Sectoral social dialogue at EU level - recent results and implementation challenges

Abstract

This article deals with recent developments in EU social dialogue, namely so-called 'new generation texts', which are non-binding legally, but 'implementation-oriented'. Aspects of their follow-up, implementation and multi-level characteristics are therefore discussed. Findings from two sectoral dialogues indicate that follow-up procedures can vary considerably. Furthermore, the implementation or impact of such 'new generation texts' seem hard to prove. It is argued that characteristics of national industrial relations systems are insufficient to explain implementation results, since both the interests and attitudes of the actors involved and the specific topic of a given 'new generation text' must be taken into account. The main difficulty is found to be the lack of adequate implementation structures due to missing inter-and intraorganizational 'level linkage'. Ré suméCet article traite de récents développements du dialogue social européen, à savoir les « textes de la nouvelle génération », qui ne sont pas légalement contraignants, mais « orientés vers la mise en oeuvre » (implementation-oriented); il analyse certains aspects du suivi et de la mise en oeuvre et les spécificités d'une problématique à niveaux multiples. L'observation de deux dialogues sectoriels montre que les procédures de suivi peuvent considérablement varier. D'autre part, la mise en oeuvre ou l'impact d'un « texte de la nouvelle génération » semblent difficiles à déterminer. L'auteur estime que les caractéristiques des systèmes nationaux de relations professionnelles ne suffisent pas pour expliquer les résultats de mise en oeuvre: il faut tenir compte à la fois des intérêts et des attitudes des acteurs impliqués et de la thématique spécifique d'un « texte de la nouvelle génération ». La principale difficulté réside dans le manque d'adéquation des structures de mise en oeuvre dû à l'absence d'articulation des niveaux entre et au sein des organisations. ZusammenfassungDieser Beitrag befasst sich mit den jüngsten Entwicklungen des sozialen Dialogs auf EU-Ebene, insbesondere ,,Vereinbarungen der neuen Generation'', das heißt Vereinbarungen, die zwar nicht rechtsverbindlich, aber dennoch ,,implementationsorientiert'' sind. In diesem Zusammenhang werden verschiedene Aspekte von Folge-und Implementationsmaßnahmen und Merkmale der Beziehungen zwischen den verschiedenen Ebenen erörtert. Die Untersuchung des sozialen Dialogs in zwei Branchen zeigt, dass Verfahren für Folgemaßnahmen äußerst unterschiedlich sein können. Die Implementation bzw. Auswirkungen einer ,,Vereinbarung der neuen Generation'' sind nur schwer zu belegen. Neben Merkmalen der nationalen Systeme der Arbeitsbeziehungen müssen die Interessen und Strategien der beteiligten Akteure sowie die spezifische Thematik der betreffenden Vereinbarungen in die Erklärung einbezogen werden. Das Hauptproblem besteht in fehlenden adäquaten Implementationsstrukturen, da häufig weder innerhalb noch zwischen den betreffenden Organisationen die relevanten Ebenen miteinander verknüpft sind.

Transnational Industrial Relations as Multi‐Level Governance: Interdependencies in European Social Dialogue

“…This development embraces both framework agreements concluded under Articles 154 and 155 -either binding or autonomous -and 'process-oriented' texts such as frameworks of action, codes of conduct and guidelines. In addition, 55 process-oriented texts were also concluded between 1999 and 2009 (Pochet et al 2009;Weber 2010). In addition, 55 process-oriented texts were also concluded between 1999 and 2009 (Pochet et al 2009;Weber 2010).…”

“…Indeed, Léonard (2008) confirms such intention on the part of the parties at European level: representatives of both employer and trade union federations interviewed saw effective implementation at national level as crucial for the long-term credibility of the ESSD. In a study of ESSD in the electricity and commerce sectors, Weber (2010) concludes that inadequate 'level linkages' of two kinds are a major impediment to implementation of new generation texts in these sectors. Among the reasons are shortcomings in the representativeness of European-level sector organizations, particularly on the employer side; absence of a mandate to engage in agreement-making; and marked variation in the existence and extent of bilateral co-operation at national level that implementation requires (Keller and Weber 2011).…”

“…Attitudes to non-binding agreements and texts are, for example, more positive among affiliates in Denmark, where collective agreements are not legally binding but widely upheld, than they are among their counterparts in Germany, where collective agreements are legally binding, and non-binding texts tend to be viewed as optional (Weber 2010). Attitudes to non-binding agreements and texts are, for example, more positive among affiliates in Denmark, where collective agreements are not legally binding but widely upheld, than they are among their counterparts in Germany, where collective agreements are legally binding, and non-binding texts tend to be viewed as optional (Weber 2010).…”

“…Since the early 2000s, the argument continues; the social partners have taken a more proactive and independent stance and opted to focus on autonomous framework agreements, concluded under TFEU articles 154 and 155, and other 'new generation texts', including frameworks of actions, recommendations, and compendia of good practices, which are not directed at the European institutions to secure implementation. Autonomous agreements are often taken as an indication of growing social partner autonomy as they rely on the social partners themselves for implementation (Weber 2010).…”

“…Just 15 framework agreements have been concluded under the ESSD (see Table 1), concentrated to some extent in 'pull' sectors (Leisink 2002) affected by Community policies, although not in 'push' sectors where market integration is most extensive. In addition, 55 process-oriented texts were also concluded between 1999 and 2009 (Pochet et al 2009;Weber 2010). Six types of follow-up procedure, sometimes used in combination, are identified by Pochet et al (2009) among the texts concerned, which vary in the extent of the obligation they introduce on member organizations to report on implementation.…”