Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (COM(2023) 38 final – 2023/0012 (NLE)) and on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union: harnessing its full potential for managing fair transitions (COM(2023) 40 final)
Date: 2023-04-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU action, European social policy, collective bargaining, labour market, social development, social dialogue (EU), social partners, social rights, social situation, working conditions








C_2023228EN.01008701.xml










29.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/87






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union
(COM(2023) 38 final – 2023/0012 (NLE))
and on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union: harnessing its full potential for managing fair transitions
(COM(2023) 40 final)
(2023/C 228/12)






Rapporteur:



Pekka RISTELÄ





Co-rapporteur:



Mariya MINCHEVA











Referral


European Commission, 8.3.2023




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


3.4.2023




Adopted at plenary


27.4.2023




Plenary session No


578




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


179/52/17




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the Commission Communication on Strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Communication’) and the Commission proposal for a Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Recommendation’).












1.2.


Social dialogue at national and European level plays a key role in shaping economic, labour and social policies that promote the upward convergence of living and working conditions across Member States. The EESC is fully aligned with the view that social dialogue can be a beneficial tool to drive economic and social resilience, competitiveness, and sustainable and inclusive growth.












1.3.


The positive results of social dialogue should not, however, be taken for granted, as social dialogue cannot be simply taken as an instrument that can be implemented. The Commission should look at the successful national, regional and sectoral models and see why they became successful.












1.4.


The EESC agrees with the Communication that more needs to be done both nationally and at EU level to support collective bargaining coverage. In this respect, the Recommendation, while listing important factors in improving the coverage, lacks a highly relevant point made in the Communication, namely the importance of sectoral collective agreements.












1.5.


The EESC welcomes the fact that the Recommendation aims to improve tripartite social dialogue at both European and national levels, while noting that in some Member States, the tripartite dimension of social dialogue is more formalistic than meaningful. The EESC believes that establishing a common effective framework, to be implemented at national level for the involvement of social partners, might help ensure that effective and quality consultations with national social partners take place. The Member States should also have the obligation to attach the result of the consultations with social partners to the national plans for reforms and investments. If no meaningful involvement is carried out, the Commission should take actions.












1.6.


The EESC is concerned about the unclear situation as regards the implementation of social partner agreements through Council directives. Without clarity, transparency and predictability, the wide discretion of the European Commission in this matter is likely to have the unintended consequence of discouraging the social partners from negotiating these kinds of agreements. The EESC reiterates its call for the Commission to discuss this issue with the social partners.












1.7.


As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process. This distinction should also be made in the capacity building support for social partners and wider civil society.




2.   General comments









2.1.


The EESC welcomes the Commission Communication on Strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Communication’) and the Commission proposal for a Recommendation on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union (‘the Recommendation’).












2.2.


As noted in EESC opinion SOC/644 (1), social dialogue at national and European levels plays a key role in shaping economic, labour and social policies that promote the upward convergence of living and working conditions across Member States, as well as in responding to the challenges Europe is confronted with in the world of work.












2.3.


As acknowledged by the Communication, social partners have unrivalled knowledge and experience of the employment and social situation ‘on the ground’. Their input can strike the right balance between workers’ and employers’ interests and improve the acceptability and effectiveness of policy and legislation. The Commission also rightly points out that the social partners have a unique role compared to other stakeholders.












2.4.


As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process.












2.5.


The EESC has previously underlined (2) that one of the main functions of social dialogue, notably collective bargaining, is to contribute to shaping the business environment and managing changes in working life, by providing information, anticipation, participation and facilitation to build up mutual trust between social partners at all levels.












2.6.


The EESC is fully aligned with the view that social dialogue can be a beneficial tool to drive economic and social resilience, competitiveness, and sustainable and inclusive growth. However, the positive results of social dialogue should not be taken for granted, as social dialogue cannot be simply taken as an instrument that can be implemented. The Commission should look at the successful national, regional and sectoral models and see why they became successful. Knowledge sharing and peer review between Member States could also help improve the situation in countries where social dialogue is weak.












2.7.


To further support social partners in engaging in social dialogue, improving collective bargaining coverage, and in implementing social dialogue agreements, whether from the EU or national level, it is important that social partners in countries where social dialogue is currently weaker have access to additional capacity building support. Notably, this concerns the European Social Fund (ESF)+, where it would be important to distinguish between capacity building support for social partners and wider civil society. This distinction should be introduced in the ESF+ Regulation and Common Provisions Regulation for the next financial period. At the same time, better financial solutions should be found for civil society organizations.












2.8.


As recognized by the European Commission, social dialogue was at the forefront of the design and implementation of policies limiting the impacts of the pandemic in the world of work. Social partners also play an important role in tackling the far-reaching impacts of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine by facilitating labour market integration of displaced people from Ukraine, as well as other refugees and migrants. The social partners also have the essential role of finding sustainable solutions to adjusting wages and collective agreements in response to the cost-of-living crisis and high levels of inflation.












2.9.


The EESC has recognized (3) that effective social dialogue must include:






—


representative and legitimate social partners with the knowledge, technical capacity and timely access to relevant information to participate;










—


the political will and commitment to engage in social dialogue;










—


respect for the fundamental prerogatives and autonomy of the social partners, freedom of association and collective bargaining, and an enabling legal and institutional framework to support social dialogue processes with well-functioning institutions.




The EESC appreciates that all these elements are included in the present Commission initiative.












2.10.


At the same time, there are still examples across the EU where social dialogue is weak and operates in a negative environment. Sometimes the legal framework does not provide space for social partners to negotiate. This weakens the positions of social partners, but also decreases their capacity to engage in collective bargaining and attract new members. Open, transparent, pre-established objective criteria for determining the representativeness of social partner organizations, set in agreement with them and avoiding excessive administrative burdens, are crucial for Member States that still lack long traditions. At the same time, there are a great variety of existing national practices, including mutual recognition between the social partners’ organizations, that need to be respected.












2.11.


The EESC agrees with the Communication that more needs to be done both nationally and at EU level to support collective bargaining coverage (4), and welcomes in this respect the Recommendation’s references to different means of achieving this: removing institutional or legal barriers to social dialogue and collective bargaining covering new forms of work or atypical employment; ensuring that the negotiating parties have the freedom to decide on the issues to be negotiated; ensuring that any possibility to derogate from collective bargaining agreements is agreed between the social partners and limited with regard to the conditions under which it can apply; and ensuring and implementing a system of enforcement of collective agreements.












2.12.


While the Recommendation lists these important factors in improving collective bargaining coverage, it lacks a highly relevant point made in the Communication, namely the importance of sectoral collective agreements. As noted in the Communication, collective bargaining coverage is high (above 50 %) only in countries with at least some form of sectoral bargaining. This evidence is also recognized in the recent Directive on adequate minimum wages (Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5)), according to which Member States shall promote the building and strengthening of the capacity of the social partners to engage in collective bargaining on wage-setting, in particular at sector or cross-industry level.












2.13.


At the same time, it is important to preserve the voluntary nature of collective bargaining, and create the proper environment to make the process attractive and mutually beneficial. The process needs to be as inclusive as possible. Effective dispute resolution systems should also be in place. Mechanisms for monitoring the coverage of collective agreements should be developed in the Member States with the involvement of social partners.












2.14.


The EESC welcomes the fact that the Recommendation aims to improve tripartite social dialogue at both European and national level, referring, among others, to the importance of allocating sufficient time for consultations throughout the policymaking process, ensuring adequate institutional frameworks, and ensuring access to the relevant information needed in order to participate in social dialogue.












2.15.


In some Member States, the tripartite dimension of social dialogue is more formalistic than meaningful. With adequate implementation and monitoring, the Recommendation can be an important step forward in improving this situation. Fostering tripartite dialogue at European level would be particularly important around aspects related to employment and social protection, for example through due consideration to the creation of tripartite advisory committees on these issues.












2.16.


In its previous opinions, the EESC has recommended, for instance, the proper involvement of the social partners in designing and implementing national recovery plans, and better cooperation between social partners and the European Commission in ensuring the consistent use of European resources (6). Improved involvement of other civil society organizations should also be ensured.












2.17.


The EESC agrees with the Commission on the importance of European social dialogue agreements as one of the most important outcomes of EU social dialogue. The EESC also takes note of the Commission’s call to the European social partners to negotiate and conclude more social partner agreements, while underlining that the social partners themselves will decide whether they should enter into negotiations and, if so, what issues would be appropriate. This is a fundamental aspect of their autonomy.












2.18.


At the same time, the EESC is concerned about the unclear situation regarding the implementation of social partner agreements through Council directives. Without a clearer process, the wide discretion of the European Commission in this matter, enabled by the recent judgements of the European Court of Justice (7), is likely to have the unintended consequence of discouraging the social partners’ from negotiating these kinds of agreements.












2.19.


For this reason, the EESC reiterates its call for the Commission to discuss this issue with the social partners, respecting their autonomy and following the procedure of Article 155 TFEU. The EESC also repeats its call for the Commission to provide clear and transparent criteria regarding the implementation of sectoral social partner agreements (8).




3.   Specific comments

3.1.   Specific comments on the Communication









3.1.1.


In the Communication, the Commission proposes support and legal advice from Commission services to the negotiating social partners, notably on matters that could have a negative impact on the implementation of an agreement by means of EU law. Crucially, the social partners need to jointly agree if such advice and support is necessary in the context of their negotiations.












3.1.2.


The Commission also refers to the practice, confirmed by the Court judgement C-928/19 P, of assessing, among other things, the appropriateness of implementing the negotiated social partner agreement through EU law. The Commission notes that an impact assessment may be conducted in this context. The Commission commits to informing the respective social partners within 3 months of its preliminary considerations, possibly including whether or not there will be an impact assessment.












3.1.3.


While the EESC acknowledges the value of the support and advice offered by the Commission, and the commitment to certain time limits in conducting its assessments, these measures are not sufficient in giving the process the clarity, transparency and predictability that the negotiating partners need.












3.1.4.


The EESC underlines the importance of an adequate supportive framework for sectoral social dialogue, and takes note of the Open letter from European Sectoral Social Partners (9). The sectoral organizations’ concerns on the financing and organization of sectoral social dialogue committees merit serious consideration.












3.1.5.


When it comes to promoting European tripartite social dialogue, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it will assign the role of Social Dialogue Coordinator in each Commission service. Having such coordinators in Commission Directorates-General and relevant services has the potential to raise awareness and improve the quality of social dialogue, and to thereby help the Commission in realizing the benefits that well-functioning tripartite dialogue can bring to European policy making.












3.1.6.


In the context of the European Semester of economic and employment policy coordination, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s recognition of the important role played by social partners, when meaningfully and timely involved at EU and national level, to ensure that reforms and investments are designed and implemented effectively. Nonetheless, while structured dialogues are regularly organized with social partners at EU level during key moments of the Semester cycle, at national level the governments have too often disregarded their involvement, and its effectiveness largely depends on the good will of governments rather than on established practices or rules.












3.1.7.


The EESC agrees that the promotion of social dialogue and collective bargaining is also important in the context of the ongoing enlargement negotiations, and welcomes the Commission’s support to projects aimed at improving social dialogue in candidate or potential candidate countries. The same is true of the European Neighbourhood policy and the EU’s Global Gateway partnerships, where the EU rightly commits to uphold high standards of human, social, and workers’ rights.




3.2.   Specific comments on the Recommendation









3.2.1.


The EESC welcomes the Recommendation’s respect of the role and autonomy of trade unions and employers’ organizations in collective bargaining. The EESC considers it important to clarify that the notion of workers’ organizations, as referred in recital 12, is interpreted in line with the case law of the ILO supervisory bodies (in particular Conventions 98 and 154), and to remove the word ‘generally’ from recital 12. Additionally, a reference to ILO Convention 98 would be relevant, in addition to Convention 135, in recital 13.












3.2.2.


The EESC welcomes the call on Member States to ensure that social partners are systematically and meaningfully involved in the design and implementation of policies in a timely manner, especially those concerning the European Semester and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The EESC believes that establishing a common effective framework, to be implemented at national level for the involvement of social partners, as well as civil society organizations, might help ensure that effective and quality consultations take place.












3.2.3.


As regards the European Semester, Member States should have the obligation to attach the result of the consultations with social partners, and their position/input, to the national plans for reforms and investments. This also applies to the ESF+ and other cohesion funds, as appropriate, and in full respect of the Partnership Principle. In all cases, it is vital that social partners are effectively involved, and that this is not reduced to a tick-box exercise. Moreover, if no meaningful involvement is carried out, or if social dialogue is undermined at national level, the Commission should take action, e.g., the draft plans/partnership agreements could remain pending of approval.












3.2.4.


The recitals of the Recommendation recognize that the EU public procurement Directives (10) require Member States to respect the right to organize and collective bargaining. The EESC considers that this issue, which is closely linked to the aim of increasing collective bargaining coverage, should be included in the actual recommendations to the Member States.












3.2.5.


The Recommendation notes that the capacity of the national social partners in some Member States needs to be strengthened, with a view to the implementation of EU autonomous social partner agreements at national level. The EESC believes that stronger support in this respect (including via ESF+) would be useful to promote the EU social dialogue outcomes at national level and improve the implementation process on the ground.












3.2.6.


The EESC welcomes the special attention to available national and EU funding to support social partners. ESF+ is a valuable instrument to increase social partners’ capacity (including those representing SMEs and microenterprises) to engage in tripartite and bipartite social dialogues, but also to support joint actions undertaken by them in anticipating, changing and addressing the employment and social consequences of the challenges deriving from different social-economic developments, such as the digital and green transition, to provide just one example. This should be clearly outlined as part of a dedicated approach to capacity building support for social partners under the ESF+.












3.2.7.


As civil dialogue involving a broader set of stakeholders is rightly recognized as a separate process by the Commission, the support under ESF+ should follow the same approach. The budget lines dedicated to social partners and CSOs should be separated to better outline the specific roles and better track the outcomes. In addition, a clear set of criteria for State Aid tests (approved by the Commission), is needed, as it appears to be an issue in some Member States. These criteria should be applied when the national authorities assess the compatibility of social partners’ project activities with State Aid rules. Their design should reflect the special role of social partners, in order to facilitate their better involvement in and effective contribution to social dialogue on different levels (international, EU, national, regional, sectoral). Similar rules should be developed for CSOs.












3.2.8.


The EESC finds it important that the Recommendation comes with clear and effective monitoring provisions. The Member States are recommended to submit, within 18 months of the publication of the Recommendation, a list of measures, drawn up in consultation with the social partners, for its implementation. The Commission, on its part, intends to develop commonly agreed indicators to monitor the implementation jointly with the Employment Committee and with relevant social partners. The social partners should play a prominent role in the development of these indicators.












3.2.9.


The EESC welcomes the Recommendation’s statement that this monitoring should allow social partners to, among other things, identify situations where they have been excluded or inadequately involved in national level consultations on EU and national policy. The EESC considers that it would also be important to define a process that follows on from such identifications and aims to improve the situation.





Brussels, 27 April 2023.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE




(1)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(2)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue for innovation in digital economy (OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 1).

(3)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(4)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(5)  Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union (OJ L 275, 25.10.2022, p. 33).

(6)  EESC opinions on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14) and on Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 97).

(7)  Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019, T–310/18, and judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 C-928/19 P.

(8)  EESC opinion on Social dialogue for economic sustainability and resilience (OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14).

(9)  Open letter from the European Sectoral Social Partners — EuroCommerce.

(10)  Directives 2014/24/EU see OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65, 2014/25/EU see OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243 and 2014/23/EU see OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 1.




ANNEX
The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussions (Rule 74(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 1


SOC/764


Strengthening social dialogue


Point 2.3


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




As acknowledged by the Communication, social partners 
have unrivalled knowledge and experience of the employment and social situation ‘on the ground’. Their
 input can strike the right balance between workers’ and employers’ interests and improve the acceptability and effectiveness of policy and legislation. The Commission also rightly points out that the social partners have a unique role compared to other stakeholders.


As acknowledged by the Communication, social partners’ input can strike the right balance between workers’ and employers’ interests and improve the acceptability and effectiveness of policy and legislation. The Commission also rightly points out that the social partners have a unique role compared to other stakeholders
. However, the EESC underlines the value of cooperation and exchange of views between participants of both social and civil dialogues. Many civil society organizations also have a unique experience and specific knowledge from the ground up. This knowledge can be used beyond civil dialogue. It is worth highlighting the practices in some Member States, where the representatives of specific civil society organizations are invited by social partners to meetings, organised in the framework of social dialogue, who want to listen to them and to make use of their knowledge, expertise and experiences
.





Reason

In many areas of social situation ‘on the ground’ the knowledge of civil society organizations is much more extensive — as for example in the fight against poverty, support for persons with disabilities or other vulnerable groups of citizens, the integration of migrants, the rights of ethnic minorities and help for children at risk of social exclusion. This reality should be reflected in the exploratory opinion in order to avoid the impression that only the social partners are knowledgeable on the social situation ‘on the ground’. The above-mentioned expertise is known, recognized and understood by the social partners in some Member States, who invite representatives of specific civil society organizations to meet the actors in the tripartite dialogue structures, in order to deepen their knowledge and enrich their experience.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


83




Against:


153




Abstention:


9





AMENDMENT 2


SOC/764


Strengthening social dialogue


Point 2.4


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process.


As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process. 
The EESC stresses the need for cooperation and exchange of views between participants in social and civil dialogue, as the leading representatives of the interests of many social groups are not social partners, but other civil society organizations. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid situations in which agreements among social partners are made without considering the views and arguments of other civil society organizations, which represent and have a significant impact on the lives of European citizens.







Reason

The aim of this amendment is to underline that the interests of other groups, not ‘covered’ significantly by social partners and mostly represented by other civil society organizations, must be taken into account when the social dialogue is conducted.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


79




Against:


157




Abstention:


7





AMENDMENT 3


SOC/764


Strengthening social dialogue


Point 3.1.5


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




When it comes to promoting European tripartite social dialogue, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it will assign the role of Social Dialogue Coordinator in each Commission service. Having such coordinators in Commission Directorates-General and relevant services has the potential to raise awareness and improve the quality of social dialogue, and to thereby help the Commission in realising the benefits that well-functioning tripartite dialogue can bring to European policy making.


When it comes to promoting European tripartite social dialogue, the EESC welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it will assign the role of Social Dialogue Coordinator in each Commission service. Having such coordinators in Commission Directorates-General and relevant services has the potential to raise awareness and improve the quality of social dialogue, and to thereby help the Commission in realising the benefits that well-functioning tripartite dialogue can bring to European policy making. 
At the same time, the EESC stresses that similar coordinators should be introduced in each EC Directorate-General, in order to promote European civil dialogue. Both of these dialogues should be strengthened in parallel by the Commission, with no preference to any of them.







Reason

The European Commission is now proposing to create a dedicated Social Dialogue Coordinator in each Directorate-General and other Commission services. These are very significant human resources dedicated to strengthening social dialogue, because there are 30 DGs alone and many other services. The creation of a special coordinator for social dialogue in at least some DGs raises doubts, given that these are areas of activity which are dominated by civil society organizations other than social partners. Examples include the environment, climate, agriculture and rural development, education, youth, sport and culture, justice and consumers. Simultaneous actions to support civil dialogue are necessary — there is no reason for the European Commission to deal specifically with only one type of dialogue, allocating to its strengthening significant human resources, which in total may exceed 50 people.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


78




Against:


156




Abstention:


7





AMENDMENT 4


SOC/764


Strengthening social dialogue


Point 1.7


Amend as follows







Section opinion


Amendment




As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process. This distinction should also be made in the capacity building support for social partners and wider civil society.


As stated in the Recommendation, the specific role of social partner organizations should be fully recognized and respected in social dialogue structures and processes, while recognizing that civil dialogue, involving a broader set of stakeholders on a wider range of topics, is a separate process. This distinction should also be made in the capacity building support for social partners and wider civil society. 
At the same time, the EESC underlines the value of cooperation and exchange of views between participants of both social and civil dialogues. Many civil society organizations also have a unique experience and specific knowledge from the ground up. This knowledge can be used beyond civil dialogue.







Reason

To reflect the main body of the text.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


83




Against:


153




Abstention:


9