by Giuseppe Casale, 1996
Download the report: pdf file, 10Mbyte
Abstract
The notion of representativeness - in particular its common perception and its applicability in practice - varies from country to country. In pluralistic and democratic societies the acceptance of more than one workers’ and employers’ organisation is a natural corollary of the application of the principle of freedom of association, the right to organise and the right to collective bargaining. These universal rights are considered to be the backbone of any democratic society and have been formulated in a number of international instruments, such as ILO Conventions 87 and 98 and the European Social Charter.
The realisation of these fundamental rights revolves around the recognition of workers’ and employers’ organisations as the legitimate representatives of labour and management interests. In the final analysis, the principle of freedom of association and union recognition go hand-in-hand.
The purpose of this comparative study is twofold: to better define the terms of a debate which is presently going on in several countries (particularly in Central and Eastern Europe); and to try to systematise these terms and to see whether, in the light of common experiences, it would be possible to clarify the main issues influencing the criteria for the determination of union representativeness.
The problems that emerge from the various countries examined in this study show that it is very difficult to come up with a common standard set of criteria that could be applied universally. Although it is true that there is a strong tendency to measure union representativeness with quantitative methods, it is also true that quantitative methods alone cannot provide the best solution: other criteria are equally important.
The difficulty that many countries have in applying "objective criteria" for the determination of union representativeness emerges clearly from this analysis, especially in Central and Eastern European countries where labour relations systems are undergoing profound changes. In most of them, representativeness is held to be a conditio sine qua non for organisations wishing to participate in the industrial relations system, and each organisation is called upon to prove its representativeness, not only through the application of criteria such as the number of members, independence, and seniority, but also through formal and informal recognition procedures.
This study is not a contribution to an academic debate; it rather seeks to reflect the problems that labour relations practitioners face when dealing with the problem of representativeness.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Representativeness for Collective Bargaining and for Other Purposes
3. Relevance of the Question of Representativeness in Relation to the Levels at which Unions Operate
3.1 Different Levels
i, Union representativeness at central, national (industry-wide) and regional levels
ii, Representativeness at the enterprise level
iii, Representativeness at the supra-national leveÍ: the case of the European Union
4. Union Recognition and Union Representativeness in Central and Eastern Europe
5. Voluntary and Mandatory Procedures
6. Exclusive and Non-exclusive Representation Systems
6.1 Exclusive Representation Systems
6.2 Non-exclusive Representation Systems
6.3 Overlapping Approaches
7. Determination of the Bargaining Unit
8. Enforcement and Withdrawal of Recognition
9. Representativeness and Strikes
10. Conclusions
|
 |
|
| The ILO Budapest Newsletter |
|
|
| Events & campaigns |
On the occasion of the 8th European Regional Meeting, the ILO is launching the Albanian, Romanian, Serbian and Ukrainian versions of the Decent Work Flash
|
|
