Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions

 

CEOE

Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations

 

FeS-UGT

Federation of Services of the General Workers’ Confederation

 

FSP-UGT

Public Services Federation of the General Workers’ Confederation

 

ELA

Basque Workers’ Solidarity

 

ELA-ZERBITZUAK

Basque Workers’ Solidarity ZERBITZUAK

 

ESK

Federation of Leftist Unions

 

LAB

Patriotic Workers’ Commission

 

Services Area – USO

Services Area of the USO

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

 

USO

Workers’ Trade Unionist Confederation

FI

Ammattiliitto Pro

Trade Union Pro

 

EK

Confederation of Finnish Industries

 

Kiinteistöpalvelut ry

Property Management Association

 

PAM

Service Union United

 

SAK

Confederation of Finnish Trade Unions

 

STTK

Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees

FR

CFDT

French Democratic Confederation of Labour

 

CFDT Services

French Democratic Confederation of Labour - Services

 

CFE-CGC

Confédération Francaise de l’Encadrement – Confédération Générale des Cadres

 

CFTC

French Christian Workers’ Confederation

 

CGPME

Employer Association of the French SMEs

 

CGT

General Confederation of Labour

 

CGT-Ports et Docks

General Confederation of Labour – Fédération Nationale des Ports et Docks

 

CSFV-CFTC

Fédération Commerces, Services et Force de vente - CFTC

 

FEP

Fédération des Entreprises de Propreté

 

FNECS

Fédération Nationale de l’Encadrement, des Commerces et des Services – CFE-CGC

 

FO

Force Ouvrière

 

FO-FEETS

Fédération de l’Équipement, de l’Environnement, des Transports et des Services – Force Ouvrière

 

MEDEF

Movement of French Enterprises

 

UNSA

Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes

HU

HVDSZ 2000

Trade Union of Municipal and Urban Economy Workers

 

MATISZ

Association of Hungarian Cleaning Technology

 

MSZOSZ

Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions

 

VOSZ

National Association of Entrepreneurs and Employers

IE

IBEC

Irish Business and Employers Confederation

 

ICCA

Irish Contract Cleaners Association

 

ICTU

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

 

SIPTU

Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union

IT

AGCI

General Association of Italian Cooperatives

 

ANCST-Legacoop

National League of Cooperatives – Services and Tourism

 

ANIP

Associazione Nazionale Imprese di Pulizia e Servizi Integrati

 

CAPIMED

National Autonomous Federation of Small Artisans and Medium-Sized Enterprises

 

Casartigiani

Casartigiani

 

CEL

European Confederation of Workers

 

CGIL

General Confederation of Italian Workers

 

CISL

Italian Confederation of Workers’ Unions

 

CLAAI

Confederation of Liberal Associations of Italian Artisans

 

CNA

National Confederation of Artisans and of SMEs

 

CONFAPI

Confederazione Italiana della Piccole e Media Industria Privata

 

Confartigianato

Confartigianato

 

Confcommercio

Confcommercio

 

Confcooperative

Confederation of Italian Cooperatives

 

Confindustria

General Confederation of Italian Industry

 

CONFSAL

General Trade Union Confederation of Autonomous Workers

 

FENAPI

National Autonomous Federation of Small Entrepreneurs

 

FeS

Federlavoro e Servizi

 

FESICA

Federation of Industrial, Commercial and Artisan Trade Unions

 

FILCAMS

Italian Federation of Workers in the Commerce, Tourism and Service Sector

 

FISE

Federazione Imprese di Servizi

 

FISALS

Italian Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions for Foreign Workers

 

FISASCAT

Italian Federation of Commercial Services and Tourism

 

FNIP

National Federation of Cleaning, Disinfection, Service and Multiservice Enterprises

 

Legacoop

National League of Cooperatives

 

PSL-AGCI

Produzione Servizi di Lavoro

 

UGL

General Union of Workers

 

UGL Igiene Ambientale

UGL – Environmental Hygiene

 

UIL

Italian Union of Worker

 

UIL Trasporti

Italien Union of Transport Workers

 

Unionservizi

Unionservizi

 

UNCI

National Union of Italian Cooperatives

 

USAE

Unions of Autonomous European Trade Unions

 

USC

Unione Servizi alla Comunità

 

USSPI

Union of Professions and Intellectual Professionality

LT

---

 
LU

FDA

Federation of Craftsmen

 

FLEN

Luxembourg Federation of Cleaning Enterprises

 

LCBG

Luxembourg Christian Union Federation

 

LCBG-Commerce

Luxembourg Christian Union Federation – Commerce

 

OGBL

Independent Luxembourg Union Federation

 

OGBL-SSPN

Independent Luxembourg Union Federation – Syndicat Services Privés de Nettoyage

LV

---

 
MT

GWU

General Workers’ Union

NL

CNV

Christian Trade Union Federation

 

CNV Vakmensen

Christian Trade Union Federation – Vakmensen

 

FNV

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions

 

FNV Bondgenoten

Federation of Dutch Trade Unions – Bondgenoten

 

OSB

Association of Cleaning Companies

 

VNO-NCW

Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers

PL

MOZ Solidarność POCS

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

 

NSZZ Solidarność

Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarność

 

PIGC

Polish Cleaning Chamber of Commerce

 

PKPP Lewiatan

Polish Confederation of Private Employers ‘Lewiatan’

PT

APFS

Portuguese Association of Facility Services

 

CCP

Confederation of Commerce and Services of Portugal

 

CGTP

General Portuguese Workers’ Confederation

 

STAD

Union of Janitors, Security Staff, Cleaning Personnel, Domestic Workers and Other Activities

 

SITESE

Union of Workers in Administration, Commerce, Hotels and Services

 

UGT

General Workers’ Confederation

RO

---

 
SE

Almega SA

Almega Employer Organisation – Service Associations

 

Fastighets

Swedish Building Maintenance Workers’ Union

 

Fastigo

Employer Association of the Property Sector in Sweden

 

KFO

Cooperative Movement Bargaining Organisation

 

Kommunal

Municipal Workers’ Union

 

Ledarna

Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff

 

LO

Swedish Trade Union Confederation

 

SALAR

Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions

 

SEKO

Union of Service and Communication

 

Svenskt Näringsliv

Confederation of Swedish Enterprises

 

TCO

Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees

 

Unionen

Trade Union for Professionals in the Private Sector

SI

GZS

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia

 

OZS

Chamber of Craft and Small Business of Slovenia

 

PTZ

Chamber of Small Business and Trade

 

SODS

Trade Union of Crafts Workers of Slovenia

 

ZDOPS

Employer Association of Craft and Entrepreneurs of Slovenia

 

ZSSS

Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia

SK

RUZ SR

National Union of Employers

 

SAC

Slovakia Cleaning Association

UK

BCC

British Cleaning Council

 

CSSA

Cleaning and Support Services Association

 

GMB

General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union

 

PCS

Public and Commercial Services Union

 

RMT

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

 

TUC

Trades Union Congress

 

Unison

Unison

 

UNITE

Unite the Union

EUROPE    
 

CEC

CEC European Managers

 

CECOP

European Confederation of Cooperatives

 

CEEP

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

 

CEMR

Council of European Municipalities and Regions

 

CEPA

Confederation of European Pest Management Associations

 

CESI

European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions

 

CLRAE

Congress of Local and Regional Authorities

 

EFBWW

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

 

EFCI

European Federation of Cleaning Industries

 

EFFAT

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions

 

EFJ

European Federation of Journalists

 

EMCEF

European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers’ Federation

 

EMF

European Metalworkers’ Federation

 

EPSU

European Federation of Public Service Unions

 

ESCHFOE

European Federation of Chimney-Sweeps

 

ETF

European Transport Workers’ Federation

 

ETLC

European Trade Union Liaison Committee on Tourism

 

Eurocadres

Council of European Professional and Managerial Staff

 

EuroCommerce

EuroComerce - The Retail, Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the EU

 

Eurofedop

European Federation of Employees in the Public Service

 

European Cooperatives

Cooperatives Europe

 

EURO WEA

European Workers’ Education Association

 

UCLG

United Cities and Local Governments

 

UNI Europa

Union Network International – Europe

EF/12/39/EN

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

Add new comment