Strengthening the fundamental rights architecture in the EU. III, The impact of the racial equality directive : views of trade unions and employers in the European Union.
Date: 2010-04-30
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, employment policy, equal treatment, fundamental rights, human rights, racial discrimination

The Impact of the 
Racial Equality Directive 

Views of trade unions and employers  
in the European Union 

Conference Edition 

March 2010 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Contents 

List of figures and tables ...................................................................................5 

Foreword .............................................................................................................6 

Executive summary ............................................................................................7 

1. 

Introduction.............................................................................................13 

1.1.  The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights..............................13 
1.2.  Objectives of the report.............................................................................14 
1.3.  Racial Equality Directive ...........................................................................14 
1.4.  Assessing the impact of the directive in context........................................18 
1.5.  Structure of the report ...............................................................................22 

2.  Methodology............................................................................................23 

2.1.  Who was interviewed? ..............................................................................23 
2.2.  Characteristics of respondents..................................................................29 
2.3.  Ranking employer and union awareness ..................................................38 

3. 

Employer organisations awareness and responses............................43 

3.1.  Discrimination challenges .........................................................................44 
3.2.  The impact of the directive........................................................................46 
3.3.  Practical outcomes....................................................................................62 

4. 

Trade union awareness and responses................................................71 

4.1. 
Inclusion or exclusion?..............................................................................71 
4.2.  The impact of the directive........................................................................74 
4.3.  Outcomes .................................................................................................86 

5. 

Equality Bodies .......................................................................................91 

5.1.  Context .....................................................................................................91 
5.2.  Social partner views of Equality Bodies ....................................................93 
5.3.  Low numbers of complaints ......................................................................97 

6. 

The Role of Social Dialogue.................................................................101 

6.1.  Collaborative social dialogue ..................................................................101 
6.2.  Difficult social dialogue ...........................................................................103 
6.3.  EU supported actions and dialogue ........................................................105 

3 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

7. 

The way forward: views of the social partners .................................. 107 

7.1.  Joint proposals ....................................................................................... 107 
7.2.  Trade union proposals............................................................................ 109 
7.3.  Employer proposals................................................................................ 111 

8. 

Conclusions.......................................................................................... 114 

References...................................................................................................... 118 

Annexes .......................................................................................................... 121 

4 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

List of figures and tables 

Figure 1:   Numbers of interviews, by country and category 

Figure 2:   Awareness and responses to the Racial Equality Directive on a 3-point 

scale 

Figure 3:   Comparing awareness between trade unions and employer 

organisations 

Table 1:   Number of employers interviewed, by organisation type and country 

Table 2:   Number of trade union organisation interviewed, by level and country 

Table 3:   Number of interviews with Equality Bodies and NGOs, by country 

Table 4:  

Anti-discrimination actions reported by the social partners 

Table A1:   Name of interviewers, by country 

Table A2:  Number of organisations interviewed, by country 

Table A3:  Number of organisations declining interviews, by type and country 

Table A4:  Name of employer organisations, by level and country 

Table A5:  Name of trade union organisations interviewed, by level and country 

Table A6:   Names of NGOs and Equality Bodies interviewed, by country 

5 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Foreword 

The  fundamental  rights  architecture  in  the  European  Union  has  developed  over 
time and continues to evolve. Regular ‘health checks’ on this situation are needed, 
not least when great change is taking place.  

This report is one of four by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 
(FRA)  that  looks  at  closely  related  issues,  institutions  and  EU  legislation,  which 
contribute  to  the  overarching  architecture  of  fundamental  rights  in  the  European 
Union.  The  building  blocks  of  this  fundamental  rights  landscape  are  the  data 
protection  authorities  and  national  human  rights  institutions  (NHRIs),  as  well  as 
Equality Bodies set up under the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC).  

Article  17  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  obliges  the  FRA  to  contribute  to  the 
Commission’s  review  of  the  implementation  of  the  directive,  by  providing 
evidence  on  its  impact  on  the  ground.  This  report  is  part  of  this  exercise,  and  it 
presents the assessment of the directive’s implementation in the world of work, as 
seen  by  the  representatives  of  trade  unions  and  employers  organisations.  It  is 
complemented  by  the  Agency’s  EU-MIDIS  Data  in  Focus  report  on  Rights 
Awareness and Equality Bodies, as well as the legal analysis of the impact of the 
directive on the ground. 

As this report illustrates, awareness of Equality Bodies among the ethnic minority 
and migrant workforce in the EU is limited. Numerous FRA publications point to 
the  low  rates  of  reporting  in  cases  of  ethnic  discrimination,  despite  the 
establishment  of  complaint  channels  under  the  directive.  The  representatives  of 
trade unions and employers interviewed for this report attribute the low number of 
complaints  to  the  slow  and  burdensome  complaints’  procedures,  and  the  fear  of 
retribution among victims of discrimination should they complain.  

The prohibition of discrimination is a key principle in EU legislation, as set out in 
the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union.  Although  efforts  to 
eliminate discrimination on the grounds of race  and ethnic origin in the EU have 
progressed, the challenge to make non-discrimination a reality still has a long way 
to go. Practical initiatives by social partners – namely employers and trade unions – 
and  social  dialogue  promoting  equal  treatment  at  the  workplace,  are  critical  to 
eliminating discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnicity.  

Morten Kjaerum 

Director 

6 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Executive summary 

According  to  Article  17  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  the  European  Union 
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) shall contribute to the Commission’s report 
to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the directive. This 
report constitutes one part of FRA’s interdisciplinary research on the impact of the 
Racial  Equality  Directive.  It  informs  the  FRA’s  forthcoming  Opinion  to  the 
Commission,  which  will  be  based  on  qualitative  and  quantitative  research 
evidence.  

The present report focuses on the views of Europe’s employer organisations, trade 
unions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) concerning the application of 
the directive in practice, with a sole focus on the area of employment.  

Racial Equality Directive 

One  of  the  key  principles  in  the  European  Union  law  is  prohibition  of 
discrimination as laid out in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union. The Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) is the  key piece of 
EU legislation combating discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin. It 
emphasises that individuals should receive no less favourable treatment because of 
their  racial  or  ethnic  characteristics.  It  was  adopted  in  2000  and  prohibits 
discrimination  in  the  areas  of  employment,  education,  social  protection  including 
social  security  and  healthcare,  and  in  access  to  and  the  supply  of  goods  and 
services, including housing. The directive had to be transposed into each Member 
State’s national legislation by 2003, with the Member States that joined the EU in 
2004 and 2007 having a slightly extended deadline.  

The Racial Equality Directive required the creation of specialised Equality Bodies 
promoting equal treatment in each Member State. The Equality Bodies have an 
important  function  in  providing  assistance  to  victims  of  discrimination  so  as  to 
make the legal system more accessible to them. Since experience had shown that it 
was  difficult  in  practice  to  prove  discrimination,  the  directive  stipulated  that 
victims  need  only  bring  forward  facts  ‘from  which  it  may  be  presumed  that 
discrimination has occurred’. The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant: 
the court will assume the principle of equal treatment has been breached, unless the 
defendant can prove otherwise.  

The directive also included an obligation for the Member States to promote social 
dialogue  between  employers  and  employees  to  further  equal  treatment  and 
encourage agreements between the social partners on anti-discrimination rules, as 
well as dialogue with non-governmental organisations involved in the fight against 
discrimination. 

7 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Research approach and objectives 

In the scope of this research, interviews were conducted by national experts in all 
27  EU  Member  States  with  more  than  300  representatives  of  employer 
organisations and trade unions, as well as a small number of NGO representatives, 
working in the area of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin.  

The specific objectives of the research were to: 

(1)  gather  primary  qualitative  data  on  the  awareness  of  Member  State  social 
partners  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  the  corresponding  national 
legislation;  

(2)  collect  information  on  what  the  social  partners  have  done  to  prevent  and 
combat  discrimination  based  on  racial  or  ethic  origin  in  employment  since 
2003; 

(3)  identify good employment practices that have been encouraged by the presence 

of the Racial Equality Directive;  

(4)  explore,  what  in  the  opinion  of  the  social  partners  are  the  factors  behind  the 
low  level  of  public  complaints  of  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination  in 
employment  reported  to  the  new  Equality  Bodies,  established  under  the 
directive; 

(5)  assess  the  extent  of  active  social  dialogue  on  combating  discrimination  in 
employment  during  the  five  years  since  the  EU  key  instrument  intended  to 
prevent and combat discrimination based on racial or ethic origin was supposed 
to have been implemented in 2003–2004.   

Challenges in assessing the impact of the directive 

Assessing the effectiveness of the Racial Equality Directive is not a straightforward 
process.  The  respondents  referred  to  and  commented  on  several  discrete  political 
and  economic  developments  and  referred  to  by  as  complicating  any  evaluation. 
These are namely:  

  almost parallel introduction of two Equality Directives (Directive 2000/43/EC 
and Directive 2000/78/EC) into respective national legislations, making it 
difficult for the respondents to isolate the impact of the individual piece of 
legislation; 

  EU enlargement by a total of 12 Member States since drafting of the directive; 

 

increased migration and mobility within the EU; 

8 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

  global economic crisis, which reportedly encouraged protectionist tendencies; 

  Islamophobia in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; 

  differences in the scope of the directive in the EU Member States (prohibition 
of discrimination against migrant workers vs. protection of ethnic minority 
citizens). 

Employer views and perspectives 

The employer views on the impact of the Racial Equality Directive on the ground 
ranged from positive to overly critical ones.  

1.  Positive  impact  of  the  directive  –  Many  expressed  the  view  that  the  Racial 
Equality Directive had made a moral contribution to a ‘more open Europe’. The 
employer  organisations  that  were  positive  in  their  assessment  of  the  Racial 
Equality Directive were more likely to have responded to its implementation by 
adopting specific actions; these included: advising member organisations of the 
legislation;  conducting  diversity  audits;  support  for 
language  classes; 
introducing  new  or  enhanced  training;  adopting  codes  of  conduct;  or 
introducing  new  complaints  procedures.  Several  employer  organisations  also 
reported  the  adoption  of  diversity  management  strategies.  There  was  limited 
evidence of positive measures in relation to recruitment strategies. Some of the 
employer  organisations  argued  that  since  the  legislation  was  new  in  their 
countries,  they  would  be  responding  to  the  directive’s  requirements  in  the 
future, thereby emphasising the need for capacity building. 

2.  Little  or  no  impact  of  the  directive  –  A  second  group  of  employer 
organisations felt the directive had made little or no difference and considered it 
a  post-factum  recognition  of  a  new  reality.  This  group  of  employer 
organisations believed that labour market changes, such as increased migration 
of  workers,  had  been  more  instrumental  than  the  directive  in  changing 
employment  practices  to  support  anti-discrimination  measures.  Some  argued 
that  in  today’s  labour  market  workers’  skills  mattered  more  than  their  ethnic 
origin.  Lastly,  employers  who  saw  little  or  no  impact  of  the  directive  argued 
that the pre-existing practices and existing laws or national constitutions already 
proscribed discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin.  

3.  A  negative  view  of  the  directive  related  to  the  cost  of  compliance  with  it, 
especially  the  clause  on  the  burden  of  proof  was  singled  out  by  some 
respondents.  Furthermore,  some  employer  organisations  participating  in  this 
research  did  not  believe  that  the  directive  was  capable  of  influencing 
behaviours.  There  was  also  ideological  opposition  expressed  to  any  form  of 
regulation that appeared to interfere with employer prerogatives.  

9 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

4.  Ignorance  and  lack  of  awareness  of  the  directive  –  Finally,  there  were 
employer organisations who may or may not have heard of the legislation, but 
which believed that it did not concern their organisations or their country. These 
organisations  did  not  accept  that  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  occurred  in 
employment.  This  attitude  was  particularly  visible  among  the  employer 
organisations in the 12 new Member States of the EU (EU-12) that joined the 
European Union in 2004 and 2007. In fact, some of the employer organisations 
in  these  countries  treated  anti-discrimination  legislation  as  part  of  a  ‘western 
Europe  package’  of  ‘exotic’  issues  forced  upon  them  from  the  outside.  Some 
expressed the view that implementation and change were a question of time and 
that  the  new  Member  States  needed  time  to  ‘catch  up’.  Others  simply  denied 
that  ethnic  discrimination  existed  in  their  countries,  particularly  in  relation  to 
their  Roma  population,  by  identifying  their  poor  labour  market  position  as  a 
consequence of individual characteristics. 

Trade union views and perspectives 

Trade union interviewees generally had a higher awareness of the Racial Equality 
Directive  and  corresponding  national  legislation  compared  with  the  employer 
respondents. However, their views were not homogenous and could be divided into 
three broad groups. 

1.  Positive  impact  of  the  directive  –  Many  trade  union  respondents  considered 
that the directive helped spread the general awareness of workers’ rights among 
the  general  public.  Several  active  policy  changes  were  identified  by  the  trade 
union  respondents  as  a  direct  or  indirect  consequence  of  the  directive.  Some 
referred to one result being a reconsideration of traditional trade union views of 
opposing ethnic monitoring. 

2.  Little  or  no  impact  of  the  directive  –  It  was  argued  the  adoption  of  the 
directive  had  not  led  to  any  improvements  because  of  pre-existing  national 
legislation  on  ethnic  discrimination.  Furthermore,  some  of  the  trade  union 
respondents  believed  there  was  not  enough  readiness  of  individuals  and 
organisations to challenge discrimination. This was ascribed to fear of raising a 
‘controversial’  issue  in  the  workplace  and  reportedly  also  difficulty  to  impose 
compliance  on  employers.    Some  trade  union  respondents  believed  that  the 
directive was not a right mechanism to fight discrimination.  

3.  Some  trade  unionists  had  a  negative  view  of  the  directive.  –  Some  concerns 
were  voiced  that  a  policy  of  pursuing  legal  remedies  on  an  individual  level 
could  lead  to  a  weakening  of  unions’  collective  bargaining.  Some  also  argued 
that  workers  did  not  pursue  claims  because  the  legal  processes  were 
complicated  and  slow,  the  remedies  were  limited  and  the  desire  to  remain  in 
work meant that individuals were reluctant to use the law because of a fear of 
reprisals.  

10 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

4.  Ignorance and lack of awareness of the directive – Some of the trade union 
interviewees  denied  the  existence  of  discrimination,  especially  in  relation  to 
discrimination  of  Roma.  In  other  instances  trade  union  officials  displayed 
attitudes tolerant of discrimination on the grounds of racial origin.    

The way forward: views and perspectives of social 
partners 

Employer  and  trade  union  respondents  participating  in  this  research  were  asked 
whether they had suggestions as to how anti-discrimination policies on the grounds 
of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  could  be  improved.  Both  agreed  that  more  rights 
awareness  is  needed,  especially  among  the  target  population.  Furthermore,  the 
trade unions put forward an idea for introducing equality impact assessments also 
in the private sector. Unions would also like to see the directive to give them the 
possibility  to  take  up  collective  legal  actions  on  behalf  of  whole  groups  of 
employees, rather than just individuals.  

On the other hand, employers tended to argue for a greater reliance upon general 
education  in  society,  voluntarism  and  tailor-made  solutions.  Some  employer 
organisations  argued  for  allocating  greater  funds  to  the  implementation  of  the 
directive  and  encouraging  compliance  with  the  directive  through  incentives. 
However,  there  were  also  employers  who  wished  to  see  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive removed or at least the burden of proof change reversed. 

Key findings 

1.  There  are  geographical  differences  in  the  awareness  of  the  directive  and 
corresponding  national  legislation  among  the  social  partners  in  the  EU-27.  In 
general, the social partner  organisations in the 15 EU Member States (EU-15) 
that constituted the EU before enlargement in 2004 and 2007 were more aware 
than  their  peers  in  the  EU-12.  In  some  of  the  EU-12  countries,  it  was  opined 
that  anti-discrimination  laws  were  so  ineffective  as  to  not  merit  consideration. 
They were treated by some respondents as part of a ‘western Europe package’ 
of ‘exotic’ issues that are marginal in their countries. On the other hand, EU-15 
countries, which in themselves are not homogeneous, had greater awareness of 
the  legislation,  since  most  respondents  were  in  some  way  involved  in 
preparations of the directive.  

2.  Trade  union  and  employer  organisation  views  differ.  Trade  union 
interviewees generally had a higher awareness and more positive assessment of 
the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  corresponding  national  legislation.  Overall, 
while  trade  unions  prefer  compulsory  regulations,  the  employer  organisations 
would opt for voluntary solutions. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 

11 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

reported  facing  greater  problems  in  developing  diversity  policies  at  the 
workplace.  On  the  other  hand,  for  the  trade  unions  the  challenge  remains  to 
reflect  ethnic  diversity  in  their  ranks  and  convince  their  membership  that  real 
equality would benefit all workers. 

3.  Neither  employer  organisations  nor  trade  unions  displayed  a  comprehensive 
understanding  of  racial  discrimination  as  it  affects  the  Roma  population,  for 
instance.  In  some  countries,  Roma  were  referred  to,  but  their  discriminatory 
treatment  was  often  not  conceptualised  as  racism.  With  few  exceptions,  the 
Roma were generally not acknowledged as coming under the protection of the 
directive. 

4.  In  most  EU  Member  States,  the  Equality  Bodies  are  not  yet  viewed  as  being 
entirely  appropriate  vehicles  to  use  in  articulating  complaints  about  racial  or 
ethnic discrimination in employment and in securing satisfactory outcomes. The 
social  partner  organisations  interviewed  voiced  concerns  about  their  lack  of 
independence and powers. 

5.  Social dialogue encouraged by the directive has led to many joint initiatives to 
challenge racial and ethnic discrimination. In many instances, social dialogue at 
EU,  national  or  even  company  level  has  established  common  ground  between 
employers  and  trade  unions  on  the  importance  of  fully  integrating  minority-
origin  workers,  as  well  as  of  taking  steps  to  end  all  forms  of  racial  or  ethnic 
discrimination. European funding, especially from the EQUAL Programme, has 
been  used  extensively  to  finance  joint  actions  in  this  area.  However, 
considerable room for improvement remains. While awareness of the directive 
is  highest  at  the  level  of  confederations  and  peak  organisations  of  both 
employers  and  trade  unions,  it  often  does  not  reach  organisations  at  lower 
levels, such as sectoral or regional social partner organisations.  

12 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

1. 

Introduction 

1.1. 

The European Union Agency for 
Fundamental Rights  

The  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA)  was  established  by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  168/2007  on  15  February  2007.  Articles  2-4  set  out 
the Agency’s objectives, scope and tasks. These include identifying and analysing 
major  trends  in  the  field  of  fundamental  rights;  assisting  the  EU  and  its  Member 
States  in  decision  making,  by  providing  quality  and  relevant  data,  facts  and 
opinions;  informing  target  audiences  through  awareness-raising  activities;  and 
identifying and disseminating examples of good practice.  

In 2008, the FRA launched a data collection project entitled Impact of the Racial 
Equality Directive to marshal evidence of the changing context of racial and ethnic 
discrimination in Europe and of the effectiveness of Council Directive 2000/43/EC. 
The project is the first of its kind and it includes four work packages: 

(1)  secondary data collection on the impact of anti-discrimination practices by the 

group known as RAXEN of National Focal Points collecting data and 
information in all EU Members States; 

(2)  secondary data collection of complaints statistics by an EU-wide network of 

legal experts known as FRALEX;1 

(3)  primary statistical data collection on the awareness of the existence of victim 

support provisions by migrants and other minorities through the EU-MIDIS 
survey, the first ever EU-wide survey of immigrant and ethnic minority 
groups’ experiences of discrimination and victimisation in everyday life;2 

(4)  primary qualitative data collection on the views of social partner organisations 
in the Member States on the impact of the Racial Equality Directive in the area 
of employment. 

The evidence collected through this multidisciplinary project will allow the FRA to 
contribute  to  the  European  Commission’s  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and 
Council on the application of the directive in the Member States. 

1   FRA (2010) Comparative Legal Study on the Impact of the Race Equality Directive, Vienna: FRA 

(forthcoming). 

2   FRA  (2010)  Rights  Awareness  and  Equality  Bodies,  EU-MIDIS  Data  in  Focus  3,  FRA:  Vienna 

(forthcoming). 

13 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

1.2.  Objectives of the report 

This research was carried out on behalf of the FRA by the Working Lives Research 
Institute (WLRI) of London Metropolitan University3.  

The specific objectives of the research are to: 

(1)  gather primary qualitative data on the awareness of Member State social 
partners of the Racial Equality Directive and the corresponding national 
legislation; 

(2)  collect information on what the Social Partners have done to prevent and 

combat discrimination based on racial or ethic origin in employment since 
2003; 

(3)  identify good employment practices that have been encouraged by the presence 

of the Racial Equality Directive;  

(4)  explore, what in the opinion of the social partners are the factors behind the 

low level of public complaints of racial and ethnic discrimination in 
employment reported to the new Equality Bodies, established under the 
directive; 

(5)  assess the extent of active social dialogue on combating discrimination in 
employment during the five years since the EU key instrument intended to 
prevent and combat discrimination based on racial or ethic origin was supposed 
to have been implemented in 2003/2004.  

The  research  involved  interviewing  employer  organisations  or  associations, 
individual employers, trade union confederations and individual trade unionists and 
many NGOs between March and June 2009. It resulted in 27 national reports and 
this final comparative report. 

1.3. 

Racial Equality Directive 

One  of  the  key  principles  in  the  European  Union  law  is  prohibition  of 
discrimination as laid out in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union.4 The Racial Equality Directive5 is the key piece of EU legislation 

3   This  report  has  been  prepared  by  Stephen  Jefferys  and  Sonia  McKay  of  the  Working  Lives 
Research Institute (WLRI) of London Metropolitan University under a service contract with the 
FRA. The report was edited by the FRA, which is responsible for its conclusions and opinions. 
4   European Union (2007) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Official Journal 
C 303, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, available at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:SOM:en:HTML.  

14 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

combating  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination.  It  emphasises  that  individuals  should 
receive no less favourable treatment regardless their racial or ethnic characteristics. 
The directive prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment, education, social 
protection including social security and healthcare, and access to and the supply of 
goods  and  services,  including  housing.  It  was  adopted  in  2000  and  had  to  be 
transposed into each EU Member State’s national legislation by 2003 (with the 10 
EU  Member  States  that  joined  the  EU  on  1  May  2004  having  a  deadline  of  that 
year,  and  Bulgaria  and  Romania  being  required  to  transpose  it  by  their  date  of 
accession on 1 January 2007).  

Controversies over definitions 

The  FRA  2010  report  on  Migrants,  Minorities  and  Employment  –  Exclusion  and 
Discrimination  in  the  EU-27  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  includes  the 
following paragraphs in Chapter 3 on ‘Racial/ethnic discrimination in employment: 
EU law’.6 

“The  reference  to  ‘racial  origin’  was  a  controversial  issue  in  the  negotiations 
among  the  Member  States  about  the  Equality  Directives7.  A  compromise  was 
reached with the inclusion in the preamble of the explicit statement that the use of 
the term ‘race’ in the directive did not imply any admission by the EU of ‘theories 
which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races’.  The different 
views  taken  by  the  Member  States  are  reflected  in  the  formulations  adopted  in 
national  legislations:  Austria  and  Sweden  for  instance  do  not  mention  ‘race’, 
referring only to ‘ethnic’ belonging or origin. Belgium refers to ‘presumed race’, 
and France to ‘real or presumed’ racial belonging.  

The  directive  does  not  define  what  ‘ethnic  or  racial  origin’  should  be  taken  to 
mean. Many countries explicitly mention skin colour – such as Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Estonia,  and  Slovakia  –  and  nationality  or  national  origin  –  such  as  Latvia,  the 
Netherlands,  Poland,  and  Romania.  France  prohibits  discrimination  on  physical 
appearance  and  name.  Language  is  included  as  a  separate  protected  ground  in 
Estonia,  Finland,  Lithuania,  Romania  and  Slovakia.  In  Hungary,  belonging  to  a 
national or ethnic minority is cited as a protected ground. The boundary between 
religion  and  ethnicity  is  ambiguous:  in  Dutch  case  law  and  in  the  UK, 
discrimination  against  Jews,  Muslims  and  Sikhs  has  been  recognised  as  race 
discrimination.” 

5   European Union (19 July 2000) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the 
principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  Official 
Journal  L  180,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities, 
available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0043:en:HTML. 
6   FRA (2010), Migrants, Minorities and Employment – Exclusion and Discrimination in the EU-27 

Member States of the European Union, Vienna: FRA (forthcoming). 

7   The Equality Directives referred to here are the Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) and the 

Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC). 

15 

                                                                                              
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

The  Racial  Equality  Directive  sets  minimum  standards  for  EU  Member  States  to 
combat discrimination and, in many Member States, it was innovative in five key 
respects. 

1.  The directive required the creation of Equality Bodies and specialised judicial 
or administrative procedures to promote equal treatment in each Member State 
where they did not previously exist (Article 13). 

2.  It  stipulated  that  Member  States  should  ensure  that  associations  or  other  legal 
entities  have  the  possibility  of  engaging  in  such  procedures  in  support  or  on 
behalf of individual victims.  

3.  It  reversed  the  burden  of  proof,  requiring  only  that  the  complainant  bring 
forward  facts  “from  which  it  may  be  presumed  that  discrimination  has 
occurred”,  thus  requiring  the  defendant  to  prove  that  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment has not been breached.8 

4.  The  directive  also  gave  clear  definitions  as  to  what  constituted  the  denial  of 
indirect 
treatment,  and  carefully  defined  direct  discrimination, 

equal 
discrimination and harassment (Article 2): 

Direct  discrimination  is  defined  as  where  “one  person  is  treated  less 
favourably than another is, has been, or would be in a comparable situation on 
grounds of racial or ethnic origin”. 

Indirect discrimination is defined as occurring where “an apparently neutral 
provision, criterion or practice would put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at 
a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, 
criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of 
achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary”. 

Harassment  is  defined  as  “unwanted  conduct  related  to  racial  or  ethnic 
origin… with the purpose or the effect of violating the dignity of a person and of 
intimidating,  hostile,  degrading,  humiliating  or  offensive 
creating  an 
environment”. 

5.  Article  11  of  the  directive  explicitly  refers  to  social  dialogue.  It  instructs 
Member States to “take adequate measures to promote social dialogue between 
the  two  sides  of  industry  with  a  view  to  fostering  equal  treatment,  including 
through the monitoring of workplace practices, collective agreements, codes of 
conduct, research or exchange of experiences and good practices”. 

8   See European Commission (2007) Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe. The 25 EU 
Member States compared, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European 
Communities, p.58. 

16 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

The role of social dialogue in developing the directive 

The  Racial  Equality  Directive  had  an  important  antecedent.  Being  aware  that  the 
European Commission had determined 1997 should be the European Year Against 
Racism,  the  main  European-level  social  partners  met  in  Florence  in  1995  and 
issued  a  nine-page  ‘Joint  Declaration  on  the  Prevention  of  Racial  Discrimination 
and Xenophobia and Promotion of Equal Treatment at the Workplace’.9  

The  so-called  ‘Florence  Declaration’,  signed  by  the  European  Trade  Union 
Confederation  (ETUC),  UNICE  (the  forerunner  of  BusinessEurope)  and  the 
European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services (CEEP) 
defined racial discrimination as: 

“comprising  any  distinction,  exclusion,  restriction  or  preference  based  on  a 
person’s  real  or  perceived  race,  religion,  ethnic  or  national  origin  or  colour, 
which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equal treatment in employment or 
occupation. This includes direct discrimination: where a person is treated less 
favourably on the grounds of his or her real or perceived race, religion, ethnic 
or  national  origin  or  colour.  It  also  includes  indirect  discrimination: 
unjustifiable  practices  which,  although  applied  without  distinction,  adversely 
affect more people of a particular race, religion, ethnic or national group than 
those not of that group.”10 

The Florence Declaration’s opening words reaffirmed 

“the  very  great  importance  they  attach  to  the  achievement  in  Europe  of  a 
democratic,  pluralistic  society  characterised  by  solidarity  and  respect  for  the 
dignity of all human beings”. 

This  joint  commitment  by  European  employers  and  trade  unions  is  of  crucial 
importance in combating discrimination.  

Both  sides  of  industry  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  combating  racial 
discrimination  at  the  workplace.  European  employers  have  a  prime  responsibility 
for the access to work of ethnic and racial minority groups and for the conditions 
under which they work. It is clear that employers at a national and local level have 
a major role to play in preventing unlawful discrimination, as well as in promoting 
equality and the integration of people of different ethnic origins.   

9   UNICE, ETUC and CEEP (1995) Joint Declaration on the Prevention of Racial Discrimination 
and  Xenophobia  and  Promotion  of  Equal  Treatment  at  the  Workplace,  Brussels,  available  at: 
http://resourcecentre.etuc.org/linked_files/documents/Declaration%20-
%20xenophobia%20EN.pdf?PHPSESSID=019e0e1841a8d948aa606296063b8df0 

10   This definition of racial discrimination proposed by the European social partners is broader than 
that  within  the  Directive  of  2000  since  it  includes  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  national 
origin. 

17 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

While some employers accept the moral case for treating all workers equally, many 
also  identify  a  business  opportunity  in  offering  ethnic  minority  and  migrant 
workers  employment  in  customer-facing  occupations  or  in  areas  with  significant 
minority populations. These employers see the value in including ‘other’ workers 
in their workforces, and are often ready to support ‘diversity charters’ and policies. 
This can include their being more prepared to adopt policies and practices against 
racial  discrimination  than  are  employers  who  are  less  concerned  about  attracting 
minority customers.   

Europe’s  trade  unions  are  its  largest  voluntary  civil  society  organisations.  They 
exercise widely varying degrees of influence in different countries and sectors over 
workplace conditions and regulations. All the affiliates of the ETUC are bound by 
its  anti-racial  discrimination  stance.  All  of  the  European  sector  federations  have 
either supported the ETUC positions or have adopted their own anti-discrimination 
positions.  

1.4. 

Assessing the impact of the directive in 
context 

Assessing the effectiveness of the Racial Equality Directive in changing behaviours 
in European labour markets since 2003 has been made much more complicated by 
the following political and economic developments commented on and referred to 
by the respondents: 

Two Equality Directives 

The  Employment  Equality  Directive  (2000/78/EC)  prohibits  discrimination  in 
employment and occupation – access to employment, access to vocational training, 
working conditions, and membership of workers organisations – on the grounds of 
religion  or  belief,  disability,  age,  or  sexual  orientation.  Together  with  Racial 
Equality Directive it sets a common framework for all Member States to implement 
anti-discrimination laws and policies.11 

The  passage  of  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  six  months  after  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive,    and  its  encompassing  several  of  the  same  elements  as  the 
Racial Equality Directive (in particular the shift in the burden of proof and rights of 
complaint to an Equality Body) led many Member States to implement both in the 
same  piece  of  national  legislation.  Where  this  occurred  most  respondents 

11   FRA  (2010) Migrants, Minorities and Employment – Exclusion and Discrimination in the EU-27 

Member States of the European Union, Vienna: FRA (forthcoming). 

18 

 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

participating in this research drew no distinction between the impact on the ground 
of the two directives.  

Enlargement 

In 2004 and 2007 the EU expanded by a total of 12 new Member States. In many 
of these States there are significant populations of Roma, who almost everywhere 
experience  social  and  economic  disadvantage.  At  the  time  of  drafting  of  the 
directive,  Roma  were  not  as  significant  minority  population  in  the  EU  and  their 
particular situation is not so well captured in this text of the directive. Therefore, it 
is  difficult  to  use  the  same  criteria  for  evaluating  the  very  different  situations  of 
minorities and migrants in EU-15 and EU-12. 

Migration 

The  European  labour  market  boomed  for  most  of  the  first  decade  of  the  21st 
century.  A  huge  demand  for  labour  in  Western  Europe  drew  in  political  asylum 
seekers, economic refugees, students and professional workers who entered the EU 
from third countries, while millions also migrated from Eastern to Western Europe. 
Arguably  this  boom  witnessed  significant  growth  in  the  informal  sectors  of  most 
EU  economies.  It  also  saw  a  significant  shift  in  many  employers’  attitudes  to 
migrant workers, whom they now welcomed as the answer to labour shortages. The 
amalgam  of  issues  of  discrimination  against  migrant  workers  with  discrimination 
against indigenous ethnic minority workers provided a further complication for an 
assessment of the Racial Equality Directive’s impact on the ground. Although, both 
groups  are  covered  by  the  directive,  the  public  attention  is  often  concentrated  on 
the  protection  it  gives  to  the  migrant  workers,  forgetting  the  benefits  it  gives  to 
nationals.  

Economic crisis 

From 2008, however, the European economy entered the sharpest economic crisis 
experienced  since  the  1930s.  In  several  countries  instances  of  xenophobic 
discourse  and  hostilities  towards  third  country  nationals  re-surfaced  against  the 
background  of  job  losses  of  the  EU  citizens.  It  led  to  questioning  of  EU  policies 
against racial and ethnic discrimination in some countries.   

Islamophobia 

The  11  September  2001  terrorist  attacks  in  New  York  unleashed  world-wide 
condemnation.  But  it  also  precipitated  sharp  increases  in  the  numbers  of  media, 
verbal  and  physical  attacks  on  Muslim  people  and  ideas  in  nearly  all  European 
countries.  Some  forms  of  public  racism  and  xenophobia  became  politically  and 

19 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

socially  more  acceptable  in  the  very  period  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  was 
seeking to marginalise discriminatory ideologies and employment practices fuelled 
by them.12 

Assessment of challenges 

The combination of these elements made it challenging to clearly assess the impact 
of the directive on the ground. Making such an evaluation still more difficult has 
been the different scope or meaning attributed to the directive. This specifies that  

“this  prohibition  of  discrimination  should  also  apply  to  nationals  of  third 
countries, but does not cover differences of treatment based on nationality and 
is  without  prejudice  to  provisions  governing  the  entry  and  residence  of  third-
country nationals and their access to employment and to occupation”13.  

This rather complex formulation has permitted different readings of the directive in 
various Member States.  

In  some  countries  the  scope  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  is  primarily  defined 
around the need to prohibit discrimination against migrant workers (who are only 
sometimes ethnically or racially ‘visible’); in others it is defined as only concerning 
equality  for  workers  whose  ‘otherness’  is  defined  by  visible  difference.  In  the 
former  group  of  countries,  there  were  many  reports  of  the  directive  encouraging 
social partners to integrate recent migrants, but relatively few about actions aimed 
at the full inclusion of ethnic minority citizens. In the latter group of countries, the 
absence  of  significant  populations  of  ethnic  minority  citizens  led  many  social 
partners to conclude that the directive did not apply to them, despite the presence 
of national or linguistic minorities who experienced considerable discrimination.  

In some countries there were already specific laws proscribing forms of racial and 
ethnic  discrimination,  sometimes  within  society  as  a  whole,  and  sometimes 
specifically  referring  to  employment.  In  others  there  was  a  presumption  that 
existing  constitutional  guarantees  of  ‘equality’  also  applied  to  ethnic  minorities. 
The  Racial  Equality  Directive  was  rarely  implemented  from  ‘cold’,  and  the 
interviewee  responses  concerning  their  awareness  of  and  response  to  racial  or 

12   For  a  more  detailed  discussion  on  Islamophobia  please  consult  the  following  reports:  EUMC 
(2002)  Summary  Report  on  Islamophobia  in  the  EU  after  11  September  2001,  Vienna:  EUMC; 
EUMC (2006) Perceptions of Discrimination and Islamophobia, Vienna: EUMC; EUMC (2006) 
Muslims  in  the  European  Union:  Discrimination  and  Islamophobia,  Thematic  report,  Vienna: 
EUMC; FRA (2009) The Muslims, EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 2, Luxembourg: Office for 
Official Publications of the European Communities. 

13   European Union (19 July 2000) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the 
principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  Official 
Journal  L  180,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities, 
available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0043:en:HTML. 

20 

                                                      
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

ethnic discrimination largely refer to the combination of changes brought about by 
the directive and the pre-existing anti-discrimination law.  

Finally, it must be noted that transposition within the EU did not stick strictly to the 
implementation timetable. Nor were the transpositions that did take place initially 
fully satisfactory. In June 2007, the European Commission formally requested 14 
Member  States  to  fully  implement  EU  rules  under  the  directive.  As  recently  as 
October 2007, neither Spain nor Luxembourg had operational Equality Bodies, and 
the Czech Republic Equality Body was only established in June 2009.  

Another issue was that many of the Equality Bodies have not applied any sanctions 
in  relation  to  cases  of  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  race  or  ethnic  origin  in 
employment.  Perhaps  even  more  significantly,  nearly  everywhere,  the  levels  of 
processed complaints have been very low.14  

For many respondents there was no distinction to be drawn between the directive 
and  the  resulting  new  laws  or  amendments  to  existing  regulations  that  occurred 
when it was transposed. Therefore in this report we use the terms Racial Equality 
Directive  or  simply  ‘the  directive’  interchangeably  with  the  name  of  the  new 
national legislation.  

Terminology used 

While  interviewees  used  various  terms  to  describe  minority  populations  in  their 
countries, we use the following terminology in this report: 

migrants refers to foreign-born people who have moved to the host country to live 
and work;  

ethnic  minorities  refers  to  people  whether  foreign-born  or  nationally-born,  whose 
ethnic  origins  are  distinct  from  the  majority  of  nationally-born  people  in  the 
country they live in;  

national  minorities  refers  to  people  who  are  recognised  as  having  distinct  long-
standing cultural characteristics that closely resemble those of a country other than 
that where they were born;  

linguistic minorities refers to people whose first language is not the language of the 
majority of people in the country in which they live;  

“the  other”  refers  to  all  of  the  above  groups  who  are  stereotyped  by  national 
majority  populations  according  to  their  cultural,  linguistic,  racial  or  ethnic 
characteristics. 

14   See FRA (2008) Annual Reports 2008, Vienna: FRA, p. 107; FRA (2009) Annual Report 2009, 
Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  p.  21;  and  FRA 
(2010)  Annual  Report  2010,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European 
Communities (forthcoming). 

21 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

1.5. 

Structure of the report 

Chapter 2 in this report sets out the methodology used: who was interviewed; the 
characteristics  of  the  respondents  and  their  awareness  of  the  directive.  Chapter  3 
focuses on the employers and how the Racial Equality directive impacted on them 
and their responses. Chapter 4 focuses on how the directive impacted on the trade 
unions. Chapter 5 discusses the respondents’ experiences and views of the national 
Equality Bodies. Chapter 6 focuses on the role the social dialogue plays in fighting 
discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin. Chapter 7 reports the views 
of the social partners on how to improve the directive. Finally, Chapter 8 details the 
conclusions and key findings from the research.  

22 

 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2. 

Methodology  

This chapter sets out the methodology used in this research. It describes the number 
of respondents and who did the interviewing in each of the countries; the selection 
criteria  and  characteristics  of  the  respondents  (employers,  trade  unions,  Equality 
Bodies  and  non-governmental  organisations).  Finally  it  describes  how  the 
awareness of the directive among the respondents was evaluated.  

2.1.  Who was interviewed? 

This research project covered all 27 EU Member States. In each country the FRA 
contractor,  the  Working  Lives  Research  Institute  (WLRI),  selected  researchers  as 
national  experts  to  carry  out  the  interviews  and  to  write  a  national  report  using 
criteria based on:  

  knowledge of the employment relations context with access to employer and 

trade union respondents; and  

  knowledge of the issue of discrimination in employment.  

In each country these national experts identified the following respondents: 

(1)  individual employers,  

(2)  employer associations at national and regional levels,  

(3)  trade unions at national and regional levels,  

(4)  trade union confederations and trade union federations, and  

(5)  national Equality Bodies and non-governmental organisations concerned with 

discrimination in employment in selected countries. 

The choice of organisations approached was made with the intention to best cover 
the issues concerned. In most countries this involved interviewing representatives 
of  the  peak  employer  or  trade  union  organisations,  and  targeting  employers  and 
trade unions where there were significant proportions of ethnic minority or migrant 
workers in their workforces or among their memberships.  

The  national  expert  for  the  country  would  then  email  and  telephone  the  selected 
organisation  with  information  about  the  research  project,  and  would  invite  the 

23 

 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

organisation to nominate an individual who would respond on their behalf. In most 
countries, therefore, this purposive sampling led to interviews with employers and 
trade unions that are more open to discuss the often sensitive issues concerned with 
the  subject  of  racial  discrimination.  This  sampling  method  may  introduce  some 
bias  since  those  agreeing  to  be  interviewed  tended  to  be  more  likely  to  be 
concerned with the issues of non-discrimination and to have taken action than those 
not agreeing or not being approached. However, it is not in contradiction with the 
purposes of the research project as its aim is to develop understanding of the issues 
facing the social partners, not to claim to be ‘representative’ of all employers or all 
trade unions. 

Interview numbers 

The  aim  of  the  research  project  was  to  interview  150  representatives  of  the 
employers and 150 representatives of Europe’s trade unions, giving an overall total 
of about 300 organisations. The target numbers of interviews in each country were 
divided  according  to  population  size.    All  the  interviewees  were  asked  to  sign  a 
consent form,15 and in all except nine cases the interviews were recorded.16 A total 
of  344  respondents  were  interviewed  during  a  total  of  333  interviews  (a  small 
number of interviews involved two or three interviewees). Out of the respondents 
52 per cent were male and 48 per cent were female. There were slightly more male 
respondents among the employer interviewees (60 per cent) and slightly fewer men 
among the Equality Body and NGO respondents (43 per cent). The interviews were 
all  conducted  in  one  of  each  country’s  recognised  national  languages  between 
March and June 2009. The list of those who conducted the interviews is provided 
in Annex 1 (see page 119).  

The  employer  representatives  interviewed  were  nearly  all  Human  Resource 
Managers,  either  line  managers  with  responsibilities  for  equality  issues  or  legal 
experts. Almost all had detailed knowledge of or responsibility for recruitment and 
internal promotion, or of their organisation’s policies in relation to discrimination. 
As  representatives  of  employer  organisations  or  individual  employers,  the 
employer respondents tended to be careful to present only the organisation’s views, 
rather than their own personal opinions. 

The  trade  union  interviewees  nearly  all  worked  full-time  for  their  union,  either 
being  directly  employed  or  being  given  time  to  work  for  the  union  by  their 
employer.  In  most  cases  they  had  specific  organisational  responsibilities  for 
equality  issues,  discrimination,  migrant  workers  or  anti-racism.  These  interviews 

15   The  FRA  consent  form  specified  that  the  interviewee  agreed  to  participate  in  the  interview  and 
that the statements they made could be used in electronic and paper publications of the research 
project referencing their organisation but not their name. 

16   In one case, the respondent from the Greek peak employer organisation, the Hellenic Federation 
of  Enterprises  (SEV),  explained  that  there  was  a  strict  general  policy  against  having  interviews 
recorded. In the other cases, there were technical problems. 

24 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

tended  to  be  more  wide-ranging  and  more  self-questioning  than  were  the 
interviews  with  the  employer  representatives.  This  is  normal  in  trade  union 
interviews  partly  because  trade  unions  encourage  discussion  and  debate  among 
their officials and partly because many of such respondents are given considerable 
autonomy in pursuing these issues.  

Figure  1  shows  the  numbers  of  interviews  conducted  with  the  different  social 
partners and NGOs by country, ranging from a total of 20 in Spain, Italy, Germany 
and the UK, down to six interviews each in Estonia and Malta. The detailed figures 
charted here are provided in Annex 2 (see page 120).17  

17   The names of the organisations interviewed are listed in Annexes 6, 7 and 8. 

25 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Figure 1 : Numbers of interviews, by country and category18 

ES

IT

DE

UK

FR

BE

RO

NL

LV

SE

PL

EL

FI

DK

AT

IE

HU

BG

LT

CZ

SI

SK

CY

PT

LU

EE

6

6

6

6

6

2

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

9

9

10

11

8

7

8

3

10

10

9

1

1

10

2

3

8

2

1

1

8

6

7

5

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

6

5

3

2

4

4

4

2

1

1

Employers

Unions 

Equality Bodies
or NGOs 

3

4

1

1

4

4

MT

2

3

0

4

8

12

16

20

A relevant question in all qualitative research is “Would more interviews have led 
to  different  conclusions?”  Given  the  potential  size  of  the  target  population  it  is 
certain  that  many  important  actors  were  missed.  Yet,  the  national  experts  who 

18   For country codes, see Annex 9 (p. 138). 

26 

 
 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

conducted the interviews are confident that interviewing more organisations would 
not have produced significantly different results. 

Declining interviews 

It  is  worth  noting  that  over  one  third  of  the  total  number  of  524  organisations 
initially  approached  declined  to  be  interviewed.  The  distribution  of  refusals  by 
country and type of organisation is shown in Annex 3 (see page 121).  

Where reasons were given for declining to be interviewed, these tended to be either 
a lack of time on the part of human resources (HR) or trade union staff, or a lack of 
interest in the issue. In many cases, the sensitivities attached to the issue of racial 
or  ethnic  discrimination  were  also  apparent  in  the  rejection  decision.  In  19 
countries,  194  different  organisations  refused  requests  for  interviews,  with  most 
refusals registered in Spain and Romania.  

The highest proportion of refusals came from multinational companies (66 per cent 
of  those  approached)  followed  by  employer  organisations  at  sector,  branch  or 
regional  levels  (63  per  cent)  and  individual  employers  (44  per  cent).  These  were 
closely  followed  by  individual  trade  unions  (41  per  cent)  and  then  by  employer 
peak  organisations  (25  per  cent).  The  lowest  levels  of  refusals  came  from  trade 
union peak organisations and National Equality Bodies (8 per cent each).  

The  interviews  lasted  between  30  minutes  and  two  hours.  Two  different  semi-
structured interview schedules were used by the interviewers, one for trade unions 
and  another  one  for  employers.  They  are  attached  as  Annex  4  (trade  union 
interview schedule (see page 122)) and Annex 5 (employer interview schedule (see 
page  125)).  The  schedules  were  developed  by  the  WLRI  research  team  working 
with  the  FRA  and  the  project  steering  group19  to  enable  the  distinctive  views  of 
both employers and trade unions to be expressed.  

Interview analysis 

Once completed, interview reports were either written up in English by the national 
experts  involved,  or  written  up  in  the  national  language  and  then  translated  into 
English and subsequently sent to the Working Lives Research Institute (WLRI) and 
to one of the regional experts.20 At the WLRI these interview reports were entered 

19   This  comprised  the  FRA  staff  and  representatives  from  the  European  Economic  and  Social 

Committee (EESC), BusinessEurope and European trade Union Confederation. 

20   Five of the national experts also worked as regional experts, controlling the content of the work of 

those reporting to them. 

27 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

into a qualitative data analysis software package,21 and read and analysed initially 
in terms of the six main interview themes:  

(1)  the background national and organisational context;  

(2)  the  kinds  of  policies  and  practices  on  ethnic  and  racial  discrimination  being 

implemented;  

(3)  the extent and role of social dialogue in this area;  

(4)  the  impact  on  the  organisation  of  the  legal  changes  linked  to  the  Racial 

Equality Directive;  

(5)  a general assessment of the awareness of the rights granted under the directive 
by  the  organisation’s  own  members  and  workers  from  ethnic  and  migrant 
backgrounds; and 

(6)  the difference that the Racial Equality Directive has made or could make. 

At the same time, the national experts were each asked to prepare a brief national 
report summarising the interviews and to submit this first to the regional expert and 
to  the  WLRI.  After  the  WLRI  edited  and  developed  these  reports  they  were 
submitted  to  the  FRA.  These  national  reports  are  now  available  on  the  FRA 
website 
(see 
http://www.fra.europa.eu). 

background  material 

comparative 

report 

this 

as 

to 

The  remainder  of  this  chapter  introduces  the  different  categories  of  respondents, 
namely  the  employers  and  employer  organisations  interviewed,  the  trade  unions 
and  trade  union  federations  and  confederations,  and  the  Equality  Bodies  and  the 
NGOs. The final section explains the methodology used in presenting the results in 
the  following  chapters  through  introducing  the  evaluation  of  ‘more  aware’  and 
‘less aware’ employers and trade unions.  

21   The  package  is  NVIVO  8  from  QSR.  It  enabled  the  interviews  to  be  coded  automatically 
according  to  these  six  general  themes  and  as  to  the  source  of  the  interview.  It  then  permitted 
further refined coding around a series of specific sets of issues.  

28 

 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2.2. 

Characteristics of respondents 

2.2.1. 

Employer organisations  

Employment  in  Europe  is  mostly  concentrated  in  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises  (SMEs),  the  overwhelming  majority  of  which  employ  less  than  10 
persons.  Although  large  companies  account  for  only  0.2  per  cent  of  enterprise 
business  population,22  they  employ  over  30  per  cent  of  the  European  workforce 
(Eurostat, 2009) and can be exemplars of good practice. 

The  differences  between  large  and  small  companies  have  an  impact  on  their 
internal organisation and positioning. The smaller the company the less likely it is 
that it would have a dedicated personnel/human resource department, let alone an 
employee  dealing  specifically  with  diversity  matters.  Also,  the  political  agenda 
would differ between small, medium and large companies. 

In order to promote common interests, companies often come together in the form 
of  employer  organisations  (also  referred  to  as  employer  associations  or  employer 
federations).  Employer  organisations  frequently  carry  out  collective  bargaining 
with  trade  unions  to  establish  a  standard  floor  for  hours,  wages  and  working 
conditions  at  national,  sectoral  or  regional  level.  In  many  cases  collective 
bargaining can take place at local/company level.  

The  peak  employer  organisations  constitute  the  following  broad  types  of 
organisations: 

  public sector employers,  

 

larger private sector employers,  

  smaller private sector companies, and  

  micro-firms that produce craft products.  

Which type of employers were interviewed?  

When  the  term  ‘employers’  is  used  in  this  report,  it  refers  to  both  employer 
organisations  and  companies,  unless  stated  otherwise.  Furthermore,  the  term 
‘employers’  only  refers  to  those  employer  representatives  who  agreed  to  be 

22   Data  for  2006  based  on  non-financial  business  economy  activity  published  in  Eurostat  (2009) 
European  Business,  Facts  and  Figures,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the 
European  Communities,  available  at:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-
BW-09-001/EN/KS-BW-09-001-EN.PDF. 

29 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

interviewed.  Nearly  90  per  cent  of  these  were  HR  directors,  managers  or  legal 
advisors, with the remainder being senior executives.  

Five main types of employers were included in the research:  

 

 

 

 

 

the peak employer organisation (a national level multi-sector association); 

the national sector employer association (a single sector national-level 
association);  

the regional level employer organisation (a multi-sector association located in a 
specific region or city); 

the domestically-owned company - an employer that has its headquarters and 
ownership structure based in the country where the interview took place;  

the foreign-owned company - an employer that is a subsidiary of a company 
headquartered in another country. 

As  it  can  be  seen  from  Table  1  domestic  companies  were  the  largest  group  of 
interviewees  in  our  research,  followed  by  peak  employer  organisations,  with 
regional  or  branch  employer  organisations  being  the  third  significant  source  of 
interviewees. The full list of all employers interviewed is shown in Annex 6 (see 
page 129). 

Table 1: Number of employers interviewed, by organisation type and country 

Peak 
Organisation 

Branch/Sector 
or Regional 
organisation 

Domestic 
companies

Foreign- 
owned 
companies 

Total 

LU 

MT 

EU Level 

LT 

EE 

PT 

RO 

BG 

SK 

CY 

SI 

CZ 

PL 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

2 

3 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

4 

2 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

LV 

EL 

HU 

IE 

DK 

AT 

FI 

NL 

FR 

SE 

BE 

DE 

ES 

IT 

UK  

Total 

2 

1 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

2 

3 

4 

2 

3 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

6 

2 

5 

6 

4 

8 

48 

31 

57 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9 

9 

10 

11 

144 

2 

2 

1 

8 

Peak employer organisations 

National peak employer organisations interviewed for the research were affiliated 
to EU-level social partner organisations, namely BusinessEurope or UEAPME (the 
European  Association  of  Craft,  Small  and  Medium-sized  enterprises). 
BusinessEurope has 40 members based in 34 European countries, and has a staff of 
45  people  based  in  Brussels.    UEAPME  is  the  European  Association  of  Craft, 
Small and Medium-sized enterprises. It incorporates 83 member organisations from 
36 European countries. 

The  peak  organisations  affiliated  to  BusinesEurope  ranged  from  the  Bulgarian 
Industrial  Association  (BIA)  to  the  Confederation  of  Finnish  Industries  (EK)  and 
the  Confederation  of  German  Employers’  Associations  (BDA).  Cooperating  peak 
organisations  affiliated  to  UEAPME  included  the  Cyprus  Chamber  of  Commerce 
and  Industry  (CCCI)  and  the  Paris  area  of  the  French  General  Confederation  of 
SMEs  (CGPME).  Representatives  of  both  BusinessEurope  and  UEAPME  were 
also interviewed. 

In EU countries with smaller populations, the research tended to focus on the peak 
employer organisations. For example, in Lithuania, with a 3.4 million population, 
the  employer  respondents  were  the  Lithuanian  Confederation  of  Industrialists, 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

larger  companies,  and 

representing 
the  Lithuanian  Business  Employers’ 
Confederation,  representing  mainly  smaller  firms  employing  less  than  250 
employees.  In  Estonia,  where  the  population  is  just  1.4  million,  the  respondents 
came from the Estonian Employers’ Confederation, which has 24 sector affiliates. 

In countries where the peak organisations did not appear most likely to yield useful 
results  in  terms  of  contacts  and  experiences  with  issues  of  discrimination  on  the 
grounds of race and ethnic origin (namely Czech Republic, Sweden and Slovakia), 
purposive  sampling  was  applied  to  recruit  interviewees  from  other  forms  of 
employer representation.  

Branch/Sector or regional employer organisations 

An  example  of  a  sector  employer  organisation  that  participated  in  the  research  is 
the Association of Danish Media Employers (DMA), whose membership includes 
companies that own almost all the Danish daily newspapers and other media, print 
and  distribution  companies.  Like  another  participant,  the  Danish  Master  Painters 
(DM), it is affiliated to the Danish peak employer organisation, the Confederation 
of Danish Employers (DA), which was also interviewed. In Italy, the Padua branch 
of  the  National  Builders’  Association  (ANCE)  with  200  medium-sized  and  large 
construction  firm  members  was  interviewed.  In  Germany,  the  metal  working  and 
electrical  employer  federation,  Gesamtmetall,  which  is  one  of  the  country’s  most 
important sectoral employer associations, participated in this study. In Sweden, an 
interviewee from the Construction Federation cooperated with the research.  

Domestic companies 

Domestic  companies  with  significant  numbers  of  foreign-born  or  ethnic  minority 
origin workers participated in the research. 

Some were very large, such as the German Dussman industrial catering, cleaning 
and  security company  which  began  with  just  ten  cleaners  in  the  1960s  and  today 
employs  26,000  staff.  In  Spain  the  food  sector  business,  Grupo  Alimenatrio 
Guissona,  has  3,000  employees  of  whom  56  per  cent  were  born  outside  the 
country.  Proportionately  to  the  size  of  its  national  economy  and  population,  the 
food  industry  Zito  dd’s  1,550  employees  is  an  even  more  important  firm  within 
Slovenia.  

Other  firms  interviewed  had  fewer  employees,  such  as  the  Northern  Greek  door 
panel manufacturer, Tehni Pantelos, with 170 staff, but with roughly half coming 
from  the  local  Muslim  minority  groups.  Also  in  Northern  Greece  a  public  sector 
employer  participated  from  the  Komotini  capital  of  Northern  Greece’s  Rhodopi 
area, where about 15 per cent of the employees are Muslim. A large public sector 
employer  was  Haringey  Council  in  North  London, of  whose  6,750  employees  63 
per cent are black or minority ethnic or non-UK born. 

32 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Global players 

Among the participating domestic companies that are also global players were the 
car maker BMW and the logistics and rail transport multinational, Deutsche Bahn, 
in  Germany.  In  the  UK,  those  participating  included  the  multinational  retailer, 
Tesco,  the  global  bank,  HSBC,  and  the  telecommunications  company,  British 
Telecom  (BT).  In  Spain,  another  major  telecoms  company,  Telefónica,  also 
participated in the study. In Italy, where about 60 per cent of its employees are not 
Italian nationals, the smaller metal-working multinational, Global Garden Products, 
was interviewed, as was the largest European poultry producer, Gruppo Veronesi. 

In lieu of interviews  with peak organisations in the Czech  Republic and Sweden, 
purposive sampling led to the following interviews.  

In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  employer  interviewees  came  from  the  Thomayer 
Hospital, from two manufacturing companies, BV Elektronik and a rubber industry 
firm,  Gumotex,  and  from  an  employment  agency,  Stamont-Metal  International. 
These were firms that all use migrant and/or ethnic minority workers.  

In  the  case  of  Sweden  the  interviews  were  conducted  with  the  giant  Swedish-
owned  multinational  construction  group,  Skansa,  a  local  hospital  and  four  other 
public services with experience in recruiting and integrating employees of different 
ethnic origins.  

Foreign-owned companies 

Eight foreign-owned companies were interviewed in the course of the research. In 
Slovakia,  two  respondents  came  from  foreign-owned  companies:  the  Hungarian-
owned  MOL  Group  oil  company  and  US  Steel,  the  largest  employer  in  Eastern 
Slovakia. 

Among  the  foreign  owned  multinationals  that  agreed  to  be  interviewed  were  a 
Romanian  subsidiary  of  Accenture,  the  global  management  consulting  company, 
with around 200 staff, and the Belgian subsidiary of Carrefour, the world’s second 
largest retailer. In Hungary, the Shell oil company participated, as it did in Austria 
where the global logistics company, TNT, also agreed to be interviewed.  

It has to be kept in mind that qualitative research focusing on the views of nearly 
150  company  and  employer  association  representatives  across  the  whole  EU-27 
cannot in any way claim  to be representative of all these types of employers. All 
that  can  be  suggested  is  that  the  context  and  experiences  described  should  be 
treated as indicative – pointing to the issues and responses that may have a more 
general significance.  

33 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2.2.2. 

Trade unions 

Trade unions are Europe’s largest voluntary citizen organisations. They exist in all 
27 EU Member States, and one in four of all European employees are trade union 
members.23  The  European  Trade  Union  Confederation 
(ETUC),  whose 
membership extends beyond the EU, claims to represent the interests of 60 million 
workers. It does so through its 82 national trade union confederation affiliates. The 
ETUC  is  an  EU-level  recognised  social  partner  organisation  with  a  mandate  to 
negotiate  on  social  and  labour  issues.  The  ETUC  is  the  peak  trade  union 
organisation interviewed at EU level in this study.  

In certain countries trade unions represent only their own members in discussions 
with  employers  and  governments.24  On  some  occasions  and  in  some  other 
European countries they also speak for and represent the interests of all employees, 
even if they are not union members. In several European countries trade unions are 
structured  by 
ideological  sympathies,  with  different  peak  organisations 
representing different political or religious origins. Belgium is an example of this, 
with the FGTB/ABW socialist confederation distinct from the CSC/ACV Christian 
confederation and from the CGSLB liberal confederation.  

The peak union organisations present in many European countries may also reflect 
different  occupational  groupings,  most  often  manual  occupations  and  sometimes 
white  collar  and  professional  groups.  Denmark  is  an  example  here,  with  the  LO 
(the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions) and its 17 affiliated unions, generally 
representing  manual  workers,  the  FTF  (Salaried  Employees’  and  Civil  Servants’ 
Confederation) organising white collar workers largely in the public sector, and the 
AC 
representing 
professionals and managers.25  

(Central  Confederation  of  Professional  Associations) 

In  a  third  group  of  countries,  there  is  only  one  peak  trade  union  organisation  to 
which  nearly  all  the  trade  unions  affiliate,  regardless  of  their  membership 

23   European  Commission  (2009)  Industrial  Relations  in  Europe  2008,  Luxembourg:  Office  for 

Official Publications of the European Communities. 

24   In  some  countries,  such  as  France,  Germany  and  Hungary,  dual  representation  systems  have 
historically  provided  all  employees  with  legal  rights  at  workplaces  above  a  certain  size  to  elect 
representatives  to  Works  Councils,  as  well  as allowing  employees  who  are  trade unionists  their 
own  input  into collective  bargaining. The  Information  and  Consultation  Directive  (2002/14/EC) 
provided deadlines for the extension of such rights to employees in all EU Member States from 
2005 and 2007. 

25   In some countries industrial sector or branch organisations are also affiliated to international and 
European-wide  trade  union  bodies  that  group  together  national  federations  on  the  basis  of  their 
industrial or occupational identities. At EU-level interviews were conducted with three of these: 
with the European Public Sector Union (EPSU) representing national trade unions and federations 
of public sector workers; with the European Metalworkers Federation (EMF) representing trade 
unions with members in the manufacturing sector; and with Eurocadres representing trade unions 
of managerial workers. 

34 

                                                      
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

characteristics.  This  is  the  case  in  the  UK,  where  the  Trades  Union  Congress 
(TUC) is the sole national representative trade union confederation.  

Interviews  were  conducted  with  trade  union  organisations  from  EU  and  national 
peak  level  down  to  sectoral/branch,  regional  and  local  level.  Usually,  a  mix  of 
interviews took place to probe trade union responses and views more deeply than if 
only  the  views  of  the  highest  level  were  investigated.  Table  2  shows  the 
distribution  of  trade  union  interviews  by  country  and  type  of  organisation.  The 
detailed  list  of  trade  unions  that  agreed  to  participate  is  shown  in  Annex  7  (see 
page 133). 

35 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Table 2: Number of trade union organisation interviewed, by level and country  

Peak 

Sector/Branch
or regional 

Local 

Total 

LT 

CZ 

EE 

MT 

EU Level 

LU 
SK 
CY 

PT 

SI 

EL 

HU 
IE 

SE 

LV 

BG 

DK 

AT 

FI 

NL 

PL 

BE 

RO 

ES 

UK 

FR 

DE 

IT 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 
1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

5 

3 

4 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

3 

2 

1 
2 

1 

4 

2 

4 

1 

3 

8 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 
2 

2 

1 

2 

3 

3 

5 

4 

4 

3 

3 

2 

4 

1 

6 

4 

8 

7 

Total 

56 

71 

35 

36 

2 

3 

4 

3 

4 

4 
4 
4 

4 

4 

5 

5 
5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

7 

8 

8 

8 

9 

10 

10 

10 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2.2.3. 

NGOs and Equality Bodies 

Aware  that  the  issue  of  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  in  employment  could  be 
sensitive  for  some  employers  and  trade  unions,  in  certain  countries  the  national 
interviewers  were  asked  to  approach  national  Equality  Bodies  and  Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs).  Where these organisations have knowledge 
of such discrimination they might be able to complement the answers provided by 
the social partners.  

In most EU-27 countries national Equality Bodies covering discriminations related 
to  ethnic  origins  are  relatively  new,  although  in  several  there  were  pre-existing 
through  which  concerns  could  be  raised  or  brought  before 
mechanisms 
employment  tribunals.  At  the  EU-level,  interviews  were  conducted  with  the  new 
organisation  representing  all  of  Europe’s  Equality  Bodies,  Equinet,  and  with  the 
European  umbrella  NGO,  the  European  Network  Against  Racism  (ENAR).  The 
names  of  the  other  Equality  Bodies  and  NGOs  interviewed  are  listed  in  Annex  8 
(see page 137). 

Table 3 provides an analysis of the types of third party interviews conducted in the 
13 countries and at EU level.  

Table 3: Number of interviews with Equality Bodies and NGOs, by country 

Equality 
Body 

National 
NGO 
1 

Local 
NGO 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
2 

2 

2 
5 
18 

1 

1 

1 

3 

Total 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

3 

3 
5 
27 

PL 
MT 
FR 
DE 
NL 
EE 
LU 
EU Level 
LV 
CZ 

EL 

ES 
RO 
LT 
Total 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2.3. 

Ranking employer and union awareness 

A major focus of the interviews for this research was to gather primary data on the 
‘awareness’ of the Racial Equality Directive shown by the social partners, and on 
what  the  employers  and  trade  unions  have  done  to  prevent  and  combat 
discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin since 2003.  

After the interviews were completed, the national experts were asked to gauge the 
extent  of  awareness  of  the  directive  and  the  response  to  the  legislation  by  the 
respondents’  organisations.  The  objective  was  to  provide  a  combined  estimate  of 
the extent of the respondents’ knowledge of the Racial Equality Directive and the 
extent to which their organisation had responded to the new laws. They made these 
evaluations in response to six questions where they were asked to score them on a 
scale  ranging  from  one  (limited  awareness  or  response)  to  three  (very  extensive 
awareness and response).  

Questions used to score ‘Awareness’ 

(1)  Are they (employers or unions) aware of the Racial Equality Directive? 

(2)  Are they aware of national anti-racial discrimination legislation resulting from 

transposition of the directive?  

(3)  Are they aware of their national Equality Body (if one exists)?  

(4)  Have they adapted their policies to include anti-racial discrimination measures 

as a result of the directive?  

(5)  Have they adapted their practices to include anti-racial discrimination measures 

as a result of the directive?  

(6)  Are they strongly committed to anti-racial discrimination? 

Once the national experts had completed their initial scoring they then averaged the 
results  and  produced  two  separate  scores,  one  for  ’employer  awareness  and 
response’  and  the  other  for  ‘trade  union  awareness  and  response’.  These 
evaluations provide the data for Figures 2 and 3. The ranking is done based on the 
sum of two scores, representing the joint awareness of trade unions and employers 
in the given country, as assessed by the country expert.  

38 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Figure 2: Assessment of awareness and responses to the Racial Equality Directive on 

a 3-point scale (1 = low awareness; 3 = high awareness) 

SE

IE

FI

UK

DE

DK

BE

NL

AT

PT

ES

FR

IT

EL

LU

CY

SI

SK

MT

RO

PL

LT

HU

CZ

BG

LV

EE

Trade Unions

Employers 

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

The data reflect the national experts’ assessments of the groups of respondents, and 
thus are only individual evaluations. The respondent organisations were targeted 
by  the  interviewer  and  were  self-selecting  in  that  they  agreed  to  be  interviewed. 
The bar chart in Figure 2 does not claim to be representative of those who were not 
interviewed,  nor  of  any  country  as  a  whole.  Even  among  the  small  numbers  of 
organisations interviewed there was often considerable heterogeneity.  

39 

 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

These  awareness  estimates  depended  upon  who  agreed  to  be  interviewed.  In 
Northern  Europe  the  respondents  were  more  often  larger  national  employer 
organisations  or  larger  multinational  employers  or  larger  trade  unions  than  they 
were  in  Southern  or  Central  and  Eastern  Europe.  Awareness  levels  also  reflected 
the levels of responsibility of the interviewee.  Generally, the more senior, and the 
longer in their post was the respondent, the more likely it was that he or she was 
familiar with anti-discrimination law. Equally, the more ethnic minority or migrant 
workers  employed  by  the  company  or  within  the  sector,  the  more  likely  the 
employer  or  trade  union  was  to  be  seriously  committed  to  anti-discriminatory 
practices.26 

The  usefulness  of  these  evaluations  is  not,  therefore,  because  they  reveal  any 
statistical truth about the countries concerned, but because they allow the opinions 
and  experiences  of  the  social  partners  interviewed  to  be  compared.  With  these 
qualifications,  two  observations  can  be  drawn:  the  evaluations  of  awareness 
appear generally higher in most EU-15 Member States than among most EU-
12; and the evaluations also appear higher among the trade union than among 
the employer respondents.  

Social partner awareness 

There is a clear divide between EU-15 and EU-12 countries in the awareness of the 
directive and anti-discriminatory practice. The social partners from EU-15 Member 
States have been more exposed and for a longer period to the social processes and 
legislation at the EU than have more recent members.  

With only a few exceptions the peak level social partner organisations in the EU-15 
were  formally  involved  in  the  processes  that  led  to  the  Racial  Equality  Directive 
being  passed.  Most  conducted  consultations  with  various  stakeholders  on  the 
transposition of the directive. In many of these countries anti-discrimination NGOs 
have been provided with access to public funds for years.  

It  is  also  the  case  that  the  interviews  were  targeted  at  post-holders  with 
responsibilities for dealing with racial and ethnic discrimination, and such posts are 
more  likely  to  be  found  within  the  more  established  employer  organisations  and 
larger firms that are also more likely to be found in the EU-15. Finally, most of the 
pre-1975 EU members are countries that experienced significant inward migration 
of  foreign-born  workers  between  the  1950s  and  1980s,  helping  create  greater 
political awareness of the need to develop integrative strategies. 

26  The  Austrian  employers  interviewed,  to  give  one  example  highlighted  by  the  national  expert, 
appear to be very aware and highly proactive concerning racial and ethnic discrimination, but this 
may  reflect  more  on  the  national  expert’s  selection  process  than  on  the  reality  for  all  Austrian 
employers. 

40 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Among the social partners in the EU-12 there was a combination of less awareness 
and  less  response.  This  partly  reflects  their  very  recent  EU  membership,  but  also 
less  understanding  of  what  constitutes  discrimination  and  denial  of  the  problem. 
For  some  respondents  such  as  those  in  Estonia,  Lithuania  and  Poland  the  anti-
discrimination  directives  and  complaint  mechanisms  were  seen  as  irrelevant  and 
unnecessary devices from the West imposed on the new members as a consequence 
of  the  accession  process.  Along  with  sexual  orientation  they  treated  this  kind  of 
discrimination as a part of a ‘Western Europe package’ of marginal ‘exotic’ issues, 
according to the interviewees from both union and employers sides.   

The  lack  of  awareness  of  employment  anti-discrimination  legislation  also  partly 
reflects  the  smaller  size  of  most  companies  in  Europe.  The  Malta  Employers’ 
Association  commented  upon  the  obvious:  “The  vast  majority  of  companies  in 
Malta  are  SMEs  and  do  not  even  have  an  HR  manager  and  would  not  know 
anything about this.”  

Differences in awareness between the social partners 

The levels of awareness and response estimated by the national experts also tend to 
be  somewhat  higher  for  the  trade  unions  than  for  the  employers.  Figure  3 
represents the differences between the social partner estimates.  

Figure 3: Comparing awareness between trade unions and employer organisations 

1.25

1

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

-0.25

-0.5

-0.75

L
N

K
S

U
L

T
A

Z
C

V
L

T
L

L
P

E
S

E
E

G
B

K
U

E

I

I

U S
H

T

I

O
R

K
D

L
E

T
M

S
E

T
P

I

E F
D

E
B

R
F

Y
C

The countries where the trade unions were evaluated by the interviewers as being 
more  aware  and  responsive  than  were  the  employers  in  the  same  country  have 
positive  scores.  In  France  and  Cyprus  these  evaluations  were  considerably  more 
positive  among  the  trade  unionists  interviewed.  As  is  shown  in  the  following 

41 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

chapters, the trade union interviewees were more likely to have direct experiences 
of dealing with the directive and issues of racism and ethnic discrimination. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  five  countries,  namely  the  Netherlands,  Slovakia, 
Luxembourg,  Austria  and  Czech  Republic,  the  employers  interviewed  were  rated 
by the national expert as more aware and responsive than the trade unions. 

In Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden, there were no significant differences in 
awareness between both sides of industry according to the interviewers.  

42 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

3. 

Employer organisations awareness 
and responses 

This chapter consists of three main sections. It first discusses some of the general 
issues facing Europe’s employers (understood here as both employer organisations 
as well as individual companies) in terms of adopting anti-discrimination policies, 
and  considers  the  stress  some  of  these  have  come  under  in  the  current  economic 
crisis.  It  then  presents  the  employers’  views  of  the  directive’s  impact  on  society 
and employment relations in general. Finally it presents the changes in policies and 
practices that have occurred. These are divided into those that clearly result directly 
from the directive and its national transposition, and those that may be considered 
to have been indirect outcomes.  

Good practices 

One study published by the European Commission in 2005 examining responses to 
the  rather  broader  diversity  agenda  in  Europe  suggested  that  “it  is  reasonable  to 
infer that recent EU anti-discrimination legislation has had a considerable impact 
in promoting action in this respect”.27 Among the good practices it found already 
in  place,  in  which  the  larger  firms  within  national  states  and  the  transnational 
companies often took the lead, were: 

  Equality  audits  or  surveys  making  it  possible  to  see  the  progress  (or 
otherwise) of minority workers (or overseas nationals and of the descendants of 
overseas  nationals)  in  terms  of  their  proportion  within  the  organisation,  their 
distribution  by  grade  and  occupation,  and  their  average  salaries  and  hours  of 
work. 

  The introduction of organisational charters or codes of best anti-discrimination 

practice. 

  Provisions  supporting  migrant  workers  achieving  real  equality,  such  as  quick 
access  to  banking  facilities,  rights  to  take  extended  leave  so  that  they  can  be 
with their families for limited periods in the same way as national citizens can 
readily  access  their  families,  rights  to  information  in  their  own  languages, 
negotiating  on  language  or  other  training,  and  the  recognition  of  foreign 
qualifications. 

27   European Commission (2006) The Business Case for Diversity: Good practices in the Workplace, 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 15. 

43 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

However, this 2005 study also found that positive steps were barely evidenced in 
either the Central and Eastern Europe or the Southern European Member States. In 
those  countries  and  in  the  rest  of  Europe  among  many  medium-sized  and  small 
employers  it  concluded  there  is  a  lack  of  sympathy and  a  reluctance  to  introduce 
organisational initiatives to combat racial discrimination.  

A  follow-up  study  published  in  2008  concluded,  in  the  words  of  the  EU 
Commissioner, that although “more companies have developed effective, efficient 
diversity-management  strategies…we  must  also  acknowledge  that  there  is  still 
reticence and that many companies - whatever their size and location - have a long 
way to go.”28 

3.1. 

Discrimination challenges 

The  2008  DG  Employment  study  Continuing  the  Diversity  Journey  found  that 
SMEs  in  the  12  New  Member  States  faced  greater  problems  in  the  current 
economic uncertainty in developing diversity policies. It also found that although 
‘diversity charters’ could be “starting points on the road to fully fledged diversity 
policies”, companies included in the research were divided equally as to whether 
such charters were helpful or unhelpful.29  

This  current  report  for  the  FRA  differs  from  both  the  2005  and  2008  diversity 
reports  on  business  practices  commissioned  by  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs 
and  Equal  Opportunities  in  two  ways. First,  it  considers  both  employer  and  trade 
union responses. Second, it focuses on changes in behaviours in relation to just one 
of  the  ‘diversity’  strands  –  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination,  arguably  perhaps  the 
most sensitive and political.  

28   European Commission (2008) Continuing the Diversity Journey: Business Practices, Perspectives 
and Benefits, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 4. 
29   European Commission (2008) Continuing the Diversity Journey: Business Practices, Perspectives 
and Benefits, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, p 24 
and p15. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

The Racial Equality Directive and national legislation 

Often in the eyes of the respondents no clear distinction can be drawn between the 
Racial Equality Directive and the national legislation implementing it.  

“The  legislation  on  discrimination  -  even  if  I  have  to  repeat  that  I  have  more 
knowledge  of  the  national  directives  than  of  the  European  one  -  has  definitely 
improved, is improving, and will improve. At the European level the purpose of the 
directives is [to give] the general lines that the states have to obey, they oblige the 
states  to  meet  the  standards...    I  am  sure  the  European  [legislation]  will  have 
influenced the Italian in some way.” 

Economic crisis 

Another  factor  that  is  clearly  shaping  the  ways  in  which  employer  organisations 
and  companies  are  prioritising  or  not  the  active  implementation  of  the  directive 
within  their  policies  and  practices  is  the  economic  situation.  The  economic  crisis 
beginning  in 2008  was  referred  to  by  several  respondents  as  having  an  important 
influence on recruitment and downsizing decisions. 

In  Europe’s  smallest  member  state  the  interviewee  from  the  Malta  Hotels  and 
Restaurants  Association  felt  that  “with  recession,  things  do  not  look  good  for 
racial  equality”:  tourist  bookings  appeared  to  be  down  on  previous  years.  The 
respondent’s conclusion was that: “If the recession persists there will be problems 
(about the migrants who have found work) because they will be the first to go.”  

In Hungary the Shell respondent agreed: “In [the current] crisis situation it is more 
likely that the members of disadvantaged groups are made redundant first.”  

An interviewee from the Lithuanian Small Firms Confederation (LVDK) was also 
quite  clear.  In  the  crisis,  employers  were  now  more  likely  to  exercise  national, 
cultural, religious and ethnic preferences:  

“When  our  economy  was  rising  and  we  needed  to  employ  workers,  most 
employers  don’t  look  at  the  nationality  or  colour  of  their  workers.  But,  in  the 
changed  situation  when  we  could  choose  other  people,  I  think  that  we  prefer 
our nationals, because it is our religion, culture and mentality. It is closer for us 
than people from China.” 

In  the  UK,  an  employer  interviewee  from  the  Department  of  Work  and  Pensions 
that deals with unemployment benefits and job seekers explained that their increase 
in workload in the crisis meant that “now is not the time to make equality training 
mandatory”. 

45 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

The analysis that this was a difficult period was shared by the Latvian Employers 
Confederation (LDDK) interviewee:  

“Under the economic crisis employers might tend to be more discriminatory. It 
might  also  be  more  against  people  speaking  Russian  and  not  being  fluent  in 
Latvian, if an employer can choose between a Latvian-speaking and a Russian-
speaking candidate and has to decide about a staff reduction.” 

However,  the  interviewee  went  on  to  indicate  that  the  directive  and  the  anti-
discrimination  regulations  transposing  it  “could  be  used  as  a  weapon  against  an 
employer” to make such discrimination less likely. 

Some  employers  did  maintain 
that  anti-discrimination  remained  a  vital 
commitment, despite the crisis. An interviewee at the Austrian Federal Economic 
Chamber believed there was unlikely to be a retreat: “The Equal Treatment Act is 
very well anchored – like a collective agreement or the Employees’ Law.” 

In  France,  the  respondent  from  the  Paris  region  of  the  Small  and  Medium-Sized 
Business  Confederation  (CGPME)  made  a  business  case  for  pursuing  anti-
discrimination policies and recruiting widely: 

“Companies  during  the  crisis  must  know  how  to  prepare  for  afterwards,  in 
trying  to  find  among  people  with  diverse  backgrounds,  the  men  and  women, 
young and less young… who have different talents. A period of crisis is a time 
to help small and medium-sized firms develop and find the talents they need.” 

3.2. 

The impact of the directive 

Employer  assessments  of  the  impact  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  diverged 
considerably.  Four  discrete  views  about  the  effectiveness  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive and the national legislation transposing it (henceforward just described as 
the directive) were expressed: 

1.  Positive impact of the directive. This group of respondents saw the directive 
as  legitimating  the  allocation  of  resources  to  anti-discrimination  priorities. 
Some of these argued that since the legislation was new in their countries they 
would be responding to it in the future thus emphasising the need for capacity 
building.  

2.  Little  or  no  impact  of  the  directive.  A  second  group  of  employers  felt  the 
directive  had  made  little  or  no  difference  because  their  pre-existing  practices 
and existing laws or national constitutions already proscribed discrimination on 
the  grounds  of  race  or  ethnic  origin.  Some  argued  that  due  to  changes  in  the 
labour market workers skills mattered more than their ethnic origin.  

46 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

3.  Negative  response  to  the  directive.  A  third  group  criticised  it  as  a  waste  of 
resources,  either  because  they  did  not  believe  the  directive  was  capable  of 
influencing behaviours, or because they considered any laws of this character a 
threat to managerial prerogatives. This has been particularly strong among some 
German and Danish employer respondents in this research. 

4.  Ignorance  and  lack  of  awareness  of  the  directive.  Finally,  there  were 
employers who may or may not have heard of the legislation, but who believed 
it did not concern their organisations or their country since they did not accept 
that  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  occurred  in  employment.  This  attitude  was 
especially  visible  among  the  employers  in  the  EU-12.  In  particular  they 
believed unequal treatment of Roma did not constitute discrimination.  

3.2.1. 

Positive impact of the directive 

Many employers showed a high awareness of the legislation and were very positive 
about its impact.  A respondent from Carrefour Belgium believed: “The law can be 
an encouragement… People are put on the case, the company provides resources 
to get things done, and for that to happen it needs official incentives.”  

This view is developed by the Finnish Jyväskylä City respondent, who argues not 
only  the  new  law  is  “very  important  because  it  has  shown  that  these  issues  are 
serious  (but)  it  gives  a  tool  to  develop  recruitment.  The  new  law  recognises  that 
ethnic discrimination should be taken seriously into account.”  

A  public  sector  respondent  from  the  largest  employer  in  the  Austrian  capital, 
Vienna City, agreed the Racial Equality Directive provided important support for 
diversity  management:  “We  need  a  legal  framework  to  fulfil  our  integration  and 
diversity tasks, a base stating that discrimination is forbidden.” The Austrian Shell 
Company  respondent  took  the  same  view.  The  Racial  Equality  Directive  was  a 
positive step and an important weapon for HR managers wishing to generalise non-
discriminatory  practices  and  harassment:  “Behaviour  regarded  as  a  peccadillo 
before, is now an offence to be prosecuted.”   

The  legislation  was  seen  as  spreading  greater  awareness.  The  respondent  for  the 
largest employer organisation in the Netherlands, the 850-member strong AWVN, 
commented that the legislation encourages companies to be more active in trying to 
prevent discrimination: “The employers who didn't know and didn't want to know 
are probably now more aware.”   

At  the  Austrian  Federal  Economic  Chamber  there  was  nearly  unequivocal 
optimism: “Since the implementation of the law in 2004 company staff recruitment 
processes have decisively improved and are more and more oriented on principles 
of equal treatment as a result of more training as well as social developments and 

47 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

enhanced  experience  of  globalisation.”  Another  Austrian  interviewee  from  the 
Vienna City Administration was more nuanced: 

“It  was  an  important  step,  a  crucial  presupposition  to  protect  people  against 
discrimination,  but  the  implementation  into  practice  is  very  complicated.  It  is 
not clear enough where a person feeling discriminated should turn to and what 
is going to happen when he/she took this step. The legal protection is available 
in theory but does it function in practice?” 

From Sweden, the Construction Industry Confederation respondent argued that 

“Public  debate  on  discrimination  is  the  most  important  thing.  The  EU  Racial 
Equality Directive and the Swedish law have helped to raise public debate and 
awareness on these issues.” 

In  Germany,  the  Post  Office,  with  a  substantial  non-German  born  and  migrant 
origin  workforce,  also  considered  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  other  laws 
fighting discrimination as helpful. Its interviewee commented:  

“It’s a war of talents... You have obviously heard about this. Employers have to 
be  more  open  so  that  they  can  access  more  potential,  different  forms  of 
potential and new potential”  

The  directive  was  also  embraced  by  Germany’s  BMW  car  company.  It  did  not 
view the law as “being too bureaucratic” nor as a serious issue 

“the  fact  that  the  burden  of  proof  now  lies  with  the  employer…  When  an 
employee has complained we have always gone to the manager and said "Prove 
to us that you have not discriminated.” 

Encouraged to focus on their practices by the directive, multinational companies in 
particular  had  embraced  policies  that  included  detailed  rules  and  procedures  to 
implement equality. In Slovakia, the US Steel Košice respondent confirmed that in 
2003-4  it  had  participated  in  consultations  with  the  government  on  the  national 
anti-discrimination laws. The interviewee believed:  

“Increased  awareness  of  racial  and  ethnic  equality  in  society  can  be  more 
easily achieved when it is supported by anti-discrimination legislation.”   

48 

 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

A legal framework 

What  difference  does  a  legal  framework  make?  Employers  may  be  analysed  as 
coming  from  risk-averse  (‘rule-adhering’)  or  risk-tolerant  (‘rule-avoidance’) 
cultures. The view of the Confederation of Danish Employers illustrates the rule-
adherence  approach:  “Employers  are  generally  people  who  uphold  the  law.  If 
legislation  exists  which  means  that  one  person  obtains  a  large  amount  of 
compensation if you step over the line, then it is something that employers will be 
informed about. The laws have meaning even though we do not have 100 cases.” 

A Dutch employer explained why they ‘adhere to the rules’: “We are a very visible 
organisation in society. If we do something wrong we will be confronted with that 
immediately.” As a result, it had ensured: “The legislation on the legal position of 
every  employee,  the  content  of  the  directive  is  implemented  into  our  working 
conditions  and  integrated  into  policy.  When  you  are  talking  about  treating 
employees  as  neutral  as  possible  in  every  way,  in  conduct,  in  application 
procedures,  I  mean  the  codes  that  follow  from  the  law  they  have  been  integrated 
into company policy and we are very aware of that.”  

The Irish Construction Industry Federation respondent felt the creation of a “forum 
where  people  could  vindicate  their  rights”  helped  highlight  the  need  to  educate 
employers.  

The  Department  of  Work  and  Pensions  interviewee  in  the  UK  saw  the  law  as 
helpfully  focusing  employer  attention  on  the  need  to  be  actively  engaged  in 
challenging discrimination and no longer ignoring the problem: “It makes people 
stop  and  look  at  it  and  decide  what  you’ve  got  to  do.  You  can’t  just  say  ‘It’s 
there’.” 

Positive symbolism 

Many employers considered the laws as having a positive ‘symbolic value’ (Danish 
Construction  Association),  even  if  the  actual  change  was  not  that  tangible.  A 
Belgian  respondent  from  Brussels  Commercial  and  Industrial  Enterprises  argued: 
“The European and national legislation confirmed what already existed. The law 
followed  the  reality.  It  didn't  start  the  motor,  but  it  created  a  legitimacy  to  what 
had already been started.” His assessment was: “Laws do only what they can do. 
They  aren’t  there  to  organise  society,  but  they  can  help  prevent  it  going  off  the 
rails.”  

The Swedish Construction Confederation representative suggested how this could 
happen: “The EU directive has helped to raise the public debate on discrimination 
and this has in turn increased the awareness and knowledge on this problem.” The 
large  Swedish  Uppsala  hospital  employer  recognised  that  proving  the  causal  link 
between legislation and practice was not easy: “It is difficult to say anything about 

49 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

the  concrete  effects  of  the  EU  directive  and  the  Swedish  law.  However,  nothing 
happens by chance. The regulations have probably been embedded in the common 
consciousness.”  The  Swedish  employer  representative  of  Uppsala  University 
confirmed that the changes were often motivational: “The laws have also inspired 
employers to take action against discrimination.”  

The suggestion that the directive made a moral contribution to a more open Europe 
was  endorsed  by  one  of  the  Greek  employers.  The  respondent  from  the  Techni 
Pantelos panel manufacturer saw it as contributing to a general improvement over 
recent years. His argument was that:  

“This is an area of general development in our society. That is, as a nation we 
do  not  feel  as  isolated,  we  now  feel  as  members  of  a  larger  European 
community…  Future  generations  will  talk  about  Europe  and  not  about 
nations… Hercules and Theseus will be heroes for Europeans not just for Greek 
people.” 

Where  national  laws  against  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  pre-dated  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive,  there  was  less  likely  to  have  been  a  significant  change 
following its transposition. But there was nonetheless often considerable awareness 
of the directive and in some cases an explicit recognition of the impact of the law. 
Thus in the UK, the British Telecom (BT) respondent thought the Racial Equality 
Directive  laws  produced  “changes  round  the  edges,  expanding  on  previous 
legislation  in  the  UK.  They  didn’t  make  such  a  big  change  in  the  UK.”  But  he 
considered the racial equality legislation was still important:  

“It  has  widened  protection  for  employees.  That’s  always  from  an  individual’s 
perspective.  How  it  works  in  this  country  depends  on  individuals  exercising 
those rights and their willingness to take the employer to court. The mechanism 
is there if they feel that that is their last recourse.” 

The Slovakian interviewee from the multinational MOL Group, also supported the 
anti-discrimination legislation, even though it did not change the legal context very 
much:  

“We had relatively good anti-discrimination legislation in Slovakia long before 
the EU directive was implemented. Therefore the adoption of the directive did 
not require significant changes in country’s labour legislation.”  

Nonetheless  the  MOL  Group  developed  its  Code  of  Ethics  to  take  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive  into  account.  Its  second  edition  has  just  been  issued  and  it  is 
distributed to all employees. Its message is clear: “As a MOL Group employee you 
must not discriminate against anybody on the grounds of sex, marital status, age, 
ethnic  origin,  colour,  political  conviction,  disability,  religion,  or  sexual 
orientation.” 

50 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Need for capacity building 

Some  employers  who  supported  the  directive  considered  that  over  time  their 
country’s  practices  would  automatically  catch  up  with  EU  standards.  The 
Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), a former state structure, is 
now a nationally representative employer organisation with about 10,000 small and 
large company affiliates.  Aware of the Protection against Discrimination Act, the 
respondent was convinced:  

“Anti-discrimination legislation is absolutely necessary for the workplace. Such 
legislation  is  introduced  and  practised  across  Europe  and  in  the  USA.  It  is  a 
form of protection of the individual and… expresses the general idea about the 
protection of human rights.”  

Despite  the  positive  attitude  towards  the  new  legislation,  there  was  a  problem  in 
Bulgaria, though, of lack of experience. The interviewee continued:  

“However,  there  is  not  enough  experience  about  the  application  of  this 
legislation. It is important that such evidence is accumulated and that there are 
sufficient  financial  sanctions.  A  story  of  this  Law  more  or  less  needs  to  be 
created  in  order  that  each  party  can  apply  it.  In  Bulgaria  we  do  not  have 
traditions  in  the  application  of  such  laws.  However,  I  suppose  that  with  time 
things will be regulated and in Bulgaria this legislation will be applied.”  

The BCCI has not organised membership training on the directive, but believes it 
would be appropriate, perhaps, to require each employer once a year to present a 
summary  of  their  human  resource  policies  in  terms  of  their  anti-discrimination 
duties and the rights of their employees. 

3.2.2. 

Little or no impact of the directive 

Several employer interviewees, including many who were highly aware of the law, 
considered the Racial Equality Directive had made no difference to them since they 
were  already  operating  anti-racist  policies.  The  Austrian  respondent  of  the 
multinational TNT logistics company explained:  

“The implementation of the directives in Austria TNT did not change anything 
in particular in the company’s diversity and anti-discrimination policy because 
we  have  been  considering  diversity  management  as  a  key  success  factor  for 
TNT since 1998.”  

According to the interviewee from one major Dutch company: “The need for anti-
discrimination/diversity  policy  has  been  obvious  for  us  since  1988.  The  directive 
has not really changed this.”  

51 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

There  was  also  the  view  in  several  countries  that  the  national  context  already 
proscribed  racism  and  that  that  was  sufficient.  In  Finland,  the  Confederation  of 
Finnish  Industries  respondent  commented:  “Discrimination  in  the  labour  market 
was indeed forbidden before the Equality Act. So employees and people in general 
have  been  widely  aware  that  employees  cannot  be  discriminated  against  on  an 
ethnic basis.” 

In  Germany,  one  of  the  peak  employer  organisations  representing  the  whole  of 
German  industry  and  services,  the  BDA,  felt  that  Article  3  of  the  German 
Constitution already outlawed all forms of discrimination. More than that was not 
needed.  In  Denmark,  the  Local  Government  respondent  also  believed  that  the 
directive  was  not  needed:  “The  Danish  Constitution  stipulates  that  one  must  not 
discriminate on the grounds of religion, political views or descent.” 

Labour market changes 

Another  reason  for  the  lack  of  a  clear  impact  of  the  directive  given  by  several 
employers was that the overwhelming reason for not practising discrimination was 
a business one. Labour market changes involving increased migration were viewed 
as the essential driver of non-discriminatory policies.  The migration flows of the 
last  decade  have  made  many  employers  introduce  more  inclusive  policies  to 
discourage  xenophobic  attitudes  and  racist  practices  within  their  organisations. 
This  assessment  of  the  directive  among  more  ‘aware’  employers  can  be 
summarised in the Danish Local Government respondent’s direct comment: “It is 
pointless.” 

For the Finnish Confederation of Industries higher levels of migration rather than 
the passage of the directive were responsible for increasing public awareness of the 
rights  of  ethnic  minorities  to  decent  treatment.  The  State  Employer’s  Office  in 
Finland  also  reported  that:  “The  EU  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  Equality  Act 
have not caused any essential changes in central government employment policies 
or practices.” 

Focusing on workers’ skills 

The Belgian Retailers’ Federation respondent believed: “Law doesn’t come into it:  
it’s  the  need  to  get  the  right  people  that  pushes  the  changes  that  open  us  up  to 
diversity.”  For  RailGourmet  in  Brussels  there  had  been  “a  natural  evolution 
towards  a  multicultural  employment  policy”  since  the  company  had  been 
established in 1994.  

For  the  Irish Hotel  Federation  also,  “the  prime  mover  was  market  forces  and  the 
fact  that  we  needed  the  people  on  board”.  This  too  was  the  view  of  the  Irish 
Business and Employers’ Confederation: “More important has been the change in 
society:  employers  generally  want  the  best  employees  and  don’t  care  where  they 

52 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

are from”. The pre-economic crisis skills shortage in Ireland “to some extent made 
race a non-issue”.  

Forty per cent of the 180 Greek workers of the furniture and mattress manufacturer, 
Coco Mat, are migrant or ethnic minority workers. The company’s main factory is 
in  Xanthi,  a  region  with  a  significant  Muslim  minority.  The  interviewee 
commented:  

“Employment  growth  was  not  planned  but  the  company  received  many 
applications from members of the minority. It is a fundamental principle of the 
company to look at the skills and educational background of candidates rather 
than the external characteristics such as colour or race or ethnicity.”  

Similarly, at the Torres Spanish wine-producer, employing workers from much of 
the EU as well as from many African and North African countries, it was claimed 
the Racial Equality Directive has changed nothing. The interviewee reported:  

“We  are  only  interested  in  workers’  skills,  we  do  not  care  about  their  race, 
religion  and  origin…procedures  to  fight  against  all  kinds  of  discrimination 
were  introduced  as  a  result  of  the  employers’  awareness  regarding  these 
matters.” 

This,  too,  was  the  sentiment  expressed  by  an  interviewee  at  Italy's  sixth  largest 
food-processing business, the Gruppo Veronesi: “Working side by side, workers of 
many  races  find  solutions  to  their  problems  and  work  out  their  differences... 
independently of any legislation.”  

3.2.3. 

Negative response to the directive 

Criticisms  of  the  directive  expressed  by  some  employers  were  driven  by  the 
resistance to any legally binding instruments that might interfere with the freedom 
of enterprise. Two main arguments followed:  

 

 

that regulating attitudes and behaviours in this area was not possible; and that  

the directive was an unnecessary burden: it imposed additional costs and 
bureaucracy on businesses.  

Impossible to regulate anti-discriminatory behaviour 

Many  employers  expressed  scepticism.  This  was  not  about  the  importance  of 
treating  people  equally,  regardless  of  their  ethnic  origins,  but  about  the  limited 

53 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

effectiveness of legislation. The Danish Local Government association respondent 
criticised the notion that laws can change behaviours:   

“They (the Racial Equality Directive laws) are based on a naïve idea that the 
situation  can  be  changed  if  you  come  up  with  a  new  law…  I  consider  it  a 
misconception to think that one can pass laws on these issues… Legislation will 
not solve these issues.”  

This political objection to using legal regulation to try and influence discriminatory 
behaviours  was  repeated  by  several  employers.  The  Danish  Construction 
Association respondent argued: “It is difficult to regulate how one recruits via laws 
and nothing good would come out of it. It is fine to have these laws as a signal, but 
they cannot be used to control people.” 

The respondent from Danish Industries made a wider criticism: that in the current 
economic  crisis  with  widespread  lay-offs,  rational  decision-making  in  favour  of 
keeping  the  ‘more  qualified’  candidate  was  being  distorted  by  discrimination 
legislation: 

“Companies often feel they have to choose more unqualified employees. In that 
way  the  laws  increase  protection  for  the  employees  that  are  covered  by  the 
protection criteria, but it also creates a very vague uncertain legal situation for 
businesses and for people who are neither young or old, white and etc.” 

The Confederation of Danish Employers respondent added:  

“Employers  should  only  focus  on  one  thing,  and  that  is  to  acquire  the  most 
qualified labour force. So, it is meaningless to make statements that one should 
not  discriminate.  All  that  matters  is  to  acquire  the  best  labour  force  on  the 
labour market.” 

The interviewee from the Federation of Finnish Commerce articulated the concern 
that  employers  might  feel  unreasonably  pressured  to  hold  on  to  less  qualified 
workers because they are protected by the directive:  

“It can be the case that Finns are saying that ‘we have come in for collective 
dismissals, but immigrants can keep their jobs’… Ethnic minority workers are 
very  motivated  when  they  have  a  job,  and  the  likelihood  that  they  raise  the 
accusation that there is ethnic discrimination in the workplace is high.” 

In Denmark, an interviewee from one employer association, the DI, believed:  

“If you focus on race and ethnicity, I do not think it [the directive and the laws] 
has  changed  something  because  we  had  no  cases  and  we  have  no  cases  or 
inquiries from businesses.” 

The  interviewee  from  the  general  employer  organisation  in  the  Netherlands,  the 
AWVN, argued:  

54 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“According  to  me  that  hasn’t  had  a  great  impact  on  the  right  (to  equal 
treatment).  And  it  hasn’t  changed  the  awareness  because  that  had  already 
changed long before. I don’t believe that in 2000 there were still employers who 
thought  it  was  all  right  to  discriminate.  I  don’t  think  that  it  has  changed  the 
awareness greatly.”  

The same view that discrimination would not be changed by the law was expressed 
by a Belgian employer association opposed to positive actions being proposed by 
the  Belgian  Equality  Body.  The  Brussels  Commercial  and  Industrial  Businesses 
argued against two measures the Belgian Equality Body was considering:  

“No one believes in recruitment testing or anonymous CVs. It's another rite. It 
won't  change  anything  if  the  person  isn't  convinced  from  the  start  that  you 
shouldn't discriminate.” 

Strong  criticism  of  the  law  was  particularly  evident  in  Germany.  An  interviewee 
from a major German cleaning company argued:  

“They want to regulate something that cannot be regulated. They are restricting 
people’s  freedom…  I  do  not  think  that  such  a  law  is  necessary  because 
discrimination is something intrinsic which cannot be hindered by laws.”   

Reasons given for why the directive is wrong 

The  Gesamtmetall  (German  Engineering  and  Electrical  Employers’  Federation), 
one of Germany's most important employer bodies, also believed the directive went 
too far:  

“When employees start to argue amongst themselves and anti-foreigner things are 
said,  I  ask  myself  whether  the  employer  should  be  held  responsible?  What  can 
employers  do  if  they  argue?  I  believe  that  holding  the  employer  responsible  for 
what happens between employees is totally wrong.” 

A German cleaning company respondent argued that the law could not be enforced:   

“It  is  a  law  for  idiots.  I  would  never  say  ‘I  do  not  want  you  because  you  are 
Turkish’.  Nobody  would  do  that…  So,  twenty  other  people  who  have  the  same 
profile have applied for the job. Naturally they do not know this. Naturally I would 
not make this public. And now I will choose someone that I like. I do not think you 
can regulate this through laws. I am totally opposed to this law; to these kinds of 
laws.”  

55 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Unnecessary law 

Deutsche Bahn's (German Railways) interviewee recalled: “Our opinion was that 
the law was not necessary. This was because on the one side a lot had already been 
done on a voluntary basis. On the other hand because Germany tends to be over-
regulated.”  The  Gesamtmetall  (German  Metal  and  Electronic  Employers’ 
Association) respondent was also quite explicit:  

“It was not possible to stop the law because the directive was already in place 
and  it  had  to  be  transposed.  So  you  could  not  say  ‘stop  the  law’.  What  you 
could  say  though  was  ‘restrict  it  as  best  as  possible’…  Germany,  certainly 
under the red/green government, had the tendency to implement more than was 
really necessary… And we said ‘Do what Europe requires but not more’.” 

Both  main  German  employer  organisations  expressed  considerable  opposition  to 
the passage of the equal treatment laws (including the Racial Equality Directive) in 
2006.  The  Confederation  of  German  Industry  (BDI)  is  committed  against  racism 
but did not believe the law was the way to do it. The interviewee explained:  

“When we had those very public cases in the media of foreigners being hunted 
and beaten up, the BDI held an event against xenophobia and on the need for 
better  relations  with  each  other.  It  was  well  attended.  But  you  cannot  always 
repeat  such  events.  You  do  it  too  often  and  people  start  to  lose  interest.  But 
finally such ways are, I believe, in the main better than trying to regulate things 
by laws.”  

The  Confederation  of  German  Employers’  Associations  (BDA)  interviewee 
confirmed: “We tried to stop the law.” Its opposition was partly because of what it 
saw  as  the  government's  attempt  to  go  beyond  the  directive's  minimum 
requirements. But it was also based on strong opposition to the Article putting the 
burden  of  proof  of  non-discrimination  onto  the  employer.  The  BDA's  concerns 
were confirmed because it had detected what it believed were abuses of the law by 

“(…) so-called ‘AGG-hoppers’30. That means people who see a chance… that 
a certain job position is advertised in which their profile certainly does not fit, 
but  which  they  nevertheless  apply  for,  even  though  they  are  not  interested  in 
taking the job. And this, so that the court compensates them.”  

A  similar  argument  came  from  the  Employers’  Confederation  of  Latvia. 
Recognising 
increased 
awareness among employees, the interviewee suggested: “More information about 
discrimination brings up more problems and it feels there is more discrimination 

laws  had  substantially 

the  anti-discrimination 

that 

30   AGG stands for ‘Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz’ – the German General Equal Treatment 

Act of 16 August 2006. 

56 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

around.”  However,  this  was  probably  more  true  of  gender  discrimination  than 
other forms, where awareness “is still comparatively low”.  

The  respondent  from  the  Slovenian  Association  of  Employers  in  Craft  and  Small 
Businesses  also  considered  that  the  presence  of  specific  anti-discrimination  law 
might  encourage  “filing  complaints  from  the  workers  [that]  could  also  be 
malicious”. An interviewee from a large Hungarian employer that had embedded 
the  directive  in  its  own  practices  also  echoed  these  concerns:  “Legal  instruments 
are  not  able  to  solve  complex  social  problems,  rather  they  generate  a  lot  of  new 
ones.” 

The belief that the directive directly or indirectly increases employer costs was also 
shared  by  the  Irish  Small  and  Medium  Enterprise  Employers’  Association, 
although  its  respondent  did  consider  the  law  had  improved  workers’  protections. 
The Italian management training firm, Fòrema, warned that  

“(…) encouraging migrant workers to raise issues of racial discrimination can 
have  unpredictable  consequences:  at  times  it  can  be  useful,  at  times  it  can  be 
counterproductive. To pursue certain dynamics and respond to certain requests 
because there is a law that tells you to do so has to be handled in a certain way 
in the sphere of company dynamics.”  

Another negative suggestion about the possible impact of the new equality laws in 
Germany was made by Deutsche Bahn (German Railways). Its respondent argued 
that on legal advice it had received failed candidates for recruitment were now no 
longer given any justifications for the decision:  

“We cannot do this because someone who is on the outside and not yet on the 
inside is in no way inhibited from taking legal action. Because of this I believe 
that there is a feeling that a flood of legal cases would take place.”  

3.2.4. 

Ignorance and lack of awareness of the directive 

Some employers’ views about the impact of the directive must also be understood 
in  the  contexts  of  considerable  ignorance  of  its  existence,  perhaps  because  it  is 
relatively  recent  in  some  countries,  or  because  of  the  presence  of  a  significant 
informal  economy  structured  around  racial  and  ethnic  segmentation,  or  of  both 
factors  working  together. There  were  also  several  employers  who  did  not  see  the 
point  of  a  directive  on  this  issue  since  they  believed  such  discrimination  did  not 
occur within employment in their country. 

The Athens Airport respondent considered awareness of the directive in Greece to 
be  very  low  indeed.  An  Italian  respondent  from  the  training  arm  of  the  highly 
industrial Padua region's Union of Industrialists commented:   

57 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“There is not yet much awareness of this law. Many people know it exists, but 
then… we have no particular information from someone who has really studied 
it and knows something in detail. The awareness is increasing, but still at a very 
informal level.”  

In  Hungary,  the  interviewee  from  the  National  Federation  of  Consumer  Co-
operatives,  a  recognised  employer  organisation  at  national  level  considered: 
“People  are  absolutely  not  aware  of  the  discrimination  laws.”  This  was  also  the 
view  of  the  Hungarian  National  Federation  of  Craftsmen,  another  recognised 
employer  organisation  whose  average  membership  employment  total  is  three  or 
four  people.  “Obviously,”  its  respondent  said,  “people  are  not  aware  of  the 
discrimination laws.”  

The  interviewee  from  an  Italian  consultancy  owned  by  the  Trentino  Hotel 
Association related the lack of awareness of their rights among the region's hotel 
and tourism workers to the sector and the seasonal nature of employment: “In my 
opinion  there  has  been  no  change among  the  workers,  the  fact  of  being  seasonal 
workers  puts  them  in  the  condition  of  not  knowing,  and  so  of  not  being  able  to 
demand,  their  rights.”  Another  Italian  company,  the  marble-producing  Marmi 
Santa  Margherita,  confirmed  that  its  non-Italian  workers  have  also  showed  no 
awareness  of  protection  against  ethnic  origin  discrimination:  “I  believe  that  the 
foreign workers have little knowledge of this directive in particular. It's much more 
likely  that  they  know  of  immigration  legislation  such  as  the  ‘Testo  Unico’,  the 
‘Bossi-Fini’.”31  

Another  explanation  for  the  lack  of  evidence  of  any  impact  of  the  directive  was 
given  by  the  Union  of  Luxembourg  Enterprises.  In  its  case  it  believed  the 
population of Luxembourg was very used to working with foreign nationals. One 
respondent  explained  that  “Diversity  management  is  a  little  bit  exotic.  It’s  really 
not a preoccupation at the moment.” While another pointed out the quite common 
view that gender equality was a more attainable target: “We are less active in the 
struggle against discrimination than in the struggle for equal opportunities. As an 
employers' organisation we see that problematic more positively.” It had therefore 
supported an EU-funded PROGRESS pilot project that provided awareness-raising 
and aimed to award companies with a badge of 'social responsibility' based on three 
elements:  employment  relations,  equality  of  professional  opportunities,  and 
governance and the environment. There would be a conference to help launch the 
badge in 2010. 

The Portuguese Trade and Services Confederation added another argument for the 
lack  of  awareness  of  the  directive.  The  respondent  distinguished  the  legally-
compliant  from  the  non-compliant  economy,  suggesting  that  anti-discrimination 
legislation did not reach the informal economy:  

31   The  Law  40/98,  the  ‘Testo  Unico  sull’Immigrazione’  of  1998  is  the  first  basic  Italian  law  on 
immigration  and  introduced  administrative  detention  centres;  the  Law  189/2002  or  ‘Bossi-Fini’ 
law linked the right to reside in Italy to an employment contract, a residence permit and housing. 

58 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“Mostly  the  companies  that  do  not  comply  with  the  law  regarding  minority 
workers are those based on ‘slave’ work. They do not pay their taxes, nor social 
security and so on. They are a minority of companies but their profits are much 
higher than the other companies.” 

The  respondent  from  the  Romanian  employment  agency,  Strametz,  commented 
that  “the  level  of  public  awareness  was  very  low,  especially  among  members  of 
minority  or  migrant  groups.  On  the  whole  people  do  not  benefit  from  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive  regulations.”  The  overall  situation  in  Romania  was  that  “the 
implementation  of  anti-discrimination  legislation  had  not  led  to  any  significant 
improvement  of  national  labour  market  conditions,  given  that  not  much  publicity 
was carried out to raise public awareness around it.” 

Denial of the problem 

Denial of the presence of discrimination came in many forms. One of these was to 
argue  that  it  was  incompatible  with  running  a  business  properly.  The  Romanian 
National  Employers  interviewee  stated  baldly:  “All  in  all,  I  do  not  consider  that 
there  are  racial  problems  in  Romania.”  Echoing  a  German  employer  quoted 
earlier,  he  explained:  “Employers  are  practical  people  and  oriented  towards  the 
well-being  of  its  business,  which  implies  not  carrying  on  about  discriminating. 
Thinking about discriminating goes against their interests.”  

Another form of denial came in the argument that minority workers’ readiness to 
accept  existing  conditions  could  demonstrate  the  absence  of  racial  or  ethnic 
discrimination. The respondent from the Union of Economic Initiative, a Bulgarian 
nationally-representative employer organisation with some 2,100 SME and around 
4,000  individual  trade  members,  reported  that  “working  people  from  the 
minorities…  do  not  feel  oppressed  or  discriminated  against”.  He  argued  that  a 
construction  worker  of  minority  origin  would  think  that  health  and  safety 
conditions at a construction site should be bad so as to protect the migrant worker’s 
job – in their opinion nobody else would like to work in such conditions.  

This  suggestion,  that  accepting  discrimination  was  a  deliberate  choice,  was 
questioned  by  a  Czech  Republic  interviewee  working  for  the  Ústí  Regional 
Authority. She pointed out that “The discriminated themselves often do not know 
they are discriminated,” but explained that they “considered the behaviour of the 
majority society [towards them] as standard.”  

Another form of denial was to simply assert that racial or ethnic discrimination in 
the  country  was  unknown.  The  Cyprus  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Industry,  for 
example, received information on the directive from European organisations it was 
affiliated  to  such  as  UEAPME.  The  interviewee  agreed:  “The  EU-15  are  much 
more  active  and  developed  in  this  field.”  Yet,  despite  reports  showing  migrant 
domestic  workers  faced  significantly  worse  employment  terms  than  did  the 

59 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Cypriot-born, he asserted: “Today, all foreigners enjoy equal rights with Cypriots 
and there is equal treatment by employers.”  

Not here 

In some cases a denial by the employer appeared to reflect their sense of pride in 
their own country. Echoing an Italian marble manufacturer who claimed: “It is in 
the  firm’s  DNA  not  to  discriminate”,  the  Latvian  Chamber  of  Commerce 
interviewee argued:  

“Maybe there have been problems in Germany historically - we know that with the 
Jews. But in Latvia we have never had anything like that. Ethnic discrimination is 
not a problem, it has never been here. Never! If you hear about that in the press or 
somewhere else, it is rather an opinion of some individuals. It might be seen as a 
problem in buses, trams, in city parks, but it is not a problem in business. There is 
nothing  to  be  improved,  because  the  situation  is  good.  It  can  only  worsen  if 
specially provoked.” 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Industry  of  Slovenia,  one  of  the  main  employer 
organisations  representing  Chambers  with  a 
total  of  140,000  employees, 
considered  that  if  discrimination  existed  in  employment  it  was  because  of 
“ignorance  or  intolerance  of  particular  individuals'.  In  general  it  did  just  not 
occur, and the new laws had not had any impact since anti-discrimination had been 
laid down in the 1991 Slovenian Constitution as a basic human right.  

In several countries the issue of racial discrimination was considered to be too low 
a  priority  for  the  employers  to  be  expected  to  respond.  The  respondent  from  the 
Confederation  of  Hungarian  Employers  and  Industrialists,  an  affiliate  of 
BusinessEurope and the largest employer organisation in Hungary, was clear: “The 
opinion of Hungarian employers is fixed. For them it is not a priority issue.” The 
Confederation  circulated  information  by  email  about  the  new  legislation,  but  did 
not hold any special conferences or produce any special literature. 

Lack of recognition of prejudice 

The  interviewee  from  the  Bulgarian  Union  of  Economic  Initiative  was  ready  to 
admit  that  the  lack  of  change  since  the  transposition  reflected  the  survival  of 
xenophobic tendencies:  

Bulgaria  is  a  strange  country  with  a  lot  of  prejudices.  The  idea  of  "Bulgarian 
tolerance" is a myth. But people internalise this. They rarely go to the surface and 
things  are  not  said  directly  -  for  example,  you  will  be  laid  off  because  of  "low 
qualifications" [rather than because of prejudices].  

60 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Ethnic discrimination against the Roma  

It is difficult to establish with any degree of accuracy the precise number of Roma 
living  at  the  territory  of  the  European  Union32.  The  countries  with  the  greatest 
proportions of Roma in their national population are mostly in Central and Eastern 
Europe. As the FRA has emphasised in its reports, the Roma are the minority group 
which is the most likely to be discriminated against – they experience disadvantage 
in  all  areas  of  social  life,  from  education,  through  to  housing  and  access  to 
healthcare33.  

The Polish employer association (Lewiatan) interviewee reported: “There would be 
no problem with employing a Bulgarian, however, there might be a problem with a 
Romanian,  as  in  Poland  they  are  associated  with  Romanian  Gypsies  who  beg  on 
the streets.”  

One  result  of  this  neglect,  a  Lithuanian  NGO  commented,  was  that  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive  had  not  been  used  as  it  might  have  been:  “For  Roma  people 
who are afraid of government, like ‘the government’, and of the state, like ‘State’, 
for them, everything and everybody is a ‘police officer’, it is especially hard.” 

Open prejudice about the Roma was expressed by one employer respondent whose 
view was that: “The problem in Lithuania is about the "Roma species" as we call 
them  here.  They  simply  don’t  want  to  work;  they  don’t  want  to  work;  they  don’t 
want to learn; they don’t want to respect the country’s laws.” 

Within many countries of Central and  Eastern Europe the acceptance as ‘natural’ 
that  Roma  people  have  a  different  status,  combined  with  an  ideological  ‘worker 
equality’ discourse of the past means that despite the directive many people find it 
difficult today to recognise the presence of racial and ethnic oppression with regard 
to  the  Roma.  The  Bulgarian  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Industry  interviewee 
described the range of factors shaping their understanding: 

“Probably  the  factors  that  contribute  to  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  are 
related  to  our  national  identity,  to  the  history  of  democracy,  to  the  forms  of 
government.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  we  were  a  closed  system  for  a  long 
period  of  time  when  many  forms  of  the  protection  of  the  individual  were 
excluded.” 

32  

 FRA  (2009)  The  situation  of  Roma  EU  citizens  moving  to  and  settling  in  other  EU  Member 
States, Summary report, Vienna: FRA. 

33   FRA  (2009)  The  Roma,  EU-MIDIS  Data  in  Focus  Report  1,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official 

Publications of the European Communities.  

61 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

3.3. 

Practical outcomes 

What  actual  policies  and  practices  did  employers  adopt  as  a  result  of  the  Racial 
Equality Directive? The main responses were in the areas of information, training, 
codes of conduct and forms of diversity management, including in some instances 
their 
positive 
organisations had responded directly to the new legislation, while others reported 
taking steps to challenge racial and ethnic and, often, other forms of discrimination, 
without indicating they were a direct consequence of the directive.  

initiatives.  Many 

interviewees 

recruitment 

indicated 

that 

Direct outcomes 

Many  employer  organisations  responded  directly  to  the  passage  of  the  national 
legislation transposing the directive in their countries through sending out detailed 
information to their members. In Finland in 2004, for example, the Commission for 
Local  Authority  Employers,  responsible  for  collective  agreements  covering 
428,000  municipal  employees,  sent  a  general  charter  out  to  all  its  members 
describing the law in detail and explaining how each local authority must draw up 
an equality plan. In Austria, TNT conducted a special ‘diversity check’ of its own 
recruitment  procedures  to  see  if  it  was  fully  compliant  with  the  Equal  Treatment 
Law. 

At EDF Energy in the UK the wake-up call to the need to take anti-discrimination 
seriously had come from its competing for contracts from the public sector. In this 
case, as a private sector company, EDF Energy is not bound by the UK legislation 
covering  the  public  sector  by  an  ‘equality  duty’.  Yet,  the  interviewee  considered 
that  the  production  of  “a  book-length  equalities  contract  compliance  document” 
had  been  driven  essentially  by  the  company’s  successful  bidding  for  a  major 
contract with the Olympic Development Authority:  

“The  ODA  contract  is  having  a  major  impact  on  the  culture  and  working 
practices of the company because it has to profile and monitor all the equality 
strands both of its own employees and those of its sub-contractors… One of the 
consequences  is  that  the  on-site  equality  and  diversity  team  is  larger  and  has 
more  resources  at  its  disposal  than  the  team  at  company  headquarters  that 
covers the whole of the rest of the UK.” 

The directive thus directly helps provide a context in which discrimination is seen 
as  an  obstacle  to  establishing  proper  business  relations.  The  Royal  Mail 
interviewee  in  the  UK  reported  it  was  “about  to  launch  an  ethical  supplier 
diversity  policy.  That’s  very  new.  That’s  leading  edge.”  It  would  involve  the 
company  investigating  the  practices  of  its  suppliers  in  order  to  ensure  they  fully 
complied with anti-discrimination law. 

62 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Training programmes 

New or enhanced training programmes were a major consequence of the directive. 
Thus Sweden’s Uppsala City Council first introduced an optional one-day diversity 
course  for  its  managers  in  2003,  and  soon  afterwards  made  it  compulsory.  The 
Danish  Confederation  of  Employers  (DA)  included  the  new  laws  in  its  regular 
education  and  training  programmes,  although  it  did  not  develop  a  special 
programme.  A  similar  policy  to  include  the  new  Equality  Act  within  existing 
training was adopted by the Finnish Confederation of Industries (EK), although the 
Finnish State Employer Office (VMTL) and Construction Industries Confederation 
(RT) organised special training sessions. 

At  the  Uppsala  Hospital  in  Sweden  an  information  and  training  programme  was 
introduced  consisting  of  texts  and  films  related  to  real  cases  reported  to  the 
hospital’s Ombudsman. These are studied and discussed by groups of staff.  

The  training  conducted  in  response  to  the  directive  of  the  German  Metalworking 
and Electrical Employers (Gesamtmetall) focused on the burden of proof across the 
discrimination strands: “An aim of our training concerns avoiding this point. How 
to  avoid  the  appearance  of  discrimination  because  you  can  never  prove  the 
opposite.”  At  German  Railways  (DB)  the  law  was  put  on  the  intranet  and  an  e-
learning programme was developed. The BD interviewee stressed: “We were very 
conscious of the need to inform: ‘What is different about this new law? What do we 
have  to  take  note  of?’  But  at  the  same  time  we  have  tried  to  overcome  people's 
fears.” 

The  AWVN  Dutch  general  employer  association  has  also  produced  a  myriad  of 
documents and updates on diversity policy and it participated in the annual Equal 
Pay  Day  hosted  in  2009  by  the  VNO-NCW  peak  employer  confederation. 
However,  although  offering  a  training  course  on  ‘Equal  Treatment  at  the  Shop 
Floor’ to its members, it has not had any requests over the past four years. 

Codes of conduct 

The need to demonstrate compliance with the shift in the burden of proof was also 
a  motive  in  the  adoption  by  several  companies  of  codes  of  conduct.  An  example 
from  a  Netherlands-based  MNC  provides  a  direct  reference  to  the  new  legal 
framework in their ‘Global Code of Conduct and Ethics’:  

“Unlawful  discrimination  or  harassment  is  prohibited.  Decisions  about 
recruitment, employment, promotion and termination are made on the basis of 
objective and non-discriminatory criteria.” 

New  confidential  complaints  procedures  were  also  introduced  by  several 
employers. Another Dutch employer believed: 

63 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“If  the  complaints  procedure  is  properly  undertaken  a  lot  of  problems  can  be 
solved  and  do  not  have  to  go  to,  for  example,  the  CGB  (Equal  Treatment 
Commission) or courts. The company obviously does not want any bad publicity 
and  likes  to  solve  complaints  on  discrimination  or  otherwise  through  the  in-
house complaints procedure.” 

The  Belgian  Retail  Employers’  Federation  introduced  two  new  clauses  in  its 
Ethical  Business  Code,  one  directed  at  discrimination  against  customers  and  the 
other  proscribing  all  discriminatory  attitudes  within  the  business:  “in  particular 
concerning recruitment, appraisals and promotions, that must be done in relation 
to  the  qualities  and  performance  of  the  individuals  involved,  excluding  any 
consideration based on nationality, race, religion, gender, marital situation, etc.” 

The  Austrian  Shell  respondent  reported  the  parent  company's  Code  of  Conduct 
included  guidelines  for  combating  harassment  and  discrimination,  and  that  levels 
of participation in training, including the legal background, had been high after the 
equality laws were introduced. Several contact points had been made available to 
employees to raise issues of discrimination, including anonymously if desired.  

US Steel Košice had responded to the new Slovakian laws by adopting a Code of 
Ethical  Business  Conduct  in  June  2004.  This  specifically  banned  any  kind  of 
discrimination  based  on  race,  colour,  citizenship  and  national  origin.  While  this 
permits  workers  to  use  an  anonymous  and  independent  hotline  phone  number  to 
report violations of the Code, no complaints of racial or ethnic discrimination have 
yet been made. In 2008, US Steel Košice organised a diversity training course for 
120  managers  and  included  a  clause  dealing  with  racial  and  ethnic  origin  in  its 
three-year collective agreement negotiated with the unions. 

Diversity policies at company level 

Several ‘more aware’ employers reported the creation of ‘Diversity Management’ 
posts.  As  a  result  of  the  directive  at  one  large  Dutch  company  the  “Diversity 
Coordinator keeps all personnel managers up to date on diversity issues and has 
close  consultation  with  the  works  council  and  initiates  special  projects  if 
necessary.” These issues included conducting research into why some employees 
did  not  appear  to  make  progress  within  the  company  and  drawing  conclusions 
about the need for increased in-house coaching and training. While discrimination 
training  did  not  begin  with  the  directive,  it  did  push  the  company  to  “step  up  its 
efforts regarding training on discrimination and diversity issues”. 

Committing  to  diversity  is  not,  always,  the  same  thing  as  fully  implementing  it. 
Thus, the Belgian Carrefour company signed a Diversity Charter in 2006 “with a 
great deal of marketing publicity”, but it was only two years later that the company 
allocated responsibility to someone to follow it through. The interviewee recalled 

64 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

that even now “a real change in attitudes has to take place in the company… We 
were so used to working within the ‘BBB’ (‘Bleu, Blanc, Belge’) tradition34 and not 
to question this and now we are opening new horizons.” Persuading line managers 
to  recruit  women  wearing  headscarves  based  on  their  competencies  rather  than 
anything else is still not easy, although ‘in general it's getting better’.  

The  Deutsche  Bahn  (German  railways)  employs  240,000  staff  worldwide  and 
180,000 in Germany, of whom 10,000 are non-naturalised foreign-born. It signed 
up to the Diversity Charter launched by the government and four private companies 
in  2006  (the same  year  as  the  Equal  Treatment  Law  was  passed)  and  which  now 
has 500 signatories. DB sees it as an alternative approach rather than as additional 
to the Racial Equality Directive: 

“The  charter  represents  a  positive  acknowledgement.  In  contrast  to  the  AGG 
(Equality  legislation)  where  you  are  forced,  here  you  can  positively  document 
things  and  the  aim  is  to  bring  more  diversity  in  inclusion  into  companies… 
Voluntarism and positive measures can achieve a lot.” 

Positive measures 

There  were  several  reports  of  employers  following  up  the  directive  by  taking 
positive  steps  to  tackle  discrimination.  In  Denmark  the  Confederation  of  Danish 
Employers (DA) is supporting a joint ‘integration-jobs’ programme coordinated by 
Local Government Denmark (KL) and the union confederation, LO. In this scheme 
full-time workers with an ethnic minority background are recruited to public sector 
posts  on  the  basis  that  one  fifth  of  their  time  will  be  devoted  to  improving  their 
qualifications.  

In  Slovakia  at  US  Steel  Košice,  just  before  the  new  law  was  transposed,  the 
company in 2002 started a project to recruit Roma from the closest village, Velká 
Ida. Its mayor played an important part in pre-selecting the long-term unemployed 
and in 2009 roughly 100 of the original 150 Roma workers were still employed. 

The  Swedish  Skanska  MNC  launched  an  'Equal  Treatment  Policy'  in  2003,  the 
same  year  as  the  Swedish  Anti-Discrimination  Law  was  passed.  Its  originality  is 
that it is continuously updated with concrete objectives set every year, and that the 
company  sees  it  as  crucial  “to  systematically  integrate  the  work  against 
discrimination  into  the  company’s  ordinary  operations.”  Skanska’s  Action  Plan 
includes check lists and clear routines on how to respond if an individual considers 
themselves discriminated against. 

In  Austria,  TNT  started  to  offer  German  language  courses  free  of  charge  after 
working hours. It also uses an annual employee survey that now includes questions 

34   'Bleu, Blanc, Belge' is the brand name of the most well-known national cow, and in recruitment 

‘BBB’is shorthand for a ‘white-skinned Belgian national’. 

65 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

on  gender  and  ethnicity  among  the  25  different  nationalities  it  employs.  This 
enables  it  to  monitor  very  clearly  any  discrimination  issues  that  appear,  and  it 
promotes  a  tolerant  multicultural  atmosphere  at  work  through  providing  menus 
without  pork  in  the  staff  restaurant,  and  private  prayer  rooms  for  religious 
Muslims. In the UK, at Heathrow Airport, workers for Royal Mail had been invited 
through  a  self-managed  Dignity  and  Respect  at  Work  (DRAW)  group  to  develop 
their own solutions to staffing problems caused by high levels of request for leave 
during the important non-Christian holidays, such as the Eid festival, which marks 
the end of Ramadan.  

Ethnic monitoring, a process used to collect, store, and analyse data about people’s 
ethnic  backgrounds,  is  not  new  in  the  UK.  Thus  the  London  Fire  Brigade  knows 
that Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people make up 11 per cent of operational 
staff  and  28  per  cent  of  support  staff  (in  a  workforce  of  7,000).    But  under  the 
impetus of the heightened concern to challenge racial discrimination it now has a 
target or achieving 35 per cent of BME staff by 2013, in order to arrive at matching 
the BME share of London’s population. The interviewee reported that most BME 
staff are lower down the hierarchy and that white people tend to do better in getting 
short-listed in recruitment. The employer is therefore dealing with these problems 
through running workshops for prospective applicants and in encouraging existing 
staff to pass on the message about the opportunities that exist.  

Targeting ethnic minority recruitment 

At British Telecom (BT) in the UK a specific and successful recruitment campaign 
in 2007 had taken place: “Recognising our increasingly diverse customer base, and 
wanting to be reflective of the mix of our communities, we looked to target ethnic 
minorities  and  women.”  The  interviewee  reported  that  it  had  involved  “changing 
the  criteria  by  which  candidates  were  assessed  –  placing  emphasis  on  generic 
skills,  such  as  customer  empathy,  communication  and  personality  and  less  on 
formal qualifications”. BT is a multinational company with a Global Equality and 
Diversity forum providing the lead:  

“It  is  attended  by  senior  representatives  from  each  of  the  lines  of  business  and 
champions  of  all  the  diversity  strands  and  they  set  the  agenda  on  diversity.  They 
act  as  role  models,  as  champions  in  their  truest  sense,  as  ambassadors  for  the 
promotion  of  diversity  across  and  into  our  business.  We  also  do  communication 
across the business to all our populations.” 

The interviewee went on: “In the race sphere the company has an ethnic minority 
(Black  workers)  network  as  well  as  our  Asian  network,  as  well  as  some  specific 
religious networks including a Muslim network, often specific to race as well.”  

66 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

These examples of some aware employers attempting to build upon and go beyond 
the basic legal framework provided by the Racial Equality Directive and to tackle 
indirect discrimination through positive action demonstrate what can be done if the 
political and managerial will is present. 

Indirect outcomes 

Some  employers  reported  improving  their  policies  and  practices  on  racial  and 
ethnic  discrimination  since  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  target  implementation 
date of 2003, but did not directly link this to the new law. The lack of an explicit 
link may in some cases reflect a clear continuity of policy dating back to before the 
directive.  These  examples  are  excluded  from  this  report,  although  it  is  also  clear 
that they have helped create the improving culture towards ‘the other’ that is found 
in  several  countries.  In  other  cases  the  context  of  heightened  awareness  of  the 
necessity to challenge discrimination for both business and legal reasons suggests 
the directive did play a role in encouraging or enabling specific policies to emerge. 
These are the ‘indirect’ outcomes of the directive examples described here. 

Mirroring  the  local  customer  base  among  its  own  staff  has  become  a  standard 
feature  of  many  company  business  strategies,  in  particular  in  customer-facing 
sectors  such  as  retailing.  The  Belgian  Retailers’  Federation  saw  a  clear  recent 
business interest in diversity. The Brussels Commercial and Industrial Businesses 
employer association welcomed the creation of Diversity Managers paid for by the 
Brussels Region to be at the disposal of companies:  

“The advantage is that these people are entirely devoted to diversity, while we 
couldn’t  do  that  on  our  own;  the  disadvantage  is  that  they  are  not  as  closely 
connected to the businesses.” 

A  Dutch  employer  recognised  it  was  now  crucial  to  “integrate  diversity  in  your 
image”. This was critical both to attracting customers and to enable its employees 
to grow within the organisation. Tesco in the UK had also developed new policies 
in the last five years:  

“We are seeking to attract and employ the most talented people. It’s a talent-
based business case for us. We recognise there are many talented people from 
all walks of life. We know that there is a direct link between that talent and our 
balance sheet. How do we get people to realise their full potential?” 

The semantic shift from the idea of ‘challenging discrimination’ to ‘implementing 
diversity  policies’  was  considered  very  positive  by  the  Belgian  Finance  Sector 
Federation,  whose  members  employ  0.7  per  cent  non-EU  origin  staff.  Its 
respondent  commented  on  the  language  used:  in  talking  discrimination  “we  feel 
accused”, while we can feel “passionate” about diversity.  

67 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Evidence  that  a  narrow  definition  of  diversity  is  shared  by  some  employers  was 
given  by  the  Finnish  public  sector  employer  respondent  who  suggested  racial 
discrimination could be reduced through implementing what could be considered a 
form  of  tokenism:  “We  should  have  a  directive  that  at  least  one  ethnic  minority 
worker should be in every workplace. Of course, this is idealism.”  

The  Irish  Business  and  Employers’  Confederation  is  promoting  the  business  case 
for  diversity  through  seeking  to  establish  mentoring-type  relationships  between 
organisations  that  are  more  advanced  and  others  that  are  less  so.  The  Irish  Hotel 
Federation has brought in a ‘diversity award scheme’ to encourage good practices 
in  ‘recruitment,  training,  promotion’.  The  largest  French  employer  organisation, 
the  Movement  of  French  Enterprises  (MEDEF)  has  also  begun  to  encourage  its 
local regional organisations to develop diversity among its member companies for 
both ethical and economic reasons.  

Going beyond diversity 

The  Paris  region  of  the  French  Small  and  Medium-Sized  Business  Confederation 
has  many  affiliated  members  and  their  employees  coming  from  ethnic  minority 
origins.  The  diversity  it  was  committed  to  specifically  included  “the  struggle 
against  discrimination  and  particularly  against  racial  discrimination”.  The 
interviewee  from  the  CGPME  felt  it  was  important  to  go  beyond  the  slogan 
'diversity'  to  sustainable  local  actions  in  terms  of  recruitment,  training  and 
awareness-raising. He explained:  

“There is more and more opening up. But what worries me is the ‘diversity alibi’. 
That is, to recruit one Black to a branch in order to pretend you are diverse. But 
how many Blacks are there across the whole branch network?” 

In  the  case  of  the  Austrian  Vienna  City  Administration,  a  change  in  policy  took 
place in 2004, in the wake of, but the respondents argued independently from, the 
directive. The new policy added ‘diversity’ to the previous policy of ‘integration’. 
A Department for 'Integration and Diversity' was created so as “to acknowledge the 
diversity  of  the  Viennese  population…  to  appreciate  and  to  adjust  to  these 
changes…  and  to  represent  the  entire  population  within  the  administrative 
structures”. The new policy does not seek to be seen as a top-down imposition, and 
it is sensitive to the fear of competition among  

“those  who  already  are  in  privileged  position  and  who  perhaps  also 
experienced a tedious career… It is always about social ups and downs and the 
fear  of  losing.  What  we  are  aiming  at  is  to  promote  an  understanding  that 
everyone  will  benefit  in  the  long  run  from  diverse  staff  working  in  the  Vienna 
City Administration.” 

68 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

In  Hungary,  a  very  large  logistics  company  only  employs  a  few  Roma,  but  over 
half  its  workers  are  women  and  after  the  transposition  of  the  directive  in  2004  it 
developed an 'Equal Opportunity Plan' and Code of Conduct that is given to every 
employee. This policy is included in both line manager and new employee training 
programmes. In 2007 and 2008 the company had a competition between its units 
for  the  best  equal  opportunity  practices,  but  none  involved  racial  or  ethnic 
discrimination. Its respondent was convinced: “Should any kind of racial or ethnic 
discrimination  emerge  within  the  company,  the  top  management  would  stand  up 
against it in an extremely severe way.”  

Raising  the  importance  of  anti-discrimination  practices  through  emphasising 
gender  awareness  was  also  the  route  taken  by  another  inward  investing 
multinational  corporation  (MNC),  the  Shell  company  in  Hungary.  It  followed  its 
Dutch-British multinational’s lead and introduced an equal opportunity policy and 
code  of  conduct  dealing  with  gender,  language  and  religion  as  well  as  racial  and 
ethnic discrimination in 2002, before the Hungarian law was passed. The company 
respondent  believed  Shell  had  been  ahead  of  the  legislation,  and  that  directive 
transposition  had  made  no  difference.  Nonetheless,  in  2008  it  began  to  deal  with 
Roma  problems  and  gave  a  Roma  student  a  scholarship.  It  is  also  attempting  to 
exercise  influence  on  its  petrol  station  franchisees  to  adopt  strong  measures  of 
positive action. According to the interviewee the company wants to ensure that:   

“the composition of employees at new filling stations should reflect the ethnic 
composition of the local population...  In the background there are prejudices, 
deeply sitting in minds. For the long term solution, the Roma should be given 
chances,  appropriate  schooling  and  representation  in  employment.  Even  a 
quota  system  would  be  helpful  in  education.  A  breakthrough  in  welfare  and 
employment policy is also needed to improve the situation.” 

Across several Central and Eastern European EU Member States a pattern emerged 
whereby  interviewees  from  incoming  multinational  companies  appeared  more 
sensitive  to  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination  than  did  many  nationally-based 
companies.  But  this  was  not  always  the  case.  One  Bulgarian  employer,  the 
respondent from a Sofia Taxi firm with some 300-400 Roma drivers out of a total 
of 1,500-1,600, described its experience:  

“We are the only taxi company with such a number of Roma taxi drivers, and 
we have no conflicts… we also have people in dispatcher positions from Roma 
origin, and one of them manages a Bulgarian channel with Bulgarian drivers.” 

The  company  is  also  considering  putting  all  drivers  into  uniforms  and  training 
some Roma drivers as guides to take tourists to the Roma quarter of town.  

In  the  Czech  Republic,  in  2007  the  Gumotex  rubber  and  chemicals  firm  was 
awarded  the  'Ethnic  Friendly'  award  by  the  IQ  Roma  NGO  after  passing  an 
extensive  check  of  its  HR  policies,  wage  system  and  collective  agreements,  and 

69 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

after  interviews  were  held  with  workers  from  all  ethnic  groups.  This  programme 
was established after discussions on the transposition of the directive had begun.  

A  cautionary  example,  however,  was  given  by  the  Confederation  of  Hungarian 
Employers (MGYOSZ) respondent. It participated in a successful EQUAL funded 
programming  of  vocational  training  for  Roma  after  the  directive  had  been 
transposed,  but  “when  the  subsidies  expired,  the  Roma  participants  had  no 
sustainable enterprises and jobs”.  

70 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

4. 

Trade union awareness and 
responses  

Trade  unions  are  essentially  reactive  organisations.  Made  up  of  employees  who 
voluntarily  associate  together  in  order  to  more  effectively  articulate  collective 
views on their employment rights and conditions, they largely respond to changes 
rather  than  initiate  them.  Their  ability  to  influence  employment  relationships  at 
work should not be exaggerated. The unions are rarely present in the vast majority 
of  small  firms,  and  have  been  losing  members  in  many  of  Europe’s  larger  firms 
over the last twenty years. Overall trade union density is higher in the EU-15, while 
the unions of Central and Eastern Europe are only rediscovering the union role as 
articulating an employee voice independently of the employer. 

The  national  reports  published  on  the  FRA  website  that  accompany  this  report 
outline  the  specific  industrial  relations  systems  and  national  roles  of  the  unions. 
What  is  clear  is  that  in  most  cases  the  unions  have  very  limited  room  for 
manoeuvre  in  response  to  the  regulations  that  employers  introduce  (or  fail  to 
introduce) in Europe’s workplaces. Their awareness of and responses to the Racial 
Equality Directive and to the national frameworks of anti-discrimination laws are, 
nonetheless, part of the creation of a moral climate shaping what are acceptable or 
unacceptable employer practices. 

This chapter first sketches the particular tensions between inclusion and exclusion 
in  trade  union  policies  in  relation  to  ethnic  minority  or  migrant  workers.  It  then 
describes the challenges to trade union anti-discrimination policies created by the 
current  economic  crisis.  Next,  it  turns  to  the  trade  unions’  assessments  of  the 
impact  of  the  directive,  and  finally  considers  its  direct  and  indirect  consequences 
on trade union policies and practices.  

4.1. 

Inclusion or exclusion? 

Nearly  from  their  inception  in  the  mid-19th  century  trade  unions  have  grappled 
with the tension between an exclusive, national or skill-based protectionism and an 
inclusive internationalism. Up until the mid 20th centuries many of their responses 
to  the  employers’  use  of  migrant  workers  were  negative.  ‘Foreign’  workers  were 
essentially  seen  as  a  threat  to  jobs,  wages  and  working  conditions.  While  some 
unions  and  some  union 
than 
protectionism, these were the minority.  

leaders  advocated 

internationalism 

rather 

71 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Initially  many  unions  argued  for  ‘controlling  numbers’  of  migrants.  Then  they 
developed the concept of 'equal treatment' to ensure there was no under-cutting of 
‘national’ rates. But since the 1970s at first a few and then nearly all of Western 
Europe’s  trade  unions  developed  policies  of  toleration,  support  and  'equal 
opportunities' towards ethnic minority workers.35 The inclusive strand has become 
much  stronger  in  Western  European  trade  unions.  This  was  an  outcome  of 
significantly  higher  levels  of  migration  and  population  mixing,  of  economic 
development  that  saw  both  a  general  up-skilling  and  shift  from  heavy  industry 
towards services, and the extension of the notions of human and political rights. 

When  trade  unions  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  joined  the  ETUC,  they  also 
signed up to the EU-level anti-discrimination policy agenda. 

As outlined in Chapter 1 section 3, after launching the Florence Declaration with 
UNICE in 1995 and being involved in the 1997 European Year Against Racism36, 
the ETUC became one of the prime movers lobbying successfully in support of the 
Racial Equality Directive and it has remained committed to anti-racism ever since.  

The  ETUC  respondent  referred  to  the  very  negative  publicity  that  had  emanated 
from  the  UK  when  oil  refinery  construction  workers  who  were  members  of  the 
UNITE  trade  union  had  gone  on  strike  in  February  2009  for  ‘British  jobs  for 
British  Workers’.  Soon  after  that  the  Polish  president  of  the  OPZZ  trade  union 
confederation  floated  the  idea  of  campaigning  to  protect  jobs  for  Polish  workers, 
“because other EU countries were doing it”. Another OPZZ interviewee explained 
that: 

“The  statement  about  closing 
foreigners  was 
misunderstood.  What  the  President  meant  was  that  OPZZ  does  not  want  to 
accept social dumping – we want to protect all employees and all jobs, so that 
nobody  will  be  exploited.  People  who  are  coming  to  Poland  to  work  should 
work on the same conditions as Polish workers.”  

labour  market 

the 

to 

The respondent from the Lithuanian Confederation of Trade Unions (LPSK) makes 
the protectionist argument quite explicitly:  

“We are trying to keep our labour market from third country workers, even in a 
situation  when  we  had  not  enough  workers  in  Lithuania,  we  agreed  only  to 
5,000 places for third country workers. We are trying to keep our labour market 
for our workers.” 

35   Martens,  A.  (1999)  “Migratory  Movements:  The  Position,  the  Outlook.  Charting  a  Theory  and 
Practice for Trade Unions", in: Wrench, J. and Ouali, N. (eds.), Migrants, Ethnic Minorities and 
the Labour Market, Macmillan: Basingstoke. 

36   The Florence Declaration followed upon the EU Commission’s 1995 Communication on Racism, 
Xenophobia and Anti-Semitismi, which included the proposal to designate 1997 as the European 
Year Against Racism. 

72 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

This theme also recurred elsewhere, for example among the public sector unions of 
Luxembourg. 

A  more  subtle  form  of  the  protectionist  case  was  where  migrant  workers  were 
welcomed but only as a temporary ‘cushion’ that could be removed to protect the 
‘national’  workforce  in  the  case  of  an  economic  downturn.  An  employer 
interviewee  from  the  Stamont-Metal  International  employment  agency  in  the 
Czech  Republic  that  places  temporary  workers  in  several  industrial  companies 
noted:   

“Trade unions in these companies are aware of the fact that foreign employees 
from agencies represent a certain cushion in case of dismissals. Therefore, they 
usually act helpfully towards them.” 

Impact of the economic crisis 

Some  respondents  considered  the  current  economic  crisis  as  likely  to  lead  to  a 
sharpening of hostility towards ethnic minority or migrant worker, particularly if he 
or she actually had a job, and to postpone any serious implementation of the Racial 
Equality Directive. In Luxembourg a Confederation of Independent Trade Unions 
(OGB-L)  interviewee  believed  the  crisis  was  affecting  toleration:  “I  now  hear 
Luxembourgers  and  even  Portuguese  talking  about  the  ‘dirty  cross  frontier 
workers’ coming here and taking our jobs.”  

In  Spain,  a  CCOO  respondent  reported  growing  antagonism  among  Spanish-born 
workers  to  the  provision  of  unemployment  benefit  to  non-Spanish  workers.  The 
respondent  expressed  real  concern  that  the  economic  crisis  could  mean  that  the 
progress that has taken place is put into reverse. 

“The fight against racial and ethnic discrimination has been achieving things, 
people  are  more  aware  of  it.  Unfortunately,  the  economic  crisis  is  destroying 
part  of  the  improvements.  There  is  the  danger  of  an  increase  in  racism  and 
xenophobia.” 

In  some  cases,  proposals  to  integrate  migrant  workers  more  closely  within  a 
national  trade  union  had  been  postponed.  The  crisis  led  to  the  cancellation  of 
planned talks between the OS STAVBA union and Vietnamese trade unions about 
union  rights  for  Vietnamese  migrants  working  for  Czech  Republic  employment 
agencies.  

In  Europe's  largest  economy,  a  German  IG  Metall  union  interviewee  issued  a 
warning:  “What  we  are  now  noticing  is  the  nationalistic  tone  that  exists  in 
companies,  irrespective  of  the  new  law  in  Europe.”  In  one  of  its  smallest 
economies, Latvia, the Energija union respondent confirmed that minority workers 
were  already  worried:  “Especially  now,  some  people  have  turned  to  me  or  other 

73 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

representatives, expressing their fear, asking if limited language knowledge might 
be one of reasons to be first in line to be fired.”  

However,  some  respondents  also  argued  strongly  that  the  assertion  of  racial 
equality  was  even  more  important  in  the  current  crisis.  An  Italian  trade  union 
confederation (CGIL) interviewee stressed that:  

“Basic principles must be reasserted precisely in situations of emergency… In 
this  regard  I  say  that  certain  European  instruments  can  help  us  to  strengthen 
and not to wreck the effectiveness of some laws already in force.” 

Trade union ambivalence 

Both exclusionary and inclusionary strands of trade unionism remain present nearly 
everywhere. A preference for national workers is inevitably fuelled by the current 
economic  crisis.  Trade  unions  may  embrace  'new'  workers,  but  may  at  the  same 
time  come  under  pressure  to  appear  to  protect  the  interests  of  their  existing 
‘national’ members.  

This  can  lead  to  the  situation  of  potential  tension  between  the  struggle  for  better 
pay  and  working  conditions  for  domestic  workers  and  the  struggle  against 
discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  race  or  ethnicity.  This  may  explain  why  trade 
unions have not mobilised against racial discrimination in some countries.  

4.2. 

The impact of the directive 

This Section presents the views of the trade unions on the impact of the directive 
on  the  ground.  The  interviews  disclose  three  main  union  positions  on  the 
directive’s significance: 

5.  Positive impact of the directive. Many trade union respondents considered that 
the directive helped spread the general awareness of workers’ rights among the 
general public. Several active policy changes were identified by the trade union 
respondents as a direct or indirect consequence of the directive. Some referred 
to  one  result  being  a  reconsideration  of  traditional  trade  union  views  of 
opposing ethnic monitoring. 

6.  Little or no impact of the directive. It was argued the adoption of the directive 
had not led to any improvements because of pre-existing national legislation on 
ethnic  discrimination.  Furthermore,  some  of  the  trade  union  respondents 
believed  there  was  not  enough  readiness  of  individuals  and  organisations  to 
challenge discrimination. This was ascribed to fear of raising a ‘controversial’ 
issue  in  the workplace  and  reportedly also  difficulty  to  impose  compliance  on 

74 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

employers.  Some trade union respondents believed that the directive was not a 
right mechanism to fight discrimination.  

7.  Some trade unionists had negative view of the directive. Some concerns were 
voiced that a policy of pursuing legal remedies on an individual level could lead 
to a weakening of unions’ collective bargaining. Some also argued that workers 
did not pursue claims because the legal processes were complicated and slow, 
the  remedies  were  limited  and  the  desire  to  remain  in  work  meant  that 
individuals were reluctant to use the law because of a fear of reprisals.  

8.  Ignorance  and  lack  of  awareness  of  the  directive.  Some  of  the  trade  union 
interviewees  denied  the  existence  of  discrimination,  especially  in  relation  to 
discrimination  of  Roma.  In  other  instances  trade  union  officials    displayed 
attitudes tolerant of discrimination on the grounds of racial origin.    

4.2.1. 

Positive impact of the Directive 

Awareness-raising outcomes identified by some unions that flowed from the Racial 
Equality Directive and its national transposition included the knock-on effect that 
well-publicised  legal  cases  of  racism  were  having  on  public  awareness.  For  the 
interviewee from Sweden's largest union, the local government union Kommunal, 
one fifth of whose members have non-Swedish origins: “The EU Racial Equality 
Directive and the subsequent Swedish law have made the problems of racism and 
discrimination  more  visible.”  The  Swedish  Commercial  Employees’  Union, 
Handels,  echoed  this  analysis:  “The  public  debate  on  ethnic  discrimination  in 
recent years has increased awareness among the members.” 

the  Belgian  General  Workers'  Federation 

Similarly, 
respondent 
emphasised: “Yes, I can see a real awareness. But it’s the result of several things 
including  in  particular  the  role  of  the  media,  which  is  really  important”.  The 
impact of the Adecco case, where the temporary work agency had put 'BBB' next 
to  white  Belgian  job  workers  in  order  to  allow  clients  to  make  a  racial  selection, 
had  been  considerable.  In  Belgium,  it  was  also  reported  by  the  FGTB  that 
collective  bargaining  on  discrimination  had  become  noticeably  easier  with  the 
employers after the directive had been transposed into national law. 

(FGTB) 

Another  Belgian  FGTB  interviewee  commented  very  positively  upon  the  state-
funded  Diversity  Advisor  posts  created  in  September  2007:  “The  directives  have 
helped  to  implement  the  diversity  policies  and  provided  strong  arguments  to 
legitimate them.” The Advisors’ role is to help companies develop diversity plans, 
but  also  to  give  support  to  trade  union  representatives  in  taking  up  grievances 
concerning discrimination and racism.  

75 

 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Overcoming denial 

A  respondent  from  the  French  General  Workers'  Confederation  (CGT)  saw  the 
creation  of  the  French  Equality  Body,  the  HALDE,  as  extremely  important  in 
unblocking  resistance  to  the  concept  that  racism  could  be  widespread  in  France. 
The  CGT  participated  in  the  HALDE's  Consultative  Committee  and  the 
interviewee believed:  

“Without the European legislation the strength of denial has always been so strong 
that  we  would  still  be  having  to  battle  in  order  to  start  the  fight  against 
discrimination.” 

In  Germany,  an  interviewee  from  the  IG  BCE  (the  chemical  and  mine  workers' 
union)  believed:  “Society  has  become  more  sensitive.  We  have  been  able  to  see 
many areas affected, especially the employers who were against the laws.”  

Legal  benefits  were  noted  by  some  of  the  trade  unions.  In  Sweden,  the 
Construction Industry Federation believed an important change was that the union 
could now directly take up issues of discrimination, whereas before it was only the 
Discrimination  Ombudsman.  Although  the  transposition  did  not  represent  a  new 
departure, the German VERDI trade union respondent believed:  

“The advance that took place occurred in the fact that it [the law] was directly 
aimed  at  individuals.  So  that  they  now  had  far  reaching  possibilities  and… 
could,  when  they  felt  discriminated  or  were  discriminated  against,  make  it  an 
issue and test this legally as well as receive damages.”  

However,  the  VERDI  respondent  went  on  to  recognise  that  “in  practice  it  is 
difficult to apply”.  

In  the  Netherlands,  the  largest  trade  union  confederation,  the  FNV,  welcomed  a 
recent  amendment  to  the  Working  Conditions  Act  making  the  employer  legally 
responsible for the prevention of discrimination in the workplace. The interviewee 
believed  this  could  encourage  works  councils  to  raise  the  need  to  combat 
discrimination  within  companies.  In  the  UK  the  Communication  Workers  Union 
interviewee also welcomed the legal changes: “The harassment provisions are very 
significant  since  they  allow  more  people  to  challenge  employers  driven  by  racist 
undertones.” The respondent went on:  

“Although you still find shocking examples [of discrimination] where race has 
been  the  primary  motivation…  the  situation  was  improving  as  the  employers 
became more aware of their legal duties.” 

The  Danish  Confederation  of  Professional  Associations  (AC)  saw  two  main 
improvements  with  the  Racial  Equality  Directive:  “Of  course  the  shift  in  the 

76 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

burden  of  proof  is  an  important  change  and  also  that  the  Institute  for  Human 
Rights has been given the mandate to initiate cases… It has set things straight.” 

Finally,  even  in  cases  where  respondents  could  see  positive  impacts  of  the 
directive, some of them still perceived there to be certain problems.  

In  Denmark,  the  unions  faced  an  ideological  dilemma,  identified  by  the  3F  trade 
union interviewee as:  

“A conflict between  collective rights –  represented in the Danish model - and 
individual  rights  –  represented  in  EU(…)  There  is  a  fundamental  fear  in  the 
Danish  model  that  EU  laws  will  dictate  and  limit  the  Danish  model,  which  is 
based  on  dialogue  and  consensus  between  the  different  parts  of  the  labour 
market.  However  it  is  the  view  of  3F  that  Human  Rights  must  overrule  all 
agreements. It has been a challenge for 3F to promote this point of view.” 

4.2.2. 

Little or no impact of the directive 

Although  in  general  the  majority  of  Union  interviews  saw  it  as  a  positive 
development,  they  pointed  to  the  following  reasons  as  limiting  the  impact  of  the 
directive and the relevant national laws:  

  existing laws and practices already reflected anti-discrimination values;  

 

 

there are problems with the transposition at the national level; 

the trade unions are too weak to be able to impose full compliance upon 
otherwise slow or non-responsive employers; and 

 

the directive is not seen as the right mechanism to fight anti-discrimination. 

Existing anti-discrimination legislation 

The overall estimate of its impact so far on the Netherlands given by the FNV was:  

“There  are  no  changes  in  the  awareness  of  the  right  to  non-discrimination  at 
work that are visible among employers and employees. The anti-discrimination 
legislation  has  not  led  to  any  specific  improvement  of  the  position  of  ethnic 
minorities in practice.” 

Another reason given was that in many countries the directive had made little or no 
direct difference to existing provisions – although it was acknowledged its impact 
could be indirect. This was the position of the FNV in the Netherlands and of the 
UNITE trade union interviewee in the UK who argued:  

77 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“In  terms  of  race  equality  we  already  had  legislation  in  place  so  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive  did  not  make  much  difference…But  it  is  always  helpful  to 
have  legislation  that  encourages  us  and  other  bodies  to  negotiate  with 
employers.”  

The  Irish  Bank  Officials  Association  interviewee  also  pointed  to  the  Irish  1998 
Employment  Equality  Act and  the  2000  Equal  Status  Act  as  having 'most  impact 
on  awareness.  The  Equality  Directive  and  the  2004  Employment  Equality 
Amendment Act had limited impact on the union, its members or the employers.' 

In  Poland  the  ZNP-OPZZ  teacher  trade  union  interviewee  recalled  opposition 
taking  place  to  the  anti-discrimination  amendment  of  the  Labour  Code:  “People 
were saying that the Polish Constitution that states that we are all equal to law is 
enough.”  In Slovakia the OZ Chémia union interviewee from the Slovnaft MOL 
oil refinery also considered the directive has not led to any changes because 'anti-
discrimination' policy was already in place. 

Problems with transposition 

One reason given for the absence of real improvements was that its provisions had 
not  been  universally  transposed.  A  respondent  from  the  UNISON  public  sector 
trade union in the UK argued that across Europe:  

“The  regulations  created  a  two-tier  approach  to  race  equality…  Different 
Member States transposed the legislation in different ways…and did not adhere 
to  the  ‘no  detriment’  principle  [by  which]  all  Member  States  should  have  the 
same protection or better.” 

In Malta, the General Workers' Union appointed a section secretary to deal with the 
directive and the interviewee was relieved 'at least we now had a law'.  However, 
since  most  migrants  worked  in  the  informal  economy  and  the  issue  was  highly 
sensitive  in  a  small  country  that  had  seen  proportionately  large  numbers  of 
undocumented  migrants  come  to  the  island,  other  stakeholders  such  as  the 
Immigrants'  Commission  run  on  behalf  of  the  local  Catholic  Church  were 
considered as more appropriate. “Until now the country’s priority was to get rid of 
them”. In terms of racial equality, “we are still at the early stage”.  

Trade Union weakness and non-responsive employers 

Some  respondents  also  indicated  that  the  problem  of  lack  of  impact  was  partly 
down  to  their  own  weakness.  Thus,  the  Cyprus  Building  Workers  Union 
interviewee  put  it  down  to  the  low  general  level  of  trade  union  presence  in  the 
sector and country:  

78 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“Where  migrants  work  in  unionised  workplaces  they  feel  more  protected  and 
secure;  but  where  they  are  in  non-unionised  workplaces  or  in  the  informal 
economy they are not aware of the law and are vulnerable to gross violations of 
their rights.” 

The positive impact of large numbers of trade union members was recognised by a 
German IG Metall interviewee:  

“Where  we  are  strong,  where  I  have  80  to  90  per  cent  union  density,  then 
naturally  it  is  a  lot  easier  to  get  certain  things  over.  And  here  the  individual 
feels more confident to do something against it [discrimination]. Because they 
know a strong union and strong works council means that they can behave more 
confidently.”  

The  lower  the  level  of  unionisation  in  a  country,  therefore,  the  less  impact  the 
directive  is  likely  to  have  had.  However,  even  within  ‘stronger  union’  or  ‘more 
union-friendly’  societies,  trade  union  interviewees  often  admitted  they  still  had 
major problems in dealing with continuing racial and ethnic discrimination.  

Unions also find weakness in their own structures because of conflicting priorities. 
An Austrian trade union (GPA-DPJ) interviewee explained that the rightward shift 
of  Austrian  electors  in  recent  years  was  creating  a  fear  among  some  trade  union 
activists of losing their positions and attached privileges (primarily time away from 
the workplace on trade union duties) if they showed themselves too supportive of 
measures challenging racial and ethnic discrimination:  

“On the one hand they are afraid that their clientele does not appreciate such 
steps.  On  the  other  hand  there  is  the  fear  of  being  challenged  by  migrant 
workers who want to represent themselves.” 

While  union  leaders  at  the  top  of  their  organisations  generally  endorsed  the 
directive’s  anti-discrimination  measures,  the  ways  in  which  these  policies  are 
articulated  at  workplace  level  often  suggest  a  more  passive  or  neutral  approach. 
Only  15  per  cent  of  the  250  complaints  a  year  received  by  the  Belgian  Equality 
Body are thus brought to its attention by the unions – a proportion that the unions 
feel is rather low.  

The interviewee from EARN, a Dutch working group of black and migrant-origins 
union  officers,  confirmed  the  suspicion  that  victims  of  ethnic  and  racial 
discrimination often turn to NGOs to look for help rather than go to the union. The 
unions may often “offer no structural legal support, or the support they do offer is 
not  sufficient”  and  the  experience  of  unions  is  that  there  is  “often  a  lot  of 
bureaucracy”.  These  are  frequently  voiced  criticisms  of  their  union  structures  by 
many members. However, this interviewee explained that the difference for those 
experiencing racial discrimination was that there was also “a lack of knowledge of 
discrimination issues” on the part of union representatives. 

79 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Other  more  direct  fears  were  also  expressed  about  responses  at  workplace  level. 
The EARN interviewee went on to argue that individuals need: 

“confidence in the system that you can take your complaint somewhere where it 
would lead to a proper result. Recent experience has not provided the evidence 
to create this confidence. Why should people take the risk?” 

Some  trade  unions  also  argued  forcefully  that  the  lack  of  apparent  impact  was 
because the employers have not really changed their practices. The Belgian FGTB 
interviewee summarised the doubts of many: “The position of the employers was: 
‘we  really  want  to  take  up  a  position  against  discrimination’,  but  they  limit 
themselves to paper declarations.”  

In Slovenia the argument that little had changed was put by the Free Trade Union 
(SSS).  The  interviewee  recognised  that  the  legislation  “helps  the  trade  unions  to 
become  more  active  on  anti-discrimination  issues”,  in  particular  with  the  Roma 
and the German-speaking minority. However, the respondent considered that: 

“The new laws encouraging anti-discrimination did not stimulate employers to 
adopt  equality  and  anti-discrimination  policies…  If  the  employer  does  not  see 
profit, in the majority of cases there is no effect.” 

Directive not seen as the right mechanism to fight discrimination  

In Germany the 1995 Florence Agreement had led many Works Councils to use the 
legal framework of the Works Constitution Act to secure company-level anti-racist 
agreements. One of the DGB interviewees reported:  

“These  company  agreements  go  much  further  than  the  law  set  down  by  the 
AGG.  They  not  only  address 
the  question  of  what  happened  when 
discrimination  occurs,  but  they  also  include  preventative  measures  to  protect 
people from discrimination, and the contents of management training.”  

Some  trade  unionists  were  concerned  that  the  promise  of  a  legal  solution  to  the 
problem  of  racial  discrimination  could  be  illusory.  An  Austrian  interviewee  from 
the GMTN industrial trade union pointed out that the example of women fighting 
individually under the country’s gender equality law did not bode well:  

“In my opinion it is very important that the legislation and the commission [on 
equal  treatment] exist,  but  they  are  not  a  very  efficient  means  of  handling  the 
issue  of  and  combating  discrimination.  As  you  see  with  the  gender  issue,  the 
Commission and Ombudsman have been treating it for 20 years, but it did not 
improve  much  in  terms  of  overall  social  and  socio-economic  changes.  Every 
single fighter received support, hundreds of cases are settled each year but they 
are insignificant judged by reality…  Any measures that depend on being taken 

80 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

up  on  the  initiative  of  individuals  cannot  have  a  sustainable  impact  on  the 
generally discriminatory situation of whole population groups.” 

An  interviewee  from  the  CFDT  (French  Democratic  Confederation  of  Workers) 
insisted that the real way that racism is challenged is through concrete actions on 
the  ground:  “It’s  not  the  law  that  brings  about  change”.  A  respondent  from  the 
German IG Metall (Metal Workers' Trade Union) argued:  

“[The directive] does not mean that people's awareness has changed. It has to 
be lived. And for this reason I think the law has to be filled with life. You have 
to  find  practical  examples  so  to  be  able  to  say  that  it  is  great  to  work  in  a 
diverse environment.” 

One of the Belgian FGTB interviewees indicated another area of concern:  

“The  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  the  Anti-Racism  Act  didn't  necessarily 
improve  protection  against  racism  in  employment,  because  it  became  more 
covert, insidious and then difficult to identify.” 

Several of those interviewed recognised, like a Belgian Flemish-speaking Tunisian-
origin trade union activist, that with the passage of the directive it was “now easier 
to  deal  with  diversity  since  it  embraces  many  kinds  of  people,  not  only  those  of 
Black  and  Minority  Ethnic  origins”.  However,  this  did  not  resolve  the  core 
problem: 
linguistic 
that  while  stereotyping  and  selecting  on  visible  or 
characteristics remains a pervasive method of choosing employees or of allocating 
work,  training  or promotion,  it  remains  difficult  to prove  and  was  still  frequently 
damaging for the victim to raise.  

Two Equality Directives  

One  problem  in  evaluating  the  specific  impact  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive 
derived from its frequent legislative transposition alongside and confusion with the 
Employment  Equality  Directive.  For  many  this  merger  had  provided  an  'easier' 
option  of  introducing  anti-racial  discrimination  measures  into  agreements  or 
workplace  practices  under  the  flag  of  'general'  anti-discrimination.  In  fact  many 
interviewees when asked about the anti-discrimination legislation would confuse it 
with gender equality legislation.  

81 

 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

4.2.3. 

No impact of the directive 

The two main explanations for the total lack of any impact of the directive within 
their country or on their organisation given by the trade union interviewees were  

  slow process: the country's democratic processes were still undeveloped in 

relation to fully implementing and respecting the directive; and 

  other priorities: the unions had many demands on them and responding to the 

issue of race and ethnic origin was not as high up as other issues. 

In  some  countries  where  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  has  only  been  prohibited 
very  recently,  there  is  also  considerable  scepticism  about  any  laws  that  prohibit 
such  stereotyping.  For  example,  the  Latvian  Energija  trade  union  respondent 
reported:  “The  EU  non-discrimination  law  is  seen  as  something  forced  on  the 
country from the outside, and non-essential.”  

The  Polish  NSZZ  Electronics  Industry  union  interviewee  was  aware  of  the 
problems  with  the  Belarus  and  Ukrainian  minorities,  as  well  as  of  the  challenges 
posed by recent migration into Poland.  He argued that “the problem is known and 
understood”, and asked:  

“Can we say that it is marginal issue? Well, employers would say that because 
they do not want to have problems. But trade unions do not have much time for 
it  either  -  especially  since  it  is  difficult  to  organise  people,  because  of  legal 
barriers  and  because  of  their  [the  minority's]  low  inclination  towards  trade 
unions.” 

Several  interviewees  from  new  EU  Member  States  confirmed  the  continuing 
presence  of  xenophobia  within  the  trade  unions  despite  the  presence  of  the 
directive.  In  Cyprus,  the  respondent  from  the  private  sector  union  confederation, 
DEOK,  was  clearly  committed  to  awareness-raising  because:  “Racists  are  found 
even in the ranks of trade unions.”  

A slow process of implementation 

In some countries, trade unionists argued that the lack of impact was due to a wider 
lack  of  respect  for  the  rule  of  law,  and  that  implementation  would  be  a  long  and 
slow process. In Bulgaria, the interviewee from the Food Workers’ Union believed:  

“There  is  no  visible  change  since  the  implementation  of  the  directive  in  the 
national  legislation.  Where  discrimination  exists  it  is  still  there...  There  is 
European harmonisation on paper but this is the trouble in Bulgaria: laws are 
not respected.”  

The  Trade  Union  Confederation  of  Latvia  (LBAS)  interviewee  reported  a  similar 
problem:  

82 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“Theoretically  we  [Latvia]  have  transposed  the  majority  of  the  new  legal 
regulations.  But  we  have  problems  with  the  other  side  of  the  coin,  the 
implementation of these norms.” 

Too early 

The  assessment  that  it  is  too  early  to  measure  the  Racial  Equality  Directive's 
impact  was  expressed  by  the  interviewee  from  one  of  the  largest  trade  union 
confederations  in  Estonia,  the  EAKL:  “I  am  afraid  that  awareness  has  not 
increased  enough,  it  is  a  longer  process.”  The  interviewee  from  the  Estonian 
Media Workers' Union (TALO) added: “The new legislation has not produced any 
changes,  especially  in  connection  with  race.  Some  political  questions  could  be 
asked [as to why not], but even we do not want to talk about political issues.” 

Other priorities 

One  of  the  common  arguments  used  by  some  trade  union  respondents  to  explain 
the absence  of a response by them to the  directive  was that they had other,  more 
pressing problems. In particular, both in Central and Eastern Europe and in France, 
interviewees referred to ‘discrimination’ by employers against trade union activists 
and members as taking precedence. Thus a French FO respondent argued that trade 
union  practice  had  problems  in  changing  not  only  because  of  real  immediate 
problems  -  the  crisis,  restructuring  and  redundancies  –  but  also  “because  trade 
union  activists  believe  that  fighting  against  discrimination  against  activists  takes 
priority”. 

For  many  trade  unionists  there  was  also  the  problem  of  convincing  many  of  the 
existing  'majority'  workers  that  the  inclusion  of  ethnic  and  national  'minority' 
workers  and  real  equality  was  in  their  interests.  This  can  be  more  difficult  in  a 
period  of  restructuring  and  redundancies  where  agreements  have  been  negotiated 
based on the ‘first in, last out’ principle that effectively discriminates against more 
recent  and  frequently  minority  or  migrant  employees.  A  German  VERDI 
interviewee believed: “The union is very conscious - as are works councils - that 
[seniority-based] redundancy programmes are clearly illegal under the new laws.” 

For  some  trade  unions,  the  lack  of  interest  or  low  priority  in  racial  or  ethnic 
discrimination  also  appeared  to  reflect  a  calculation  that  the  returns  in  terms  of 
members or activists would not be very high. The Danish Commercial and Clerical 
Workers'  Union  (HK)  reported  no  change  to  the  levels  of  recruitment  of  ethnic 
minority workers or of their involvement. 

83 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

4.2.4. 

Ignorance and lack of awareness of the directive 

The  ETUC-UNICE  Florence  Declaration  clearly  defined  direct 
racial 
discrimination. It occurs where people are treated ‘less favourably on the grounds 
of  his  or  her  real  or  perceived  race,  religion,  ethnic  or  national  origin  or  colour’; 
‘indirect’  racial  discrimination  in  contrast  is  where  ‘unjustifiable  practices… 
adversely  affect  more  of  a  particular…  group  than  those  not  of  that  group’.  Both 
forms were specified and proscribed in the Racial Equality directive.  

Yet, several interviewees exhibited a lack of knowledge of and unease with these 
definitions.  Furthermore  they  insisted  on  denying  the  presence  of  discrimination 
despite  admitting  that  particular  groups,  especially  the  Roma  or  linguistic 
minorities, do experience generalised disadvantage. Some appeared to define racial 
or  ethnic  discrimination  in  ways  that  were  so  narrow  that  they  automatically 
concluded that such discrimination could not be present in their countries or trade 
unions.  The  Estonian  Trade  Union  Confederation  (EAKL)  respondent,  for 
example, was quite categorical: “I think that racial discrimination in the workplace 
is not present in Estonia.”  

In relation to the Roma, a Podkrepa interviewee argued: “There are some practices 
in Bulgaria that are not discrimination, but as a result there are Roma people in an 
unfavourable position.” He considered that this was the result of the Roma's own 
desire to remain a 'closed group' who “wish to preserve their way of living as they 
understand it”. A lack of literacy and or qualifications then confirms labour market 
disadvantage, and leads, where they exist, to a perceived dependence upon social 
security benefits and other methods of surviving at the margins of society.  

The  absence  of  qualifications  was  reported  by  the  Greek  Public  Servants 
Confederation (ADEDY) interviewee as being used against Greek Roma employed 
by a local council whom the union had defended. The Roma staff did not have the 
required Secondary School Leaving Certificate.  

This  context,  in  turn,  makes  it  more  difficult  to  acquire  traditions  of  work 
attendance  and  discipline.  The  Bulgarian  CITUB  Food  Workers'  Federation 
interviewee stated:   

“We  don’t  have  any  complaints  of  discrimination  based  on  ethnicity,  race  or 
religious criteria, with the exception of the preference for Bulgarian workers at 
the  expense  of  Roma  workers  in  recruitment.  But  it  is  understandable  –  the 
work  habits  and  the  qualification  are  better  with  the  Bulgarians…  The 
Bulgarian is preferred – he is considered more disciplined, he has work habits, 
he has better qualifications… The Roma worker is not preferred because he has 
low qualifications, his work habits are criticised. You can not always count on 
him, he will come to work today but not tomorrow. They are irresponsible. In 
many workplaces they try to eat and to steal things.” 

84 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

In  Poland  the  ZNP-OPZZ  teachers’  union  respondent  noted  that  the  union's  own 
members were complicit in not protesting against the worse conditions that Roma 
children experience:  

“There  is  a  problem  in  ZNP  about  the  Roma  minority.  We  did  not  have  any 
signals  of  any  form  of  discrimination  and  then  we  read  in  newspapers  that  in 
many  schools  there  is  ethnic  segregation  and  Roma  children  have  different 
classes, in worse conditions. We were shocked that nobody reported that, none 
of our members.” 

In the Czech Republic one of the interviewees from the blue collar metal working 
trade union, OS KOVO, believed “the racial discrimination issue is marginal”. It 
has some Roma and Vietnamese members but has never organised any training or 
information materials on this issue, although it might do so when it sees what if any 
changes  the  new  Anti-Discrimination  Law  of  June  2009  might  bring.  More 
specifically,  the  interviewee  from  the  OS  STAVBA  Czech  Building  Workers 
Union considered that the Roma on construction sites “are very well aware of what 
they  are  and  what  they  are  not  entitled  to,”  adding  that  racial  discrimination  “is 
kept on about in the media more than is needed”.37  

In  Lithuania  the  Trade  Union  Confederation  (LPSK)  respondent  made  the  same 
argument: “We don’t see a lot of discrimination here in Lithuania at all,” before 
qualifying this assessment: “As regards Gypsies, our employers do not like to have 
workers who are Gypsies.”    

Qualifications and discrimination 

The  view  that  unfavourable  treatment  was  not  'discrimination'  was  taken  by  the 
Latvian teachers' union (LIZDA). Although teachers from schools with Russian as 
the  main  language  had  approached  the  union  with  complaints  of  ethnic 
discrimination, it rejected them.  

The  interviewee  explained:  “We  found  out  very  fast,  that  there  was  no 
discrimination.  It  was  an  issue  of  insufficient  qualification  of  these  teachers… 
Nothing prevented them from abiding by the [Latvian language] law.” 

The  interviewee  continued  “We,  the  trade  union,  are  ready  to  protect  our 
members,  if  they  prove  they  try  to  learn  the  language...  But  they  must  know  the 
state language, the language must be known. That’s the law in Latvia and there is 
nothing discriminatory in these cases.” 

37   The quality of this response may be compared with the finding of the EU-MIDIS report (2009, 
p.6-7)  that  83  per  cent  of  Roma  in  the  Czech  Republic  thought  discrimination  was  widespread, 
and 71% did not know of any organisation to complain to. 

85 

 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

4.3.  Outcomes 

Most  trade  union  respondents  reported  that  policy  developments  in  relation  to 
racial or ethnic discrimination had taken place during the course of the five to ten 
years.  These  have  embraced  both  a  more  active  involvement  in  defending  ethnic 
minority workers and challenging discrimination in the workplace and changes to 
the  unions'  internal  rules,  organisation  and  strategy.  Yet,  few  interviewees 
attributed these changes directly to the Racial Equality Directive. They were much 
more likely to consider that recent migration and globalisation had provoked these 
changes.  

The  ‘more  aware’  trade  union  interviewee responses  were  divided  between  those 
who believed that the effect of the directive upon their own practices was minimal, 
because  they  had  already  implemented  stringent  anti-discrimination  policies,  and 
those  who  reported  that  their  policies  and  practices  had  changed  considerably. 
Some  ‘aware’  respondents  suggested  that  there  was  little  impact  because  despite 
paying lip-service to the issue the union still did not take it seriously enough. It was 
argued in these cases that the directive had not yet stimulated enough commitment 
to drive the unions to attempting significant recruitment among or full integration 
of  ethnic  minority  workers.  Predictably,  the  ‘less  aware’  trade  union  respondents 
generally reported few if any changes to their policies and practices.  

In  this  section  we  first  discuss  those  changes  that  were  directly  linked  to  the 
directive, and then those where it appears to have been an indirect trigger. We will 
not describe  the  many  anti-discrimination  actions  that  were  reported  to us  which, 
although reflecting a generally heightened awareness of discrimination issues could 
not be linked to the directive.  

Direct outcomes 

For  many  trade  unions  the  readiness  to  challenge  racial  discrimination  at  work 
really  began  soon  after  the  directive  was  passed  in  2000.  In  several  interviews  it 
was  clear that one  motive  for the unions taking up stronger positions than before 
was  because  their  own  members  demanded  it.  But  whether  this  happened  or  not 
frequently  depended  upon  the  presence  of  key  union  leaders  ready  to  act  as 
champions for the minority workers. 

In  France,  a  CGT  interviewee  reported  that  as  early  as  2003,  union  activists  had 
begun  taking  legal  actions  on  the  grounds  of  an  ethnic  division  of  labour  against 
certain  major  companies  such  as  the  German  MNC  Bosch  and  the  nationalised 
SNECMA  aircraft  engine  manufacturer.  These  activists  were  of  North  African 
origin  themselves,  and  their  parents  had  passed  their  entire  working  lives  in 
marginal occupations. 

86 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

In  Hungary,  the  VDSZSZ  Railway  Union  formed  an  Equal  Opportunity  Section 
immediately  after  the  directive  was  transposed.  It  has  many  Roma  among  its 
12,000  members.  The  interviewee  has  witnessed  “the  everyday  hate  speech  used 
by  managers  and  employees  against  the  Roma”.  The  Roma  are  pejoratively 
described  as  a  'Brazilian  production  line'  (playing  on  the  words  ‘Brazil  gépsor’). 
But  the  union  has  won  two  successful  court  cases  defending  victims  of 
discrimination, one of which in 2005 involved winning the case of 12 Roma track 
workers who were being made redundant.  

Institutionalising anti-discrimination 

With  other  unions  the  VDSZSZ  negotiated  an  Equal  Opportunity  Plan  at  the 
Hungarian State Railways. For the interviewee:  

“The main impact of the legislation has been that ethnic minority issues surfaced, 
became measurable - in terms of wage differences, for instance - and helped us as 
a union a lot, as it became equipped to fight discrimination. Though slowly, more 
people are getting increasingly aware of such issues too.” 

Equal treatment issues have been incorporated into the union's internal training for 
regional  and  local  representatives.  “Although  the  principles  were  laid  down 
earlier,” the VDSZSZ interviewee insisted, “the law amounted to a breakthrough 
in institutionalising anti-discrimination”. 

The  respondent  from  Malta's  largest  union  (GWU)  provided  another  positive 
example. He recognises: “Racial discrimination is rampant and across the board 
in Malta.” As recently as 2008, he reported that a union official had made a speech 
arguing: “We should forget human rights, let's throw them back in the sea and let's 
just protect our jobs.” But the union had made a “360 degrees turn” and now sees 
“migrants  as  the  new  working  class,  because  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  black 
people are here to stay”.  

With funding from the EU, the GWU union had started an education programme 
on racial equality, and had now taken “a quantum leap” forward in setting up an 
office  to  deal  with  it:  “Everything  is  new  and  everything  is  just  getting  off  the 
ground.” Early in 2009 black workers participated for the first time in Malta in a 
trade union protest march.  

Changes  to  the  internal  procedures  and  rules  of  trade  unions  were  quite  common 
following the directive. In Denmark the timber and construction trade union (TIB) 
set up an Equality Committee concerned with ethnic and gender issues: 

“They are tasked with examining what to do if unequal pay is discovered, and 
to  examine  how  to  get  more  people  from  ethnic  minorities  to  enrol  in  TIB’s 
training programme. We want to know why they have a higher drop-out rate.” 

87 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Revisiting ethnic monitoring 

The passage of the Racial Equality Directive and the realisation that earlier policies 
had not been effective in challenging racial discrimination also led some unions to 
reconsider their traditional criticism of ethnic monitoring as implying that different 
human  'races'  could  be  distinguished  within  a  universal  'humanity'.  In  Belgium, 
where the three union federations recently won an important court case allowing it 
to expel members of Vlaams Belang (right-wing extremists), one union is revisiting 
its earlier total opposition to monitoring. An interviewee reported:  

“Yes,  we  don’t  like  to  reduce  people  to  their  ethnic  origins,  but  we  have  to  be 
pragmatic  and  have  a  tool  that  shows  tendencies  and  that  allows  us  to  target 
sectors and that also allows us to intervene when there are problems…It’s a real 
tool that we don't have in Belgium.”  

Awareness is growing that the ethnicity of union leaderships should better reflect 
the composition of their membership if they are to more effectively recruit ethnic 
minorities and have a closer understanding of the issues their members face. At the 
founding conference of the German VERDI public sector union, with between six 
and  eight  per  cent  of  its  members  from  migrant  backgrounds,  it  was  agreed  to 
increase the numbers of union officers, particularly younger people, from a migrant 
background.  

In the German IG Metall union, only two per cent of the union’s 1,600 employees 
are  of  ethnic  minority  origins.  One  interviewee  said:  “This  is  a  discussion  we 
constantly  have…  and  it  is  this  that  our  migrant  members  demand,  because  they 
account for around 10 per cent of our members.” At the French CGT there is now 
also  a  new  sensitivity  to  the  visible  contrast  between  many  of  its  trade  union 
sections, where there are significant numbers of people of colour, including many 
women, and the more senior trade union positions. However, “although change is 
slow, it is taking place at Confederation level”. 

In  many  countries,  unions  responded  quite  quickly  to  the  transposition  of  the 
directive  by  offering  information  or  training  to  their  activists  on  how  they  could 
use  the  new  legislation.  In  Bulgaria,  CITUB  has  begun  to  train  its  activists  and 
members  to  identify  and  challenge  ethnic  discrimination,  using  a  brochure  and  a 
specially produced CD to support the training. The CITUB interviewee reported:  

“The  union  produced  written  guidelines  for  its  trade  union  sections about  the 
Protection against Discrimination Act - and updated these in 2007… In 2007 it 
organised  training  with  trade  union  activists  in  four  areas,  involving  about 
three hundred local activists and another hundred from the various federations. 
We  did  this  in  order  to  raise  the  sensitivity  and  spread  knowledge  about 
discrimination among the trade union community.” 

88 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Some problems  

In the UK, the interviewee from a union (PCS) that is strongly committed to anti-
racism  explained  that  guidance  on  the  changes  in  the  law  had  been  issued 
immediately  after  the  transposition  of  the  directive.  However,  despite  proposals 
being made there had been no training organised for the paid union officials. The 
respondent believed that the practices of the union had not changed and that much 
more needed to be done:  

“The  hearts  and  minds  of  the  members  have  to  be  won.  They  (the  union 
leadership)  like  to  pretend  that  it  doesn’t  exist  because,  "Oh,  we  couldn’t 
possibly have racism in the union, could we?"  

In other unions, training was offered, but there was little interest. An interviewee 
from IG Metall in Germany who had held responsibilities for the 'migration' issue 
over  several  years,  described  it  as  “a  hot  potato  that  one  gladly  passes  on  to  the 
next person”. His analysis of the new legislation is that it has: 

“made no difference to the union's work at all… We recognise that the new law 
is  now  in  place  but  very  few  union  officers  either  were  or  are  really  that 
interested in it… In the area of migration we tried to hold a workshop for works 
councils on the new law in 2008, but I had to cancel it twice because of a lack 
of interest.”  

A lack of continuing interest in the directive was confirmed by another IG Metall 
interviewee: 'It is very difficult now to motivate people to be active in this area. I 
believe this is a very general experience that exists everywhere.'  

A similar situation was reported in Austria where the interviewee from the Metal, 
Textile,  Agricultural,  Food,  Beverage  and  Tobacco  Workers  union  (GTMN) 
described some interest at the time the directive was transposed, but added that this 
had subsequently evaporated:  

“Discrimination against migrant workers is not an issue in the decision-making 
bodies of the union. There is no deliberate strategy to address discrimination. 
When  the  directive  was  implemented  –  also due  to  the  publicity  of  the topic – 
some initiatives arose. Since then the issue it is still around but the situation has 
not changed significantly.” 

However,  as  pointed  by  the  IG  Metall  trade  union  interviewee  from  Germany, 
much  depended  on  the  individual,  thus  highlighting  the  importance  of  equality 
champions inside the union structures:  

“In the unions we said ‘We are against all forms of discrimination - that is our 
political foundation’… That there exist problems in transferring this position to 
the  plant  level  is  unquestionable,  these  (problems)  still  exist  like  in  the  past. 

89 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Whether  migration  is  an  issue  depends  on  whether  the  chair  of  the  works 
council or another delegate is personally interested in this theme.”  

The UNISON interviewee in the UK was equally certain: “It [the success of union 
anti-racist policy] depends on having equality champions, equality leaders”. These 
champions may come from national majority origins as well as ethnic minorities.  

The  presence  or  absence  of  individuals  who  are  prepared  to  stand  up  for  the 
minimum protections afforded by the directive often makes the difference in terms 
of an organisation’s response.  

Indirect outcomes 

Since the directive was transposed many trade unions have embraced much more 
active policies in combating racism in society, seeing this as the key to challenging 
it  at  work.  Building  on  the  2007  EU  Year  of  Equal  Opportunities  for  All,  the 
Christian  Netherlands  trade  union  confederation  (CNV)  created  a  ‘Multicultural 
Platform’, whose object was to “exchange experiences, review union policy and to 
keep  the  union  informed  on  diversity-related  topics”.  The  Youth-CNV  also 
organised a campaign aimed at raising awareness of discrimination in schools and 
among employers. Called 'Proud of Your Name', it had its own special website. 

Other trade unions have focused much more clearly on campaigning against racism 
in  the  aftermath  of  the  directive.  Thus  in  Denmark  the  smallest  LO  affiliate,  the 
Ball Games Trade Union (Spillerforeningen), has become active in a football anti-
discrimination campaign called 'Give Racism the Red Card'.  

In  the  light  of  the  directive  the  UK  general  union,  the  GMB,  reflected  upon  the 
impetus  behind  the  need  to  challenge  racial  and  ethnic  discrimination  in 
increasingly diverse society. Its new strategy operates through a ‘Respect@Work’ 
policy  whose  purpose,  the  interviewee  described,  was  to  “move  equality  from 
being  a  strand  to  being  an  issue...  Racial  equality  has  to  be  brought  into  the 
mainstream.”  The  union  is  therefore  beginning  to  campaign  for  'Equality 
representatives'  within  the  workplace  who  should  have  the  same  legitimacy  as 
Health and Safety representatives.  

Following  the  transposition  of  the  directive  raising  anti-discrimination  standards 
for the UK public sector, the Communication Workers Union got involved with the 
TUC's  'Let  them  work'  campaign  for  the  right  of  refugees  and  asylum  seekers  to 
work legally. The UK Civil Service PCS interviewee also reported heightened anti-
racist policy commitments and recent union support for several campaigns against 
deporting  undocumented  workers.  However,  this  respondent  believed  the  union 
had not yet fully challenged workplace racism: “We are very good at flag waving, 
for example on the anti-fascist stuff, but in terms of doing things for our members 
in the workplace, I think we could do better.” 

90 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

5. 

Equality Bodies 

This  Chapter  first  introduces  the  context  in  which  Equality  Bodies  were 
generalised  across  Europe.  It  then  provides  evidence  of  the  views  of  both 
employers  and  trade  unions  on  the  Equality  Bodies,  and  finally  discusses  their 
explanations for the relatively low number of complaints the bodies have received 
so far.38 

5.1. 

Context 

As stipulated in Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive, the EU Member States 
were obliged to “designate a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment 
of  all  persons  without  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin. 
These bodies may form part of agencies charged at national level with the defence 
of human rights or the safeguard of individuals’ rights.” 

One  hope  was  that  this  would  result  in  a  thriving  network  of  effective  Equality 
Bodies  that  offered  legal  remedies  against  bad  employment  practices  would  help 
shift  behaviours  decisively  away  from  whatever  remnants  of  racial  and  ethnic 
discrimination existed. 

Nearly  everywhere  the  Racial  Equality  Directive’s  provisions  were  transposed  in 
law  alongside  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  (2000/78/EC).  This  latter  (also 
known as the ‘Equal Treatment Directive’) prohibits discrimination in employment 
and  occupation  –  access  to  employment,  access  to  vocational  training,  working 
conditions, and membership of workers organisations – on the grounds of religion 
or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. Like the Racial  Equality Directive 
the Employment Equality Directive stipulated that EU Member States shall ensure 
that judicial or administrative procedures are available to victims of discrimination. 
Furthermore, the directive is also to ensure that associations or other legal entities 
have the possibility to engage such procedures on behalf or in support of individual 
victims.39 

38   Evidence of low awareness of Equality Bodies in the EU can be found in the analysis of the EU-
MIDIS  dataset,  see  FRA  (2010)  Rights  Awareness,  EU-MIDIS  Data  in  Focus  Report  3, 
Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  (forthcoming  in 
May 2010).  

39   FRA (2010), Migrants, Minorities and Employment – Exclusion and Discrimination in the EU-27 

Member States of the European Union, Vienna: FRA (forthcoming). 

91 

 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Multiple-grounds Equality Bodies 

In  some  countries  multiple-discrimination  ground  bodies  were  established, 
covering  all  forms  of  discrimination,  while  in  others  different  Equality  Bodies 
exist,  each  dealing  with  a  specific  discrimination.  EQUINET,  the  EU-supported 
network of Equality Bodies thus has only one member in some countries, and more 
than one member in others.40 

Some  gender  equality  boards  were  transformed  into  multiple-grounds  Equality 
Bodies. For example, in Lithuania there is an Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson 
with  responsibility  for  investigating  complaints  and  for  monitoring  how  equal 
opportunities are ensured, whose role was extended in 2005 to cover all the forms 
of  discrimination.  In  Estonia  the  previous  Gender  Equality  Commissioner  was 
extended  to  the  Gender  Equality  and  Equal  Treatment  Commissioner  in  2008,  to 
cover all forms of discrimination.  

In Slovakia, the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights had its powers extended 
to  cover  all  the  forms  of  discrimination.  In  Slovenia  an  Office  for  Equal 
Opportunities  and  a  Council  for  the  implementation  of  the  principal  of  equal 
treatment  were  established,  although  its  principal  focus  is  on  gender  equality. 
Similarly  in  Luxembourg  a  Centre  for  Equal  Treatment,  established  in  2006, 
promotes, monitors and analyses equal treatment. 

In some countries, a gender equality body was left separate from the new body. In 
Austria, there are two bodies at Federal level, the National Equality Body and the 
Commission  for  Equal  Treatment.  This  last  is  split  up  into  three  ombudspersons 
with three 'senates' covering discriminations on the grounds of gender, at work and 
outside  work.  Both  bodies  cover  all  the  forms  of  discrimination  except 
discrimination on the ground of disability. Greece also has two principal bodies, an 
Ombudsman  and  the  Equal  Treatment  Committee,  although  the  latter  does  not 
cover employment.  

In Belgium the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Opposition to Racism covers all 
the  grounds  of  discrimination  other  than  gender.  In  Portugal,  a  Commission  for 
Equality  and  Against  Racial  Discrimination  (CICDR)  had  been  established  in 
1999, and in 2007 its policy remit was enhanced by a new High Commissioner for 
Immigration  and  Intercultural  Dialogue  (ACIDI),  while  also  in  2007  a  new 
Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality (CIG) was set up integrating the 
work of two earlier gender-focused Equality Bodies. 

In  some  other  countries,  bodies  covering  previously  separate  discrimination 
grounds  were  brought  together.  In  Sweden,  a  Discrimination  Ombudsman  was 

40   For  more  background  information  on  the  Equality  Bodies,  please  consult  the  work  of  the 
European Network of legal Experts in the field of non-discrimination; for instance, see European 
Commission (2006), Catalysts for Change? Equality bodies according to Directive 2000/43/EC, 
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 

92 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

merged  from  the  four  previous  different  ombudspersons.  In  the  UK,  a  multiple-
grounds  Equality  and  Human  Rights  Commission  (EHRC)  covers  Great  Britain, 
with  a  separate  similarly  named  body  covering  Northern  Ireland.  Their  remits 
cover all forms of discrimination and include the issue of defence of human rights. 
Previously,  there  were  separate  bodies  covering  race,  gender  and  disability.  In 
Cyprus, a general ombudsperson also covers all discrimination grounds.  

All-grounds bodies  now  exist  in  Hungary,  the  Equal  Treatment  Authority,  and  in 
Ireland, the Equality Authority. In France, the HALDE was established in 2004 to 
help individuals identify and fight against all the criteria of discrimination, and it 
has powers to conduct investigations and discrimination testing in recruitment. The 
German equality body, the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, was established in 
2006  under  the  General  Act  on  Equal  Treatment.  It  covers  all  forms  of 
discrimination.  

In  Bulgaria,  a  Commission  on  Protection  against  Discrimination  was  created  in 
2005.  In  Poland,  an  Equal  Treatment  Plenipotentiary  position  was  established  in 
2007 with a remit to prepare the necessary legislative instruments to transpose the 
directive but this had not yet occurred at the time of writing. 

5.2. 

Social partner views of Equality Bodies 

Knowledge of their national Equality Bodies and their relationships to them varied 
considerably  between  the  respondents  on  both  employer  and  trade  union  sides. 
Some  social  partners  on  both  sides  of  industry  collaborated  strongly  with  the 
Equality  Bodies,  while  others  had  very  little  awareness  or  even  saw  Equality 
Bodies in some ways as a threat.   

Strong involvement and collaboration 

There  were  some  strong  examples  of  involvement  and  productive  collaboration 
between  employers  and  Equality  Bodies  reported  by  the  respondents.  In  Italy,  a 
strong  relationship  between  the  Confartigianato,  the  national  Confederation  for 
Handicraft  and  Small  Firms,  and  the  Equality  Body  (UNAR)  was  deliberately 
fostered  by  the  part-EU  funded  EQUAL  project,  AHEAD  (Accompanying 
Handicraft  Entrepreneurs  against  Discrimination).  The  three-year  action  research 
programme followed the transposition of the directive and led in 2005 

“to  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  with  the  UNAR  and…  in  the  Triveneto 
region  [of  North-eastern  Italy]  we  carried  out  information  and  training 
activities  on  the  prevention  of  discrimination  and  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
directive.”  

93 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

The  interviewee  from  Confartigianato  considers  its  involvement  helped  “change 
the  organisation’s  perspective  on  the  question  of  discrimination”.  One  of  the 
outcomes is a prize for anti-discrimination practices awarded jointly with UNAR, 
the Equality Body, and the Prime Minister's Department of Equal Opportunities.  

In Greece, the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises was also associated with EQUAL 
programmes  in  2004  and  2005  aimed  at  raising  awareness  about  equality.  The 
interviewee believed “more events and campaigns are needed” and confirmed that 
the Federation participates in public consultation with the Greek Ombudsman, the 
principal Greek Equality Body. 

The Irish Construction Industry Federation reports a strong operational relationship 
with  the  Equality  Authority  in  Ireland,  with  which  it  cooperates  on  the 
development  of  best  practice  material  and  ideas  of  new  anti-discrimination 
initiatives.  This  view  is  shared  by  the  Health  Service  Executive  Employers’ 
Agency, which participates in the Authority's social partner committee.  

In  the  UK,  British  Telecom  reported  good  relations  with  the  newly-merged 
Equality  and  Human  Rights  Commission  (EHRC).  Its  Head  of  Diversity  sits  on 
several  EHRC  committees.  At  Royal  Mail,  a  member  of  the  EHRC  had  been 
appointed to lead its diversity strategy.  

In Austria, although the social partners from the peak organisations of employees 
and employers are represented on the Equal Treatment Commission and the public 
employers  report  good  relations  with  it,  the  private  companies  interviewed  rarely 
referred to the national Equality Bodies. 

The  trade  union  respondents  reported  varying  degrees  of  collaboration.  The 
difference appeared to be partly shaped by the degree of influence the unions had 
in each country, and in part by the degree of political independence and the level of 
resources given to the Equality Body. 

In  Belgium,  close  relations  had  been  established  between  the  three  main  trade 
union Federations and the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Opposition to Racism. 
A  protocol  of  cooperation  had  been  signed  by  which  the  unions  pass  on 
information  about  the  cases  of  racial  discrimination  reported  to  them  and  the 
Centre undertakes to construct winnable cases and to help take them to court.  

In Hungary, the LIGA federation has also signed a partnership agreement with its 
Equal Treatment Authority.  

Critical views 

The  Confederation  of  British  Industry’s  direct  contacts  were  not  quite  as  strong, 
and its respondent pointed out that many of its members had problems approaching 

94 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

an  organisation  for  advice  and  guidance  when  that  organisation  could  also  be 
preparing discrimination cases against them.  

In Germany, trade union concerns were expressed about the appearance of a closer 
relationship of the Equalities Office to the employers than to the unions. A VERDI 
interviewee was disappointed because:  

“The Equal Opportunities office is willing to jointly run a campaign with the 
employers’ federations but not with the DGB in promoting the new laws.” 

In  order  to  both  be  objective  and  to  run  campaigns  promoting  the  laws  the 
respondent believed:  

“We need an independent office that implements this. It has to have a remit 
which is not set by the government rather it needs to be independent.” 

In the UK, relations had been closer in the past between several of the unions and 
the earlier single issue Equality Body, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). 
This  had  been  merged  into  the  general  Equality  and  Human  Rights  Commission 
(EHRC),  about  which  one  interviewee  from  the  Communication  Workers  Union 
reported:  'We  haven't  contacted  them  much  on  race  issues.'  A  teachers'  union 
(NASUWT)  interviewee  saw  the  shift  from  a  single  to  a  multiple-discrimination 
grounds Equality Body as being largely negative: 

“We have major concerns with the new body… the leadership and direction are 
very poor. Race equality has gone back numbers of years… The new body has 
no  teeth.  We  have  lost  out  a  lot  especially  on  race  equality  councils…  It's  all 
very disappointing.” 

The TUC interviewee added: “There is no contact at all directly on race because 
no-one in the EHRC is responsible for race, unlike the CRE.”  

The  UK  TUC  interviewee  also  raised  a  broader  criticism  of  the  merger  of  a 
specialist body focusing on racial equality into a much wider body: “The issue of 
security  has  shifted  public  discourse  from  anti-racism  to  integration.”  A  similar 
danger could be seen in the new emphasis upon celebrating 'employment diversity', 
which  could  be  interpreted  as  “a  real  distraction  from  dealing  with  institutional 
racial discrimination”.  

Furthermore some unions expressed concern that reliance upon legal remedies for 
individual  cases  of  racial  discrimination  might  lead  to  less  emphasis  upon 
collective  responses.  On  the  one  hand,  a  legal  focus  could  encourage  workplace 
representatives  to  pass  discrimination  issues  on  to  ‘experts’  based  outside  the 
workplace;  on  the  other  it  could  encourage  workers  to  consider  discrimination  as 
an individual rather than as a collective problem. 

In the UK, the national TUC confederation respondent was critical of the shift in 
emphasis  over  the  last  period.  Whereas  unions  used  to  prioritise  collective 

95 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

bargaining  as  a  means  of  resolving  injustice  in  the  workplace:  “Now,  race 
discrimination  issues  are  mostly  issues  dealt  with  through  individual  cases  not 
collective bargaining.” The worry was that “lawyers appear to be making all the 
running' and 'a tension develops between black workers and their unions”. 

This  is  why  the  Cypriot  Building  and  General  Workers'  union  (BWMGWU) 
referred to the Equality Body as being a “last resort”: 

“We must exhaust all means available to us and the Equality Body must be the 
last  resort.  It  would  be  an  easy  solution  to  pass  on  such  cases  of  racial  and 
ethnic discrimination, instead of dealing with them through our own action on 
the ground.”  

No direct relationship and negative opinions 

In  some  cases  the  employer  organisation  had  no  direct  relationship  with  the 
Equality  Body.  The  interviewee  from  the  Bulgarian  Chamber  of  Commerce  and 
Industry  knows  that  in  2007  the  Bulgarian  Commission  against  Discrimination 
received  505  complaints,  resolving  95,  rejecting  195  and  is  still  considering  a 
further  215,  and  that  the  Roma  are  the  main  group  whose  claims  of  racial  and 
ethnic  discrimination  have  been  accepted.  Yet,  the  Chamber  itself  does  not 
consider that “the Racial Equality Directive is directly related to our activities”, so 
it  has  no  direct  relations  with  the  Commission  and  is  not  aware  of  any  of  its 
members who have. 

This  absence  of  direct  contact  with  representative  employer  organisations  was 
common.  Despite  the  Racial  Equality Directive's  inclusion  of  the  potential  for  an 
awareness-raising  role  in  the  Equality  Body’s  various  functions,  many  employers 
reported  a  complete  absence  of  relations.  The  respondent  from  the  Cyprus 
Employers  and  Industrialists’  Federation,  whose  4,500  members  employ  57  per 
cent of the total workforce, reported that while it had been involved in consultation 
on  the  transposition,  it  had  subsequently  had  no  direct  contact  with  the  Equality 
Body of the Ombudsman's Office. The Romanian National Employers interviewee 
confirmed: “They do not contact us, and we have other priorities… As we are busy 
and have no time to get informed, the relations are weak.” 

Several of the German employers interviewed, however, continued to oppose both 
the  directive  and  the  German  Equality  Body.  The  German  Metal  Manufacturing 
Employers’ interviewee stated: “I believe it is totally superfluous, if I am honest. 
Because the job of keeping the public informed can be done by the government’s 
press office… I would get rid of it straightaway.” 

Some  social  partners  reported  that  a  lack  of  independence  from  government  or 
limitations in the Equality Body mandates made collaborations difficult. 

96 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

In Ireland the ICTU had two members on the Board of the Irish Equality Authority 
until they resigned in protest against government-imposed budget cuts and a down-
grading of its work. 

In the case of Poland, the interviewee from the Polish Confederation of Employers 
(KPP) reported having attempted to create an advisory body to support an Equality 
Body  during  the  2007  Year  of  Equal  Opportunities,  but  with  the  creation  of  an 
Equal  Treatment  Plenipotentiary  working  across  government  ministries,  its 
proposal was not progressed. 

5.3. 

Low numbers of complaints 

The Equality Bodies were allocated an important role in the two Equality directives 
of  2000.  The  intention  was  to  support  easier  access  to  litigation,  to  encourage 
associations and trade unions to take up cases on behalf of individual and groups of 
workers, and to publicise the fact that the burden of proof had been moved from the 
complainant who experienced discrimination to the employer. Combined together 
these changes should have enabled more successful complaints to be made to the 
courts and have helped accelerate compliance by employers. 

However,  the  numbers  of  complaints  based  on  the  discriminations  prohibited  by 
the Racial Equality Directive have remained low or in some countries non-existent, 
as  has  the  level  of  success.  The  employers  and  trade  union  interviewees  were 
therefore asked why so few complaints of racial or ethnic discrimination had been 
taken through their country's Equality Bodies. Below are the explanations from the 
representatives of both sides of industry. 

Employer explanations 

The three main explanations made by the employers were:  

 

 

 

they acknowledged that many workers were frightened of the consequences in 
terms of risking their jobs;  

they believed that workers were not convinced that the penalties imposed would 
make a difference; and  

they considered that most minority workers were so thankful to have a job they 
would not recognise the discrimination they were being subjected to. 

The Italian Handicraft and Small Firm Association respondent listed nearly all of 
these  factors:  “The  fear  of  losing  their  jobs,  administrative  difficulties,  lack  of 
knowledge of their rights, knowing that in any event there is no sanction.” Echoing 
this argument a respondent from the Padua branch of the Italian National Builders' 

97 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Association  argued  that  what  inhibited  workers  from  contesting  discriminatory 
practices in smaller firms was “Fear. The fear of losing their jobs, mainly”.  

The  Austrian  Chamber  of  Labour  interviewee  commented  on  the  two  issues  for 
workers of making complaints while still working for an employer: 

“If  we  take  up  these  cases  it  necessarily  will  become  known  to  the  employer. 
Another problem is that being discriminated has become completely normal to 
migrant workers and to their employers, who have been active for years in the 
same branches. They do not recognise the injustice of the situation.” 

The  Federation  of  Austrian  Industries  interviewee  made  clear  the  likely 
consequences for the victim: “For most of them it is clear that they will not be able 
to go back to their former employer, they can just claim compensation.” 

Trade union explanations 

Explanations  from  trade  unionists  about  the  low  numbers  of  migrant  or  ethnic 
minority workers using the Equality Bodies to make complaints can be summarised 
as follows: 

  process and structural obstacles to lodging a complaint; 

 

 

limited geographical access to Equality Bodies; 

the political situation of Equality Bodies; 

  a lack of awareness of the Equality bodies; 

 

 

ignorance of workers’ rights not to experience discrimination;  

the fear of victimisation. 

The time taken in processing grievances was frequently referred to as a deterrent to 
using  the  Equality  Body.  Although  SIPTU  in  Ireland  did  support  members  in 
making  claims,  it  believed  this  and  inadequate  penalties  were  problems.  The 
Cyprus Hotel and Catering workers union (SYXKA) expressed disappointment in 
not receiving any response at all to two complaints it had raised a few years ago. 

In  some  countries  the  Equality  Body  was  less  responsive  to  approaches  by  trade 
unions  than  in  others.  The  Latvian  policeman's  union  (LAPA)  approached  the 
Ombudsman's Office and was informed it could not cooperate with a trade union, 
but would only deal with complaints by private individuals.  

98 

 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Independence queried 

In Italy, a CISL confederation interviewee described the lack of follow-through by 
the  National  Office  against  Racial  Discrimination  (UNAR)  in  providing  data  on 
monitoring and in supporting training. The interviewee was also critical of UNAR's 
location within the Prime Minister’s Office, throwing its independence into doubt 
particularly  “in  processing  complaints  of  discrimination  that  come  from  within 
government bodies or as a result of discriminatory laws issued by the government 
itself”.  

In  Malta,  a  General  Workers  Union  respondent  had  found  the  National 
Commission for the Promotion of Equality was toothless. It did not put out much 
information and was 

“less  than  helpful…  their  answer  to  anything  related  to  racial  equality  was 
always  ‘No’.  Even  if  you  have  a  thousand  excuses  [for  not  responding  to 
requests], a No is a No.”  

In  Denmark,  although  the  3F  Federation  had  won  both  of  the  two  cases  that  had 
gone to the Danish Equality Board, the union was critical of the fact that the Board 
was situated only in Copenhagen and that its capacity is low and its resources are 
limited. The result is that only the strongest cases are likely to be supported. The 
interviewee's  analysis  was  that  the  government  had  only  implemented  the  Racial 
Equality Directive “on paper… The Equality Board is just showbiz”.  

A  similar  critique  about  their  Equalities  Office  appearing  geographically  isolated 
came  from  German  trade  unionists  from  VERDI  and  from  the  IG  BCE.  The 
VERDI interviewee argued:  

“The difficulty that exists is that we only have one central office. And compared 
to  say  Great  Britain  where  there  are  about  35  to  36  [Racial  Equality 
Councils]… and where there exist more personnel to deal with such problems... 
and here there is only one office in the capital… In VERDI’s opinion that is not 
enough.” 

An interviewee from the IG BCE also complained: “When you contact them as an 
individual  you  are  fobbed  off.  “That  is  not  our  job”.  That  is  my  experience 
anyway.”  

One societal factor is the general extent of confidence in and knowledge of the law. 
In  Estonia,  an  EAKL  interviewee  believed  that  generally:  “Legal  literacy  is  at  a 
low  level,  and  very  few  people  start  legal  proceedings”.  Usually,  when  members 
have asked for legal advice from the union, the members would “Often ask us not 
to  start  any  actions  and  begin  discussions  with  their  employer.  They  try  to  cope 
with their problems themselves.” 

99 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

The fear of being identified as a ‘victim’ was also  referred to by interviewees. A 
Luxembourg  trade  unionist  pointed  to  the  fear  of  complaining  among  victims  of 
discrimination:  

“While  they  have  got  work,  they  refuse  to  talk  about  indirect  discrimination. 
They've got into a context that means: ‘Say nothing, see nothing, hear nothing… 
But I go on working’.” 

Tolerating discrimination 

A sociological factor helping to explain the low numbers of complaints of racial or 
ethnic  discrimination  was  suggested  by  the  Bulgarian  miners'  trade  union 
interviewee.  The  Podkrepa  Miners'  Federation  interviewee  suggested  that  ethnic 
minorities had become accustomed to the forms of discrimination they experienced 
at  work  and  where  they  lived,  and  having  internalised  and  adapted  to  this 
experience were unlikely to want to challenge it publicly. 

The  Latvian  Ombudsman's  Office  respondent  explained  the  fatalism  that  many 
victims of Roma origin experienced:  

“Roma people themselves do not come to our Office and do not complain. They are 
so heavily victimised in Latvia that they even don’t complain!” 

Both  in  case  of  Bulgaria  and  Latvia,  the  presence  of  racial  and  ethnic 
discrimination is so embedded in the fabric of the society that making complaints 
to the Equality Body does not seem natural. 

An  Irish  SIPTU  respondent  also  considered  that  fear  helped  explain  the  low 
numbers  of  individual  complaints  to  the  Equality  Authority:  “Ireland  is  a  small 
community,  and  victims  often  fear  repercussions  in  future  employment.”  A 
Netherlands  union  confederation  (CNV)  interviewee  agreed:  “It’s  fear  of 
victimisation”. The FNV union confederation interviewee added:  

“When  complaining  of  racism  you  place  yourself  outside  the  workforce.  You 
are different - you don’t belong. So you decide not to complain.” 

Finally,  an  Austrian  GPA-DJP  trade  unionist  pointed  to  the  political  inhibitors 
faced  by  migrant  workers  in  a  society  in  which  not  only  is  it  very  rare  for 
employers to be taken to court, but is also one in which “policy makers make racist 
statements  from  time  to  time…  and  the  influence  of  the  public  discourse  on  the 
Austrian  trade  unions  has  been  quite  conservative.”  The  extent  of  take-up  of 
workers’  rights  by  minorities  experiencing  discrimination  is  thus  also  shaped  by 
the overall societal and political contexts in which they find themselves.  

100 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

6. 

The Role of Social Dialogue  

European  employers  and  trade  unions  exhibit  a  wide  range  of  relationships  in 
working  together  to  implement  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  These  range  from 
expressions of a clear desire for collaborative partnership to mutual suspicion. The 
EU itself, primarily through the EQUAL programme, has played an important role 
in  encouraging  joint  actions  by  the  social  partners  building  anti-discrimination 
capacity in line with the directive. Nonetheless, there are some concerns that some 
very effective interventions are not sustained once EU funding is withdrawn. 

Table 4 enumerates the reports of anti-discrimination events, agreements or actions 
that  the  interviewees  indicated  had  taken  from  2003  to  2008.  Inevitably  the 
‘counts’  are  not  exhaustive.  They  merely  reflect  examples  that  the  interviewees 
could  recall.  The  four  columns  on  the  left  of  the  table  give  the  numbers  of  joint 
actions undertaken by the social partners together. Those on the right indicate the 
actions reported as having taken place without reference to the other social partner. 

6.1. 

Collaborative social dialogue 

In many cases there is clear agreement between the employers and the trade unions 
on the need to challenge racial or ethnic discrimination. This takes the form either 
of  national-level  events  or  agreements,  or  of  local  initiatives  at  regional  or 
company-level. 

The  interviewees  reported  70  examples  of  collective  agreements  dealing  with 
discrimination between unions and employers at national, local and company level. 
In 2008, the trade unions and employers in the Catalan Region of Spain signed an 
agreement  that  referred  to  the  law  of  2003  that  was  introduced  as  a  result  of  the 
directive and that is now being implemented by the Catalan Government.  

A UK agreement was reached between five trade unions with members in Further 
Education and the Association of Colleges in January 2008. It is unique in that it 
specifically  refers  to  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  It  commits  the  parties  to 
celebrating and valuing diversity, and the employing colleges to non-discrimination 
in  recruitment  and  selection,  training  and  promotion.  It  also  commits  the 
signatories to develop Racial Equality Plans around defined concrete actions.  

In Ireland, in the wake of the directive the Equality Authority played a key role in 
bringing  together  the  employer  organisations  and  the  trade  unions  to  organise  an 
‘Anti-Racism  Workplace  Week’.  The  Irish  Construction  Industry  Federation 
reported  that  some  companies  requested  additional  publicity  materials  in  order  to 
hold workplace meetings called ‘toolbox talks’. 

101 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Table 4: Anti-discrimination actions reported by the social partners 

t
n
e
m
e
e
r
g
a

e
v
i
t
c
e
l
l
o
c

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

t
n
e
m
e
e
r
g
a

e
v
i
t
c
e
l
l
o
c

y
n
a
p
m
o
C

t
n
e
v
E

/
e
c
n
e
r
e
f
n
o
C

e
r
u
t
a
r
e
t
i
l

r
e
n
t
r
a
p
l
a
i
c
o
S

Joint Social Dialogue 

1

3

1

1
2

2

5
3
8
5
5
2
2
7
47

1 

2 
2 

1 

2 

1 
1 

6 
2 
1 

1 

2 
9 
2 
1 
3 
1 
2 
3 
6 

1 
2 
6 
6 
45 

1 
2 
3 
25 

1

2
2

2

3

2
2

3
1
10
28

s

O
G
N
h
t
i

w
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
-
o
C

1

2
3

1
4
1
3
2
2
6
4
5
6
2
2
1
6
51

EE 
PL 
MT 
BG 

LV 

HU 
FR 
LU 
SI 
FI 
SK 
CZ 
DK 
ES 
CY 
PT 
IE 
EL 
IT 
AT 
RO 
SE 
UK 
DE 
NL 
Total 

102 

t
c
u
d
n
o
c

f
o

s
e
d
o
c

/

y
c
i
l
o
p
n
o
i
n
U

r
o

e
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
c

l
a
i
c
e
p
S

s
t
n
e
m
e
g
n
a
r
r
a

g
n
i
n
i
a
r
T

g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
m
r
o

t
i
d
u
A

t
n
e
m

t
i
u
r
c
e
r

.

n
o
n
a

/

e
v
i
t
i
s
o
P

n
o
i
t
a
n
i
m
i
r
c
s
i
d
e
c
a
r
-
i
t
n
a

l
a
n
r
e
t
x
E

g
n
i
n
g
i
a
p
m
a
c

l
a
t
o
T

Individual union or company 
1

1
1
1
3

2

1
3

1
2
8
4
2
3
2
6
4
5
8
9
5
13
84

1
2

3

2
2
1
1
3
9
1
4
8
6
4
10
5
3
3
13
10
3
15
11
121

1 

1 
1 
1 

2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
4 
4 
8 
31 

1 

3 

5 
3 
1 

6 

7 
26 

1 

2
2
4
6

6

1 
1 

7
8
8
8
  13
  13
1  14
  20
  22
3  23
4  25
1  29
2  36
3  36
3  40
2  40
3  40
6  43
8  53
2  93
41  59

1
1

3

3
1
4

1
1
1
4
1
10
10
1
2
4
10
5
9
20
92

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Most collective agreements were less explicit about compliance with the directive, 
but  nonetheless  when  they  were  reached  at  branch  level  they  did  provide  clear 
guidelines to local negotiators as to what could or could not be done. In the Cyprus 
construction  industry,  for  example,  after  the  transposition  of  the  directive  one 
clause was introduced in the sector collective agreement providing Provident Fund 
contributions for the previously excluded migrant workers, and another now states: 
“Trade Union activity, religion, race and political beliefs do not constitute reasons 
for dismissal and neither do they justify any discrimination against employees.” 

In  France,  a  National  Diversity  Agreement  was  signed  by  the  main  French 
employer  associations  and  trade  unions  in  2006  after  the  directive  had  been 
transposed. It included a clause enabling a 'diversity committee' in each workplace 
to meet once a year bringing together management and employee representatives to 
review  the  steps  taken  to  challenge  discrimination.  A  French  CGT  interviewee 
emphasised:  “That  is  really  important  because  it  also  strengthens  the  role  of  the 
employee  representatives  on  racism.”  The  agreement  covered 
issues  of 
recruitment,  posting  to  particular  jobs,  salaries,  professional  training  and  career 
development.  

Several  company  agreements  included  new  clauses  introducing  workplace-level 
grievance procedures to deal with discrimination, and specifically referred to racial 
discrimination.  This  was  the  case  at  Gumotex  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  at  US 
Steel in Slovakia. In Belgium a Diversity Charter negotiated after transposition at 
the  Brussels  Public  Transport  Company  (STIB)  agreed  to  include  two  levels  of 
sanction against personnel found to have committed racial discrimination: a three-
day  suspension  followed  by  dismissal.  A  union  (CSGLB)  interviewee  reported: 
“Two people were disciplined and as a result of having made an example from the 
start, the problem is now sorted.” 

6.2. 

Difficult social dialogue 

The  existence  of  the  directive  and  subsequent  national  legislation  did  not 
necessarily  make  it  easier  to  secure  agreement  on  joint  action  against  racism 
between employers and trade unions. Thus the Danish LO trade union interviewee 
reported  proposing  a  project  called  'Kick-start'  to  100  Danish  companies  with  a 
view to stimulating a debate about ethnicity and diversity, but having to cancel it 
when  only  one  company  agreed  to  participate.  When  LO  approached  the  DA  the 
employers indicated they were ready to come to a collective agreement on gender 
discrimination, but not on ethnicity, race and age. The LO interviewee complained: 
“The  employer  organisations  did not want  to  make  agreements  on  these  issues… 
Equal  pay  is  straightforward,  but  these  [other]  issues  can  be  hard  to  enter  into 
agreements about.” 

103 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

In  France,  a  CGT  trade  union  interviewee  recognised  the  same  problem.  In 
pressing for the drawing up of a company agreement against discrimination in line 
with  the  Racial  Equality  Directive:  “I  chose  to  base  the  company  diversity 
agreement on all the discriminations because it wouldn't have got through [if] only 
based on inequality linked to a person’s origin”.  

A contentious area in some countries was trade union promotion of migrant worker 
rights  as  a  means  to  recruit  more  members  and  exercise  greater  workplace 
influence.    A  Cypriot  trade  union  interviewee  from  DEOK  who  worked  with 
migrant women workers was convinced it was a key obligation for trade unions to 
protect  'foreign'  workers  to  ensure  that  they  enjoy  equal  rights  with  Cypriot 
workers.  He  asked  rhetorically:  “If  Unions  don’t  do  it,  who  will?”  But  the 
representative  of  the  Padua  area  of  the  Italian  National  Builders’  Association 
believed  the  unions  had  at  times  paid  more  attention  to  non-Italian  workers  than 
they should:  

“We  had  to  suggest  that  they  should  not  go  overboard  in  their  recognition  of 
the  difference  between  foreign  as  compared  to  Italian  workers,  otherwise  we 
create  conditions  of  racism  in  reverse…  making  our  own  workers  feel  a  little 
like minority workers.” 

A  problem  in  the  negotiation  process  that  might  explain  the  lack  of  progress  in 
some agreements was described by the Dutch trade union De Unie. The respondent 
noted that strong clauses against racial discrimination and ensuring real equality for 
minority  workers  might  be  included  in  an  initial  bargaining  package  put  to  the 
employers, but then they would often be dropped, despite the directive:  

“There  are  many  collective  negotiations  in  which  racial  discrimination  is  a 
subject,  [but]  when  it  is  hard  to  come  to  an  agreement,  then  this  is  a  subject 
that will disappear.” 

The problem of having enabling anti-racial discrimination clauses in agreements at 
national  or  sector  level,  but  their  not  being  implemented  or  embedded  in  local 
agreements, was common. A Paris region CFDT trade unionist stated: 

“Although  there  have  been  national  agreements  signed,  we  know  that  if  the 
local people don't use them, well, they simply don't see the light of day. Either 
the  agreements  haven't  been  sufficiently  sold  within  the  organisations,  trade 
union and employer, or they aren't properly adapted.” 

Thus despite the existence of the French national agreement, few sector agreements 
or individual companies have followed up on it to date, and there are currently less 
than 30, essentially in MNCs like Addeco, Accor, Casino and PSA. Another CFDT 
trade unionist argued that: “This reflects the balance of strength inside companies 
and the lack of a public requirement to negotiate.”  

104 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

This  raises  the  more  general  problem  of  implementation.  In  many  instances,  EU-
level,  national-level  or  even  company-level  social  dialogue  has  established 
common  ground  between  employers  and  trade  unions  on  the  importance  of  fully 
integrating minority-origin workers and of taking steps to help highlight and then 
end  all  forms  of  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination.  In  most  French  companies, 
managements had not gone much further than paying lip-service to it.   

Another  issue  commented  on  in  relation  to  the  French  national  agreement  is  the 
possible difference between notions of ‘diversity’ and of ‘equality’. As one French 
employer representative indicated, at its most minimal, ‘ethnic diversity’ can imply 
simply  having  one  non-white  person  in  each  workplace.  ‘Racial  equality’  is 
broader. It concerns recruitment proportionality between the ethnicity of the local 
population  and  those  in  local  employment,  as  well  as  the  complete  absence  of 
indirect discrimination in internal job allocation and promotion with equal access 
to training for all.  

6.3. 

EU supported actions and dialogue 

Many  employers,  trade  unions  and  NGOs  saw  the  EU  as  an  important  source  of 
support  for  joint  social  partner  interventions  at  a  local  level.  Some  of  those 
programmes described were highly successful, others less so. 

included  a  French  EQUAL  project,  ‘Action  and 
Successful  programmes 
Vigilance’,  involving  the  Paris  region  of  the  CFDT  trade  union  with  the  local 
employer  associations  and  the  City  of  Paris.    One  reported  outcome  was  that 
subsequently,  if  the  union  was  made  aware  of  discrimination  in  an  affiliated 
employer, it could do something: 

“Things happen differently if the firm where the discriminated people work is a 
member of an employer organisation. We can pick up the phone to one of our 
social partners, "Look, things are pretty bad. Let’s look at this together.” 

Another  Paris  EQUAL  project  commented  upon  favourably  by  interviewees  was 
aimed at increasing the numbers of equal rights agreements signed in the region in 
the aftermath of the directive. It was called ATECCOD (Acting in the regions for 
equal opportunities and against discrimination). Initiated by the Paris region of the 
CFDT  its  other  partners  were  the  MEDEF  region  of  Eastern  Paris  and  the  NGO, 
the Abbé Pierre Foundation.  

In  Austria,  one  trade  union  (GPA-DJP)  interviewee  reported  favourably  of  the 
EQUAL partnerships that had been created with NGOs active in anti-racist policies 
and  struggles.  In  Italy  the  AHEAD  (Accompanying  Handicraft  Entrepreneurs 
against  Discrimination)  EQUAL  partnership  led  by  the  Confartigianato  (craft 

105 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

employers)  included  a  financial  newspaper,  a  Psychoanalytical  Social  Research 
Institute, a cultural group and a bank.  

A  three-year  EQUAL  project  called  ‘Leader’  was  implemented  in  six  different 
Italian  regions  directly  after  the  transposition  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  It 
enabled a regional trade union (CISL) official to develop their “awareness of the 
forms of ethnic and religious discrimination found at work”. The project aimed to 
support a network of migrant workers and help build their capacities in challenging 
discrimination.  Another  CISL  respondent  explained  how 
the  programme 
encouraged  “practices  designed  to  eliminate,  or  at  least  combat,  discriminatory 
actions in the workplace”. A CGIL respondent confirmed that the Leader project 
had helped enable the union to provide “input, information, answers to queries… 
Some local regions even took measures on their own at their own legal centres”. 
The consensus was that it was highly successful and that the networks created had 
survived beyond the end of direct project funding. 

One EQUAL programme  in Hungary was described by an employer organisation 
participant as 'successful'  while it was  being supported, but he expressed concern 
that  it  had  little  or  no  long-term  impact.  The  respondent  explained:  “Despite  the 
vocational  training  provided  by  the  programme  the  participating  Roma  had  no 
sustainable enterprises and jobs at the end.” The employer organisation involved 
reported not having changed any of its internal policies in the light of the directive 
or the project. 

A concern expressed by one Romanian NGO interviewee is that much funding for 
information about the directive and other EU policies had only come through the 
EU.  The  lack  of  any  national  public  campaign  trying  to  raise  awareness  of  anti-
discrimination legislation was thus possibly “because the European funds for this 
purpose have dried up”. 

106 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

7. 

The way forward: views of the 
social partners  

As  outlined  in  Article  17  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  the  FRA  is  obliged  to 
contribute to the Commission’s report to the European Parliament and the Council 
on  the  application  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  In  light  of  the  information 
provided, the Commission’s report shall include, if necessary, proposals to revise 
and update the directive.  

As  a  result,  employer  and  trade  union  respondents  participating  in  this  research 
were asked whether they had suggestions as to how anti-discrimination policies on 
the ground of racial or ethnic origin could be improved. Around one third of those 
interviewed had opinions on this issue. Some of the suggestions were repeated by 
both ‘more aware’ and ‘less aware’ social partner organisations, and some by trade 
union  and  employer  respondents.  Most  recommendations,  however,  clearly 
reflected the particular country context and social partner interest.  

This  chapter  reports  on  what  the  interviewees  thought  needed  to  be  done  to 
improve  the  impact  of  the  directive  on  the  ground.  The  first  section  outlines  the 
views  that  the  whole  sample  of  social  partner  organisations  interviewed  held  in 
common.  The  chapter  then  highlights  the  views  of  the  trade  unions,  followed  by 
that of the employer organisations. Some of the latter, as already mentioned, were 
openly hostile to any suggestion that laws were appropriate in this area.  

7.1. 

Joint proposals 

Rights awareness – more and better communication  

There  was  a  widespread  consensus  among  both  trade  unions  and  employer 
organisations  that  more  needed  to  be  done  either  by  the  Equality  Bodies  or  by 
national governments to raise public awareness of the economic and social damage 
done by discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds. This was important, a Latvian 
employer argued, to help lay the basis of a democratic society in which instead of 
“people keeping quiet about these cases… they actually have to shout”.  

investment 

Much  greater 
thus  a  common 
recommendation. The publicity given to the FRA’s EU-MIDIS report provides an 
example of such awareness raising; the social partners, nonetheless, emphasised the 
importance of measures at national level to foster greater awareness of equal rights. 

in  awareness 

raising  was 

107 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

In this regard, several trade unionists recommended providing much higher levels 
of publicity about the illegality of racial and ethnic discrimination. The Italian craft 
employer association interviewee argued:  

“We are not yet at the level of northern Europe. Furthermore, the investment in 
funding  for  information,  diffusion,  for  active  projects  of  prevention,  has 
probably been too limited up to now.” 

The Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce respondent agreed:  

“There  is  a  need  to  promote  the  legislation,  even  to  make  videos.  Probably 
advertising  is  a  strong  word  -  but  every  employer  could  disseminate  the  law, 
even in the framework of meetings, even if for just a few hours.” 

The interviews conducted clearly indicate the need for anti-discrimination training 
to be mainstreamed into the social partner development programmes to strengthen 
the impact of the Racial Equality Directive. 

The  importance  of  investing  in  ways  of  bringing  people  from  different 
backgrounds  together  was  another  common  argument.  A  German  IG  Metall 
interviewee insisted:  

“What  we  really  have  to  do  is  to  bring  people  with  different  backgrounds 
together to break down the prejudices, and this always costs money. If a local 
community  would be  provided  with  resources  if  it  committed  to organising  an 
inter-cultural  festival  once  a  year,  then  this  would  certainly  have  an  impact. 
Then,  equality  laws  would  not  be  necessary.  The  key  issue  is  that  those  who 
discriminate  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  they  discriminate  against.  They 
know  nothing  about  their  victims  –  and  this  is  really  the  biggest  challenge  to 
overcome.” 

In order to counter xenophobia, several interviewees from both the employer and 
trade union side believed that their national education systems could be improved. 
A Hungarian employer argued: 

“The  law  has  not  changed  the  Hungarian  context  of  racial  and  ethnic 
discrimination.  Hungarian  society  is  extremely  conservative.  The  process  of 
changing  people's  minds  should  start  at  school.  Segregation-free  education  is 
the key issue there.” 

108 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

7.2. 

Trade union proposals 

Better transposition 

In  general,  the  trade  unions  which  made  proposals  agreed  that,  at  the  level  of 
implementation, there should be less ambit for national interpretations that narrow 
the  scope  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  impact  on  the  independence  and 
powers  of  the  Equality  Bodies.  The  ETUC  respondent,  however,  believed  it  was 
“regrettable” that discrimination on the grounds of nationality had been taken out 
of the draft directive:  

“The problem today is not the weakness of the directive: it is the weakness of its 
implementation.”  

The French CGT considered that the directive’s transposition into French law had 
not  been  sufficiently  close  to  the  directive’s  intent,  allowing  racist  behaviours  to 
continue  without  being  sufficiently  sanctioned.  Without  success,  CGT  had 
proposed to the French employer organisations MEDEF and CGPME that the 2006 
National  Agreement  on  Diversity  should  include  the  maintenance  of  recruitment 
records,  in  which  all  accepted  and  rejected  candidates  were  listed,  as  well  as  the 
trade union to examine these records. By increasing transparency in recruitment – a 
key  area  of  discrimination  –  the  trade  union  confederation  believed  that  it  would 
help tackle the problem. 

Coverage of both private and public sectors  

A  second  area  of  consensus  among  trade  unions  related  to  the  fact  that  the  laws 
transposing  the  legislation  should  cover  both  the  public  and  private  sectors. 
Equality impact assessments should be generalised and introduced in those parts of 
the private sector where they do not currently operate. In doing so, establishments 
should  be  expected  to  yearly  account  for  the  racial  and  ethnic  profiles  of  their 
workforce  and  propose  detailed  initiatives  aimed  at  ensuring  greater  equality 
among their staff.  

In  addition,  several  trade  unions  thought  that  all  private  establishments  tendering 
for  public  contracts  within  the  EU  should  be  required  to  demonstrate  their 
compliance  with  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  Proceeding  as  such  would 
guarantee that anti-discrimination practice will be included as a public procurement 
requirement.  

109 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Access to justice  

A third area of recommendations concerned improving access to justice: not only 
should access to justice be free (in those countries where charges are imposed for 
advice  and/or  for  taking  legal  proceedings),  but  the  trade  unions  should  be  given 
the right everywhere to take up ‘collective’ legal actions on behalf of whole groups 
of  employees  rather  than  having  to  base  cases  on  individual  ‘victims’  of 
discrimination. An IG Metall interviewee commented:  

“There is a need to improve the way the EU directives were transposed. I could 
imagine  they  could  be  more  effective,  for  example,  by  making  it  easier  for  a 
person to take action who has a problem – this could involve offering financial 
resources. That I believe is the biggest problem because even a tough law will 
just sit there.” 

Independence of Equality Bodies  

The VERDI interviewee in Germany insisted that the Equality Office had to gain 
more  independence.  Italian  trade  unionists  put  forward  the  same  argument, 
considering the UNAR “not an autonomous body”. A CISL respondent proposed 
that the directive should require governments  

“to equip themselves with autonomous Bodies where Civil Society participates 
and does the monitoring”.  

The interviewee also wanted a European level requirement for EU Member States 
to take positive action against racial discrimination. 

Higher penalties  

Many  trade  unionists  felt  that  Equality Bodies  should  be  permitted  to  impose  the 
reinstatement  of  the  directive’s  provisions  as  well  as  higher  penalties,  which 
together would act as a more significant deterrent to other employers. The Polish 
FZZ trade union confederation suggested that not only financial penalties should be 
imposed since 

“currently  employers  are  not  afraid  of  financial  fines  because  they  can  treat 
them as costs”. 

The  respondent  believed  that  if  criminal  sentences  were  permitted  this  would  be 
more effective in changing employer behaviours.  

One  respondent  from  the  French  CFDT  criticised  the  low  levels  of  positive 
judgements  on  racial  discrimination  issues  and  the  “derisory”  level  of  fines. 
Shifting the burden of proof had not changed the situation significantly regarding a 

110 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

positive  outcome  of  cases  since  the  employee  was  still  responsible  for  providing 
most of the information required to win a case. Another French CFDT interviewee 
believed  that  it  would  be  important  to  link  any  outcomes  of  racial  discrimination 
cases  in  Employment  Tribunals  to  requiring  changes  within  the  company. 
Imposing the reinstatement of the legal provisions was one option to proceed; the 
trade unionists, however, believed that more effective ways must be established to 
ensure  that  the  outcome  of  discrimination  has  a  positive  impact  on  employer 
practices. 

Better access to Equality Bodies  

Finally,  in  at  least  two  countries  under  examination  in  this  study  social  partner 
organisations  argued  that  the  number  of  access  points  to  the  Equality  Bodies  in 
each  country  should  be  increased.  Information  was  one  thing,  but  being  able  to 
physically  discuss  an  issue  with  an  Equality  Body  counsellor  was,  the  union 
respondents thought, more likely to be effective both in resolving or in pursuing the 
case. 

7.3. 

Employer proposals 

The  employer  organisations  interviewed  within  the  scope  of  this  research  were 
more divided than the trade unions in their views on how to improve the impact of 
the Racial Equality Directive on the ground. In cases where they had clear views 
about ways of improving anti-racial discrimination practices, the employers, on the 
whole,  tended  to  argue  for  greater  reliance  on  general  education  in  society  and 
voluntarism.  These  assessments  often  coincided  with  more  general  affirmations 
made by the trade unions and have been referred to in the Joint recommendations. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  employers  wished  to  see  the  Racial  Equality  Directive 
removed  or  at  least  the  burden  of  proof  change  reversed.  More  generally,  the 
employers  would  prefer  to  see  the  role  of  the  law  being  reduced  rather  than 
strengthened. 

Clearer regulation 

The argument in favour of additional support in the directive for positive measures 
was made by the London Fire Brigade interviewee. He argued for the legal right to 
appoint ethnic minority workers without any restrictions: 

“We are given recruitment targets but then one hand is tied behind our backs in 
order  to  reach  those  targets.  The  kind  of  thing  that  we  would  like  to  do  is, 

111 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

maybe, if we’ve got 50 people waiting to come in and eight of those people are 
BME,41 to bring them in first, in the first tranche, so that we can start making 
the organisation look and feel different, because we think that’s important.” 

In  Germany,  the  BMW  respondent  also  believed  that  legislation  should  better 
emphasise how stronger positive action could be introduced:  

“It  would  be  important  to  say  that  it  is  necessary  to  consider  how  certain 
measures to promote minorities could be allowed.” 

Other employers felt that the courts had to give much clearer guidance on tackling 
racial discrimination. One of the interviewees from the Spanish Building Industry 
Federation drew a stark contrast between the judgements in relation to the gender 
equality  legislation,  which  had  significantly  affected  management  practices,  and 
the  total  absence  of  legal  action  in  relation  to  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination, 
despite  the  adoption  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  six  years  earlier.  The 
respondent  of  Spain’s  Promsa  cement  manufacturing  company  established  the 
same  contrast,  reporting  that  the  national  government  sent  out  strong  messages 
regarding  discrimination  in  relation  to disability  and  gender  but  not  in  relation  to 
ethnic origins.  

More resources for implementation of the directive 

The Finnish construction employers made a similar plea: 

“More  information,  more  resources  and  more  specific  allocation  of  [support 
for]  monitoring  are  the  most  important  elements  that  can  improve  the 
effectiveness of the law.” 

A  Bulgarian  BIA  employer  association  respondent  suggested  that  companies 
should allocate responsibility for non-discriminatory practices to a single person: 

“In all large organisations, in government administration, in large enterprises 
one person should be appointed to give information about all employees in the 
organisation, to monitor the employed men and women. In most cases it should 
be the human resources manager of the organisation.” 

Incentivising compliance 

A recurrent theme among some of the employer organisations was the requirement 
for  clear  incentives  to  be  set  out  in the directive.  A  Dutch  employer  organisation 
respondent believed:  

41   Black and minority ethnic. 

112 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

“The  advantages  of  diversity  must  be  highlighted.  But  to  change  behaviour: 
people  will  only  do  this  if  there  is  something  it  for  them  and  they  get  an 
advantage from it.”  

The Hungarian AFEOSZ co-operative employer association was still more explicit 
in relation to resolving the discrimination against the Roma:  

“As far as the Roma employment is concerned, the government should provide 
subsidies to hire them. That’s so simple. In a capitalist system the ‘money goes 
around’.  Positive  discrimination  is  only  possible  if  it  is  worthwhile  for  the 
companies.” 

Less regulation 

Not  unexpectedly,  given  its  opposition  to  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  its 
national  transposition  in  the  first  place,  the  German  metal  working  employer 
(Gesamtmetall) representative stated: “I would prefer that the law did not exist.” 
The  Confederation  of  German  Employers’  Associations,  the  BDA,  was  more 
specific, wishing the reversal of the burden of proof:  

“The  very  first  thing  we  would  remove  is  the  burden  of  proof.  Then,  this 
bureaucratic  effort  that  employers  have  to  deal  with  would  be  abandoned.  It 
would be a great relief if that was removed.”  

The interviewee of the Confederation of German Industry, the BDI, supported the 
argument:  

“If someone wants to complain then I believe it is for them to prove it, that this 
has happened or that one’s legal rights have been breached. One cannot always 
say “Yes (I have been discriminated against), [but] I cannot prove it”. I do not 
think it is legally correct to elevate this principle.”  

Finally, the EK Finnish employer organisation interviewee believed that the law on 
these  issues  “should  be  germinated  from  the  basis  of  the  national  legislation”, 
criticising  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  for  “not  allowing  enough  national 
latitude”. 

113 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

8. 

Conclusions 

The  above  presented  views  of  the  social  partners  on  the  impact  of  the  Racial 
Equality Directive will form part of the forthcoming Synthesis Report summarising 
the multidisciplinary evidence FRA has collected on the application of the directive 
on the ground. This Synthesis Report will be the basis for the FRA Opinion on the 
directive to be submitted to the European Commission, as required by Article 17.  

The  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  is  not 
straightforward  in  the  light  of  changes  in  the  European  labour  markets.  As 
highlighted  in  Chapter  1.4,  several  discrete  political  and  economic  developments 
were  commented  on  and  referred  to  by  the  interviewees  as  complicating  any 
assessment. 

Two Equality Directives 

Since the two Equality Directives42 were passed within months of each other and in 
many  instances  they  were  transposed  in  a  single  piece  of  legislation,  for  many 
interviewees, the two pieces of legislation became largely indistinguishable. Many 
companies and trade unions found supporting ‘Equality’ was altogether easier than 
challenging ‘Racial discrimination’. Equality could also be assimilated more easily 
with the gender equality steps that were much more widespread and with which the 
actors were much more familiar.  

Many  interviewees  kept  talking  about  steps  they  had  taken  in  relation  to  gender 
equality, even when it was explained to them that the research focus was on their 
awareness of and actions taken to combat racial and ethnic discrimination. Partly, 
this  was  because  their  responses  to  racial  and  ethnic  discriminations  were  much 
more limited, but also it was because they were much less confident in this area. As 
this report has shown, the definition of direct racial discrimination is not standard 
across  different  countries  and  among  different  social  partners.  Furthermore,  the 
meaning of ‘indirect’ racial or ethnic discrimination is still more elusive.  

The outcome of this blurring of understandings was viewed by some respondents 
as  leading  to  the  downplaying  of  taking  specific  measures  to  combat  racism 
without,  necessarily,  there  being  a  higher  priority  given  to  challenging  the  other 
four EU discrimination strands.  

The result is that distinguishing behavioural changes concerning racial and ethnic 
issues from similar steps taken to counter discriminations related to disability, age 

42   Namely the Equality Directives: Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. 

114 

                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

or  sexual  orientation  became  more  difficult,  and  nearly  impossible  in  relation  to 
discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.  

Enlargement 

In  2004  and  2007  the  EU  expanded  by  a  total  of  12  New  EU  Member  States. 
According  to  the  assessments  of  the  national  experts  there  is  a  noticeable  gap  in 
awareness  of  the  directive  between  the  respondents  from  the  EU-15  and  EU-12, 
with the latter being less aware of and less responsive to the new legislation. 

Many  respondents  from  the  New  EU  Member  States  saw  the  directive  and 
initiatives of anti-discrimination as Western ideology, bringing about discussion on 
issues  that  did  not  take  place  in  their  countries  and  only  creating  unnecessary 
confusion.  

Roma 

In  relation  to  Roma  populations,  both  employers  and  trade  unions  displayed  a 
limited understanding of the relevance of the directive to the Roma. In the EU-12 
New Member States the Roma were often referred to, but their treatment was more 
often not conceptualised as racial discrimination. Equally, in the EU-15 countries, 
very  few  respondents  conceptualised  their  Roma  populations  as  being  a  minority 
ethnic  community  protected  by  the  directive.  Thus  in  both  situations,  with  few 
exceptions,  the  Roma  generally  were  not  acknowledged  as  ‘deserving’  of 
protection under the directive. 

Migration 

In  some  cases  increased  migration  can  lead  to  the  situation  of  potential  tension 
between the struggle for better pay and working conditions for ‘national’ workers 
and  the  struggle  against  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  race  or  ethnicity.  This 
may explain why trade unions have not mobilised against racial discrimination in 
some countries.  

The coincidence of a new presence of migrant workers in the labour force with the 
passage  and  transposition  of  the  directive  created  a  second  huge  confusion.  For 
many  social  partners  the  meaning  of  the  directive  was  reduced  to  the  formula: 
discrimination against third country nationals is wrong.  

Thus a factor that has created difficulty has been the assumption in some countries 
that  the  directive  primarily  addresses  the  need  to  provide  equal  treatment  for 
migrant workers, while in other countries it is assumed that it is actually only about 
equality for workers who are ‘visibly’ different. The result has been that in some 
countries,  considerable  attention  was  reported  in  relation  to  the  directive 

115 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

encouraging  social  partner  activities  aimed  at  the  integration  of  recent  migrants; 
while much less attention was reported about actions aimed at the full inclusion of 
EU  citizens  of  minority  racial  or  ethnic  origin.  In  a  parallel  equally  misplaced 
understanding  of  the  directive,  in  some  other  countries  the  absence  of  significant 
populations of black citizens led social partners to conclude that the directive did 
not apply to them, despite the presence of minorities who experienced considerable 
discrimination.  

Economic crisis 

In the midst of the economic crisis, the social partners interviewed often reflected 
that  the  ‘crisis’  and  ‘jobs’  had  a  higher  priority  than  respect  and  real  racial  and 
ethnic equality.   

The timing of this research thus added to the complexity of the assessment. There 
was  considerable  evidence  presented  of  steady,  if  slow,  progress  towards  a  more 
tolerant,  inclusive  approach  to  ‘other’  workers  among  both  employers  and  trade 
unionists  –  up  until  the  crisis.  But  in  the  face  of  the  downturn,  this  advance  is 
facing  growing  scepticism  in  much  of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  and  a  failing 
enthusiasm in parts of the EU-15. 

Islamophobia 

The  11  September  2001  terrorist  attacks  in  New  York  unleashed  world-wide 
condemnation. But it also led to a sharp increase in the numbers of media, verbal 
and physical attacks on Muslim people and ideas in many EU Member States in the 
very  period 
to  marginalise 
discriminatory ideologies and employment practices fuelled by them. 

the  Racial  Equality  Directive  was  seeking 

The  ETUC  respondent  made  it  clear  that:  “Much  changed  before  and  after  9/11. 
Before,  we  were  making  considerable  progress;  afterwards  things  became  much 
more  difficult”.  “There  was  a  change  in  the  whole  climate  of  anti-racial 
discrimination actions. Achieving results became much more difficult.” 

Transposition  

While the Racial Equality Directive of 2000 appeared to herald a radical change in 
employment  practices,  its  transposition  is  more  protracted  than  it  was  hoped.  In 
several  EU  Member  States  initially  transposed  it  inadequately  and  were  still 

116 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

revising it in 2007 and 2008.43 One New Member State finally only transposed it in 
June 2009. 

Moreover,  since  transposition  was  down  to  the  national  legislatures,  it  is  much 
more difficult to assess the effectiveness of the directive as a whole in combating 
discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  race  and  ethnic  origin.  Implementation  often 
varied  significantly  from  what  was  envisaged  under  the  directive.  Variations  in 
definitions flow from the fact that the starting points for the directive in Europe’s 
different  regions  were  quite  different  and  this  renders  comparison  still  more 
complicated.  

Despite these difficulties in the assessment and in using the same measures across 
27  Member  States,  this  report  and  accompanying  national  reports  do  permit  an 
overall  mixed  assessment  to  be  drawn  of  the  directive’s  impact  on  employment 
opportunities and practices.   

43   The  chapter  on  employment  in  the  FRA  2008  Annual  Report  states:  “The  Commission  sent  a 
‘reasoned opinion’ to 17 Member States during 2007 for failing to implement the Racial Equality Directive 
fully,  and  to  11  Member  States  in  January  2008  for  incorrect  implementation  of  the  Employment  Equality 
Directive.  Main  problem  areas  include  definitions  of  discrimination,  assistance  to  the  victims  of 
discrimination  –  such  as  the  shift  in  burden  of  proof  and  victimisation  –  and  the  scope  of  the  protection 
granted… Many Member States fall short in some way of the standard set by the Directives. In Estonia, the 
norm of equal treatment has been introduced only in the labour law for the private sector, leaving out the civil 
service.  In  Hungary  on  the  other  hand,  not  all  private  sectors  are  covered.  Self-employment  is  not  fully 
covered in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom. Swedish law does not mention ‘working conditions’ as an area where discrimination is forbidden; 
Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia do not fully cover membership of or involvement in organisations of workers or 
employers.” 

117 

 
                                                      
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

References 

European Commission (2006) The Business Case for Diversity: Good practices in 
the  Workplace,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European 
Communities, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=780. 

European Commission (2006) Catalysts for Change? Equality bodies according to 
Directive  2000/43/EC,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the 
European Communities, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId= 
2015&langId=en. 

European Commission (2007) Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe: The 
25 EU Member States compared, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of 
the European Communities, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2012&langId=en. 

European  Commission  (2008)  Continuing  the  Diversity  Journey:  Business 
Practices, Perspectives and Benefits, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications 
of  the  European  Communities,  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp? 
catId=780. 

European Commission (2009), Industrial Relations in Europe 2008, Luxembourg: 
Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=141&langId=en. 

European  Union  (19  July  2000)  Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  of  29  June  2000 
implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between  persons  irrespective  of 
racial  or  ethnic  origin,  Official  Journal  L  180,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official 
Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  available  at:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ 
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0043:en:HTML. 

European  Union  (2  December  2000),  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  of  27 
November  2000  establishing  a  general  framework  for  equal  treatment  in 
employment  and  occupation,  Official  Journal  L  303,  Luxembourg:  Office  for 
Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0078:en:HTML. 

European  Union  (14  December  2007)  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union,  Official  Journal  C  303,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official 
Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  available  at:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ 
JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:SOM:en:HTML.  

European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA)  (2008)  Annual  Report 
2008,  Vienna:  FRA,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/products/ 
publications_reports/ar2008_part2_en.htm 

118 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

FRA (2009) Annual Report 2009, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of 
the  European  Communities,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/products/ 
publications_reports/ar2009_part2_en.htm 

FRA (2009) European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS): 
Main  Results  Report,  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the 
European  Communities,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/products/ 
publications_reports/pub_eu-midis_en.htm. 

FRA (2009) The Roma, EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 1, Luxembourg: Office 
for  Official  Publications  of 
the  European  Communities,  available  at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS_ROMA_EN.pdf. 

FRA  (2009)  The  Muslims,  EU-MIDIS  Data  in  Focus  Report  2,  Luxembourg: 
Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  available  at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS_MUSLIMS_EN.pdf.  

FRA (2009) The situation of Roma EU citizens moving to and settling in other EU 
Member  States,  Summary  report,  Vienna:  FRA,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/ 
fraWebsite/attachments/ROMA-Movement-Summary_en.pdf 

FRA (2010) Rights Awareness, EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 3, Luxembourg: 
Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European  Communities,  (forthcoming  in 
May 2010). 

FRA (2010) Annual Report 2010, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of 
the European Communities (forthcoming in June 2010). 

FRA  (2010)  Comparative  Legal  Study  on  the  Impact  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive Vienna: FRA (forthcoming). 

FRA (2010) Migrants, Minorities and Employment – Exclusion and Discrimination 
in the EU-27 Member States of the European Union, Vienna: FRA (forthcoming).  

European  Monitoring  Centre  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia  (EUMC)  (2002) 
Summary  Report  on  Islamophobia  in  the  EU  after  11  September  2001,  Vienna: 
EUMC, 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Synthesis-
report_en.pdf.  

available 

at: 

EUMC (2006) Perceptions of Discrimination and Islamophobia, Vienna: EUMC, 
available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Perceptions_EN.pdf.   

EUMC (2006) Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia, 
Thematic  report,  Vienna:  EUMC,  available  at:  http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/ 
products/publications_reports/pub_tr_islamophobia_en.htm.  

119 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Eurostat  (2009)  European  Business:  Facts  and  Figures,  Luxembourg:  Office  for 
at: 
Official  Publications 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/european_business/publications/
facts_figures.  

the  European  Communities, 

available 

of 

Martens, A. (1999) “Migratory Movements: The Position, the Outlook. Charting a 
Theory  and  Practice  for  Trade  Unions",  in:  Wrench,  J.  and  Ouali,  N.  (eds.), 
Migrants, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market, Macmillan: Basingstoke. 

UNICE,  ETUC  and  CEEP  (1995)  Joint  Declaration  on  the  Prevention  of  Racial 
Discrimination  and  Xenophobia  and  Promotion  of  Equal  Treatment  at  the 
Workplace,  Brussels,  available  at:    http://resourcecentre.etuc.org/linked_files/ 
documents/Declaration%20-20xenophobia%20EN.pdf?PHPSESSID= 
019e0e1841a8d948aa606296063b8df0. 

120 

The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annexes  

Annex 1 

Table A1: Name of interviewers, by country 

Country  Interviewers 
AT  
BE 
BG 

Bettina Haidinger 
Nouria Ouali 
Vassil Kirov 

Country 
LV 
LT 
LU 

Interviewers 
Aija Lulle 
Charles Woolfson 
Nouria Ouali 

CY 

CZ 

Maria Ivanova 

MT 

Anna Borg 

Anthoula Papadopoulou NL 

Tanja van den Berge 

Soňa Veverková 

Aleš Kroupa 

PL 

PT 

Julia Kubisa 

Maria da Paz Lima 

DK 

Sille Lundfos Thuesen 

RO 

Nicolas Christiansen 

Svend Møballe 

Rikke Hove 

Anu Laas 

Pertti Jokivuori 

Rachid Bouchareb 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

Oana Stoian 

Daniel Pop 

Ludovít Cziria 

Andreja Poje 

Paolo Leotti 

Annette Thörnquist 

Birger Simonson 

Michael Whittall 

UK 

Sonia McKay 

Anna Müller 

Waldtraut Lotz  

Anna Paraskevopoulou 

László Neumann  

Deirdre Curran 

Mary Quinn 

Peter Cooper 

Mary Davis 

Marc Craw 

Anna Paraskevopoulou

Eugenia Markova 

Steve Jefferys 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU  

IE  

IT 

Rossana Cillo 

EU Level

Steve Jefferys 

Francesco Della Puppa 

Tessa Wright 

121 

 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 2 

Table A2: Number of organisations interviewed, by country 

Employers Unions Equality Bodies or NGOs  Total 

MT 
EE 
LU 
PT 
CY 
EU Level 
SK 
SI 
CZ 
LT 
BG 
HU 
IE 
AT 
DK 
FI 
EL 
SE 
LV 
NL 
PL 
RO 
BE 
FR 
UK 
DE 
IT 
ES 
Total 

2 
1 
1 
3 
4 
2 
4 
4 
4 
2 
4 
5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
5 
7 
5 
6 
5 
4 
8 
6 
11 
9 
10 
9 
144 

3 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
2 
6 
5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
5 
5 
6 
6 
7 
8 
8 
10 
9 
10 
10 
8 
162 

1 
1 
2 

2 

2 
5 

2 

2 
1 
1 
3 

1 

1 

3 
27 

6 
6 
7 
7 
8 
8 
8 
8 
9 
9 
10 
10 
10 
12 
12 
12 
12 
12 
13 
13 
13 
15 
16 
17 
20 
20 
20 
20 
333 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 3 

Table A3: Number of organisations declining interviews, by type and country 

k
a
e
P
n
o
i
n
U
e
d
a
r
T

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

k
a
e
P
r
e
y
o
l
p
m
E

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

r
o
t
c
e
S
/
h
c
n
a
r
B
n
o
i
n
U
e
d
a
r
T

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
l
a
n
o
i
g
e
R
r
o

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

3 

2 

1 

9 

2 

1

2

3

6

4

17 

17

HU 

MT 

LU 

CY 

SI 

PT 

UK 

BG 

AT 

EE 

PL 

DE 

CZ 

EL 

FR 

DK 

NL 

RO 

ES 

Total refusals 

r
o
t
c
e
S
/
h
c
n
a
r
B
r
e
y
o
l
p
m
E

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
l
a
n
o
i
g
e
R
r
o

n
o
i
n
u
e
d
a
r
t

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
I

r
e
y
o
l
p
m
e

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
i
t
l
u
m

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
n
o
N

r
e
y
o
l
p
m
e

y
d
o
B
y
t
i
l
a
u
q
E

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

O
G
N

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

O
G
N

l
a
c
o
L

l
a
t
o
T

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

4

12

21

19

34

64

1

2

1

3

2

1

9

23

42

3

3

2

2

3

10

23

1 

1 

1 

3 

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

7

8

8

59

75

1 

1  194

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 4 

Trade union interview schedule 

Introduction 
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. We are conducting this research for the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. One purpose is to find out how 
much you are aware of the EU’s Racial Equality Directive and anti-discrimination 
law  passed  here.  Another  is  to  find  out  your  union’s  policies  on  racial/ethnic 
discrimination  -  including  national  and  language  and  religious  discriminations  - 
and whether these policies have changed over the last five years. 

These  questions  are  being  put  to  trade  unionists  in  all  27  EU  member  states  and 
your answers will help provide a picture of what is happening in this area. 
With your permission the interview will be recorded in order to allow us to be sure 
of taking down everything you say. We will not put your name in the written report 
of the interview, although we will name the trade unions in our final report and the 
report will say that we have interviewed anonymous national officers. We may like 
to  use  quotations  from  the  interview  on  this  basis  and  we  will  ask  you  to  sign  a 
form  giving  your  consent  to  the  use  of  the  material  in  this  way  at  the  end  of  the 
interview.   

(Establish  that  the  interviewer  is  agreeable  to  the  recording  of  the  interview  and 
these conditions) 

  Respondent details 

  Name of Respondent 

  Name of Trade Union 

  Job Title 

  Number of Years in current job 

  Number of Years with union 

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT ISSUES such as: 

  The law on racial/ethnic discrimination at work. 

  Experiences of such discrimination in the workplace 

  Main factors reinforcing racial/ethnic discrimination 

124 

 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

A. Union policies and practices on racial/ethnic 

1.  Was your union (confederation/national union) involved in consultations 

with government on the introduction of or amendment of [name of national 
racial/ethnic legislation] following the 2000 EU Racial Equality Directive? 
(follow up) 

2.  What do you consider are the most important changes to racial/ethnic 

rights brought about by the new laws or the associated greater awareness of 
the issue? 

3.  The legislation now encourages trade unions to be more active on anti-

discrimination issues. Do you think this is helpful? Does the union have  
policies and/or procedures/structures to deal with discrimination against 
migrant and ethnic minority members and workers in the workplace, in 
civil society or within the trade union itself. If so, were these 
policies/procedures introduced or amended as a result of the Directive? Is it 
possible to have copies? 

4.  As a result of the introduction of the new laws has the union introduced or 
changed any of its education and (awareness) training for paid officials, 
representatives or members? 

5. 

In reflecting on the changes that have taken place in this area can you think 
of any event or individual action that helped bring them about? 

6.  Has the union publicised the legal framework and rights arising from the 

new laws among its members, workers and the general public, and if so in 
what ways? 

Ask for examples 

7.  How far has the union raised the new anti-racial/ethnic discrimination laws 

at different levels of the union?  

8.  Does your union have any contact or relationship with your country’s 

Equality Body? 

B. Social partner dialogue 

9.  Has the union participated in collective bargaining, social dialogue or 

awareness-raising with employers or at Works Councils arising from the 
introduction of the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national 
racial/ethnic legislation]? 

If there are formal agreements or procedures is it possible to have copies? 

10.  Do you think the new laws or climate on anti-discrimination laws 

stimulated employers to adopt equality, anti-discrimination or diversity 
management policies? 

125 

 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

C. The union and its members 

11.  As a result of the introduction of the new laws or of heightened awareness 
of anti-discrimination measures what, if any, changes has the union made 
to the support it offers to members who indicate they have experienced 
discrimination? 

12.  Could you give some examples of cases taken up by the union and what 

happened – and why do you think workers do (or don’t) raise grievances in 
this area?  

13.  Where the union has the right to take up cases on behalf of the victims of 

discrimination has the union actually supported these workers in 
employment-related cases?  

14.  Do you think that the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national 

racial/ethnic legislation] raises any specific issues for women workers?  

If you think it does could you give some examples? 

15.  Have any of these changes had an impact on levels of recruitment to or 

involvement of minority ethnic workers in the union?  

Again, please could you give some examples? 

D. Awareness 

16.  How aware would you say that ethnic minority workers are of their rights 
under the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national racial/ethnic 
legislation]? 

17.  Are you aware of any government information campaigns to raise public 

awareness on racial/ethnic legislation?  

18.  Are you aware of what other trade unions are doing on issues of 

racial/ethnic? Could you give any examples? 

E. The impact of the legislation 

19.  Do you think that the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national 
legislation] has really improved protection against racial/ethnic 
discrimination in employment? Why? 

20.  Are there any other or additional measures that you think could be taken 

that would be more effective?  

126 

 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 5 

Employer interview schedule 

Introduction 
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. We are conducting this research for the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. One purpose is to find out how 
much you are aware of the EU’s Racial Equality Directive and anti-discrimination 
law passed here. Another is to find out your organisation’s policies on racial/ethnic 
discrimination  -  including  national  and  language  and  religious  discriminations  - 
and whether these policies have changed over the last five years. 

These questions are being put to employers in all 27 EU member states and your 
answers will help provide a picture of what is happening in this area. 

With your permission the interview will be recorded in order to allow us to be sure 
of taking down everything you say. We will not put your name in the written report 
of  the  interview,  although  we  will  name  the  employers  interviewed  and  will  say 
that we have simply interviewed representatives of the organisations. We may wish 
to  use  quotations  from  the  interview  on  this  basis  and  we  will  ask  you  to  sign  a 
form  giving  your  consent  to  the  use  of  the  material  in  this  way  at  the  end  of  the 
interview.   

Establish  that  the  interviewer  is  agreeable  to  the  recording  of  the  interview  and 
these conditions 

  Respondent details 

  Name of Respondent 

  Name of Organisation 

  Job Title 

  Number of Years in current job 

  Number of Years with organisation 

  Numbers of workers at European and national levels 

  Number of workplaces at national and European level 

  Proportion of foreign and ethnic minority workers  

  Trade organisation and/or employee representation within the organisation 

Where  possible  secure  organisational  information  in  advance.  If  there  is 
information available on demographic breakdown of the workforce, operations at 
national and European level ask if it is possible to have copies 

127 

 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT ISSUES such as: 

  The law on racial/ethnic discrimination at work. 

  Experiences of such discrimination in the workplace 

  Main factors reinforcing racial/ethnic discrimination 

A. Employer policies and practices on racial/ethnic discrimination 

1.  Was your organisation at any level involved in consultations with government 

on the introduction of or amendment of [name of national racial/ethnic 
legislation] following the 2000 EU Racial Equality Directive? 

2.  What do you consider are the most important changes to racial/ethnic rights 
brought about by any new laws or the associated greater awareness of the 
issue? 

3.  The legislation encourages employers to be more active on anti-discrimination 
issues. Do you think this is helpful? Does the organisation have formal policies 
and/or procedures/structures to deal with discrimination against migrant and 
ethnic minority members and workers and if so, were these policies/procedures 
introduced or amended as a result of the Directive? 

If there are formal procedures ask if it is possible to have copies 

4.  As a result of the introduction of the new laws or climate of awareness has the 
organisation introduced or changed any of its education and (awareness) 
training for senior managers, supervisors, line managers or staff?  

5.  In reflecting on the changes that have taken place in this area can you think of 

any event or individual action that helped bring them about? 

6.  Has the organisation publicised the legal framework and rights arising from the 
Racial Equality Directive and [name of national racial/ethnic legislation] 
among its employees, and if so in what ways? 

7.  Has the organisation raised the need to comply with higher standards on anti-

discrimination policy internally, and if so, at what levels?  

8.  What kind of contact does your organisation have with your country’s Equality 

Body? 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

B. Social partner dialogue 

9.  Has the organisation participated in collective bargaining or social dialogue or 
awareness-raising with the trade unions or employees arising from the new 
laws? 

If there are formal agreements or procedures is it possible to have copies? 

10.  Do you think the new laws or climate on anti-discrimination laws stimulated 
the trade unions to adopt different equality and anti-discrimination policies? 

C. Discrimination in the workplace 

11.  As a result of the introduction of the new laws or of heightened awareness of 
anti-discrimination measures what, if any, changes has the organisation made 
to the support it offers to employees who consider they have a racial 
discrimination grievance? 

12.  Could you give some examples of cases and what happened – and why do you 

think workers do (or don’t) raise grievances in this area? 

13.  Do you think that the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national 

racial/ethnic legislation] raises any specific issues for women staff? 

14.  Do you think that any of these changes had an impact on levels of recruitment 

to or involvement of minority ethnic workers in the organisation? 

D. Awareness 

15.  How aware would you say that ethnic minority workers are of their rights 
under the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national racial/ethnic 
legislation]? 

16.  Are you aware of any government information campaigns to raise public 

awareness on racial/ethnic legislation?  

17.  If your organisation is part of a multinational, how aware are you of the 

racial/ethnic policies and anti-discrimination practices of the company in other 
countries? 

18.  What are other employers you know of doing on issues of racial/ethnic 

discrimination?  

Could you give any examples? 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

E. The impact of the legislation 

19.  Do you think that the Racial Equality Directive and [name of national 

legislation] has improved protection against racial/ethnic discrimination in 
employment? 

20.  Are there any other or additional measures that you think could be taken that 

would be more effective? 

130 

 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 6 

Table A4: Name of employer organisations, by level and country 

Peak 
Organisation 

2 
Federation of Austrian 
Industrialists, 
Austrian Federal Economic 
Chamber 
1 
FEDERGON  
(Employment partners’ 
federation)  

3 
SSI (Union for Economic 
Initiative – UPE)  
BSK (Bulgarian Industrial 
Association - BIA) 
BTTP (Chamber of Commerce 
and Industry -BCCI) 
2 
OEB  
(Cyprus Employers and 
Industrialists Federation) 
CCCI  
(Cyprus Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry) 

Branch/Sector 
or Regional 
organisation 

3 
BECI (Brussels Commercial 
and Industrial Businesses) 
FEDIS  
(Retail Employers Federation) 
FEBELFIN  
(Finance and Banking 
Employers Federation) 

National 
employer 

Foreign- 
owned 
multinational 

2 
Academy of Fine Arts 
City of Vienna 

2 
TNT 
Shell 

2 
SELOR (public 
recruitment office) 

2 
Carrefour 
Rail Gourmet 

Brussels Public Hospital 

1 
Taxi S Express 

2 
OSEOK  
(Federation of Building 
Contractors Associations of 
Cyprus) 
PASYXE  
(Cyprus Hotel Association) 

3 
DI (Confederation of Danish 
Industry) 
DA (Confederation of Danish 
Employers) 
KL (Local Government 
Association) 

3 
DMA (Association of Media 
Employers) 
DM (Federation of Master 
Painters) 
DB (Construction Association) 

4 
Gumotex 
Thomayer Hospital 
BV Elektronik 
STAMONT- Metal 
International 

1 
Ministry for Population 
and Ethnic Affairs 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

EU level 

2 
BusinessEurope 
UEAPME 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

3 
EK (Confederation of Finnish 
Industries 
KT (Commission for Local 
Authority Employers)  
VTML  
(State Employer’s Office) 
3 
MEDEF (Movement of French 
companies) 
UPA (Craft professional union) 
CJDES (Centre of young 
managers in social economy) 

2 
BDI (Confederation of German 
Industry) 
BDA  
(Confederation of German 
Employers' Associations) 
1 
SEV ( Hellenic Federations 
of Enterprises) 

3 
MGYOSZ(Confederation of 
Hungarian Employers and 
Industrialists) 
ÁFEOSZ(National Federation 
of Consumer Co-operatives) 
IPOSZ(National Federation of 
Craftsmen Boards) 
2 
IBEC  
(Irish Business and 
Employers Confederation) 
ISME  
(Irish Small and Medium 
Enterprises Association) 
2 
Confcooperative-
Federsolidarietà (Cooperatives 
Association) 
Confartigianato  
(National Craft  Association) 

2 
LDDK (Employers’ 
Confederation of Latvia) 
LTRK (Latvian Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry) 

2 
SKL (Federation of Finnish 
Commerce)  
RT (Confederation of 
Construction Industries) 

1 
City of Jyväskylä 

2 
CGPME (Confederation of 
small and medium-sized firms) 
FIFEL- ZUS 
(Federation Ile-de-France of 
Entrepreneurs and liberal 
professions in urban zones) 
MEDEF West Paris region 
2 
Gesamtmetall (Metal and 
Electronic Employers 
Association) 
KA (Municipal employers 
association) 
1 
Municipality of Komotini 

1 
Insurance company 

5 
Dussmann 
Deutsche Bahn 
Deutsche Post 
BMW 
City of Munich 
3 
Athens International 
Airport S.A 
Coco Mat 
Techni Pantelos 
2 
Anon 

3 
CIF (Construction Industry 
Federation) 
IHF (Irish Hotels Federation) 
HSE-EA (Health Services 
Executive Employers 
Association) 
4 
Agricultural Employers' 
Association 
Doc Service Hoteliers' 
Association 
ANCE – Padua  (National 
Builders' Association) Fòrema 
Unindustria – Padua (Industrial 
Employers) 
1 
Association of Latvian Builders 

4 
Global Garden Products  
Gruppo Veronesi 
Marmi Santa Magherita 
Azienda Ospedaliera di 
Verona 

2 
Maxima  
(retail company) Lietiskas 
Informacijas Dienests  

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2 
LPK (Confederation of 
Industrialists) 
LVDK  (Confederation of  
Lithuanian small firms) 
1 
UEL (Union of Luxembourg 
Enterprises) 
1 
MEA (Malta Employers 
Association) 
2 
VNO-NCW (Confederation of 
Netherlands Industry and 
Employers) 
AWVN (General Employer’s 
association) 
3 
KPP (Konfederacja 
Pracodawców Prywatnych) 
PKPP (Polska Konfederacja 
Pracodawcow Prywatnych 
‘Lewiatan’) 
ZRP (Związek Rzemiosła 
Polskiego) 
2 
CPP (Portuguese Trade and 
Services Confederation) 
CIP( Portuguese Confederation 
of Industry) 
1 
ACPR  
(Alliance of Employers’ 
Confederations of Romania) 

2 
GZS  
(Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry of Slovenia) 
ZDS (The Association of 
Employers of Slovenia) 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

1 
MHRA (Malta Hotels and 
Restaurants Association) 
2 
LTO Noord (Northern 
Employers’ Organisation for 
Agriculture and Horticulture) 
VNG (Association of Dutch 
Municipalities) 

2 
Albert Heijn  
LECD  
(Dutch Royal National 
Police Force) 

2 
JW Construction 
AlterFM 

1 
Portugal Telecom 

2 
Strametz & Partner 
Commodo 

1 
Accenture 

1 
UPSVAR  (Central Office 
of Labour, Social Affairs 
and Family) 
1 
Žito dd 

2 
US Steel Košice 
Slovnaft - MOL 
Group 

1 
ZSPSR  (Association of 
Mechanical Engineering) 

1 
ZDOPS–GIZ (Association of 
Employers in Craft and Small 
Businesses of Slovenia) 

3 
FOMENT DEL TREBALL 
(Catalan branch of CEOE) 
CECOT 
(Catalan Business 
Confederation) 
CNC  
(National Building Federation) 

6 
Promsa 
Escorxadors de Girona 
GAG  
(Guissona Food Group) 
Rotecna 
Bodegas Torres 
Telefónica 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

1 
Swedish Construction 
Federation (Byggnards) 

SE 

UK 

2 
CBI (Confederation of British 
Industry) 
CIPD (Chartered Institute of 
Personnel Development 

6 
Skanska 
University of Uppsala 
Uppsala Hospital 
Uppsala City Council 
Gothenburg City Council 
Uppsala Police Authority 
8 
HSBC 
BT 
Royal Mail 
Tesco 
Borough of Haringey 
London Fire Brigade 
Department of Work and 
Pensions 
Borough of Hackney 

1 
EDF Energy 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 7 

Table A5: Name of trade union organisations interviewed, by level and country 

Sector/Branch 
or regional 

Individual 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

Peak 

3 
OeGB (Austrian Confederation of 
Trade Unions) (2x), 
Austrian Federal Chamber of 
Labour 

3 
FGTB – ABVV (General Federation 
of Belgian Labour) 
CSC – ACV (Confederation of 
Christian Trade Unions) 
CSGLB – ACLVB (General 
Confederation of Belgian Liberal 
Trade Unions) 
2 
KNSB  
(CITUB – Confederation of  
Independent Trade Unions of 
Bulgaria) 
KT “Podkrepa” (Confederation of 
Labour Podkrepa) 
2 
PEO  
(Pancyprian Federation of Labour) 
DEOK  
(Democratic Labour Federation 
of Cyprus ) 

3 
GPA-DJP (Union of Salaried Private 
Sector Employees and Union of Printers, 
Journalists and Paper Workers) 
GMTN (Metal, Textile, Agricultural, 
Food, Beverage and Tobacco Workers) 
OeGB – Ooe (Upper Austrian 
Confederation of Unions) 
4 
FGTB – Brussels Diversity counselling 
FGTB – Brussels Diversity Coordination 
CSC – Brussels Area  
CSC – Brussels Region 

4 
CITUB - Federation of Independent 
Food Industry Trade unions 
CL Podkrepa - Federation of Miners) 
CITUB - Federation of Independent 
Trade Unions of the Power Industry 
CL Podkrepa - Federation of Education 
2 
SYXKA (Cyprus Hotels and Catering 
Establishments Employees Trade 
Union) 
BWMGWU (Cyprus Building, Wood, 
Mine and General Workers Union)  

2 
LO  
(Danish Confederation of Trade 
Unions)  
AC  
(Danish Confederation of Professional 
Associations) 

4 
3F (Fagligt Fælles Forbund) 
HK (Commercial and clerical 
Workers’ Union) 
NNF (Danish Food and Allied Workers’ 
Union) 
TIB (Timber, Industry and Construction 
Workers` Union) 

1 
CSC – Brussels 
Clerical workers 
union 

3 
OS KOVO  
(Metal Workers’ 
Union) 
OS STAVBA  
(Trade Union of 
Building Workers) 
OSZSP ČR  
(Trade Union of 
Health Service and 
Social Care) 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

2 
EAKL (Estonian Trade union 
Confederation)  
TALO (White Collar trade union 
confederation) 
ETUC (European Trade Union 
Congress) 

EE 

EU level 

3 
SAK (Central Organisation of Finnish 
Trade Unions) 
STTK (Finnish Confederation of 
Salaried Employees) 
AKAVA (Confederations of Unions 
for Academic Professionals) 
3 
CFDT (Democratic French Workers’ 
Confederation) 
CGT (General Workers’ 
Confederation) 
FO (Workers’ Power) 
1 
DGB  
(German Confederation of Trade 
Unions) 

2 
GSEE 
(General Confederation of Greek 
Workers) 
ADEDY 
 (Confederation of Public Servants) 

2 
LIGA  
(Democratic League of Independent 
Trade Unions) 
MSZOSZ  
(National Association of Hungarian 
Trade Unions) 

1 
ICTU  
(Irish Congress of Trade Unions) 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

136 

2 
EAKL  
(Services and Commerce)  
TALO  
(Broadcast & Media Workers) 
EMF (European Metalworkers 
Federation) 
Eurocadres 
EPSU (European Public Sector 
Union) 
3 
PAM (Service Union United) 
Rakennusliitto  
(Construction Trade Union) 
UIL  
(Union of Professional Engineers) 

4 
CFDT – Paris region 
CFDT – Ile de France region 
CGT - Rhône Alpes region 
FO  - Northern region 

3 
CFDT – Paris Retail 
FO – Northern Finance 
Union  
FO – Paris Transport Union 

1 
IG Metall - BMW works 
council  

1 
EKA  
(Athens Labour Union 
Organisation) 

8 
IG Metall (Industrial Union of 
Metalworkers) x(3) 
Verdi (Public and Service Sector 
Union) 
IG BCE  
(Mining, Chemicals, Energy) 
IG BAU  
(Construction, Agricultural and 
Environment Union) 
GP (Police Union) 
NGG (Food, Beverages and 
Catering Union) 
2 
OLME  
(Organisation of Secondary 
Education Teachers 
POE – OTA (Federation of 
workers in  Municipalities and 
local communities) 
3 
KASZ (Trade Union of 
Commercial Employees ) 
HVDSZ (Local Government and 
Municipal Workers’ Union 
VDSZSZ-Szolidaritás 
(Free Trade Union of Railway 
Workers) 

4 
INO (Irish Nurses 
Organisation) 
SIPTU (Services Industrial 
Professional and Technical 
Union) 
IBOA (Irish Bank 
Officials’ Organisation) 
MANDATE (Shop and Bar 
Workers’ Union) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

3 
CISL  
(Confederation of Italian Workers’ 
Trade Unions) 
RdB  
(Rank and File Deputation) 
CGIL  
(Italian General Confederation of 
Labour) 

1 
LBAS (Free Trade Union 
Confederation of Latvia) 

2 
LPSK (Lithuanian Trade Union 
Confederation) 
Solidarumas Lithuanian Trade Union 
3 
OGB-L (Confederation of 
Independent Trade Unions x 2 
LCGB (Confederation of Christian 
Unions in Luxembourg)   
1 
GWU  
(General Workers Union) 

2 
CNV  
(National Federation of Christian 
Trade Unions) 
FNV   
(Federation of Dutch Trade Unions) 

5 
OPZZ  x 3 
FZZ 
(Forum Związków Zawodowych) 
NSZZ (Solidarnosc national level) 
2 
CGTP 
 (General Confederation of 
Portuguese Workers) 
UGT  
(General Workers’ Union) 

7 
FILLEA-CGIL  
(Construction workers' union) 
CISL- Venice Region 
CGIL – Venice Region  
UIL - Italian Workers Union – 
Venice Region 
FIM-CISL  
(Metalworkers' union) 
FPS-CISL  
(Public sector and health-care 
workers' federation) 
ACLI-COLF 
(Domestic workers’ union) 
5 
LIZDA (Education and Science 
Workers Trade Union) 
LAPA (United Trade Union of 
Policemen) 
VSADA (Health and Social Care 
Workers Trade Union ) 
“Energija” (Energy sector trade 
union) 
LKDAF (Trade Union Federation 
for People Engaged in Cultural 
Activities) 

2 
NSZZ Solidarnosc  
(Electronics Industry Union) 
ZNP-OPZZ  
(Teachers Union) 
2 
FESAHT (Trade Union 
Federation of Agriculture, Food, 
Beverage, Hotel and Tourism) 
FEVICCOM (Portuguese 
Federation of Trade Unions of 
Construction, Ceramics and 
Glass Industry) 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

1 
LCGB – Cleaning branch  

2 
UHM (United Workers 
Union) 
MUMN (Malta Union of 
Midwives and Nurses) 
4 
AFMP/FNV  
(General Association for 
Military Personnel) 
De Unie (The Union) 
NU’91  (Nurses and 
caretakers trade union) 
NPB  (Dutch Police Union) 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

1 
The National Confederation of 
Retired Persons Trade Unions 

4 
Cartel ALFA  
(National Trade Union 
Confederation) 
CSDR (Democratic Trade Union 
Confederation of Romania) 
Fratia  
(National Confederation of Free Trade 
Unions of Romania) 

2 
OZŽ (Railway Workers Trade 
Union Association) 
IOZ (Integrated Trade Union 
Association) 
1 
SSS  
(Free Trade Union of Slovenia) 

6 
CCOO (Catalan region of 
Confederation of Workers’ 
Commissions) x 2 
USO (Workers ‘ Union Catalan 
Region) 
CCOO- Andalusia 
CGT- Branch of Barcelona 
UGT- Branch of Murcia 
3 
Union of Commercial Employees 
Swedish Construction Workers’ 
Union 
Swedish Municipal Workers’ 
Union 

3 
ZSSS( Association of Free Trade 
Unions of Slovenia) 
KSS Pergam 
ZDSS Solidarnost 
2 
UGT (General Workers’ Union) 
CCOO (Confederation of Workers 
Commissions) 

1 
TUC (Trades Union Congress) 

3 
Sanitas Federation (Health 
care trade union) 
Columna  (Federation of 
Employees from the central 
and local public 
administration) 
The Free Trade Union 
Federation of Commerce 
2 
ZO OZ Metalurg (Metal 
Trade Union Association) 
ZO OZ Chémia (Chemical 
Trade Union Association) 

2 
Swedish Metal Workers´ 
Confederation, No 36 
Union of Commercial 
Employees, No 36 

9 
CWU (Communication 
Workers Union) 
(FBU) Fire Brigades Union 
GMB 
UNITE 
UNISON 
PCS 
TSSA (Transport Salaried 
Staffs Association 
NASUWT (National 
Association of Teachers: 
Union of Women Teachers) 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 8 

Table A6: Names of NGOs and Equality Bodies interviewed, by country 

Equality Body 

National NGO 

Local NGO 

CZ 

EE 

EU level 

1 
Gender Equality and 
Equal Treatment 
Commission 
Equinet 

FR 

DE 

EL 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

ES 

1 
Ombudsman’s office 

1 
CET (Centre for Equal 
Treatment) 

1 
NCPE (National 
Commission for the 
Promotion of Equality) 

1 
National Council for 
Combating Discrimination 

1 
Multicultural centre Prague 

1 
Regional Authority of the Usti 
Region 

ENAR (European Network against Racism) 

1 
CJDES (Center of young leaders in social economy) 

2 
HLHR-KEMO (Hellenic League for Human 
Rights and Research Centre for Minority groups) 
Antegoni (Information & Documentation Centre on 
racism, ecology, peace and non-violence.) 
1 
LCC (The Latvian Centre for Human Rights) 
5 
Lithuanian Human Rights Monitoring Institute 
Lithuanian Human Rights Monitoring Institute 
House of National Communities 
Institute for Social Research, Centre of Ethnic Studies 
Department of Ethnic Minorities and Lithuanians 
Living Abroad 
1 
CNE 
 (General Commission for Foreigners) 

1 
EARN  (European Anti-Racism Network ) 
1 
SIP (Legal Intervention Society) 
2 
Center for Juridic Resources 
Equal Opportunity Commission - representing the 
Cantemir Association 
2 
CEPAIM  
(Foundation with a seat inside Spanish equality body) 
Fundación Tripartida  
(Training foundation) 

1 
Ausländerbeirat München (City 
of Munich Advisory Board for 
Foreigners) 

1 
Ombudsman of Catalonia 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impact of the Racial Equality Directive - Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union 

Annex 9 

Country groups 

EU-15 

EU-12 

EU-27 

15 EU Member States prior to enlargement in 2004 (Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom)  
12 New Member States, 10 of which joined the EU in 2004 (Cyprus, the 
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, 
Slovakia and Slovenia) – and are sometimes referred to as the NMS10 – 
and the remaining two in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania) 
27 EU Member States 

Table A7: Country codes 

Country 
code 

Country  
name 

Country 
code 

Country  
name 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 

LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 
SI 
ES 
SE 
UK 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
The Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

140