The current page is not translated to the selected language.
This record reviews 2000's main developments in industrial relations in the Netherlands.
The present government consists of the social democratic Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid, PvdA), the liberal Party for Freedom and Democracy (Vereniging voor Vrijheid en Democratie, VVD) and the social liberal Democraten 66 (D66). This government, usually referred to as the purple coalition (Paars), has been in power since the May 1998 general elections.
For a number of years, decentralisation pressure has been increasing on several sectoral collective agreements. For example, the collective agreement for the banking sector lapsed at the end of 1999, to be replaced by company agreements (NL0007197N). More generally, decentralisation was an important subject in 2000, not only in banking and insurance, but also in building, construction and the public utilities (NL0003184F). Overall, however, there has been no significant change in the relative importance of sectoral and company agreements. In 1996, sector-wide agreements covered 87% of employees and by 2000 this figure dropped only slightly to 86%.
Average collectively-agreed pay rose by 3.7% in 2000. Given this rather modest increase, especially if inflation growth is taken into account, trade unions strongly opposed the much higher pay increases awarded to senior management during the year (NL0009106F). These increases caused the government to oblige managers in companies listed on the stock exchange to reveal their individual salaries, with effect from 2002 at the latest (NL0007196N). For 2001, the largest trade union organisation, the Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV) announced demands for share-option schemes for all personnel. In the public sector, where such schemes are not possible, the unions demand an expansion and increase of the end-of-year bonus (NL0008101N).
At the beginning of the 2000 collective bargaining round, flexible pay was a major issue (NL0003184F). Large multinational groups such as Philips and Akzo Nobel pressed for more pay flexibility, which led to some tension at the beginning of bargaining (NL0003183N). The Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses (Midden en Klein Bedrijf, MKB) endorses some types of flexible pay, but rejects performance-based pay, citing the inherent overload of paperwork and arbitrariness. The stance of the unions is gradually shifting towards acceptance, albeit under strict conditions.
Overall working time remained largely unchanged in the Netherlands in 2000.
The largest union for public service employees, AbvaKabo, announced that it was withdrawing its opposition to employees working for longer than 36 hours a week in some circumstances, though it continues to consider the current 36-hour week as the norm. Albeit cautiously, AbvaKabo has accepted the idea of greater choice for individual employees over their conditions of employment. Research indicated that some 45% of AbvaKabo members wanted to work fewer hours, while 40% favoured longer hours (NL0009104N).
Job security tends to be linked to the issue of employability. Research published in 2000 showed that 32 Dutch collective agreements had established a direct link between performance and assessment interviews on the one hand and employability on the other (NL0007199F).
According to research published in 2000, some 20 collective agreements, covering 21% of employees covered by collective bargaining, included a right to training, with the same number (covering 26% of employees covered by collective bargaining) including an obligation to undergo training. Provisions relating to personal development plans had been included in 42 agreements, covering almost a third of employees covered by collective bargaining (NL0007199F).
The year's most important legislative development in the field of industrial relations was the coming into force of the Adaptation of Working Hours Act (Wet aanpassing arbeidsduur) on 1 July. This law gives employees the right to request the shortening or lengthening of their working hours. As a rule, the employer is obliged to grant such a request, unless there are sufficient grounds for refusal (NL0002182F). One of the aims of this law is to promote the combination of work and care duties for both men and women.
On the whole, 2000 can be characterised as a year of bills and announcement of bills, as follows.
There were no fundamental changes in the organisation and role of the social partners during 2000. The tendency for trade unions to merge into larger bodies persisted and the country's two largest union federations - FNV and the Christian Trade Union Federation (Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond, CNV) - announced pending reorganisations, both to cope with financial problems and to change their internal structure (NL0006192N).
One of the ruling coalition parties, the VVD, requested an investigation of the representativeness of trade unions in late 2000. Although union density is well below 30% in the Netherlands, unions play an important role in the administration of social security, training and education funds, public employment organisations and advisory committees to the government. It should be noted that union density in works councils is much higher than the density among all employees: 65% of works council members are union members, compared with 28% of all employees.
Traditionally, the incidence of industrial action in the Netherlands has been low. 2000 was no exception to this rule, largely because the collective bargaining round progressed relatively smoothly (NL0007199F).
In February, there was limited industrial action in the education sector (NL0003183N). Other incidences of industrial action, usually in the form of one-day strikes, mainly focused on the closure of plants or other reorganisations. One example was the labour unrest at the port of Rotterdam in November (NL0012114N). A relatively large number of small-scale strikes took place at Dutch Railways (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, NS), many of which were not initiated by the official unions (NL0001177N and NL0010110N).
The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) stirred some controversy in early 2000 by ruling that the right to strike can only be exercised as a last resort (NL0004189F).
The social partners are largely, if not exclusively, involved in the formulation of the Dutch NAP through the bipartite Labour Foundation (Stichting van de Arbeid, STAR), which issues recommendations and advisory papers. In the context of the 2000 Dutch NAP, a recommendation was issued on the labour market participation of older employees.
The tight labour market in the Netherlands sparked off a debate on the labour market participation of people from ethnic minorities and asylum seekers in early 2000 (NL0004187N). According to a Ministry of Social Affairs study, employer compliance with the 1998 act on the stimulation of labour market participation among ethnic minorities remains low.
A survey by the Labour Inspectorate showed that 82 collective agreements (out of a sample of 132, including all the major agreements) contained provisions on job opportunities for particular groups, including ethnic minorities and people with disabilities (NL0007199F).
There is no real debate in the Netherlands as yet concerning the new EU anti-discrimination Directive on grounds of race (2000/43/EC), or the framework Directive outlawing discrimination on a variety of grounds, including disability, age, sexual orientation and religious belief (2000/78/EC). It is thought that the impact on Dutch legislation will be minor.
Information and consultation procedures are well established in the Netherlands, mainly through the Works Councils Act (Wet op de ondernemingsraden, WOR), which affords works councils a relatively strong position compared with that in most other European countries (NL0010109F). The WOR celebrated the 50th anniversary of its operation in 2000.
It is thought that the adoption of the proposed EU legislation on national-level information and consultation of employees is therefore likely to have little impact on the Dutch situation. However, the proposed EU European Company Statute (which should be adopted by the EU Council of Ministers during the course of 2001) is expected to have an impact in the Netherlands. Opinions are divided on the question whether Dutch companies will "flee" towards this legal form, once introduced.
The position of trade unions and works councils in mergers and takeovers, traditionally quite strong, is under increasing pressure, caused not only by the process of economic globalisation (NL0001178F), but also by forthcoming legislation on public offers and measures against hostile takeovers (NL0004188F).
At a legislative level, there have been no significant developments since the WOR was amended in 1998. However, the Supreme Court has restricted the scope of the WOR somewhat. In the public sector, the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that political decisions are governed by the WOR only to the extent that government personnel are affected by these decisions. In another ruling, the Supreme Court stated that primary terms of employment are not covered by the WOR (NL0004189F).
There were no significant developments connected with European Works Councils in 2000.
The subject of temporary agency work featured prominently in 1998 and the beginning of 1999 because of the new Flexibility and Security Act, which strengthened the position of temporary agency workers. In 2000, the subject almost vanished from the agenda, although there was some discussion on the rights of temporary agency employees to hold seats in works councils at temporary agencies.
There were no important developments or discussions on teleworking in 2000.
"Self-employed" workers are a rapidly-growing group in the Netherlands. The tight labour market has prompted many employees to work independently. Unions increasingly recognise the importance of such workers, and have opened up their organisation to self-employed people not employing personnel (zelfstandigen zonder personeel, ZZP). By mid-2000, there were some 100,000 self-employed workers in the Netherlands.
In addition to pay, important issues in the 2000 collective bargaining round included work pressure, working conditions leading to problems such as repetitive strain injuries (RSI) (NL0004186N), and combining work and private life (NL0007199F).
As in previous years, the persistently high number of disabled employees was a major industrial relations topic. In the summer of 2000, it became clear that increasing numbers of young people, especially women, are now claiming disability benefits (NL0008103F). During the summer months, these rising numbers led to calls for a more stringent policy in this area (NL0006195F). In October, the Secretary of State for Social Affairs announced a new plan to restrict the number of claimants. The employers' organisations were divided in their opinions on the plan, while the unions opposed the introduction of new eligibility thresholds (NL0011111F).
The issue of disabled employees and – to a certain extent also unemployed people – is directly linked to the structure of the Dutch social security system, in which social partners traditionally play an important role. This role came under heavy criticism in the mid-1990s, when the increase in disabled employees was largely blamed on the social partners. Since this time, they have been looked upon with suspicion whenever social security issues are under discussion. The controversial position of the social partners leads to conflicts whenever changes in the social security system are announced (NL0002179N).
The issue of disabled employees also featured prominently in collective agreements during 2000. Research conducted by the Labour Inspectorate showed that in 92 of the 132 agreements studied, provisions had been included on one or more of the following topics: integration policy, reintegration policy and adaptation policy. Some agreements explicitly reserved jobs for (partially) disabled people (NL0007199F).
In 2001, social security, and especially the large number of disabled employees, will remain a key issue, both for the government and the social partners. The results of the investigations by a state committee will spark a new debate and proposals for remedies. Furthermore, the first results of the privatisation of the services responsible for the occupational reintegration of disabled employees will become clear.
The debate on the legal structure of large companies will continue, in particular on the composition of the supervisory board and the relative influence of shareholders and works councils. The Social and Economic Council reached a compromise on this subject in 2000, which will in all probability be followed by parliament and the cabinet.
The currently tight labour market continues to exert upward pressure on wage developments. Just before the end of 2000, a compromise was reached in the Labour Foundation to increase the level of education and training as a partial substitute for wage increases. The rank and file of the trade unions, however, might not be satisfied with moderate wage increases, and so pay is expected to be a major topic.
Finally, the issue of combining work and private life will remain high on the agenda. The different bills that cover this issue have in many cases generated trade union support and employer opposition, and will therefore feature quite prominently in Dutch industrial relations.