CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

Cross-border social dialogue and agreements
First, it saw “no need for an EU optional framework for transnational
collective bargaining” as existing EC Treaty provisions (Articles
138 and 139) already allowed for cross-industry and sectoral social partners
to negotiate agreements at the European level, while individual
companies were opposed to a framework for transnational collective bargaining
at company level. It also denied the existence of problems of
implementation of transnational texts that would justify the development
of an EU framework for them. If needed, transnational agreements could
rely on national procedures and rules for their implementation.
Second, the organization considered that “transnational social dialogue
in companies is not collective bargaining”: it is just dialogue.
UNICE felt that most transnational texts resulting from transnational
social dialogue “have been discussed with employee representatives” but
they were not agreements as such and, if they were, they were not
intended to be legally binding.
Third, UNICE judged that “the European level is not the right one
to deal with issues tackled in global agreements” as most transnational
texts tackle global issues and have a global scope. Existing international
texts such as the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises
and Social Policy and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were
more appropriate as guidance than an EU initiative, it felt. Moreover, it
stressed that “there is no legal basis in the EU Treaty for the Commission
to propose an optional framework for transnational collective bargaining”.
Fourth, it was concerned that “introducing an EU optional framework
would be counterproductive” to promoting transnational collective
bargaining. The absence of an EU framework was not hampering the
development of transnational collective bargaining but, on the contrary,
putting in place “a one-size-fits-all framework, even if optional, would be
counterproductive” as the implementation of the transnational texts
“must be tailored to the specific company situation and to the legislative
and industrial relations framework in which they operate”. Promoting a
framework for transnational negotiations would “have the effect of rigidifying
the positions of both sides and harm the development of a positive
attitude to social dialogue in multinational companies”, it believed.
Fifth, UNICE considered that “an EU optional framework for
collective bargaining would interfere in national industrial relations” as
it “would lead to the development of EU litigation and enforcement
230