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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cross-border social dialogue and agreements taken at the global level through IFAs, in particular regarding the legal status of IFAs; inconsistencies between them, national law and local agreements; and their impact on local partners and suppliers. European Trade Union Confederation The ETUC did not refer to the proposal for a European framework for transnational collective bargaining in its comments on the 2004 Commission communication on social dialogue (ETUC, 2004). It did not specifically comment on the proposal either when the Commission confirmed it in the Social Agenda (ETUC, 2005a). It did at last support the framework’s development in its resolution on the coordination of collective bargaining in 2006, when it issued preliminary guidelines for an ETUC position on a European framework for cross-border bargaining (ETUC, 2005b). The ETUC supported this framework, which should complement the existing framework for European social dialogue at inter-professional and sectoral level. The ETUC considered it necessary because transnational collective bargaining is developing in the context of globalization, but its effectiveness is hampered by the absence of a framework (ETUC, 2005b). The ETUC was also aware that the scope of transnational agreements is expanding to include basic workers’ rights and CSR, as well as other employment issues. For these reasons the ETUC considered that “this Commission initiative meets an undeniable need and must figure within a consistent framework that strengthens and regulates industrial relations at European level with an eye to bolstering the European social dialogue”, thereby countering two of UNICE’s arguments regarding the absence of need and risk for the whole social dialogue effort. While the ETUC criticized the Commission for launching a study on transnational collective bargaining without consulting the social partners — despite their special role in the context of social dialogue and collective bargaining — the main ETUC criticism was, however, directed at UNICE’s opposition to the idea of a European framework for transnational collective bargaining. The ETUC qualified it as inconsistent with the reality of the single internal market and with the objectives of European social dialogue. The ETUC identified several issues to be addressed before implementing such a framework, in particular: the definition of validation standards for transnational agreements; their binding character and asso- 232
A report on the European Commission for a European framework – Bé ciated legal framework; the possible sanctions and means of recourse; the European Court of Justice’s specialization in the field of labour law; actions intended to deal with potential conflicts of interest during bargaining or the implementation of agreements; and the hierarchy of standards negotiated at cross-border level among the various contractual levels. In addition, the ETUC identified three requirements for a European framework for transnational collective bargaining. First, with regard to the negotiating mandate and the right to sign transnational agreements, the ETUC considered that transnational agreements should be negotiated by trade unions, since they are mandated and have the right to negotiate agreements, while EWCs are bodies set up for information and consultation but not for negotiation. Second, concerning the interaction with collective bargaining at other levels, the ETUC warned that the European framework should ensure that transnational bargaining does not interfere with national powers and responsibilities regarding collective bargaining. Third, on acquired rights, the ETUC demanded that transnational agreements should include a non-regression clause so as not to weaken rights acquired at other levels — transnational agreements should not lead to adoption of the lowest denominator of existing national agreements (ETUC, 2005b). International Confederation of Free Trade Unions Since transnational collective bargaining at European and global levels involves primarily Europe-based MNEs and global union federations, as well as EWCs and national trade unions from Europe, it is useful to compare the ETUC’s position on transnational collective bargaining with the viewpoint on global social dialogue held by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU — now integrated into the International Trade Union Confederation). In its resolution on “the social responsibilities of business in a global economy”, the ICFTU recognized “the importance of global social dialogue” and welcomed the conclusion of IFAs, adding that “such framework agreements can offer important avenues for solving problems, including obtaining trade union recognition and organising” while stressing that they “must complement rather than replace or compete with local or national collective agreements” (ICFTU, 2004a). The ICFTU has highlighted in particular that IFAs should be signed by trade unions 233
Page 1 and 2:
CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AG
Page 3 and 4:
Published by the International Inst
Page 5 and 6:
Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Contributors Dominique Bé, an econ
Page 15 and 16:
Contributors Nathan Lillie is Assis
Page 17 and 18:
Acronyms BWI Building and Wood Work
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction Konstantinos Papadakis
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction - Papadakis each with
Page 23 and 24:
Introduction - Papadakis above. Thi
Page 25 and 26:
Introduction - Papadakis tices unde
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction - Papadakis role of co
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction - Papadakis veaux enje
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 1 International framework a
Page 33 and 34:
International framework agreements:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Chapter 3 International framework a
Page 83 and 84:
International framework agreements
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Part 3 Legal dimensions 113
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Part 4 Varieties of dialogue and re
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188: Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 199 and 200: Chapter 8 The ILO Maritime Labour C
Page 201 and 202: The ILO Maritime Labour Convention,
Page 227 and 228: Chapter 9 A report on the European
Page 229 and 230: A report on the European Commission
Page 237: A report on the European Commission
Page 269 and 270: Appendix
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?