Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Commission communication concerning the development of the social dialogue at Community level` (97/C 89/12)

On 24 September 1996 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, in accordance with Article 198 of the EC Treaty, on the 'Commission communication concerning the development of the social dialogue at Community level`.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 January 1997. The rapporteur was Mr van Dijk.

At its 342nd Plenary Session (meeting of 29 January 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 78 votes to 50, with 20 abstentions.

1. General comments

1.1. The ESC is pleased that the Commission has published such an important and informative communication.

1.2. In the communication the Commission concentrates on all forms of consultation between employers and employees at European level.

1.3. The ESC's position is not mentioned by the communication. As the consultative assembly of the representatives of the various categories of economic and social activity in the Member States, the ESC is an integral part of the institutional set-up of the European Communities ().

1.3.1. The Treaty lays down the following obligation regarding the ESC:

'The Committee must be consulted by the Council or by the Commission where this Treaty so provides. The Committee may be consulted by these institutions in all cases in which they consider it appropriate. It may issue an opinion on its own initiative in cases in which it considers such action appropriate.` ()

1.3.2. The ESC must by law be consulted on practically all subjects which may have economic or social consequences, except economic and monetary union (); however, in practice the opinion of the ESC is normally sought.

1.3.3. The ESC can only amplify this essential mission in the future, since it is the expression of a true economic and social democracy.

1.3.4. The membership of the Economic and Social Committee reflects the changes in society and provides a bridge between the socio-economic players and the Community institutions.

1.3.5. The integration of the ESC into the Community's decision-making process is essential if basic democratic principles are to be respected, particularly if the decision-makers do not represent all those affected by the decisions. The ESC expects the Commission, as 'Guardian of the Treaties`, to do everything necessary to ensure that the Committee's opinion is sought in these cases.

1.4. The Commission wants the communication to prompt a discussion leading to some concrete proposals by the beginning of 1997. A number of questions are asked in order to give some structure to the discussion. The ESC will answer those questions which concern it.

1.5. The Commission draws a distinction between the civic dialogue and the social dialogue. For the first, the Commission specifies which organizations are consulted, while the organizations participating in the social dialogue decide for themselves who may take part in their talks. For the results of the talks to have any value it is advisable to have taking part as many representative European organizations as possible which operate in the socio-economic force field. The ESC recently expressed its view on this matter when it stated that the representatives of the most important economic and social sectors (among which the ESC certainly includes small and medium-sized firms) should be involved in an adequate framework in one way or another ().

1.6. This opinion differs in its structure from the Commission communication. The ESC thinks that this better expresses the different sorts of dialogue at European level in which social partners are involved. In the short description of the different forms of consultation in Europe involving the social partners, attention is drawn in the paragraphs that follow to the position and role of the social partners and the Commission.

1.6.1. After the general comments the ESC goes into the interprofessional social dialogue (also known as the Val Duchesse dialogue). This is the name given to the dialogue that has been initiated by the Commission since 1985. The Commission decides on the agenda for the meeting in consultation with the social partners. The Commission provides the secretariat and chairs the meeting at the request of the participating social partners. At present ETUC, UNICE and CEEP take part in these consultations.

1.6.2. The second part covers procedures such as those provided for in the social protocol. In the first phase (Article 3) the Commission lays down which organizations will be consulted on the possible direction of Community action. In the second phase (Article 4) the social partners decide mutually who they wish to talk to. The Commission is informed about this consultation and facilitates the meetings, but is not involved any further. The social partners inform the Commission about the outcome of the talks.

1.6.3. The third part covers the sectoral social dialogue. This is consultation between social partners in the sectors. The Commission initiates these meetings and provides the secretariat. Those involved are joint committees (JCs) and informal working parties (IWPs).

1.6.4. The fourth part covers advisory committees. These committees are tripartite in nature: representatives of national governments, employers' and employees' organizations advise on the formulation of policy or the implementation of specific measures.

1.6.5. Finally the ESC gives over a part of its opinion to the Standing Committee on Employment (SCE). This committee is unique in its make-up: representatives of the Commission, the Council, employers' and employees' organizations discuss possible measures in the field of labour market policy under the chairmanship and responsibility of the European Council.

1.6.6. The ESC then considers extending the social dialogue to organizations from countries which are not yet EU members and increasing the impact of the consultations among European employers and employees.

1.7. The Commission barely touches on the question of cross-border regional social dialogue. At the moment only a few pilot projects have started up under Eures. Moreover, the Commission says nothing about the social dialogue for certain target groups.

1.8. One important issue in talks on the European social dialogue is representativeness. Which organizations may be considered as representative? The ESC feels that a representative organization should satisfy the following four criteria:

1) a European representative organization must be widely spread over the EU. This means that it must have member organizations at the appropriate relevant negotiation level in at least three-quarters of the EU Member States and be seeking to be represented in the others;

2) the European organization must have a mandate from its member organizations to negotiate at European level;

3) all the organizations affiliated to the European organization, either in their own name or through their member organizations, must be entitled to negotiate in the Member States and must be able to implement conventions concluded at European level in accordance with national practices and usage.

4) the European organization must be made up of organizations that are considered in their member states as representative.

1.9. Alongside this form of representativeness there is another matter to consider: if the social partners offer an agreement to the Commission and request that it be submitted to the Council for a decision, has the agreement concluded been reached by organizations which represent a sufficient quantity of employers and employees, on the understanding that the social partners have autonomy in their choice of negotiating partners? This question should not be answered using criteria based on figures. What is essential when answering this question is that every representative organization which fulfils the criteria set out in point 1.8.1 should be admitted to the talks if it so wishes, at the appropriate relevant negotiation level.

2. The interprofessional social dialogue

2.1. The consultations between UNICE, CEEP and ETUC began as voluntary talks during the so-called Val Duchesse dialogue. In the end these talks led to 21 common positions.

2.2. In its opinion on the application of the social protocol the ESC called for adequate back-up for the social dialogue. If the social partners want this they can work towards an independent secretariat ().

Such a step would enhance the autonomy of the social partners.

2.3. One important question is that of participation in the social dialogue. The Commission rightly notes that it 'cannot designate participants in the social dialogue committee, but calls on the social partners themselves to reinforce the social dialogue by ensuring adequate representation of all appropriate interests`.

2.3.1. The ESC supports this view. In a voluntary consultation between social partners it is up to the social partners to decide with whom they wish to consult or negotiate. There is no role for the Commission.

2.3.2. This is not the case when the Commission wishes to seek advice about its own proposals or when the social partners have agreed that the Commission should be asked to submit a proposal to the Council for a decision. This matter will be dealt with again later.

3. Social dialogue under the protocol on social policy

3.1. The Commission has already issued a communication on the application of the agreement on social policy, on which the ESC issued an opinion in November 1994 (). In the present opinion the ESC returns to certain issues; it thinks that the agreement is still valuable as a means of bringing matters to the Commission's attention. Recent developments and experiences will be covered in the comments.

3.2. Since the Commission's communication on the application of the protocol on social policy, the procedures described in it have been applied several times ().

3.3. Experiences suggest that the six-week period which the Commission had planned to allow the social partners for replying to its questions is too short.

3.3.1. In its opinion referred to earlier the ESC had proposed extending the period to eight weeks, while at the same time accepting that the Commission should also have a period of eight weeks for itself (). Exceptions may be permitted in pressing cases.

3.4. The ESC thinks that the EP and itself can be kept informed about the progress of the talks by the social partners. If the social partners come to an agreement and, in accordance with Article 4 of the agreement on social policy, present it to the Commission with a request that a proposal be submitted to the Council, they must state what sort of legal instrument they wish to have. The role of the Council should be to check to what extent the agreement concluded is signed by representative organizations. The Commission can carry out the preparatory work here. After that they can decide whether or not to support the agreement. They would not be allowed to make any substantial changes to it, as this would infringe the autonomy of the social partners. The EP would be free to issue an opinion on the agreement concluded, in which the question of representation might be discussed.

4. The sectoral social dialogue

4.1. The importance of consultation at European level, especially in individual sectors, will increase as a result of the entry into force of the third phase of EMU. The sectoral social dialogue will also gain in strategic importance. The Commission's proposals must certainly be considered from this point of view.

4.1.1. This is because the consequences of economic integration and monetary union will be felt most keenly at sectoral level, especially the risks of skill and geographical redeployment and changes in the number of jobs and their type.

4.2. For the further development of the sectoral social dialogue, reference can be made to the experience gained with the ECSC. In particular, it is worth ensuring that after the ECSC systems come to an end, corresponding structures are made available to continue the sectoral social dialogue

4.3. Consultations between employers and employees in sectors at European level take place in joint committees (JCs) and informal working parties (IWPs). In the first case there is a link with the common policy of the European Union. In the second case the link is less clear.

4.4. The Commission describes the European organizations for such consultations. These nominate the representatives of national organizations for such talks.

4.5. The Commission thinks that some JCs and IWPs have become too institutional.

4.5.1. For the further development of the sectoral social dialogue, various aspects must be taken into consideration. Effectiveness is an important aspect, but attention must also be paid to the contribution which can be made towards improving the European system of labour relations. Cost efficiency must also be taken into account, but it should not be the only yardstick.

4.5.2. The ESC feels that JC and IWP meetings must be result-oriented. However, regular consultations are necessary for the development of the (sectoral) social dialogue. Only in this way can mutual trust emerge and be maintained.

4.5.3. If the Commission wishes to develop further the dialogue between the social partners at European level, which it is obliged to do under Article 118B of the Treaty, there must be adequate funding to enable the social partners to carry out such consultations.

4.5.4. This does not detract from the fact that a critical look must be taken at structures and working methods. Linguistic support is an important cost item. The sectoral social dialogue must be effective, efficient and well-directed. Language services do cost, but are essential for the success of the social dialogue.

4.6. The JCs' and IWPs' area of work should not be limited to social matters, but should also include economic issues that are important for developments within the sector concerned. In particular, the impact on jobs should be a major topic for discussion as part of the sectoral social dialogue.

4.6.1. The ESC therefore supports the Commission's view that DG V alone should not be responsible for the (sectoral) social dialogue. Other DGs must be more involved. In this way they too would be obliged to consult the social partners at an early stage, on important economic and social issues when drawing up their own proposals.

4.6.2. The ESC does want it to be made clear which DG has ultimate responsibility for consulting the social partners. The ESC suggests that DG V should coordinate the activities of the sectoral social dialogue and encourage the other DGs to consult the social partners on important economic and social issues

4.7. The Commission wishes to launch a study into the representativeness of social partner organizations. The ESC is surprised that the Commission has not laid down any clear criteria for assessing which organizations are adequately representative, and considers that criteria must be laid down before a study can be carried out. The ESC would refer here to its earlier comments in point 1.8.

4.8. The ESC thinks that the scope of the (sectoral) social dialogue must be widened considerably. The social partner organizations have an important task - and responsibility - here. The development of the social dialogue is also of great importance to the extension of the social dimension in individual sectors. The sectoral social dialogue must be limited to matters which concern the sector.

4.8.1. The Commission's suggestion that the number of JC members should be reduced contradicts earlier remarks that the scope of action should be increased. JCs seem advisable for sectors which are marked by particular structures and which are covered by a specific European sectoral policy. 'Informal working groups` seem to be of use in the sectoral dialogue when concrete plans for regulation are concerned. Some noteworthy results have already been achieved here.

5. Interprofessional advisory committees

5.1. At present there are six advisory committees:

- the advisory committee on social security for migrant workers;

- the advisory committee on freedom of movement for workers;

- the advisory committee on vocational training;

- the advisory committee on safety, hygiene and health protection at work;

- the advisory committee on equal opportunities for women and men; and

- the Committee of the European Social Fund.

5.2. These advisory committees are all tripartite in nature. Governments, employers and employees from all the EU Member States are represented, except on the advisory committee on equal opportunities for women and men.

5.3. The task of the committees is to advise the Commission on the drawing-up of specific policy measures and, where appropriate, assist the Commission in the implementation of decisions.

5.4. From the views expressed by the social partners the Commission thinks that the advisory committees on social security for migrant workers and on freedom of movement for workers can be merged. The ESC supports this view.

5.5. One important question is the relationship between the advisory committees and the procedures laid down in the social protocol and the Commission communication on the protocol's implementation.

5.5.1. The ESC proposes the following procedure. The Commission usually only convenes the advisory committees if they have a concrete proposal. The ESC thinks that the advisory committees must be consulted sooner. These committees would then be able to identify problems and indicate how they could be handled at European level. The Commission would put into effect the procedures as described in the agreement on social policy and the communication on the implementation of that agreement.

5.6. The ESC is concerned about the current operations of some of the advisory committees, especially those connected with the ESF.

6. The Standing Committee on Employment (SCE)

6.1. The make-up of the SCE is unique. Not only the social partners and the Commission but also the Council are represented on it.

6.2. The Commission wonders to what extent the SCE's present working methods can continue. It is particularly concerned at the lack of serious debate and at the fact that conclusions are the responsibility of the presidency.

6.3. The ESC has several times expressed in favour of giving concrete answers for the solution of employment problems in Europe. The SCE plays a special role in tackling employment problems insofar as its composition is unique; not only the social partners and the Commission but also the Council are represented on it. Basically the ESC shares the view that the SCE must be given a higher profile.

6.4. The Commission rightly points out that the results of the government conference in this area must be taken into account. There are already various proposals on the table which are all aimed at giving employment policy an even higher profile.

6.5. Irrespective of the future institutional role of the SCE in the revised Maastricht Treaty, the Commission should agree that employment and economic policy should be more closely coordinated. The ESC therefore generally agrees with the view that the distinction between social, employment policy and economic aspects is an artificial one.

6.6. The Commission should therefore spell out economic policy guidelines for the forthcoming year to the social partners.

6.7. To improve the SCE's working methods the Commission suggests setting up a secretariat to help the SCE prepare its work.

7. Social consultations and possible participants

7.1. At present social consultations are open to member organizations from EU countries. As part of the social dialogue, organizations from EEA countries are also invited, in view of the consequences for them. Organizations from southern European countries which have applied to join the EU and from central and eastern European countries with association agreements are not involved in the consultations.

7.2. In view of the possible accession of these countries to the EU the ESC thinks they should be invited to the consultations as observers. This should in any event be done when the accession negotiations with these countries get under way.

7.2.1. It is clear from the recent political and social instability that the expansion of social dialogue arrangements in the central and eastern European countries as part of the current process of integration must be pursued without further delay. This forms part of the shaping of democratic structures and the organized representation of social interests. The ESC has specifically adopted a position on this in 1996 in its opinions on the all-European transport conference and the social dialogue and on the integration of the central and eastern European countries into the internal market ().

7.2.2. The ESC welcomes the Commission's stated intention in its communication to assist EU and CCEE social partner organizations in developing links and practical cooperation.

7.2.3. One need not be a slave to tradition when creating structures for social dialogue. Various time and issue-related working methods are conceivable, providing there is an adequate level of involvement. The social partners should be involved through selected projects or bespoke cooperation, especially where their interests are directly concerned, e.g. cutting red tape and improving vocational skills.

7.2.4. Such consultative bodies appear necessary as part of the negotiations on the association agreements. At the express urging of the ESC at least one joint declaration has been added to some agreements, whereby the Association Council can undertake the setting-up of a consultative body. In all these agreements the setting-up of such a body is possible as a general principle. This should be made up of ESC members and their opposite numbers in the central and eastern European countries. Such bodies should also be enshrined in all other cooperation and partnership agreements.

7.3. The social dialogue projects under the Phare programme for the establishment and stabilization of industrial relations in the central and eastern European countries are particularly important. In the past, social dialogue programmes were not properly coordinated with the social partners. To ensure a targeted and efficient use of resources, consultation with the social partners should be placed in the forefront of drawing up specific programmes. Closer cooperation should also be ensured between DG I and DG V.

8. Impact

8.1. The Commission notes that the results of these consultations are not widely known among the members of the participating organizations. This will undermine the scope for social dialogue in the long term.

8.2. The ESC agrees. Successful consultations at European level need to have a wide echo. The ESC wishes to make the following recommendations, drawing a distinction between the impact within the participating organizations and that among members.

8.3. The echo among and within organizations can be increased by having the organizations participate fully in meetings held as part of the social dialogue. The number of participants in the (sectoral) social dialogue should not be reduced since this would go against the Commission's intention to broaden the social dialogue.

8.4. Awareness among the members of participating organizations should be increased above all by promoting activities within the organizations themselves. Things often only get done when the results are directly noticeable at the workplace. The social partners at national level should be supported in their efforts to inform people about the processes and results of the social dialogue in order to promote greater transparency in the Member States.

8.5. It is desirable that knowledge of the social dialogue within organizations should be developed by making effective use of the European Centre for Labour Relations in Florence. This centre, which makes it possible for one to reach a broad spectrum of social partners, should be adapted for this purpose as regards its human resources and its activities. DG X and its info-points and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions also play an important role here.

Brussels, 29 January 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() See Article 195 of the Treaty on European Union.

() Article 198 of the Treaty on European Union.

() Under the Treaty, the Economic and Social Committee is consulted under Article 198. More specific referrals to the ESC covering 'principle fields` in the Treaty include: employment and social policy (Articles 118, 118a, 49, 121, 54, 125), training and education (Articles 126, 127), the internal market (Articles 100, 100a), agriculture (Article 47), services (Article 63), transport (Article 75), tax (Article 99), public health (Article 129), consumer protection (Article 129a) TENS (Article 129d), industry (Article 130), economic and social cohesion (Article 130b, d), research and development (Article 130i, o) and the environment (Article 130s). The Treaty also provides for specialised ESC sections in these 'principle`, 'in particular` agricultural and transport sections.

() ESC opinion of 10 July 1996 on the proposal for a Council decision on a third multiannual programme for SMEs, OJ No C 295, 7. 10. 1996, p. 6.

() As the ESC has advocated in its opinion on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament concerning the implementation of the protocol on social policy (COM(93) 600 final), point 3.4.3.1. This opinion was adopted at the ESC plenary session of 24 November 1994.

() Opinion on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament concerning the implementation of the protocol on social policy (COM(93) 600 final).

() Thus in the summer of 1994 consultations took place on the information and consultation of employees in multinationals. In 1995 negotiations took place which ultimately led to the agreement on parental leave. In the same year came the consultations on the reversal of the burden of proof. At present talks are taking place on non-standard labour contracts.

() See the opinion on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament concerning the implementation of the protocol on social policy (COM(93) 600 final), point 3.4.3.1.

() OJ No C 204, 15. 7. 1996, p. 96; OJ No C 30, 30. 1. 1997, p. 59.

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during the discussion:

Redraft point 1.5 to read as follows:

'The Commission draws a distinction between the civic dialogue and the social dialogue. For the first, the Commission specifies which organizations are consulted. The ESC calls upon the Commission to involve in the consultations all bodies that have an economic and/or social role. For the second, the organizations participating in the social dialogue decide for themselves who may take part in their talks. For the results of the talks to have any value it is essential to have taking part as many representative European organizations as possible which operate in the socio-economic force field. The ESC recently expressed its view on this matter when it stated that the representatives of the most important economic and social sectors (among which the ESC certainly includes small and medium-sized firms) should be involved in an adequate framework in one way or another (1). The same also applies as regards, in particular, representatives of farmers, traders, co-operatives and the professions which comply with the criteria set out in point 1.8.1.(1) ESC Opinion of 10 July 1996 on the proposal for a Council Decision on a third multiannual programme for SMEs, OJ No C 295, 7. 10. 1996, p. 6.`

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of the vote

For: 80, against: 87, abstentions: 16.

Point 3.4

Delete the third sentence starting 'The role of the Council ...`. The following sentences should read as follows:

'The Commission carries out the preparatory work here. After that the Council can decide whether or not to support the agreement. It would not be allowed to make ....` (rest unchanged.)

Result of the vote

For: 60, against: 77, abstentions: 23.

Add new 4.5.5

'The ESC is concerned about the lack of transparency of the JC and IWP meetings and proposes that the minutes of the meetings showing a concise but comprehensive report on proceedings and the views of the participants be published.`

Result of the vote

For: 42, against: 91, abstentions: 24.

Point 4.7, second sentence

Amend to read as follows:

'The ESC endorses this proposal and suggests that the Commission lay down clear criteria for assessing which organizations are adequately representative before the study is carried out.`

Reason

This wording is more precise.

Result of the vote

For: 39, against: 92, abstentions: 20.