6. We consider that the following raises
questions of political importance, and recommend its further
consideration by European Standing Committee B:--
Department of Trade and Industry
(17514)
10305/96
COM(96)448 |
Commission Communication concerning the development of the
social dialogue at Community level. |
| Legal base: |
Article 118b and the Agreement on Social Policy (Protocol No.
14) are relevant. |
Background
6.1 The Commission has a formal obligation under
the Treaty of Rome (Article 118b) to develop a dialogue at
European level between management and labour (together known as
"the social partners"). Apart from discussions between
the partners, this "social dialogue" covers discussions
between the social partners and the EU institutions, and it is
the process whereby the Commission consults representatives of
employers and trade unions on social affairs.
6.2 In its Medium Term Social Policy Action
Programme[14] the Commission
undertook to review several aspects of the social dialogue in
separate documents. Instead, it has taken them together in this
paper, which is the first one of substance from the Commission
since its 1993 Communication on the implementation of the
Protocol on Social Policy[15].
The Commission communication
6.3 Explaining the purpose of the Communication,
the Commission says that the most important issue facing the EU
is employment and that, since the Essen Council, there has been
closer co-ordination of employment policies, opening the way for
a greater role for the social partners in supporting, completing
and possibly correcting Community action in this area. This has
led to greater focus of the social dialogue on employment. The
Commission says that "adapting the social dialogue
structures, some of which were not developed to cope with this
task, is a major preoccupation of this Communication." The
aim is to open up a debate and to incorporate the most
appropriate solutions in a second Communication in 1997. The
views of interested parties are sought by 31 December 1996.
6.4 Describing in some detail how the social
dialogue has been working, the Commission sets out a number of
proposals and questions on how it can be improved in the
following areas:
(i) Interprofessional social dialogue
Systematic and timely consultation in the six
Advisory Committees in the social policy area on proposals being
prepared by the Commission does not always take place. The
structures and tasks of the Interprofessional Advisory Committees
should be reviewed, together with the status of the European
social partner organisations on these committees. Consideration
could be given to merging the advisory committees on social
security for migrant workers and on freedom of movement for
workers.
(ii) Sectoral social dialogue
Ten Joint Committees (JCs) and ten Informal Working
Parties (IWPs) in 16 key sectors participate in the Sectoral
Social Dialogue. They have issued nearly 100 opinions and
recommendations, so the Commission has been kept informed, but
it is not normally obliged to hold consultations with them before
the formal adoption of a text. According to the Commission,
their potential as consultative bodies has not, therefore, been
used to the full when proposals with social implications are
envisaged. It adds that they have also become
over-institutionalised and are imposing a heavy budgetary and
administrative burden (130 meetings a year in 1994 with 24 to 50
participants at each). The Commission asks for ideas for a more
intensive and relevant sectoral social dialogue and recommends
improvements to the process. It intends to carry out a new study
on the representativeness of sectoral social partner
organisations, to complement its 1992 study on the
representativeness of the interprofessional organisations.
(iii) Standing Committee on employment (SCE)
The aims for continuous dialogue, joint action and
consultation between the Council, the Commission and the two
sides of industry which prompted the establishment of this
Committee have been achieved "only to a very limited
extent", according to the Communication. "As a ritual
with no obligation to achieve a result, the Committee no longer
attracts the attention of the leading players." The Madrid
European Council decided to create a permanent and stable
structure for employment policy, including an Employment
Committee to ensure close co-ordination between employment and
economic policy. The Commission considers that reform of the SCE
should be linked to implementation of this Council decision. The
composition of the SCE should be rationalised and a work
programme established.
(iv) Social dialogue under the social protocol
The use of the new consultation and negotiation
mechanism has proved "an innovative and challenging
experience for social partners and the EU institutions
alike". The consultations worked well but the six-week time
limit for first-stage consultations under Article 3 of the
Protocol needs to be more flexible, in the Commission's view.
It commits itself to extending the consultation procedures
provided for in Article 3 to all social policy initiatives,
irrespective of the legal base, (whether they come under the
Social Protocol or the EC Treaty). It undertakes to re-evaluate
the appropriateness of the criteria applied to participant
organisations (listed at Annex III of the Communication). It will
also promote the development of the dialogue between all the
social partners. The Commission seeks views on the lessons
learnt from the negotiations on the Agreement on Parental
Leave[16]. Participation in
social dialogue negotiations had proved to be sensitive and
controversial and the Commission encourages the social partner
organisations to co-operate more closely to find a solution to
this question.
Broader issues
6.5 Reiterating its belief that the social
dialogue should focus, at interprofessional as well as sectoral
level, on employment, the Commission says that the Social
Dialogue Committee and the sectoral committees can be expected
to be the driving force in developing social dialogue on a
co-ordinated employment policy. It proposes to promote more
effective communication of information about the European social
dialogue and says that it would be willing to assist the social
partners to develop co-operation with counterpart organisations
in the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs). The
limited funds for social dialogue issues, established by the
European Parliament, could be used to enable those countries to
develop social dialogue.
6.6 In the Commission's view, more could be done
to provide financial support for joint initiatives agreed by the
social partners to further the goals of the social dialogue.
The Government's view
6.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum (dated 29
October 1996) the Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Department
of Trade and Industry (Mr John Taylor) says:--
"(a) The Government welcomes full
and effective consultation by the Commission when considering
legislative proposals. However, it believes that the Social
Dialogue should not be confined exclusively to reflecting the
views of trade unions and employers. Moreover, it should take
full account of subsidiarity and avoid discussing topics which
are better dealt with at national or lower level.
"(b) Only the proposals on the
interprofessional and sectoral social dialogues and the Standing
Committee on Employment are of direct relevance to the UK. The
Government welcomes the Commission's recognition of the need to
rationalise some of these structures in the light of budgetary
and resource constraints. However, these constraints do not seem
to have curbed the Commission's desire to fund initiatives agreed
by the social partner organisations, e.g. training and research
institutes, nor to expand the social dialogue both within the EU
and in Central and Eastern Europe as a preliminary to
enlargement.
"(c) The Maastricht Agreement on
Social Policy is not applicable to the UK which opposed
the revised social dialogue provisions on the grounds that it is
wrong for employers and employees throughout the Community to be
bound by centralised agreements reached at a remote European
level by bodies which are far from fully representative."
Conclusion
6.8 Although the Agreement on Social Policy is
not applicable to the UK, a number of proposals in the Commission
Communication are of current direct relevance. The Commission
seeks to open these up for discussion and recommendation and we
believe that they should be considered by European Standing
Committee B. Questions which arise include:
--How well has the social dialogue been
working? Is the picture portrayed by the Commission accurate?
Is a change of emphasis advisable? Can and should it focus more
closely on employment issues?
--Are reforms needed and has the Commission
correctly identified the key areas? Is there a role for the
Standing Committee on Employment? Should this Committee and the
sectoral committees be reformed in any case?
--Is representation too restricted? Should
consultation be opened out so that people other than trade
unions and employer organisations can put forward their
views?
--Should more financial support be made
available to institutions promoting the social dialogue?
--Should assistance be given to the CEECs to
develop social dialogue?
14.(16128) -- (COM (95) 134): see HC 70-xviii
(1994-95), paragraph 2 (7 June 1995). Back
15.15102 (4075/94; see HC 48-xxvi (1993-94),
paragraph 4 (19 October 1994), and Official Report,
European Standing Committee B, 1 February 1995. Back
16.(17095) 4824/96; see HC 51-xix (1995-96),
paragraph 9 (15 May 1996). Back
|
