Social dialogue in jeopardy

Date: 19/03/1998

By Simon Coss

TRADE union leaders are warning that the refusal of employers to participate in planned talks on workers' rights could usher in a new era of industrial conflict.

Both the unions and the European Commission acknowledge that the decision by EU employers' federation UNICE not to take part in negotiations on the issue has raised serious doubts over the future of the social dialogue - the jewel in the crown of the Maastricht Treaty's social chapter.

Social Affairs Commissioner Pádraig Flynn decided EU rules were needed to ensure that workers in national companies were consulted before firms implemented major restructuring plans, following car giant Renault's shock announcement last year that it intended to close its profitable factory in Vilvoorde, Belgium.

But UNICE insisted this week that there was no need for a Union-wide approach as Flynn's proposals only dealt with national firms, pointing out that EU rules for multinational companies already exist.

The employers' decision drew an angry response from Emilio Gabaglio, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). "This is a serious blow to the social dialogue as a long-standing operation. UNICE has taken a big risk in taking this stand because they are moving towards an area of conflict," he told European Voice.

Gabaglio argues that while the employers' refusal to take part in the worker consultation talks is a "negative episode", he is more concerned that UNICE appears to be shying away from holding social dialogue discussions on any sensitive issues. This would render the procedure effectively useless.

"We have the impression that UNICE considers entering into social dialogue negotiations as some sort of exception. We think it should be the normal procedure for drawing up legislation in this field," he explained.

Gabaglio's opposite number in UNICE hotly contests this interpretation. "Mr Gabaglio is quite right that we examine each case on its merits. You cannot have a blanket policy on this. But if you look at the evolution of the social dialogue since Maastricht, I don't think it is a consistent pattern of the trade unions saying 'yes' and us saying 'no'," said outgoing UNICE Secretary-General Zygmunt Tyszkiewicz.

Since the Maastricht Treaty entered into force, the Commission has asked the social partners to negotiate on seven occasions. The employers have now rejected the option four times, including one occasion when the unions also declined to take part in negotiations.

Only two pieces of legislation have been agreed through the process, one on rules for part-time workers and the other on parental leave, with talks due to begin soon on the rights of employees with short-term contracts.

But despite Tyszkiewicz's assurances, the Commission this week called for an emergency summit of trade unions and employers to discuss the crisis.

"We are hoping this summit will save the social dialogue. For their own sakes the employers need to show they are committed to this process," said Flynn's spokeswoman Barbara Nolan, pointing out that in cases where unions and employers could not agree to negotiate, the Commission could impose a deal on them.

The institution is also concerned that if the social dialogue collapses, it will be hard to meet the targets set at last November's EU jobs summit in Luxembourg.

"One of the key aspects of Luxembourg was to get the social partners talking about how to get Europe back to work," said Nolan.

In private, Commission officials admit that there are many industry critics who would like to see the social dialogue consigned to the history books.

The European Parliament has also attacked the current system for its lack of any formal provision to give MEPs a say in the worker/employer talks, while EU governments complain they can only accept or reject provisional deals and cannot amend them.