Industrial Relations in Europe 2012 - European Commission - Europa

of sector-level collective agreements seemed to be a sustainable solution. While trade unions
favoured horizontal extension, employers opposed it. However, reactions between individual
employers and between peak (national, cross-sector) employers’ associations differed.
Employers requested further development of rules applicable to the practice of horizontal
extensions, such as conflict resolution procedures, mediator involvement, collective
redundancies, and monitoring compliance with collective agreements at the workplace.
However, the National Union of Employers of the Slovak Republic (Republiková únia
zamestnávateľov SR, RÚZ SR) appealed to the Constitutional Court with the argument that a
mandatory horizontal extension does not comply with the Slovak Constitution.
Despite the above employer opposition, the principle of horizontal mandatory extensions was
written into law: extensions initiated upon a joint written request of signatory parties of
a sector-level agreement to the Ministry of Employment, Social Affairs and Family and
approved by the Ministry were legally enforceable. The 2009 amendment to the extension
rule stipulated that the extension may apply to agreements concluded by a higher-level trade
union organisation, which represents the largest number of employees in the sector where
extension is requested. This amendment replaced the original provision that the extension
possibility applies to agreements concluded by employers’ associations employing the largest
number of employees in the sector where extension is requested. This amendment simplified
the practice of extensions and contributed to a shift to more centralised bargaining and higher
bargaining coverage.
During (2007-2010), two trends can be identified:
The number of higher-level collective agreements declined (due to low unionisation,
declining employer density rate, mergers/splits on the side of employers’ associations and
unions)
The number of extensions increased compared to the pre-flat-extension period, but in
general declined compared to the 1990s.
After the formulation of a right-wing coalition, the mandatory horizontal extension
mechanism was revoked. An extension request is again conditioned by a joint written request
of the signatory employers‘ association and trade union(s); applies to individual employers
only and not to the whole sector, and the concerned employers’ consent with the extension
has been reintroduced. This stipulation resulted in fragmentation of bargaining coverage and a
virtual impossibility of a flat extension across the whole sector.
To sum up, with political support, the social partners achieved the introduction of a horizontal
extension mechanism, which is unique in the CEECs. However, the practice of such
extensions has been limited in time and scope. The main reasons for its failure can be
summarised in the following points:
change in government
strong political orientation of trade unions onto support of a single party
employer dissatisfaction with basic legal conditions of the extension (the question of
individual rights), and a diversity in employers’ interests
particular issues in the horizontal extension mechanism lacked detailed elaboration (i.e.
rules of compliance for non-unionised companies onto which extensions have been
applied)
lack of control mechanisms on compliance with extended collective agreements
the timing of flat extension: economic crisis and growing unemployment
91