Seminar contents

ETUI-REHS Education & EMF Seminar:

Collective bargaining summer college

Portoroz (Slovenia) 15- 18 September 2007

This event had the support of the EUROPEAN UNION

The participants Seminar documents

The contents of the seminar

Manfred Anderle, president of the EMF Collective Bargaining Committee welcomed the participants and explained the objectives of this workshop.

	To broaden and deepen the EMF collective bargaining coordination strategy
	To investigate and analyse the current pressures on collective bargaining rounds and systems, including the ongoing trend towards decentralisation
	To debate on future perspectives in the collective bargaining work of EMF

Bart Samyn, Deputy General Secretary initiated a discussion about collective bargaining priorities in the new work programme of the European Metal Workers' Federation. The Collective Bargaining Committee has the task to deal with the following issues and the participants debated about how to prioritize and implement action plans about them:

	Wage Co-Ordination Rule
	The Eucob@n network
	Regional collective bargaining networks
	The Common Demand
	Working time
	Precarious employment
	Restructuring and relocation
	Welfare
	Migrant labour
	European industrial relations system
	Collective bargaining and social dialogue
	Existing guidelines and policies
	Young working people
	Equal opportunities

The EMF common demand on training is thought to be implemented by all member organisations at the latest in 2009. René Johansen, EMF presented an overview of the state of play of this issue in national negotiations.

In working groups the participants debated the following questions:

What is your evaluation of the results?

	Have we done enough?
	Could we have done more?

The answers of the groups:

Its difficult to judge since the process is still running. The common demand seems to be to much a national issue for which it can be difficult to understand the European dimension.

In a number of countries training agreements have been concluded at cross sectoral level. It's to soon to come to definite conclusions. More could be done by using the medias and the press.

Some differences in the implementation of the common demand between various countries can be seen. Since there is an ongoing trend towards decentralised forms of collective bargaining, the common demand can i some cases be difficult to transfer to the company level.

In several countries the cross sectoral level to take is taking initiatives regarding life long learning which could have a bearing on the implementation of the common demand at sectoral level, hereby forcing EMF affiliates to wait for the outcome of the national cross sectoral negotiations.

The visibility of the European dimension has not be emphasised enough.

What about the timing?

	Is a 4 year period enough?
	What about the countries, who have tried but with no result?
	Can we extend the period?

The period should be sufficient to negotiate agreements but to short to make a culture of the issue. If the period should be extended, it would make it difficult to introduce a new demand.

For unions already on the step to introduce demands on training when the common demand was launched the time frame is large enough - for other unions not.

What about implementation monitoring?

Agreement yes but what about follow up?

Is the timing correct for launching the 2nd common demand?

What is in favour and what is against?

What about the ongoing demand?

If collective agreements have been reached, the responsibility for the implementation rests on the employers. But road maps or other follow up documents or implementation mechanisms should be set in place. But the common demand on training can be meet by suspicion by members who want more money directly.

Before a second demand should be introduced, it's important to really evaluate the impact of the first one.

Large group of workers, mostly in precarious contract forms are squeezed out of the right to get training or cannot afford to participate. A second round should pay specific attention to those aspects..

The Commission Green Paper and the Communication about flexicurity and possible trends in EU regulation of labour law were discussed in working groups after introductions by Anna-Lena Börgö-Etaat (Nordic IN), Blandine Landas (FGMM-CFDT) and Jens Bundvad (CO-industri). The following questions were debated in the working groups:

	Would it be useful/possible to consider a combination of more flexible employment protection legislation and well-designed assistance to the unemployed both in the form of income compensation and active labour market policies?
	What role might law and/or collective agreements play in that case?

	For each of the different aspects of flexibility define examples of possible offensive trade union demands
	Which are the trade union strong - and weak points in this debate?
	For a balanced definition of flexicurity and a reform of labour law, what do you consider to be priorities?

The working groups made the following comments:

From a trade union point of view there can't be flexibility without employment security.

Bogus self employment starts to be a real problem in some sectors and countries.

The open ended employment contracts should be the reference point in all discussions about flexicurity .

Flexicurity is also closely related to the social safety net insuring decent conditions to workers during unemployment or sickness periods.

Precarious employment forms like fixed term contracts, temporary agency work are increasing in all countries. Trade unions need to influence the legal framework at European and national level also preventing that EU standards be used to reduce national acquired rights.

The internal EMF procedure to conclude transnational agreements at company level was presented by Isabelle Barthes and Bart Samyn through the agreements on Non discrimination for AREVA and the one on anticipating restructuring concluded with Schneider.

How could local and national negotiations at company level be coordinated in cases of restructuring ?

On the basis of a case study the participants discussed the following issues:

Attempt to define the conditions that would have to be met to ensure the effective coordination of local information, consultation and negotiating procedures.

Also clarify the distribution of the remits, if that coordination were to take place. Who should be responsible for what? And with what mandate?

What subjects could be negotiated and at what levels?

What system of information or exchange should be in place to facilitate that coordination?

The working groups gave the following answers:

A trade union negotiating body encompassing, EMF representatives such as the EWC coordinator, EWC members and representatives from the national trade unions should be set up with the objective to negotiate an agreement setting a framework for the national/local negotiations that are expected to follow. This framework agreement should be concluded with the European management of the group. The first task of this coordinating body should be to get access to all the figures and the data on with the management is basing its decisions. By mutualising expertise and making all information available to the representatives from all concerned plants it should be made clear for management that playing the workforce from one country against their colleagues from other plants or country is not a solution.

If a framework agreement can't be reached with the European management, the coordination body should try to reach a consensus between the national unions including local negotiation bodies with common guidelines for the local/national negotiations.

In the plenary debate some additional issues were raised:

The International Metal Workers' Federation should be involved in a case like the one presented since the company headquarter is located in Canada.

The first step should be to demand an extraordinary EWC meeting in order to get more information.

Confidentiality can be a problem when sharing information between the various level of negotiation. But trade union representatives should stand with the common view that information having an impact on employment and working conditions must be given to the representatives of workers concerned by the envisaged measures.

How can flexible working time be dealt with through collective bargaining? This issue was debated in plenary after an overview presented by Rudolf Welzmüller, IG Metall. Internal flexible working time agreements have in some cases showed to be effective tools to prevent external flexibility.

Some useful links

ETUI-REHS A new Web Site on worker participation and industrial relations; Information about EU Budget lines

The EMF Home Page

European labour law & directives: EU legislation on Information & Consultation

This site was last updated 09/19/07

	From a trade union point of view there can't be flexibility without employment security.
	Bogus self employment starts to be a real problem in some sectors and countries.
	The open ended employment contracts should be the reference point in all discussions about flexicurity .
	Flexicurity is also closely related to the social safety net insuring decent conditions to workers during unemployment or sickness periods.
	Precarious employment forms like fixed term contracts, temporary agency work are increasing in all countries. Trade unions need to influence the legal framework at European and national level also preventing that EU standards be used to reduce national acquired rights.

	Attempt to define the conditions that would have to be met to ensure the effective coordination of local information, consultation and negotiating procedures.
	Also clarify the distribution of the remits, if that coordination were to take place. Who should be responsible for what? And with what mandate?
	What subjects could be negotiated and at what levels?
	What system of information or exchange should be in place to facilitate that coordination?

	The International Metal Workers' Federation should be involved in a case like the one presented since the company headquarter is located in Canada.
	The first step should be to demand an extraordinary EWC meeting in order to get more information.
	Confidentiality can be a problem when sharing information between the various level of negotiation. But trade union representatives should stand with the common view that information having an impact on employment and working conditions must be given to the representatives of workers concerned by the envisaged measures.