•ù TÛT COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 18.09.1*)% 
COM(%) 448 final 
Commission Communication concerning the Development of 
the Social Dialogue at Community level 

Commission Communication concerning the Development of 
the Social Dialogue at Community level 
Contents: Page: 
1. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNICATION? 
2. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND 
PERSPECTIVES FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT 
A The Interprofessional social dialogue 
A.I Val Duchesse Social Dialogue 
ATI Interprofessional Advisory Committees 
B Sectoral -social dialogue 
C The Standing Committee on Employment 
D Social Dialogue under the Agreement on Social Policy 
D.I Consultation of the Social Partners 
D.II Negotiation under the Agreement on Social Policy 
E Broader issues for the development of social dialogue 2 
2 
2 
4 
6 
8 
11 
11 
13 
14 
3. CONCLUSIONS 16 
ANNEXES 
Annex I A description of how the Social Dialogue works 
Annex II The institutional framework (structures) of the Social Dialogue 
Annex III List of European social partner organisations currently consulted in accordance 
with Article 3 of the Agreement on Social Policy 
A<L 
1. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNICATION? 
1. In view of the major policy changes facing the European Union, the Commission 
considers that it is time to reflect on the whole framework of the social dialogue at 
Community level. The Commission has a formal obligation under the Treaty (Art. 118b) to 
develop the social dialogue between management and labour (the social partners) at European 
level. Furthermore, under the Agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy in the 
Treaty on European Union (the Agreement on Social Policy), the Commission has the task 
of promoting the consultation of the social partners at Community level and taking any 
relevant measures to facilitate the social dialogue. The aim of this Communication, therefore, 
is to find ways to strengthen the social dialogue, to make it more adaptable and to associate 
the work of the social partners more closely in the development and implementation of EU 
policies, particularly employment and economic growth. 
2. In the Medium Term Social Policy Action Programme1 the Commission undertook to 
present a number of different documents in the field of social dialogue, reviewing the 
Standing Committee on Employment, the sectoral social dialogue and the development of the 
social dialogue in general. The Commission has decided to regroup all three subjects in this 
Communication, which is consultative in form, so that the issues to be tackled and the 
different possible solutions can be identified in a coherent way. The Communication also 
fulfils a commitment jn the 1993 Communication concerning the application of the Agreement 
on Social Policy2, for a regular pattern of appraisal and re-examination of the way in which 
social dialogue works. 
3. The social dialogue at European level covers discussions between the European social 
partners, joint action and possible negotiation between them, as well as discussions between 
the social partners and the institutions of the European Union. It has played an important role 
in policy development and policy implementation ever since the establishment of the European 
Coal and Steel Community. It has allowed the social partners to communicate their views to 
the EU institutions, and reciprocally to informing their members of initiatives of direct interest 
to them. This has improved the quality of political decisions and facilitated the 
implementation of policies in the economic and social field. 
4. The most important issue facing the EU is employment, on which there have been 
significant developments in the last few years, notably the Commission's White Paper on 
Growth, Competitiveness and Employment3, and the action points on employment agreed at 
the European Council in Essen. These have led to closer co-ordination of employment 
policies, and have opened the way for a much greater role for the social partners in 
supporting, completing and possibly correcting Community action in this domain. The 
importance of this role is reflected in the proposal by the Commission for a Pact of 
Confidence for Employment in Europe, and leads inevitably to a greater focusing of the social 
dialogue, including sectoral dialogue, on employment. Adapting social dialogue structures, 
some of which were not developed to cope with this task, is a major preoccupation of this 
Communication. 
1 COM (95) 134, 12 April 1995 
2 COM(93) 600 final, 14 December 1993; notably paras. 21 and 49 
3 COM(93) 700 final, 5 December 1993 
5. The Commission's approach is based on the view, as explained in its Opinion on the 
IGC, that the Agreement on Social Policy must be integrated into the Treaty. This view is 
supported by all but one of the Members States, the European Parliament, the ECOSOC and 
the Committee of Regions. Such a step would provide the EU with greater authority to 
address the social challenges with which it is faced, and would ensure a central role for the 
social dialogue in preparing the EU response to these challenges. 
6. In setting out its analysis, the Commission is aware of the importance of a wider 
partnership and the involvement of other interest groups in a wider civic dialogue, particularly 
in relation to the issues of employment and social cohesion, as evidenced by their participation 
in the Social Policy Forum organised by the Commission in March 1996. The Commission 
will continue to consult non-governmental organisations on a wide-range of social issues. 
However, this Communication focuses on the dialogue involving representatives of 
management and labour concerning employment, industrial relations and working conditions, 
for which the Commission has an explicit responsibility in the Treaty, and which rests on the 
role and tradition of social dialogue at national level. 
7. This Communication contains an analysis of the potential of the social dialogue, as 
well as an objective appraisal of the efficiency and impact of the current structures. The 
Commission has posed a series of questions concerning possible steps for developing the 
social dialogue and, where appropriate, stated its views on a number of issues where changes 
are required. On this basis, the Commission wishes to stimulate a debate with the social 
partner organisations and with the EU institutions, and then to incorporate the most 
appropriate solutions'for the development of the social dialogue into a second Communication 
in 1997. To achieve this objective the Commission wishes to receive the views of all 
interested parties on the issues raised by 31 December 1996. 
2. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE DIALOGUE AND PERSPECTIVES FOR IIS DEVELOPMENT 
8. The social dialogue has a number of different forms and is carried out with differing 
participating organisations. The Commission has deliberately kept the description of these 
features to a minimum, preferring to concentrate on identifying the strengths and weaknesses 
and suggesting possibilities for reform and development. The social dialogue bodies are 
analyzed one-by-one, as well as a small number of broader issues, and the Commission 
suggestions for action or questions for debate identified alongside. A more detailed 
description of the results of the social dialogue is set out in Annex I, while Annex II contains 
a listing of the various structures and committees. 
A THE INTERPROFESSIONAL SOCIAL DIALOGUE 
A.I Val Duchesse Social Dialogue 
Situation 
9. The Val Duchesse Social Dialogue, named after the place where the first meeting was 
held in 1985, brings together the three European organisations who represent the main 
national interprofessional employer and trade union confederations. While meetings have 
taken place under different formulations, including 'Social Dialogue Summits' and, since 
1992, the 'Social Dialogue Committee', the Val Duchesse social dialogue is informal and voluntary. 
10. Under the informal Val Duchesse system, the social partners have negotiated a number 
of joint opinions on important policy matters for submission to the Commission and the 
Council. Of equal significance were the joint declarations on macro-economic, labour market 
and training issues, and the high-level discussion during a number of Summits in the period 
1985-1995. In total 21 joint opinions and declarations have been adopted, two key agreements 
concluded, and seven high-level summits have been held involving the Commission President 
and senior representatives of the national and European social partner organisations. 
11. This interprofessional social dialogue has thus made a positive contribution for over 
ten years now, allowing the social partners to give their views on developments in European 
social policy and to take their own initiative in this domain. Through the measures they have 
taken, the social partners have helped to stimulate and orientate Community developments -
on the question of employment, on macroeconomic policies, on training initiatives or at the 
1991 1GC on the changes to the wording of Article 118b of the Treaty. 
12. In the last months, there have been major political developments which demonstrate 
the important role of the social dialogue. The Joint Declaration on the Essen Employment 
Process, which was transmitted to the Madrid European Council, was an important 
contribution to reinforcing the EU's key policy objectives. Secondly, the first European 
Agreement (the Agreement on Parental Leave) was a significant development which shows 
that the social partners are willing to assume the responsibilities given to them in the TEU and 
thereby play a direct role alongside the EU institutions in the formulation of EU policy. 
Lastly, the creation of the European Centre for Industrial Relations, or the launching of the 
"support system for innovatory practises in training in companies" drawn up jointly by the 
European social partners, illustrate clearly that effective joint action is possible at Community 
level. 
Lessons to be learned 
13. The launch of the Val Duchesse Social Dialogue in 1985 was a key development in 
attempts to revive the EEC and to make a reality the free movement of people, goods and 
services. Considering how unpromising the initial situation was when the Val Duchesse 
experiment got underway in 1985, the fact that any direct dialogue has been established 
between the social partners must rank as an achievement in itself. 
14. Over the past few years it has certainly led to a better mutual understanding between 
social partners at European and at national level. But the social dialogue was not an end in 
itself - it also gave more legitimacy to the social and economic policies which were being put 
in place at European level. This is significant when we consider that the circumstances and 
character of the national organisations vary considerably from country to country. 
15. The results of the social dialogue deserve much greater attention. They are not made 
sufficiently clear to the members of the social partners' organisations at grass roots level. 
Therefore, there is a need to ensure greater transparency in and awareness of the different 
social dialogue activities among all interested parties. The success of the social dialogue at 
European level requires the involvement of social partners from every level: local, regional 
and national. 
Perspectives for development 
Continuation of the Val Duchesse model * 
16. The Val Duchesse dialogue has made significant achievements, and it shows rich 
potential for developing a partnership approach to social policy, which can play an important 
role in supporting steps towards European integration. Therefore, the Commission will 
continue to give its full support to the "Val Duchesse" social dialogue in the spirit of the 
Article 118B of the Treaty. 
Participation 
17. Participation in the Val Duchesse social dialogue is based on the mutual recognition 
of the parties, not on a decision of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission has 
received a series of requests to participate in the interprofessional social dialogue from 
organisations who were not party to the original initiative. 
18. The issue of participation is dealt with in more detail in the section of this 
Communication dealing with the consultation and negotiation procedures under the Agreement 
on Social Policy. The Commission is conscious of the practical problems posed by a 
multiplicity of potential actors, and believes that only the social partner organisations 
themselves are in a position to develop their own dialogue and negotiating structures. 
Nonetheless, there continue to be some problems concerning the participation and 
representation of certain organisations in this process. The Commission 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. 
A.II Interprofessional Advisory Committees 
Situation 
19. The interprofessional Advisory Committees have the task of advising the Commission 
in the drawing up of specific policies and assisting the Commission in their implementation, 
and have an important role in communicating the views of those who are directly affected by 
Community policies. There exist also a number of other consultative structures which involve 
the social partners (for example the LEONARDO Committee or the annual consultation on 
the Structural Funds). 
20. . The ECSC Treaty (Article 18) itself recognised the role of the Social Partners by 
establishing a consultative committee, containing representatives of governments and the social 
partners. Apart from this committee there are six advisory committees in the social policy 
area4, which are appointed by the Commission, on the basis of nominations by the Member 
States, with representatives of governments, trade unions and employer organisations. The 
Commission consults them regularly on technical and policy matters (e.g. implementation of 
the Social Fund Regulations, drawing up of technical health and safety regulations in the 
context of the framework health and safety Directive, vocational training, etc.). 
Lessons to be learned 
21. Systematic and timely consultation in the advisory committees on proposals being 
prepared by the Commission does not always take place. The advisory Committees are not 
actively involved in the implementation of policies. An example of this is the current poor 
functioning of the Committee of the European Social Fund, despite its important position in 
These are the Committee of the European Social Fund, and the Advisory Committees on Social Security 
for Migrant Workers, on Freedom of Movement for Workers, on Vocational Training, on Safety, 
Hygiene and Health Protection at Work, and on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. 
relation to a key structural instrument of the EU. 
22. Social partners often find that they have to rely on other means than the advisory 
committees to have an effective input with regard on policy. In June 1993 the 
interprofessional Social Partners adopted a recommendation on the advisory committees, 
which supported the principle of such committees, but was critical of their operation and of 
some of their structures, for example the existence of separate Committees on social security 
of migrant workers and on freedom of movement for workers. Social partners also experience 
difficulties in trying to participate actively in the operation of the Structural Funds in the 
context of the mechanisms currently in place to provide for their participation. 
23. As a result of recent developments, the European social partner organisations are now 
full members of the Advisory Committee on equal opportunities between women and men5. 
In the other Committees, however the European social partners are either not present or only 
have observer status. Added to the fact that the national social partner representatives in the 
Committees are nominated according to very different procedures and criteria depending on 
the Member State involved, this situation means that the position of the social partners is often 
not coordinated with the views expressed in other fora. 
24. This has been highlighted since the introduction of the new consultation procedures 
under Article 3 of the Agreement on Social Policy, where the existence of the 
interprofessional advisory committees means that two procedures sometimes operate in 
parallel: consultation of European social partners by written procedure and consultation of 
individual social partner representatives in the advisory committees. 
Perspectives for development 
Review of structures and tasks 
25. As the functioning and working methods of the advisory Committees continue to be 
problematic, their continuation in their present form will be examined. There is also a 
need to define clearly the different tasks and objectives of the advisory committees on social 
policies and vocational training, and of the consultative committees operating in the context 
of sectoral policies. 
26. Where possible, the tasks of the advisory committees could be streamlined. For 
example, the Health and Safety Committee has recently agreed to revise its working methods, 
by reducing the number of plenary meetings and electing a programme committee. Another 
suggestion is that the advisory committee on social security for migrants workers and 
the advisory committee on freedom of movement for workers could be merged and cover 
all problems linked to free movement of workers and questions relating to immigration from 
third countries, as was suggested by social partners in their joint statement of June 1993. This 
would of course involve a close examination of the detailed regulations in place. 
Are there other reforms which should be considered for improving their functioning? 
Adapting membership 
27. The Commission considers that it is necessary to review the status of the European 
Social partner organisations on the advisory committees, with the objective of assuring the 
Since a Commission decision on 19/7/95, 10 representatives of the European social partner organisations 
are members of the advisory committee on equal opportunities for women and men. 
autonomy of the social partners and at the same time ensuring greater continuity with any 
bilateral consultations which may take place under the Agreement on Social Policy. 
B. SECTORAL SOCIAL DIALOGUE 
Situation 
28. Some of the earliest social dialogue structures were in the sectors, often those with a 
particular significance in economic of employment terms. They are organised either as Joint 
Committees (JCs), appointed by the Commission usually in sectors corresponding to one of 
the common policies, or Informal Working Parties (IWPs), organised in response to a joint 
request of the social partners. In either case, the Commission identified those organisations 
who represent at European level the national confederations in the sectors concerned, and the 
members of the JCs or IWPs are nominated directly by the social partners. 
29. There are ten Joint Committees and ten informal working groups in sixteen key 
sectors. Since they were set up, both the JCs and IWPs have issued nearly one hundred 
opinions and recommendations focusing above all on the Community proposals for legislation 
or regulation having social implications for their particular industry. 
Lessons to be learned 
30. Thanks to these opinions and recommendations, the Commission has been well-
informed about the positions of the partners on the objectives and content of its proposals. 
The process has demonstrated in most cases that the social partners are able to respond 
pertinently and in reasonable time with their views on the possible scope of a Community 
action or the envisaged proposal, and that a high degree of cooperation exists.6 
31. Although consultations have been useful, it has to be underlined that the Commission 
normally is not obliged to hold consultations during the stage preceding the formal adoption 
of a text (the exception being social policy where there are formal procedures under Article 
3 of the Agreement on Social Policy). The potential of the JCs and IWPs as consultative 
bodies has therefore not been'used to the full in respect of envisaged proposals having social 
implications. The opinions of the JCs and IWPs on envisaged proposals have, up to now, 
been requested only on a few occasions and the sectoral bodies have often been unable to give 
their opinion until after the Commission has adopted the text in question. 
32. A further point is that the terms of reference of the JCs (and mutatis mutandis of the 
IWPs as well) are restricted to the social aspects of Community policies. The 
compartmentalisation between social and economic aspects is artificial, usually to the 
detriment of social policy considerations, which tend to be neglected. Furthermore, over the 
years the Commission has established various technical and consultative committees in 
addition to the JCs and IWPs on which the social partners are not represented on a joint basis. 
33. Although it is true that the social dialogue has demonstrated a strong continuity over 
the years, one fault has been the tendency of some of the JCs and IWPs to become over-
institutionalised or to preserve structures which have outlived their usefulness. With more 
than 130 meetings per year (in 1994) and numerous participants at each meeting (between 24 
and 50), these bodies impose a heavy budgetary and administrative burden. Attention should 
Annex 1 includes a description of how consultation and dialogue have worked in the sectors 
6 
be drawn here in particular to the specific workload of the JCs, with their plenary meetings 
(usually one or two a year), their Bureau meetings (up to four a year) plus the meetings of 
their various working parties. Because of the status they convey, in the past the social partners 
have preferred additional JCs (for example on postal services), despite the fact that it 
represents a heavy workload for the Commission, and that more efficient means exist. 
34. The Joint Committees and Working Parties are focused on quite specific policy areas, 
which often correspond to the interests of the branch organisations (trades unions) or industry 
associations (employers). This means that information on the results and activities of the 
sectoral social dialogue has tended not to be widely diffused outside the groups directly 
concerned, and there has been very little interlinking between sectors or with the 
interprofessional dialogue. This lack of exchange and information must be addressed so that 
the sectors can learn from experience in other areas, and take account of horizontal policy 
considerations being developed in the interprofessional dialogue, while the latter must be 
aware of the issues and concerns of the sectors. 
35. In view of the current exercise of assessing the Social Dialogue, the Commission 
postponed the renewal of the mandate of some of the Joint Committees, and has yet to modify 
their statutes in order to appoint representatives from the three newest Member States. 
However representatives from Sweden, Finland and Austria will be formally nominated as 
soon as possible. 
Perspectives for development 
Review of the structures 
36. The fact that the social dialogue structures were developed on an ad hoc basis, largely 
reflecting the historical importance of a sectoral policy rather than any overall strategy for 
sectoral dialogue, has created inconsistencies in the sectoral dialogue coverage. More 
substance could be given to the social dialogue at sectoral level by focusing it on strategic 
issues and sectors, particularly where the social partners are clearly active. These priority 
issues should cover the social implications of the relevant social policy as well as questions 
of general interest to the sectoral social partners, from employment, work organisation and 
the improvement of working conditions, to vocational training and the acquisition of skills. 
The Commission wishes to have the views of all interested parties on how to develop a more 
effective and relevant sectoral social dialogue. 
Organisation of consultations 
37. The Commission will strengthen co-operation and co-ordination within its services 
concerning the consultation procedures, which sets out the obligations of the Commission's 
services prior to preparing formal proposals for the Commission, and commits the 
Directorates-General to sectoral consultations during the preparatory stage of Commission 
initiatives. This will also sets limits on the number of meetings and the number of 
participants in such consultations, and provide for equal treatment of all sectoral committees. 
38. A further suggestion is for the Commission to move some of the tasks relating to the 
JCs and IWPs from DGV to the relevant sectoral DGs. In the belief that the sectoral JCs and 
IWPs are the forum where social partners can express their views on all measures taken in 
the context of their sector, such a move could reduce the compartmentalisation between social 
policy and the social effects of sectoral policy. Under this system, which aims for a 
rationalisation of consultative bodies, the responsibility and administrative structure, at least 
tor die Joint Committees which cover a Common Policy of the EU, would involve the 
relevant Directorate General more directly, with DGV retaining responsibility for coordination, 
for dialogue on social policy and for monitoring the effectiveness of social dialogue and its 
input to employment policies. 
What are your views on the organisation of responsibilities for sectoral dialogue? What do 
you think of the alternative suggestion for the management of consultations? 
A study of the representativeness of social partner organisations 
39. The Commission does not have a comprehensive picture of the activities and 
membership of sectoral social partner organisations, especially as the changing social and 
economic priorities of the EU has an impact on the importance of different sectors and on the 
relationship between partners within those sectors. A study of the representativeness of 
social partner organisations in the sectors will be launched in 1996, which will also update 
ihe data collected on the representativeness of interprofessional organisations collected in a 
similar study in 1992. 
Adapting the membership 
40. The sectoral Joint Committees cannot continue to expand exponentially with every 
enlargement, so without prejudice to the overall review of structures referred to above, the 
Commission considers that in order to ensure efficiency the number of members of the 
Joint Committees should be reduced. In changing the Decisions creating the Joint 
Committees, the Commission will take account of special circumstances in the representation 
of social partners, using the study referred to above, including the problem of certain sectoral 
organisations who are not members of specific Joint Committees. 
Operational reforms 
41. The Commission will proceed with operational reforms in the sectoral dialogue, with 
particular attention needing to be paid to the problem of ever-increasing demands for meetings 
and the associated problems of interpretation and translation resources. The sectoral JCs and 
IWPs should be able to operate in a more flexible manner and under a restricted linguistic 
regime, in order to make consultation in advance more feasible. The use of new technologies 
could be envisaged to enhance the ability of the European social partners to communicate with 
their national members For example, by equipping them with communications technology, 
the conditions for a fast and flexible dissemination of information would be created, which 
would also allow for a quicker response to consultations. 
How can the sectoral dialogue operate more effectively and with a view to the efficient 
allocation of resources? 
Improving information and coordination 
42. In any event, it is proposed to strengthen inter-sectoral coordination, bringing together 
representatives from the different sectoral dialogues for information from the Commission on 
the initiatives likely to interest them and an exchange of information between the sectoral 
social partners on the progress of their work. This would provide for a more efficient way 
of informing social partners, avoiding duplication and ensuring that important information 
went to all sectors. 
What are your views on the co-ordination of the sectoral social dialogue and communicating 
its results ? 
C. THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT 
Situation 
43. The Standing Committee on Employment (SCE) was established by a Council Decision 
in December 1970, and its composition was amended in January 19757. It is a tripartite 
consultative body bringing together the Council, the Commission and representatives of the 
social partners. 
44. The tasks of the SCE are laid down in Article 2 of the Council Decision establishing 
it. "The task of the Committee shall be to ensure, in compliance with the Treaties and with 
due regard for the powers of the institutions and organs of the Communities, that there should 
be continuous dialogue, joint action and consultation between the Council - or, where 
appropriate, the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States - the Commission 
and the two sides of industry in order to facilitate coordination by the Member States of their 
employment policies in harmony with the objectives of the Community. The Committee shall 
fulfil its function before any measures are adopted by the relevant institutions". 
45. Between 1971 and 1996, the Committee held 49 meetings. It did not meet between 
October 1972 and February 1975, nor during the second half of 1992. Discussions between 
Social partners, the Council and the Commission have also taken place in other fora. For 
example, in recent years, representatives of the social partners have been invited to take part 
in an exchange of views with Ministers on questions relating to employment and social policy 
immediately prior to informal meetings of the Social Affairs Council. In addition the French 
Presidency decided to organise an informal meeting of the Committee on 30 March 1995 in 
the form of a "Social Conference". 
46. More recently the informal European Council in Turin put forward the idea of a 
Tripartite Conference on Employment and Growth, with participation based on the 
membership of the SCE, which was held in Rome on 14/15 June 1996. The Conference 
highlighted the usefulness and relevance of the 'tripartite' approach (even if it does not 
correspond exactly to the tripartite model from the Member States) particularly in regard to 
action on employment which concerns the Member States, the EU institutions and the social 
partners. 
Lessons to be learned 
47. Over the years meetings of the Standing Committee have discussed a very wide range 
of questions relating to employment: the operation of the labour market, reorganisation of 
work, employment for young people, technological changes, long-term unemployment, 
women's employment, immigration and continuing vocational training. Despite the abundance 
of subjects, these meetings have only rarely resulted in real consultation. 
48. The ambitions with regard to joint action, which underlay the setting up of the 
Standing Committee on Employment, have been realised only to a very limited extent. 
Debates within the Committee are mostly limited to a succession of interventions setting out 
each member's position; this is far from being a debate, let alone joint action. As a ritual with 
no obligation to achieve a result, the Committee no longer attracts the attention of the leading 
players. The large number of participants often leads to a great deal of unhelpful repetition. 
Council Decision of 14 December 1970 (OJ L 273, 17.12.70), amended by Council Decision of 
20 January 1975 (OJ L 21, 28.01.75). 
49. Although the parties are sounded out in advance, the conclusions of the SCE meetings 
are entirely at the responsibility of the Presidency. They vary in their content and are little 
used. Therefore the responsibility of the various parties involved for developing joint action 
on employment is not engaged by the present functioning of the SCE. 
Perspectives for development 
Preserving the objectives 
50. The tasks set out in the 1970 Decision establishing the Committee remain valid. The 
role and objectives are still relevant, particularly with regard to the implementation of the 
conclusions of the Essen European Council. The European Council in Madrid decided to 
create a permanent and stable structure for employment policy, including an Employment 
Committee of senior representatives of the Member States, and a close coordination between 
employment and economic policy. The Commission considers that the reform of the 
Standing Committee on Employment should be linked to the implementation of this 
European Council decision on a stable structure for employment, given that this will lead 
to a new way of preparing initiatives on employment policy and will have an impact on the 
role of the SCE. The results of the IGC in this domain, of course, will also have to be taken 
into account. 
Renewal of working methods 
51. As stated in the 1970 Decision, continuity in the work of the Committee should 
become a priority. This is a key to its success, enabling it to proceed with analyses and make 
good use of experience acquired. This continuity should be sought in organisational 
procedures and in the choice of subjects and their follow-up. The SCE should establish a 
work programme, setting its work in a long-term context. The Commission could also 
establish a secretariat to prepare the SCE work 
Improving the output of the SCE 
52. An effective Committee providing genuine Community added value is a precondition 
for successful joint action. Committee meetings should enable the Council to gain a better 
awareness of the social partners' concerns. In keeping with this, the Committee's conclusions 
would be more transparent and more effective if they were truly joint conclusions. They 
should be published through official channels and systematically forwarded to the European 
Council, while clearly indicating if necessary the points of divergence between the social 
partners on the one hand and the social partners and the Council on the other or, as the case 
may be, between Member States. 
Do you support the idea that the conclusions of SCE meetings must be given a higher profile? 
Updating the membership 
53. The current composition of the Committee should be modified and rationalised. 
Dating from 1975, the relevant Council Decision has not been revised to take account of the 
successive enlargements of the Community and developments affecting the representative 
organisations. Because it is called upon to discuss questions relating to trends in employment 
and drafts submitted for discussion within the Social Affairs Council, the Committee is the 
forum for the expression of general interests and solidarity across industry. Its composition 
should reflect this approach, concentrating on interprofessional organisations at European 
level, particularly as sectoral consultation bodies also exist. 
Liaison committee 
54. The Commission proposes that, for the sake of clarity in debates and in order to avoid 
a proliferation of statements, the various social partners' organisations should be called 
upon to express their views through a liaison committee. 
D. SOCIAL DIALOGUE UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL POLICY 
55. The most significant change in European social dialogue in recent years has been the 
introduction of the new consultation and negotiation mechanism under the Protocol on social 
policy attached to the Treaty on European Union. The use of these mechanisms, particularly 
the successful completion of the negotiations leading to the first European Agreement between 
social partners, and its subsequent adoption by the Council, was an innovative and challenging 
experience for social partners and the EU institutions alike. 
D.I Consultation of the Social Partners 
Situation 
56. The Commission has consulted the social partners on an informal basis for many years, 
but the Agreement on Social Policy formalised its obligation to consult in advance on social 
policy initiatives, and the new consultation process is explained in Annex I. 
57. The Agreement did not specify which social partner organisations were to be involved 
in Community-level social dialogue. In its Communication on the application of the 
Agreement on Social Policy, the Commission set out criteria to deal with the key issue of the 
organisations that can be considered as social partners for the purposes of consultation at 
Community level. 
58. A list of the social partner organisations which fulfil these criteria was compiled on 
the basis of a study on the representativeness of such organisations conducted in collaboration 
with the Member States. Apart from the major interprofessional umbrella organisations 
UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, the original list of 28 organisations included some European 
organisations representing certain categories of workers or undertakings, such as UEAPME8 
or CEC9, and a series of sectoral employers' organisations (e.g. in the area of the distributive 
trades, banking, insurance and transport)10. 
59. In addition, the Commission continues its policy of wide-ranging consultations which 
cover all European or, where appropriate, national organisations which might be affected by 
the Community's social policy. This wider consultation therefore covers those organisations, 
who are European in vocation but not represented in most of the Member States, who were 
excluded from the list annexed to the Commission's 1993 Communication. 
Lessons to be learned 
60. The consultations have worked very well so far, and the Commission is generally 
8 European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. 
9 Confederation Européen des Cadres (European Management Confederation). 
10 The full list is set out in Annex III 
11 
satisfied with the operation of the procedures established in its 1993 Communication. The 
consultation of social partners does not in itself imply access to negotiations, and the 
Commission is striving to hold wider consultations with all European social partners 
organisations. All the contributions received are fully taken into account by the Commission. 
However, the first experiences of the new procedures have shown that there are limitations 
to the capacity of the social partners to respond, but also some problems with regard to 
procedure. 
61. The list of organisations corresponding to the criteria is kept under review by the 
Commission, but certain problems identified since 1993 suggest that the Commission should 
re-evaluate the appropriateness of these criteria and ensure that those participating are 
mandated to do so, and that the views submitted under consultations organised by the 
Commission are representative. 
Perspectives for development 
Reviewing (he criteria for identifying organisations to be consulted 
62. The European Parliament suggested adapting the criteria to determine the organisations 
to be consulted formally under the Agreement on Social Policy, established in the Commission 
Communication, by including two further considerations to the list: 
that eligible organisations are composed of organisations representing employers or 
workers with membership which is voluntary at both national and European level; 
that they have a mandate from their members to represent them in the context of the 
Community social dialogue and can demonstrate their representativeness. 
Do you agree with adapting the representativeness criteria for organisations to be consulted'? 
The organisations consulted 
63. Based on these existing criteria, and in order to ensure the representativeness of the 
views which it receives, the Commission will keep under review the list of European 
organisations to be consulted at interprofessional and sectoral level. This conforms with the 
undertaking in the Commission's Communication in 1993 to review the list annexed to that 
Communication in the light of experience. 
64. At the same lime, and as suggested-in 1993, the Commission will promote the 
development of linking structures between all social partners. Special attention will be paid 
here to the due representation of small and medium-sized undertakings. In that spirit the 
Commission will organise regular meetings between all interested social partner 
organisations for information and an exchange of views on developments in relation to 
consultations and social policy in general. 
For this to be successful, what measures do the social partners consider necessary in order 
to develop linking structures? 
Amending consultation procedures 
65. In the light of early experience with consultations based on Art. 3 of the Social 
Protocol, the Commission considers that it is useful to amend the procedures which it 
established in the 1993 Communication concerning negotiations. The time-limit of the first-
stage consultations should be reconsidered. The Commission suggests that, while keeping 
12 
the general six-week time limit, the deadline for consultations should be adaptable and should 
be fixed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature and complexity 
of the subject. 
Are there other procedural changes which should be considered? 
D.II Negotiation under the Agreement on Social Policy 
Situation 
66. The negotiation procedures are still relatively untried, but the first formal negotiations 
ended successfully in the European Agreement between social partners on parental leave, 
which was signed on 14 December 1995 and adopted by the Council as a Directive on 3 June 
1996. The negotiation procedures are described in Annex I. 
67. As the Commission makes greater use of the consultation procedures, so the potential 
for negotiations grows accordingly. Certain issues are clearly not suitable for negotiation, as 
was the case for the recent consultations on a possible initiative to reverse the burden of proof 
in case of alleged gender discrimination. However, the social partners have recently agreed 
to open formal negotiations on the vitally important subject of flexibility in working time 
(fixed-term, part-time and temporary work) and the security of employees. 
Lessons to be learned 
68. The experience of the negotiations and conclusion of the Agreement on Parental Leave 
brought the procedures in Articles 3 and 4 of the Protocol into focus, and confirmed the 
analysis of the Commission set out in its Communication on the Protocol [COM(93)600 of 
December 1993]. A description of the events leading to the signing of the Agreement by the 
Social Partners, and its subsequent adoption as a Directive, is included in Annex 1. The 
following remarks can be made concerning this experience of forma! negotiations: 
the time elapsed between the signature of the framework agreement and the adoption 
of the Directive was very short; 
this experience has made it clear that, where the signatory parties request the 
implementation of an agreement through a Council decision, the choice of legal 
instrument depends on the content of the agreement; 
the European Parliament reacted critically to the fact that it has no role in this decision 
making procedure (as evidenced in its opinion of 15 March 1996); 
the Council accepted that it could not modify the agreement, but nevertheless 
expressed its concern about certain elements of the content, which some Member 
States felt were the responsibility of national authorities or concerned procedural and 
institutional matters; 
certain social partner organisations have criticised the fact that they were not party to 
the negotiations, and have questioned the validity of the Agreement on Parental Leave 
and whether it is applicable to them. UEAPME have indicated their intention to have 
this question referred to the Court of Justice. Before transmitting the agreement to the 
Council for a decision, the Commission examined this issue carefully and considered 
that the three organisations involved fulfilled the criteria of representativeness 
13 
necessary to render the agreement valid. The Commission also organised a meeting 
of all organisations who had been consulted on the initiative but who were not party 
to the negotiations, to inform them fully about the agreement. 
Perspectives for development 
Reviewing procedures 
69. As regards negotiations, the Commission would be happy to receive the views of all 
interested parties on the lessons to be drawn from the first negotiation (on parental leave) -
particularly the procedural aspects. This would clarify the steps to be taken in the context of 
future negotiations so as to avoid as many difficulties as possible. 
What are your views on the first experience of negotiation of an Agreement? 
Representativeness of the contracting parties 
70. The issue of participation in negotiations under the Agreement on Social Policy has 
obviously proved to be sensitive and controversial. The Commission continues to believe that 
only the social partners themselves can develop their own dialogue and negotiating structures, 
and that it cannot impose participants on a freely undertaken negotiation. 
71. Nevertheless, in cases where Art 3.2 of the Agreement is being applied, the 
Commission does have the responsibility to assess the validity of an agreement in light of its 
content, which requires an assessment of whether those affected by the agreement have been 
represented. The Commission considers that the question of the representativeness of the 
parties engaged in a negotiation must be examined on a case by case basis, as the conditions 
will vary depending on the subject matter under negotiation. The Commission must therefore 
examine whether those involved in the negotiation have a genuine interest in the matter and 
can demonstrate significant representation in the domain concerned. 
72. The Commission would like to encourage the European social partner organisations 
to co-operate more closely in finding a solution to this question. It appeals to the social 
partners to be open and flexible on the issue in order to ensure appropriate participation in 
negotiations. The Commission is ready to help and support any positive steps taken by the 
social partners in this regard. 
What steps can the social partners take to reinforce the acceptability of a negotiated 
agreement to all interested parties, including social partner organisations who did not 
participate, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament? 
E BROADER ISSUES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE 
E.I Employment and the changing policy environment 
73. Employment is the principal economic, social and political objective of the EU. The 
White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, and the European Councils at 
Essen, Cannes and Madrid gave clear indications of the role they wished to see the social 
partners play in implementing employment measures. The Madrid Council welcomed the fact 
that the Social Partners at European level arrived at a common criterion for measures to 
promote employment (the Joint declaration) and the broad degree of convergence between this 
agreement and the Single Report on employment to the Summit. Following that, the 
14 
Commission met the European social partners in a Round Table on Employment, to discuss 
its suggestion for a European Pact of Confidence for Employment. In June, the Commission 
issued a formal Communication on the Pact, which has three objectives: to mobilize all the 
actors in a comprehensive strategy for employment, to make better use of the European 
multiplier effect and to incorporate the fight against unemployment in a medium and long-
term view of society. 
74. It is now a natural step to focus the social dialogue at interprofessional as well as 
at sectoral level on employment, while continuing their work on the social impact of 
industrial and sectoral policies, as well as their involvement in policies dealing with economic 
and social cohesion. The social partners have a key role in developing and complementing 
action on employment at Community level, particularly in the context of their responsibility 
for determining working conditions and labour market rules concerning flexibility, working 
time, access to training and the acquisition of skills, and the insertion of young people. The 
Social Dialogue Committee and the sectoral committees are therefore expected to be the 
driving force in the development of social dialogue on a coordinated employment policy. 
E.H Social dialogue and enlargement 
75. There is a vital need to assist the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in the 
development of an appropriate system of social dialogue as part of their social and economic 
development. In the context of the future enlargement of the EU to certain ECE countries 
it is vital to develop a dialogue with and between the social partners in the countries applying 
for membership, who have fundamentally different traditions in industrial relations and social 
dialogue, so that they will be able to play their role both in preparing for accession and once 
their countries have joined the EU. 
76. Where the EU social partners have been requested by their counterpart organisations 
in Eastern and Central Europe to help the latter in developing their structures and their social 
dialogue activities, the Commission is willing to assist the EU social partners in 
developing links and practical cooperation. 
77. In countries which have applied for membership of the EU, as a complement to the 
projects financed through the PHARE programme (e.g. 10m ECU for trade union activities), 
the Commission can encourage activities linked to reform which should lead to the social 
partners in those countries being able to play their role both before and after accession. The 
limited access for ECE countries established by the European Parliament to budget lines 
dealing with the social dialogue can also be exploited for the development of social dialogue 
in these countries, a task in which the European social partners have a principal role to play. 
E.III Information and Communication 
78. It is proposed to hold regular meetings for the exchange of information between 
interprofessional social dialogue and sectoral social dialogue representatives . These 
meetings would not replace the existing dialogue structures, and they would involve the 
European organisations which are currently not part of the social dialogue structures. 
79. The work and results of the European social dialogue are not sufficiently familiar to 
workers and employers in the Member States even though their interests are directly affected. 
This is manifested by an absence of activity at national and regional level relating to the 
output of the European social dialogue. Therefore, the Commission wishes to ensure the 
15 
dissemination of information about the European social dialogue and to encourage the 
social partner organisations to inform their members on the activities and results of the 
social dialogue and on social policy in general. This in turn should stimulate national and 
regional follow-up, and ensure a high level of participation and feedback in this representative 
process. 
What steps and practical assistance are necessary to create an effective information policy on 
social dialogue? 
80. As much of the work of the social dialogue structures addresses policy developments 
in which the institutions have a formal role the Commission will provide regular 
information to the EU institutions on developments in the social dialogue. The Agreement 
on parental leave highlighted the need for regularly informing the Council and the European 
Parliament of what is going on, particularly if institutional and procedural prerogatives are not 
to become a stumbling block for the development of the dialogue. In line with the obligations 
of the Agreement on Social Policy, the Commission will also issue annual reports on the 
balanced support for the parties involved in social dialogue. 
E.IV Support measures for joint initiatives 
81. The Commission feels that the EU can do more to support the co-operative activities 
of the social partners, both those in the framework of Community action programmes or in 
the form of autonomous initiatives. Bodies set up by recognized European social partners, 
with the objective of furthering the goals of European social dialogue, such as training and 
research institutes, need to be supported financially by the EU because of their important role 
in developing European awareness and education in key grass roots organisations and for the 
public in general. 
82. It is proposed to strengthen and support operational joint initiatives under the 
social dialogue; to provide a quick response to requests for the funding of such initiatives; 
and to make better use of the existing bodies - either those of a tripartite nature established 
through a Council decision (the Dublin Foundation, CEDEFOP) or through the joint initiatives 
of European social partner organisations (such as CERI). 
E.V New levels of social dialogue 
83. While the principal levels of Community social dialogue are the interprofessional and 
sectoral dialogue, organised centrally, there is a growing need to assist the development of 
new levels of dialogue in the light of challenges facing the EU. These include: 
the social dialogue in the growing transnational industries. The European Works 
Council Directive has already played an important role in encouraging greater 
dialogue, but has demonstrated how national-based industrial relations systems are no 
longer sufficient; 
the social dialogue at regional level, particularly in cross-border regions where the 
Internal Market and other EU policies are having a significant effect, and in light of 
the decentralisation of collective bargaining:- current pilot projects in this field will 
indicate what contribution can be made by the EU. 
16 
3. CONCLUSIONS 
84. In order to strengthen the social dialogue, the Commission has set out certain steps 
which it considers essential for the reform process, and which will be put into effect 
immediately. The Communication has also identified a number of questions concerning 
important, and sometimes sensitive, issues where a debate is required in order to identify the 
best answers. The social partners, the Member States and the European institutions are invited 
to reflect on these issue and to present their views to the Commission. The second 
Communication from the Commission, planned for next year, will take account of the 
opinions which are received following this reflection. 
85. The proposals and questions on which the Commission wishes to hear the views of all 
interested parties are as follows: 
VAL DUCHESSE SOCIAL DIALOGUE 
The Commission will continue to give its full support to the "Val Duchesse" social 
dialogue. 
The Commission calls on the social partners themselves to reinforce the social dialogue 
by ensuring adequate representation of all appropriate interests. 
INTERPROFESSIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES 
The continuation of the committees in their present form will be examined. 
The advisory committee on social security for migrants workers and the advisory 
committee on freedom of movement for workers could be merged 
Are there other reforms which should be considered for improving their functioning? 
The status of the European Social partners on the committees will be reviewed. 
SECTORAL SOCIAL DIALOGUE 
More substance could be given to the social dialogue at sectoral level by focusing it on 
strategic issues and sectors. 
The Commission wishes to have the views of all interested parties on how to develop a more 
intensive and relevant sectoral social dialogue. 
The Commission will strengthen co-operation and co-ordination within its services 
concerning the consultation procedures. 
What are your views on the organisation of responsibilities for sectoral dialogue? What do 
you think of the alternative suggestion for the management of consultations? 
17 
A study of the representativeness of social partner organisations in the sectors will be 
launched. 
The Commission considers that in order to ensure efficiency the number of members of 
the Joint Committees should be reduced. 
How can the sectoral dialogue operate more effectively and with a view to the efficient 
allocation of re so urces ? 
What are your views on the co-ordination of the sectoral social dialogue and communicating 
its results ? 
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT 
The reform of the Standing Committee on Employment should be linked to the 
implementation of this European Council decision on a stable structure for employment. 
The SCE should establish a work programme. 
Do you support the idea that the conclusions of SCE meetings must be given a higher profile? 
The current composition of the Committee should be modified and rationalised. 
The various social partner organisations should be called upon to express their views 
through a liaison committee. 
CONSULTATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL POLICY 
Do you agree with adapting the representativeness criteria for organisations to be consulted? 
The Commission will keep under review the list of European organisations to be 
consulted, in line with the undertaking in its 1993 Communication. 
The Commission will organise regular meetings between all interested social partner 
organisations for information and an exchange of views. 
For this to be successful, what measures do the social partners consider necessary in order 
to develop linking structures? 
The time-limit of the first-stage consultations should be reconsidered. 
Are there other procedural changes which should be considered? 
1« 
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL POLICY 
What are your views on the first experience of negotiation of an Agreement? 
What steps can the social partners take to reinforce the acceptability of a negotiated 
agreement to all interested parties? 
BROADER ISSUES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE 
Focus the social dialogue on employment. 
Assist the EU social partners in developing links and practical cooperation with social 
partner organisations in Eastern and Central European countries. 
Hold regular meetings for the exchange of information between interprofessional social 
dialogue and sectoral social dialogue representatives. 
Disseminate information about the European social dialogue and encourage the social 
partner organisations to inform their members on the activities and results of the social 
dialogue. 
What steps and practical assistance are necessary to create an effective information policy on 
social dialogue? 
Provide regular information to the EU institutions on developments in the social 
dialogue. 
Strengthen and support operational joint initiatives under the social dialogue. 
Assist the development of new levels of dialogue in the light of challenges facing the EU. 
Ï9 
ANNEXI 
HOW DOES THE SOCIAL DIALOGUE WORK? 
Val Duchesse: Interprofessional dialogue 
In the initial phase (1985-1988) the Val Duchesse social dialogue sought to involve the social 
partners in the plans for completing the Internal Market, which made cooperation between the 
European institutions and the social partners more important than ever. Therefore, the Social 
Dialogue was relaunched on the initiative of the Commission, bringing together in the 'Val 
Duchesse' meetings1 those organisations who were ready to start a dialogue at EU level. A 
forum' was created to contribute to the debate on the social aspects of the internal market, 
while at the same time two working groups, one on macroeconomics and one on 
microeconomics, were established. 
Since the outset, the Val Duchesse meetings between the Union of Industrial and Employers 
Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public 
Participation (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) had an informal 
status and were based on mutual recognition of the parties involved. 
With the introduction of Article 118b into the EEC Treaty by means of the Single European 
Act in 1986, the promotion of social dialogue at Community level became one of the 
Commission's official tasks: "The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue 
between management and labour at European level which could, if the two sides consider it 
desirable, lead to relations based on agreement". This obligation was reinforced by the 
political recognition given to the social dimension of EU policies by the Social Charter of the 
Fundamental Social Rights of Workers adopted in 1989, which required a greater involvement 
of the social partners and the promotion of dialogue between management and labour. 
At the same time, the dialogue was reinforced by the establishment of a political Steering 
Group, made up of high-ranking representatives of the three European umbrella organisations 
and their national member organisations. The adoption of the Social Action Programme of the 
Commission also provided fresh stimulus, as it provided for consultation of the social 
partners' umbrella organisations on Commission proposals in areas where there were no 
advisory committees. 
The negotiations of 1991 in the Inter-governmental Conference leading to the Treaty on 
European Union were distinguished by the willingness of most Member States to introduce 
qualified-majority decisions in the Council for areas of social policy in order to overcome 
obstacles in implementing the SAP. Having discussed the question of how both sides' 
influence in this area could be increased, UNICE, CEEP and ETUC adopted a Joint 
Agreement on 31 October 1991 addressed to the Inter-governmental Conference, which 
provided for mandatory consultation of the social partners on Commission proposals in the 
field of social affairs and an option for negotiations between the social partners which could 
possibly lead to framework agreements. 
Named after the place where the first meeting was held on 31 January 1985 in Brussels. 
This joint agreement was carried over almost verbatim into the Agreement (of the eleven) on 
Social Policy (Agreement on Social Policy), thus becoming an integral parrof the EU Treaty, 
and included the possibility of social partner agreements which may be implemented, in 
accordance with Article 4, by the social partners at national level or by a Council decision 
on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. 
In October 1992, following the signing of the Treaty on European Union, UNÏCE, CEEP and 
ETUC formed a new Social Dialogue Committee which, under the new circumstances, 
operates as a forum for orienting the dialogue.2 This Committee has laid down terms of 
reference for additional working parties: on Education and Training, in existence since 1989, 
on Macroeconomics, which has been reactivated and has been concentrating on a cooperative 
growth strategy and the follow-up of the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and 
employment. The Social Dialogue Committee is also consulted on broad social policy, 
macro-economic and employment policy, as well as vocational training policy and other 
developments of interest to social partners. 
Interprofessional Advisory Committees 
Apart from the Advisory Committee under the European Coal and Steel Community, there 
are six interprofessional advisory committees in various areas of Community social policy. 
These are the Committee of the European Social Fund, the Advisory Committees on Social 
Security for Migrant Workers, on Freedom of Movement for Workers, on Vocational 
Training, on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work, and on Equal Opportunities for 
Women and Men. 
While managed by the Commission, the Advisory Committees are made up of national 
tripartite delegations (employers, trade unions and national representatives of government) 
who are nominated by the Member States and appointed by the Council. Since June last 
year, ten members of the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities are appointed directly 
by the European Social Partners. 
The Committees have the task of advising and assisting the Commission in the 
implementation of specific social policies, and are not, generally speaking, a forum for 
dialogue with the social partners, but they are a formal part of the legal framework for certain 
social policies, and it is important that social partners have a place in them. 
Sectoral dialogue 
At sectoral level, the dialogue between social partners has been in existence for some years, 
with the Joint Committees (JCs) and the Informai Working Parties (IWPs) operating as 
consultation, dialogue and even sometimes as negotiation bodies. They give their views on 
the formulation and implementation of Community sectoral policies aimed at improving and 
harmonising living and working conditions and also, in some cases, at improving the 
This Committee is currently made up of 45 members in all, plus 2 observers from EFTA countries. On 
the employers' side: UNICE Secretariat (3), national member organisations of UNICE (15 European 
Union and 1 EEA = 16), CEEP (4) and one EFTA observer. On the trade union side: ETUC Secretariat 
(3), national member organisations of the ETUC (15 European Union and 1 EEA = 16), European 
industry committees (3) and one EFTA observer. 
ii 
^/ 
economic and competitive position of the sector in question. This dialogue tends to take the 
form of discussions of these policies, on which joint opinions can be drawn up. 
The form and the outcome of this dialogue varies considerably from sector to sector. 
Sometimes the result is no more than a better understanding of European developments by 
the two sides of industry. But experience has shown that it can produce more practical results. 
In addition to the opportunity for meetings, for exchanges of ideas and information under such 
dialogue arrangements, there have also been a certain number of specific initiatives, for 
instance joint participation by the social partners in Community vocational training 
programmes resulting from the adoption of a joint position, the creation of databases and job 
creation studies. 
As early as 1978, for example, the social partners in the JC on Social Problems of 
Agricultural Workers adopted a first recommendation fixing the working week of permanent 
workers employed on arable land. This recommendation was extended to all agricultural 
workers in 1981, and is currently being renegotiated by the social partners in the sector with 
the support of the Commission. 
In the context of the Internal Market, the social partners in the Commerce and Retail IWP 
adopted in 1988 a memorandum noting the lack of vocational training structures in the retail 
trade and recommending that the Commission draw up minimum training standards at 
Community level. Otfier initiatives have followed on from this memorandum: a European 
Forum on the social aspects of the retail trade and a first transnational project in the 
vocational training field (ASSIST) which constitutes a step towards the practical application 
of the general principles laid down in the 1988 memorandum. 
In 1995, the social partners in the IWP on the Cleaning Industry adopted joint guidelines 
concerning the application of the Directive on the organisation of working time in their sector. 
As far as Community social policy is concerned, the sectoral social partner organisations have 
been consulted in particular in the context of initiatives proposed by the Commission under 
its 1989 action programme implementing the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social 
Rights of Workers. Since 1993 the social partner organisations represented in JCs and IWPs 
have been formally consulted in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement on social policy 
on any social policy initiative. Sometimes they have been consulted on industrial initiatives 
having a social impact on the sector (for example, in 1996, consultation by DG III of the IWP 
for Textiles and Clothing on the draft Communication on subcontracting). 
The Standing Committee on Employment 
The Standing Committee on Employment (SCE) was created in 1970 by Council decision, and 
is a formalised mechanism for joint action, which also takes place within the ad hoc tripartite 
Conferences held under the auspices of the Council Presidency, and to a lesser extent in the 
interprofessional advisory committees. The SCE, which brings social partners and the 
Commission together with the Council of Ministers, has the task "to ensure (...) continuous 
dialogue, joint action and consultation between the Council (...), the Commission and the two 
sides of industry in order to facilitate coordination by the Member States of their employment 
in 
Tl 
policies in harmony with the objectives of the Community".3 
Since 1974, each Council Presidency convened on average one meeting. Preparations for each 
meeting begin with the convening by the Commission of a "steering group" comprising 
representatives of the Presidency, the Commission and social partners, with the task of 
establishing the subject for discussion. The Commission then draws up a working document, 
on the basis of which the Presidency prepares draft conclusions in coordination with the social 
partners. A "mini-debate" on the eve of the meeting enables these draft conclusions to be 
finalised, but has tended to leave little room for genuine debate and exchange of views in the 
meeting proper. This meeting itself opens with a restricted meeting of Ministers, followed in 
plenary session by a series of speeches by the social partners and Council members. The 
Presidency is solely responsible for the conclusions of the meeting. 
Consultations under the Agreement on Social Policy 
At the Intergovernmental Conference in 1991, an important step was taken to strengthen the 
role of the social partners in the European decision-making process. Articles 3 and 4 of the 
Agreement on Social Policy constituted a significant development of Article 118b of the EC 
Treaty. Article 3(1) states: "The Commission shall have the task of promoting the 
consultation of management and labour at Community level and shall take any relevant 
measure to facilitate their dialogue by ensuring balanced support for the parties." Articles 3(2) 
and 3(3) imposes an obligation on the Commission to consult management and labour before 
presenting proposals in the social policy field. In addition, new avenues were opened up in 
the dialogue between the social partners at Community level, including possible agreements 
which may be implemented, under Article 4 of the Agreement, either by a Council decision 
on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, or in accordance with the procedures and 
practises specific to management and labour and the Member States. 
The consultation procedures set down in the Agreement on Social Policy provide for a two-
stage consultation before the Commission issues a legislative proposal. In the first stage the 
Commission informs the Social Partners that it is considering action on a particular subject 
and asks their views on the "possible direction of Community action" (Art. 3 §2). The 
partners can, individually or collectively, give their response to the Commission. This means 
that the Commission gains a clear view of the issues before deciding on whether to proceed. 
The second stage of the procedure is launched "if, after such consultation, the Commission 
considers Community action advisable, it shall consult management and labour on the content 
of the envisaged proposal. Management and labour shall forward to the Commission an 
opinion or, where appropriate, a recommendation" (Art. 3 §3). This gives a direct input, in 
advance, to the measures to be proposed. The new consultation procedure is mandatory only 
within the context of the Agreement on Social Policy. In order to standardise its approach, 
the Commission has, however, committed itself to applying the procedures of Article 3 of the 
Agreement on Social Policy, irrespective of the legal basis (EC Treaty or the Protocol) for 
3 Article 2 of Council Decision in OJ L273/25 1970. In fact, linked to the creation of SCE as a joint 
action body, arrangements were originally made for dialogue at Community level with the social 
partners' most important umbrella organisations in form of "tripartite conferences". For various reasons, 
this first attempt at a social dialogue with and between social partners stopped in 1978. 
IV 
•io 
all social policy initiatives. In addition, the Commission has signalled the possibility of formal 
consultations on envisaged proposals for legislation of a horizontal or specific sectoral nature 
which have social implications. Here, however, the Commission reserves the right to decide 
whether and how such consultation should be conducted. 
Negotiations under the Agreement on Social Policy 
In the second stage of consultations on the basis of Art. 3 of the Agreement on Social Policy, 
the Social Partners can decide to negotiate an agreement on the issue in hand. In this case, 
the Commission suspends its activities and the Social Partners have up to nine months to 
negotiate an agreement, or longer if both parties and the Commission agree. If an agreement 
is concluded, this can be implemented by the Social Partners in accordance with national 
structures and practises. Alternatively, the partners can request the Commission to transmit 
the Agreement to the Council for adoption as a decision, which will give it the status of EU 
legislation. Even if no agreement is reached in such negotiations, the elaboration of both 
sides' positions and the problems evoked in the course of negotiations will be very useful for 
the Commission in drafting its own proposal. 
As soon as the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993, the Commission decided to consult 
the social partners on the possible direction of Community action on information and 
consultation procedures in Community-scale undertakings, in accordance with the procedure 
under Article 3 of the Protocol Agreement on Social Policy. Following a second consultation 
on the content of the envisaged proposal in February 1994, and despite a series of informal 
meetings to see if there were possibilities for a negotiation, the social partners decided not 
to open negotiations. So the first trial with the new procedures led to a Council Directive on 
the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale 
undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings, which was adopted in September 
1994 (94/45/EC) . 
Reconciling working and family life is a key element in equal opportunities policy, and 
in 1983 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Directive on parental leave and 
leave for family reasons4. As, after eleven years, no progress had been made in the Council, 
the Commission decided to take advantage of the new procedures under the Agreement on 
social policy and to initiate the procedure under Article 3. On 22 February 1995 it therefore 
gave its approval for consultation of the social partners under Article 3(2) of the Agreement 
on the basis of a text which retraced the steps of the Commission's conciliation policy and 
examined it from various points of view. 
The social partners' responses showed that there was a consensus on the need for action on 
conciliation in one form or another in accordance with the guidelines in the Commission's 
first document. The social partners came out very clearly in support of promotion of equal 
opportunities for men and women. As regards the proper form and level for action to be 
undertaken in this area, it was generally acknowledged that a Community initiative might be 
what was needed. At the very least, a Community text might recommend various measures 
and standards, and a binding Community framework measure was also suggested to establish 
guidelines which could be implemented at national, local or enterprise level. Many of the 
COM (83) 686 final. 
2*1 
responses also recommended that the social partners play an active role in drafting the 
principles and in putting them into practice through collective negotiations. 
After analysing the reactions to its document, the Commission decided to initiate the second 
round of consultation provided for under Article 3(3) of the Agreement on social policy. On 
5 July 1995, three organisations (UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC) announced their intention of 
starting negotiations on this matter and, in particular, on parental leave. At the end of these 
negotiations, the three organisations concluded a framework agreement on 14 December. At 
the same time they forwarded the agreement to the Commission, asking for it to be 
implemented by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with 
Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy. 
The Commission adopted its proposal for a Directive5 on 31 January 1996. This proposal took 
into account the representative status of the signatory parties, the legality of the clauses of the 
framework agreement and the respect for provisions regarding SMEs. In spite of the fact that 
the legal basis does not foresee the participation of the European Parliament in the legislative 
process, the Commission sent it the proposal for information. This allowed the EP to deliver, 
on 15 March 1996, an opinion on the issue. The Directive was approved by the Council on 
29 March 1996, and formally adopted on 3 June. 
On 5 July 1995, the Commission launched the first phase of a consultation concerning the 
burden of proof in cases of male/female discrimination. The social partners gave their 
opinions but indicated clearly that they did not envisage any negotiation on that matter. The 
Commission subsequently decided to consult the social partners on the content of an 
envisaged proposal in this field. On 27 September 1995, the Commission also launched the 
first phase of consultation on the issue of flexibility of working time and security of workers. 
Given the complexity of the issues, the Commission did not consider that a six-week deadline 
was appropriate for the receipt of views of social partner. 
It was only in April 1996, having considered all the responses to the consultation, that the 
Commission decided that it was appropriate to proceed and launched a second-stage 
consultation of the social partners concerning the possible contents of a proposal. On 19 
June, the social partners formally notified the Commission that they wished to enter into 
negotiations under Art. 3 of the Agreement on Social Policy. 
Finally, on 14 November 1995, the Commission adopted a Communication [COM (95) 547 
final] which had the purpose of consulting the social partners and the EU institutions on 
worker information and consultation, concerning the impact of the Works Council Directive 
on other proposals, pending before the Council, which contain provisions concerning 
information and consultation of workers. 
COM(96) 26 final 
vi 
is 
Annex II: Institutional framework of the social dialogue at Community level 
WÊÊ&ÊÊËÊmRfflïïÊiÊ , trntfurnvtn &mp*teM*$, 
CONSULTATION 
1. Cross-Industry Advisory Committees 
Social Security for Migrants workers 
(1959) 
European Social Fund (1960) 
Freedom of movement for workers 
(1961) 
Vocational Training (1963) 
Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at 
work (1974) 
Equal Opportunities for Women and Men 
(1981) Council Regulation 1408/71 - OJ L49, 5.07.71 
Art 124 Treaty and Council Regulation 2082/93 
OJ LI 93, 31.7.93 
Council Regulations 15/61 - OJ L57, 26.8.61 -
and 1612/68 - OJ L257, 15.10.68 
Council Decision of 9/04/68 - OJ L9Î, 12.4.68 
Council Decision of 27/06/74 * OJ LI 85, 9.7.74 
Commission Decision 95/42 - OJ L249, 17.10.95 6 per Member state : (2 unions; 
2 employers.; 2 government) 
Idem 
Idem 
Idem 
Idem 
2 per Member State (bodies responsible 
for womens' affairs) + 10 European 
social partners Examine general 
questions/regulations 
Assist the Commission 
Effect of implement of 
regulation 1612/68 
Reasoned opinions 
Assist the Commission 
Advise the Commission 
2. Sectoral level 
Joint Committees (JC) 
Agriculture (1963) 
Road Transport (1965) 
Inland waterways (1967) 
Rail transport (1972) 
Fishing (1974) 
Sea transport (198"?) 
Civil aviation (1990) 
Telecommunications (1990) 
Postal sen-ices (1994) Commission 
87/445 - OJ 
Commission 
and 87/447 -
Commission 
Commission 
91/407 - OJ 
Commission 
87/446 - OJ 
Commission 
Commission 
Commission 
Commission Decisions 74/442 -
L240, 22.8.87 
Decisions 85/516 
• OJ L240, 22.8.87 
Decision 80/991 -
Decisions 85/13 -
L276, 14.8.91 
Decisions 74/441 -
L240, 22.8.87 
Decision 87/467 -
Decision 90/449 • 
Decision 450/90 -
Decision 595/94 -OJ L243, 5.9.74 and 
- OJ L317, 28.11.85 
OJL297. 6.11.80 
OJ L8, 10.1.85 and 
OJ L243, 5.9.74 and 
OJ L253, 4.9.87 
O) L230, 24.8.90 
OJ L230, 24.8.90 
0JL225, 31.8.94 COPA / EFA 
IRU / CSTCE 
ESO, UINF / CSTCE 
CCFE / CSTCE 
EUROPECHE-COGECA /CSTCE 
ECS A / CSTCE 
AEA, ACI, ACE / CSTCE 
Operators / PTTI 
Operators / PTTI Assist the Commission 
Joint opinions 
H 
X 
H 
i^^mhi^mA^' t , te 
-* •' 
Informal Working Parties 
Hotel and catering (1984) 
Sugar (1984) 
Commerce and retail (1985) 
Insurance (1987) 
Banking (1990) 
Furniture (1991) 
Footwear (1977) 
Construction (1991) 
Cleaning industry (1992) 
Textiles and clothing (1992) 
Wood (1994) 
Private security (1994) (IWP) 
-HOTREC / SETA, UITA 
CEFS / SETA.UITA 
EUROCOMMERCE/EUROFIET 
UPEA-CEA-AACE-BIPAR/ EUROFIET 
FB, GBC, QCE'EUROFIET 
UEA / FETBB 
CEC / CSE, THC 
FIEC /FETBB 
EFCI / EUROFIET 
COMITEXTTL, ECLA / CSE-THC 
CEI WOOD / FETBB 
COESS, IPSA ' EUROFIET No formal competence 
<( 3/ Application of the Agreement on social policy (ASP) 
Mandatory 
All social policy proposals 
(based on Agreement on Social Policy) 
Optional 
Horizontal or sectoral-type proposal 
which has social implications Art 3 of ASP 28 organisations identified in the 
COM(93)600 of 14/12/93 Under the terms of Attack 
3(1) of tbe Agreement, th* 
social partaars aow have a 
right te be coMufcedkytke 
Commission on social policy 
'^ÊÊÊ^mÊ^^^Mè Composition C«mpei«n,ces. ^ 
DIALOGUE AND NEGOTIATION 
1. Cross Industry level ("Val Duchesse" Social Dialogue) 
Summit 
Social Dialogue Committee 
Working parties 
- Macroeconomics 
- Education and Training 
- Labour market Treaty: Art 118B 
Art. 3 and 4 ASP UNICE - CEEP - CES Volontary dialogue 
Every subject under the 
responsability of social 
partners 
2. Sectoral level 
Joint Committees 
Informal Working Parties Treaty: Art 118B 
Art. 3 and 4 ASP 
Idem Idem consultation 
Idem consultation Dialogue between social 
partners, sometimes 
negotiation. 
Links with EU policies 
Volontary dialogue 
Every subject under the 
responsability of social 
partners 
3. Application of the Agreement on social policy 
Negotiation on Parental leave Art 4 of ASP Mutual recognition by parties concerned I Autonomous negotiation 
CONCERTATION 
Standing Committee on Employment 
SCE (1970) Council Decision of 14/12/1970 - OJ L273, 17.12.70 
- amended by Council Decision of 20/01/1975 - OJ 
L21, 28.01.75 UNICE, COCEE ,UACEE, CEA, COP A, 
CEEP 
CES, CGT, CGC, CFTC Continuous dialogue, joint 
action and consultation. 
Facilitate coordination of 
employment policies 
ANNEX III 
List of European social partner organisations 
currently consulted in accordance with Article 3 of the ASP 
1. General cross-industry organisations : * 
Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) 
European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) 
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) 
2. Cross-industry organisations representing certain categories of workers or undertakings: 
European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (UEAPME 
"Joint Committee of Social Dialogue") 
Confédération européenne des cadres (CEC) 
Eurocadres 
Specific organisations 
EUROCFIAMBRES 
Sectoral organisations with no cross-industry affiliation 
Eurocommerce 
COPA/COGECA 
EUROPECHE 
Association of European Cooperative Insurers, AECI 
International Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Intermediaries, BIPAR 
European Insurance Committee, CEA 
Banking Federation of the European Community 
Savings Banks Group of the European Community, GCECEE 
Association of Cooperative Banks of the EC 
European Confederation of woodworking industries, CEI-bois 
Confederation of the National Hotel and Restaurant Associations in the EC. HOTREC 
European Construction Industry Federation 
European Regional Airlines Association, ERA 
Airports Council International - European Region, ACI-Europe 
Association des Transports aériens à la demande 
Association of European Community Airlines, AECI 
Association of European Airlines, AEA 
Organisation européenne des bateliers 
International Union for Inland Navigation 
European Community Shipowners Association, ECSA 
Community of European Railways, CER 
International Road Transport Union, IRU 
Sectoral organisations of UNICE and committees of the ETUC also consulted as required 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 448 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 05 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-475-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-09102-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg