by Youcef Ghellab
Senior Specialist, Industrial Relations and Social Dialogue
and Beate Elsaesser
Associate Expert, Industrial Relations and Social Dialogue
Recipient countries of the Stability Pact have all experienced dramatic political, economic, institutional and social changes in the last 14 years. Yet they form a heterogeneous group, and there are significant gaps in terms of progress made in the transition towards a market economy, building stable democratic institutions, and developing an approach to industrial relations based on a sound legal system. Countries like Bulgaria and Romania entered into transition in the early 1990s, have the status of EU accession countries, and are well advanced in their EU negotiations. Meanwhile, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro started the transition process later due to war and conflict, in which they were involved directly or indirectly. The countries in this second group have a link to the European Union within the framework of the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) for the Western Balkans. This offers them both a framework and an agenda to promote democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, protection of minorities and a market economy. Social Dialogue, however, is not one of the core issues in this process. Finally, there is Moldova, which is integrated in the Stability Pact as a recipient country.
The ILO-SRO Budapest has concentrated on SEE in many of its activities in recent years. In the area of Social Dialogue, two tripartite projects were realized over the course of two to three years. A project on the promotion of the ILO Declaration was implemented in Romania and Bulgaria. This project, funded by the German government, advocated in particular more respect for the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining among policy makers and workers’ and employers’ organizations. The second project was funded by the Italian government, and focused on the promotion of Social Dialogue and tripartism in Yugoslavia (now the Union of Serbia and Montenegro). Currently, a project on the promotion of Social Dialogue in the framework of the Initiative for Social Cohesion of the Stability Pact is implemented in eight countries containing ten labour administrations. The governments of France, Italy and Belgium jointly fund the project, which allows us to develop a regional perspective, bringing together the actors to compare their experiences. At the same time, the project also provides for individual cooperation with labour administrations and social partners in the Western Balkans. Insight gained through this project was integrated into a report on tripartite Social Dialogue on employment in the countries of South Eastern Europe, prepared for the South Eastern Europe Ministerial Conference on Employment, which took place in Bucharest on 30–31 October 2003. This article is based on the report, and aims to provide a broad overview of industrial relations in South Eastern Europe.
Despite their heterogeneity, the Stability Pact recipient countries share one common feature – the social dimension of reform has not attracted sufficient attention from policy makers or from the international players who advised and supported them. The governments were under strong pressure from international financial institutions to give priority to macroeconomic stabilization (liberalization of prices and trade, reduced public deficits, lower inflation, and exchange rate stability) at the expense of social policies. As a result, various groups within society, particularly the most vulnerable, paid a heavy price in terms of job losses, a decline in real wages and incomes, and widespread poverty. Developing workable structures for Social Dialogue can be a tool in this situation to improve communication between the government and civil society (represented by the social partners) in order to gain support for the necessary reforms. Where do the countries then stand when it comes to Social Dialogue and industrial relations?
Labour legislation
All countries have undertaken significant reform of their labour legislation and enacted a whole set of new laws to regulate labour relations in harmony with ILO and European standards. New labour codes have been adopted in all SEE countries since the early 1990s (Moldova in 2003), and all countries are in the process of amending their labour codes. The adoption of new labour codes was supplemented by the passing of acts and secondary legislation regulating various aspects of industrial relations, such as labour dispute settlement, collective bargaining procedures, exercising the right to freedom of association (registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations), and protection of workers’ claims in case of employer insolvency. The process of labour legislation reform is still going on in several SEE countries, particularly in terms of fundamental principles and rights at work (e.g. nondiscrimination in employment and occupation) and the accommodation of the requirements of labour market flexibility.
Institutions for Social Dialogue
All SEE countries have ratified the fundamental ILO Convention No. 87 on the freedom of association, and No. 98 on the right to organize and collective bargaining. Four countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania) have ratified the priority Convention No. 144 on tripartite consultation on International Labour Standards, and others are considering ratification. Five countries have ratified the European Social Charter. These ratifications are important achievements, as they show the commitment of governments and the social partners to tripartism and their willingness to embark on the institutional reform process.
Various institutions of Social Dialogue have been established at different levels of decision making, enabling bipartite and tripartite actors to address common problems in the areas of labour relations and economic and social policy. Among these are institutions for the settlement of labour disputes (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania); schemes for worker information and consultation, such as works councils (Croatia, Republika Srpska); and more importantly, central tripartite institutions that serve as forums for consultation and Social Dialogue in all countries.
Features of the central institutions
Most countries have a preference to create central tripartite institutions by law or government regulation, rather than on the basis of a tripartite agreement. The legal approach is considered more likely to ensure the proper functioning of tripartite Social Dialogue. Another feature that all central tripartite bodies, except in Montenegro, have in common is that they are composed exclusively of representatives of government (key ministries in charge of labour, social and economic/financial affairs), and the social partners. They do not reach out to other representatives of civil society, save for external experts who are sometimes invited for hearings. In Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Serbia, a permanent secretariat is in place to support the respective institution’s functioning. While most secretariats have three to six staff members, the Romanian secretariat is an exception with 30 staff members.
The position of the social partners
Some Stability Pact recipient countries have defined criteria by law for the representativeness of social partner organizations – and therefore for their participation in the central tripartite institution (Bulgaria, Republika Srpska in BiH, Romania; Croatia in the case of trade unions). Others have defined criteria for representation by decree (Albania) or tripartite agreement (the Federation in BiH). A third group has not yet defined criteria (Serbia and Kosovo in the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, as well as FYR Macedonia and Moldova). The question of representativeness for the social partners is generating much debate and tension between social partners and governments in SEE countries. Operating workers’ and employers’ organizations that have been denied representative status, as well as new organizations, are challenging the existing criteria in court. Meanwhile, governments are attempting to (re)define the criteria in order to distinguish between representative and unrepresentative organizations.
Another issue in the struggle to define the rightful representatives of the social partners is the function of chambers of commerce in tripartite Social Dialogue. Traditionally the sole employers’ forums in SEE countries, the chambers have claimed to be the only representative employers’ organizations in many countries to be involved in negotiating collective agreements. This is, however, not in compliance with the ILO principle of freedom of association, because the chambers have compulsory membership and are not completely independent from the state.
The role of the central tripartite bodybr>
The central institutions for Social Dialogue in SEE have a rather broad mandate. At the heart of this mandate in many countries is the negotiation of a national tripartite agreement. Furthermore, the institutions serve as a platform for the exchange of information between actors, as well as for government consultation with the social partners on draft social and labour legislation or on social and economic issues (e.g. social policy and protection; labour legislation reform; wage or employment policy; occupational health and safety; privatization; etc.).
Conclusion
All SEE countries have seemingly embraced tripartism and Social Dialogue as essential features of the European social model, and as fundamental values of the ILO. They have ratified the fundamental instruments and have established an institutional framework for tripartite Social Dialogue between representatives of government as well as of workers’ and employers’ organizations. However, there are some significant shortcomings:
- The institutional framework is in many cases still weak. Through a lack of resources, permanent secretariats are not established or lack the necessary staff, facilities and equipment.
- Meetings often do not take place on a regular basis. This is partly due to the above-mentioned lack of resources that makes adequate preparation for meetings difficult. It is, however, also a sign that the potential for Social Dialogue to address policy issues with employers’ and workers’ representatives is not yet fully exploited.
- This failure to actively use Social Dialogue implies that communication structures between government and the social partners need improvement, and that the process of defining and implementing policies in the social and economic sphere should be handled in a more transparent manner.
On the whole, a great deal of improvement is still needed for tripartite Social Dialogue systems to function in South Eastern Europe in order for them to reach the level of development in the old and new EU member states. The ILO SRO-Budapest is eager to support and contribute to this process.
|
 |
|
| ILO Film |
| Fully fit at work |
Film about the advantages of employing persons with disabilities. As this ILO film (Fully Fit at Work) shows, not only may people with disabilities be more productive, they may actually be more skilled in some jobs than non-disabled people. Produced for the ILO by the Andrzej Wajda Master School of Film Directing.
Watch the film online in Polish with English subtitles. Duration: 21 min 11 sec
If the video is not displayed, download the free RealPlayer™
Press release in English and
Polish |
| Events & campaigns |
World Day Against Child Labour
12 June 2008
Education: The right response to child labour
» read more
|
| ILO, UN deliver as one in Albania |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
A package for social and economic progress
The Albanian pilot of the One UN Programme will make use of the experiences of the International Labour Organization (ILO) gained in the field. As the only tripartite organisation within the United Nations system, the ILO plays a key role in involving social partners in the recently launched UN reform process.
more
|
|
|
|
|
