Economic and Social Council resumes tripartite dialogue

Download article in original language : PT0001179FPT.DOC

Tripartite social dialogue in Portugal was relaunched in January 2000, under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council. There is to be no new overall pact to follow the 1996-9 Strategic Concertation Pact, but agreements will be sought on specific topics. Issues tied to incomes policy have deliberately been left out and agreements are to be more circumscribed than in the past, both in time and content.

After a year-long hiatus, the Standing Commission for Social Concertation (Comissão de Concertação Social, CPCS), a committee of the Economic and Social Council (Conselho Económico e Social, CES) held meetings during January 2000, involving the government and the social partner organisations with seats on the CES: the Portuguese Confederation of Industry (Confederação da Indústria Portuguesa, CIP), the Confederation of Portuguese Farmers (Confederação dos Agricultores Portugueses CAP), the Confederation of Portuguese Commerce (Confederação Portuguesa do Comércio, CCP), the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses CGTP) and the General Workers' Union (União Geral de Trabalhadores, UGT). In the first meeting on 9 January the government was represented by the Prime Minister and the ministers of finance, labour, planning, rural development and equality.

After the first meeting, which dealt with concertation issues and procedures, it was announced that, rather than seeking another multi-year strategic pact (see below), concertation would be accomplished by means of agreements on specific topics, with the exception of incomes policy. Negotiations would be ongoing and agreements would be more circumscribed in nature. It was known in advance that none of the social partners were interested in a new "legislative" agreement like the 1996-9 pact.

The experience of the Strategic Concertation Pact

In their evaluation of the 1996-9 Strategic Concertation Pact (Pacto de Concertação Estratégica, ACE) (PT9808190F), CIP and CCP state that it had no apparent results. They maintain that employers were put at a disadvantage because much of what had been agreed, particularly issues relating to flexibility of the labour market, was never put into practice. They lay most of the blame for this on the legislature, which did not promote the competitiveness of companies. CIP sees itself as a victim of the previous concertation process, and is pleased that there will not be a general pact in 2000. CCP is receptive to dialogue as long as there is "give and take" on all sides.

CGTP, harking back to critical positions taken during the period when the ACE - which it did not sign - was in place (PT9712155F), states that concertation should not be mixed with collective bargaining, or it could become stalled.

Only UGT states that dialogue should be one of the government's strategic priorities. It believes that there should be some continuity and that matters addressed in existing documents, such as those regarding health, taxation and justice, should be put into practice.

The social partners' positions

One of the most significant features of the new agenda presented by the government is without a doubt the fact that it does not include setting wage guidelines for 2000, or an agreement on incomes policy. The understanding has been that, given the high pay increases proposed by the union confederations (5%-6%), wage policy must be handled at the level of collective bargaining. CIP and CGTP support this position, but UGT does not. CIP want to see negotiation of sectoral and company-level agreements, justifying its position with reference to the low inflation rate. Along with CCP, it supports the social dialogue on: fiscal issues from the standpoint of competitiveness; the tax system; labour legislation; reducing bureaucracy; and social security.

CGTP and UGT believe that it is important to discuss taxation, distribution of income, the battle against illegal work and solutions to the problem of the low quality of employment.

CGTP believes that being able to select the issues to be negotiated in concertation in advance, and the variety of permutations the agreements can take, are advantageous as they make it possible for parties to enter into pacts only on the issues that concern them. Insisting on a clear separation between concertation and collective bargaining is a way of avoiding potential stand-offs at the collective bargaining level. The union confederation aims to promote bilateral negotiations and believes there is a pressing need to review the wage-setting mechanism through sector-by-sector negotiation. They also maintain that workers' rights, such as employment status and union rights, are non-negotiable.

UGT highlights the need for effective annual agreements with realistic deadlines on matters that relate directly to workers and companies - employment policy and working conditions, income policy, social security policy and modernisation of legislation to provide for true collective bargaining.

The government will be amenable to negotiating agreements on: reducing working time; the relationship between occupational training and the labour market; updating the conflict resolution system; management of working time; reducing work-related accidents and illnesses; and equal opportunity for men and women. According to the government, the new method of concertation being proposed will make it easier to come to consensus, which will in turn make it possible for the government to make essential reforms. Thus, concertation should have a more immediate effect.

Setting the agenda

A second meeting was scheduled for 17 January to set the negotiation agenda. At this meeting, the parties decided on what procedures to use and what content to address. It was decided that concertation will begin once four working groups have been formed. The issues to be discussed in the working groups, with the aim of arriving at consensus among the social partners, will be:

1. social security - not from the standpoint of reform, which will be dealt with in parliament, but rather with a view toward guaranteeing better social protection, competitiveness and sustainability of the system;

2. employment and training;

3. health and safety at the workplace;

4. productivity, wages and distribution of income.

Sector-level agreements are a possible outcome of the deliberations on these issues.

While these discussions on concertation were taking place, the union confederations were also in contact with the Ministry of Finance, to which they presented proposals on reducing the tax burden for employees, access to unemployment compensation for public service workers and an increased budgetary allocation for labour inspection.

Commentary

Since 1985, Portugal has fairly consistently maintained some kind of global social dialogue among the social partners. Worthy of note are: several sets of negotiations on income policy; an overall pact in 1990; pacts on occupational training, health and safety and social security; the short term agreement of 1996; and the 1996-9 tripartite Social Concertation Pact.

Portugal is a small country with an open economy where the social partners are concerned about problems of international competition both within and outside the European Union. Despite the positions of some social partners and the current low inflation rate, concertation continues to be viewed as one way to respond to uncertainties.

This idea of maintaining continuity shows a desire on the part of the social partners to continue to coordinate industrial relations, not just as a response to incomes policy pressures in times of economic crisis, but as a means of reaching agreements on issues that will serve as a foundation for future strategies. Concertation in Portugal seems to be a space where regular commitments are made, thus reinforcing the institutions involved.

The return to concertation has also sparked discussion of how the system of industrial relations works. The social partners have made their desire to intervene and cooperate voluntarily very clear. A good example of this is the case of CIP and CGTP. Both would like to see certain issues moved into the sphere of collective bargaining, in order to regulate the labour market better, with benefits for both sides: on the one hand, unions could experience an increase of membership and wages; on the other, a degree of flexibility in firms might be negotiated. (Maria Luisa Cristovam)