Clamour for reform of the ‘social dialogue’ intensifies

Date: 01/05/1997

By Simon Coss

THE power of employers and trade unions to draft European labour laws could be considerably curtailed under proposed changes to the so-called 'social dialogue' being floated by several member states.

Germany is spearheading the campaign, but several other governments share Bonn's concerns about the way the social dialogue is working.

Diplomats claim that in its present form, the system is essentially undemocratic as it severely curtails the role of the EU's elected law-makers - ministers and the European Parliament - in drafting legislation.

Under the procedure set out in the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, the 'social partners' - the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the pan-European employers' organisation UNICE and the public sector employers' lobby group CEEP - sit down together and attempt to thrash out agreements on employment-related issues.

If they succeed, the European Commission turns their conclusions into a proposal for an EU law which is then presented to the Council of Ministers. At that point, ministers can choose either to accept or reject the plan, but they have no scope to amend it.

In addition, although the Commission has taken it upon itself to inform the European Parliament of any social dialogue proposals, there is no formal provision to include MEPs in the decision-making process.

The key complaint made by Germany is that member states do not currently have the right to decide what sort of law will come out of talks between the social partners.

“Germany is very much in favour of the social dialogue, but we must clarify the question of 'who is responsible for what',” explained one Bonn diplomat.

There are four main types of EU legislation: 'regulations' which are binding and directly applicable in member states; 'directives' which are binding in terms of the result to be achieved but can be interpreted in accordance with national systems; 'decisions' which are binding on specified member states; and 'recommendations' which are not binding.

When the first law to be agreed under the social dialogue system - laying down rules on parental leave - was approved last year, many diplomats protested that they were presented with a proposed directive without having had any say in the matter.

“Member states must have the ability to decide on the instrument to be used on a case-by-case basis,” insisted one member state official.

The Commission conceded in a report published last autumn that the system was in need of reform and the Dutch EU presidency this week organised a top-level conference in The Hague to consider the way forward.

Supporters of the current procedure argue that if ministers win the concession they are looking for, they will find it easier to water down proposals they are not keen on.

But critics also claim that the social dialogue is not working in other key areas. Many smaller organisations representing workers and employers are angry at being excluded from negotiations and claim the 'big three' are stitching up deals between themselves without taking all points of view into consideration.

UEAPME, which represents many of the Union's small and medium-sized enterprises, is taking the Council of Ministers to the European Court of Justice over the issue and says it is confident of winning its case.

Other detractors argue that sectoral committees which meet in parallel to the main negotiations are expensive, inefficient and produce only limited results.

These committees discuss the employment needs of specific areas such as agriculture or transport.

“These meetings are very costly. People have to be flown in from all over Europe to attend and we also have to provide interpretation into 11 official languages,” explained one official.

But the ETUC rejects any suggestion that the committees' activities should be curtailed.

“Democracy means spending money. It is essential to have the decentralised talks running parallel to the main negotiations,” said a spokesman.