Thematic feature - collective agreements on changes in work organisation

Download article in original language : FR0409106TFR.DOC

This article gives a brief overview of collective bargaining on changes in work organisation in France, as of September 2004. It looks at: the extent to which collective agreements introduce changes in work organisation that take into account productivity demands, flexibility and security in an integrated way; the main areas in which changes are being introduced; the overall success or otherwise of bargaining on the topic; and the prospects for the future.

The EU’s European employment strategy was revised in 2003 (EU0308205F), following demands for a more results-oriented strategy contributing successfully to the targets for more and better jobs and an inclusive labour market set at the Lisbon European Council in 2000 (EU0004241F). To support the three objectives of full employment, quality and productivity at work and cohesion and an inclusive labour market, the current employment guidelines identify 10 priorities ('commandments'), including one on 'promoting adaptability of workers and firms to change'. This identifies work organisation (alongside skills, lifelong learning and career development, gender equality, health and safety at work, flexibility and security, inclusion and access to the labour market, work-life balance, social dialogue and worker involvement, diversity and non-discrimination, and overall work performance) as an element in improved quality at work, which should be pursued through a concerted effort between all actors and particularly through social dialogue.

The 2004 Council Recommendation on the implementation of Member States’ employment policies provides for four priorities:

• increasing adaptability of workers and enterprises;

• attracting more people to enter and remain on the labour market, making work a real option for all;

• investing more and more effectively in human capital and lifelong learning; and

• ensuring effective implementation of reforms through better governance.

The Recommendation refers to promoting flexibility combined with security in the labour market, by modernising and broadening the concept of job security, maximising job creation and raising productivity. As defined in the employment guidelines, 'job security' refers not only to employment protection but also to building people’s ability to remain and progress in work. Changes in work organisation thus appear to be seen as a main vehicle for increasing the adaptability of workers and enterprises. Related to this issue is flexibility and security in the labour market and the relative attractiveness of 'standard' and 'non-standard' employment relationships (with the aim of avoiding a 'two-tier' labour market).

With work organisation playing an increasingly important role in European employment policy, in September 2004 the EIRO national centres were asked, in response to a questionnaire, to give a brief overview of the industrial relations aspects of the topic, looking at: the extent to which collective agreements introduce changes in work organisation that take into account productivity demands and flexibility and security at the workplace in an integrated way; the main areas in which changes are being introduced; the overall success or otherwise of bargaining on the topic; and the prospects for the future. The French responses are set out below (along with the questions asked).

Recent agreements on changes in work organisation

Please provide information on recent developments (over the last three-five years) in collective agreements on work organisation that introduce changes in flexibility, security and productivity in an integrated way. The kind of issues that such agreements might cover include: introducing autonomous (or semi-autonomous work) teams; reducing the number of hierarchical layers; new forms of employee involvement; reorganising work functions; moving away from product-based structures to business unit; flexible working hours; multiskilling; job rotation; improving training (eg making it more systematic, ensuring wider participation, or changing the focus); new pay systems (eg performance-based pay, profit-sharing, share ownership schemes), and new financial and non-financial performance measures; or new appraisal systems.

The kind of agreements that we are interested in here are those that deal with a number of the issues listed above as an overall 'package'. Please provide any overall information available on this kind of development, if possible, and brief details of three or four agreements (at company and/or sectoral level) that you consider particularly innovative and interesting. Below is an indicative list of the kind of information we are seeking.

• What are the main aims of bargaining on work organisation - eg increasing productivity? Increasing personnel flexibility? Improving the company’s position in the market? Avoiding redundancies and lay-offs?

• What is the extent of bargaining on work organisation - how many agreements are there? How many companies/employees are covered?

• What are the main areas in which changes are being introduced - eg new organisational structures, new more flexible and less hierarchical methods, new corporate cultures, new business practices, more training, new performance measurement techniques, new reward systems?

• In the context of the introduction of work organisation changes, what kind of contractual and working time arrangements are provided - ie how is the flexibility and security issue being addressed?

• In the context of work organisation changes introduced with a view to improving productivity, what specific measures have been agreed?

• What are the motives of the parties in concluding such agreements - please indicate the motives of each side (management and workforce), such as reducing costs, promoting flexibility, securing employment, preventing compulsory redundancy, or improving terms and conditions.

It is difficult to find any explicit agreements dealing comprehensively with the issues of flexibility, changes in the organisation of work and job security for employees, despite the fact that the 1998 legislation introducing the 35-hour working week (FR9806113F and FR0001137F) has resulted in various relevant developments. Several reasons explaining this paucity of information can be identified:

• in 1984, an attempt to negotiate an intersectoral agreement on flexibility came to nothing. This failure had lasting consequences by making this issue almost off limits for negotiation until the 35-hour week legislation was passed (see below); and

• official figures on the content of collective bargaining depend greatly on the definition of issues for negotiation, especially those set out by the Labour Code. Changes in the organisation of work may in fact actually be covered by agreements recorded as dealing with 'working conditions' or 'working time', thus making them very difficult to spot.

The 35-hour week legislation has, in companies with workforces of over 20, resulted in sector- and company-level negotiations on a new organisation of work ensuring compliance with the 35-hour statutory working week. As a result, the social partners have had to discuss new working hour arrangements, the make-up of shift teams etc. As a backdrop to these discussions, issues such as changes to the sector and market competition, the relative competitive positions of companies and strategies for the development of or adjustment to competitiveness (pricing policy, production and labour cost and product-quality strategies) have been raised. In the service sector, for example, this has sometimes resulted in discussions on ways of ensuring longer opening hours. The civil service, which was also involved in the move to the 35-hour week, has negotiated this type of change to offset the reduction of the working week as part of a drive to improve service to the public. In highly competitive sectors, the danger of relocation of jobs abroad has sometimes been broached in negotiations. It is thus generally accepted that this legislation has, for the first time, made it possible to specifically negotiate flexibility and the resulting quid pro quos for employees. Indeed, this can be seen as one of the main aims of the legislation. (In fact, the current legislation extended a 1996 law of more limited scope, known as the Robien law [FR9705146F], which had acted as a springboard for negotiations on the reduction of working time offset by cuts in social security contributions. The driving force behind this move was the desire to develop either 'defensive-type' measures to safeguard endangered jobs or 'offensive' initiatives to develop new strategies for job creation.)

Through such agreements, employees and their representatives have agreed to greater flexibility, generally in the area of working hours -eg the annualisation of working time or extension of opening or service hours.

However, it is more difficult to ascertain whether changes have occurred beyond those pertaining solely to the organisation of working time. Research studies have found that, more often than not, changes in the organisation of working time have raised issues for companies such as the skills present within shift-teams or multiskilling. However, it does not appear that, even in company-level agreements, these issues have been either anticipated or dealt with through negotiation. There is a lack of data on this matter.

An April 2002 agreement on the overhaul and reduction of working time and wages in the coach transportation sector is a fairly significant illustration of trends in negotiations on work organisation. This agreement reflects a drive by the current conservative government to make legislation on the 35-hour working week more flexible (FR0502109F). This relaxation of the rules paves the way for greater use of overtime and allows companies and sectors to have their employees work in excess of 35 hours a week provided that a new collective agreement is reached (FR0209105F).

The coach transport agreement is significant in its focus on working time issues, dealing with: the method for calculating the actual working time of drivers (leading to a distinction between actual driving time and time spent in other activities - such as miscellaneous tasks, or time spent waiting for passengers); length of the working day; overtime; night work; flexible working hours; and rest days. The agreement refers to the goal of developing 'a genuine service culture' and deals with the associated implications and restrictions for employees: reclassification of some part-time jobs as full-time positions; some pay increases; and guaranteed continuity of employment if service providers change. In terms of work organisation, this agreement does not really go beyond the issue of working time.

Another example is a 2003 agreement on industrial relations policy at the Louvre museum. It specifically refers to developing the facility and policy pertaining to the public, and sets out a 'social blueprint' for staff involvement in this policy. It lays down goals such as establishing clearer in-house working procedures, or increasing the number of positions to handle and respond to the public (with training in these areas). This agreement, therefore, goes beyond working time to tackle issues such as skills development (eg skills in dealing with the public) and job descriptions. However, this mainly takes the form of goals, intentions and commitments.

Many other agreements have been signed in companies facing closure or relocation as a way of saving jobs. As a rule of thumb, these deals involve wage cuts (or a freeze on increases), increased working time etc.

Lastly, other agreements occasionally deal with skills. However, they tend to focus on developing pre-emptive management as a way of safeguarding jobs and skills or preserving the experience and know-how of older staff by tailoring positions to this group. In these agreements, the organisation of work is often a relatively minor issue.

Assessment

What have been the results of collective agreements introducing work organisation changes? Drawing on assessments/evaluations made by researchers or the parties to agreements (employers, trade unions, works councils etc) or other sources, please provide information on issues such as the following:

• whether agreements have been successes or failures, and the reasons why in both cases;

• the impacts on flexibility and security (eg are there any successful examples of collective agreements addressing this issue as part of work organisation changes?);

• the impacts on productivity (has productivity been improved as a result of the work organisation changes introduced?); and

• the impacts on collective bargaining - are such deals broadly considered as concession bargaining, or as 'zero-sum' or 'positive-sum' situations? What are the implications for the structure, process or nature of collective bargaining (eg company versus sectoral? workplace representatives versus trade union? from “distributive” to “integrative” bargaining [with mutual gains for both sides]) and the role of management?

Where significant differences of interpretation exist in assessments on these questions - notably between the social partners - please report on the differing views.

One of the only assessments available in this area relates to agreements on the overhaul and reduction of working time. Employees and their representatives frequently put forward the view that the implementation of these deals has resulted in the impression among employees that work has intensified (ie a feeling of having to do as much as before but in less time). This perception of the situation is generally linked to the impression that the reduction in working time has been offset less by recruitment than by greater employee productivity. However, arguably of greater significance still is the impression that this hike in productivity is more the result of a rise in the intensity of work than of an improvement in the production process. This appears to some commentators to confirm the feeling that there has been no genuine reform of the organisation of work - beyond working hours - as a result of the reduction in the working week.

Overall, employers have a negative view of the initiative to reduce the working week. They see it as a legal measure that has reduced the competitiveness of companies by increasing the hourly cost of labour and introducing challenging and inflexible rules. This is especially the case in smaller companies where the limited number of employees makes it difficult to restructure work.

Debate and prospects

What impact has the kind of agreement referred to above had in your country, and what impact might such agreements have in future? What is the current debate on the topic? Please provide an assessment of prospects for the future in terms of work organisation bargaining in your country (differentiating by sector, if relevant).

In France, apart from working time, the organisation of work has not been the subject of much bargaining and indeed, appears to be a difficult area on which to negotiate. Even the issue of employee skills has resulted in negotiations that have little to do with the organisation of work: transferability of skills from one company to another for employees changing jobs etc. (Pascal Ughetto, IRES)