Download Implementation via Collective Bargaining: National level

Session 2
The actual implementation of the EU Framework
agreement in the different countries/sectors
Stefan Clauwaert
ETUC NETLEX Coordinator/ETUI-REHS Senior Researcher
ETUC Project
Final Conference
Prague
21-22 September 2006
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Sources:
– Implementation fiches of affiliates
– Joint implementation report SDC 28/06/2006
– Reports 3 regional meetings project
• Riga/ Budapest/Brussels
– Other input by affiliates
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• General:
– Only few countries described the “practices and
procedures specific to management and labour and
member states” (Art. 139 §2)
•
•
•
•
•
Collective bargaining: BE, FR, ES, SW
Law: CZ (as basis for more favourable CA)
Tripartite Council: LT
No real specific procedure but changes to law most logic: EE
Problem in identifying the “specific procedure”: SK
– Is nevertheless crucial information!!!
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Implementation via Collective Bargaining: National level
• BE: interprof CA n° 72 of 30/3/1999 (extended by RD of 21/6/1999)
• ES: EU text annexed to ANC 2005 (recommendation for lower level CB- no
results yet)
• SE: national CA for local/regions authorities (04/2005)
• FR: negotiations on “penabilité au travail” – include WRS – negotiations
failed
• Initiatives started/foreseen:
– BG: proposal to national council “Conditions at work” to elaborate “Common
strategy/decision/proposal”
– SLO: via national tripartite council – Working group Oct 2005- draft CA prepared
by ZSSS – refused by employers
– RO: start negotiations on National CA 2007 – September 2007
– CY: invitations send to employers – no reaction so far
– FI: negotiations started February 2006 – no final result yet
– Iceland: started and end result was hoped to be reached by end June 2006 – result?
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Implementation via Collective Bargaining: sectoral/regional level
– DK: CA for state sector authorities (spring 2005)
– DK: CA for local and regional authorities (spring 2005) – further
negotiations foreseen to start in October 2007
– ES: No real results yet as follow up to ANC 2005; several CA’s dealing
with WRS but not really “triggered by EU agreement”:
•
•
•
•
National wide sectoral CA telemarketing (2004-2006)
National wide sectoral CA chemical sector (2004-2006)
Provincial CA for hotel sector in Tenerife (2005-2008)
Provincial CA for casinos in Allicante (2006-2009)
– MT: foreseen for next CB round as current CA’s are valid until 2007
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Implementation via Collective Bargaining: enterprise level
– DE: most likely level; as H&S aspects are tradionally not settle via
CA’s on higher levels
– AT: main objective is to get it implemented on this level
– ES: Codorniu – Sant Sadurni; but not directly triggered by EU
agreement
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Implementation via Legislation:
– Existing:
•
•
•
•
BG: Act on Health and Safety Working Conditions 1997
MT: Act XXVII of 2000
PT: Constitution, Penal Code, Labour Code (art. 18 & 24)
NO: Working Environment Act covers “most” aspects of EU
agreement; considered as satisfactory basis
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
•
Implementation via Legislation:
– New legislation:
• CZ: new Labour Code of 21/04/2006 via Law 262/0226 Coll.,
Chapter I article 102 (in force as from 1/1/2007)
• SK: partial implementation via
– New Law OHS nr 124/2006 Z.z.
– New Health Law nr 126/2006 Z.z.
– Partially also via amendments to Labour Code
• SLO: proposals for amendments by ZSSS to regulate criteria for OHS
services licences for risk assessments on WRS – no reaction yet
• EE: proposed amendments to Occupational H&S Act – adding WRS
to list of health risk factors – refuses under pretext that it was already
covered
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Implementation via Legislation:
– Needed: BE for public sector
– Hoped for:
• PT: use revision of national list of occupational health illnesses
to add WRS
• RO: amendments to H & S law
– Problem:
• SW: Swedish Work Environment Authority uses EU agreement
as argument for not issuing new provisions on social and
psychological conditions at work – Serious set back for trade
unions
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• Other forms/instruments of implementation:
– BE: as national CA was not really used in practice; brochure of National
Labour Council on how to use in practice
– SLO: proposal to national economic council to translate Copenhagen
Questionnaire into Slovenian
– MT: joint interprofessional Declaration of Commitment
– NL: update of national Declaration on WRS in line with EU agreement
– SW: joint interprofessional agreements both for private (16/6/2005) and
public sector (spring 2006) including translation of EU agreement and
recommendations to lower CB levels to use it as guideline
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
•
Other forms/instruments of implementation (continued):
– IRE: changes foreseen to Code of Practice
– LV: interprofessional agreement LBAS/LDDK prescribing next steps in
implementation
– UK: interprofessional guide by CBI, CEEP UK, Forum of Private Business and
TUC in cooperation with governmental agencies such as Health and Safety
Executive and DTI
– AT:
• joint interprofessional guidelines – near adoption
• These will also be signed up to by Austrian Chamber of Agriculture to make them
applicable in concerned sector
– EU sectoral social dialogue:
• Electricity: Joint Declaration Eurelectric/EPSU/EMCEF (15/12/2004)
• Construction: Joint Statement FIEC/EFBWW (10/06/2006)
• Cleaning: at SDC of October 2004 commitment to do annual review on implementation
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement
• BUT…: problems identified
– BE: no real minutes of EU social dialogue negotiations available as
well as no joint interpretation guide
– Several countries: no real interest by employers; are afraid of the
costs!
– SLO:
• Fear of employers that WRS will be put on list of occupational
illnesses – damage claims by workers
• No OHS services with adequate know how on WRS
– Several countries: most companies are SME’s
– Several countries: no decently functioning SD mechanisms