Report on trade union representativeness published

In May 2006, the prime minister received a report entitled ‘Towards effective and legitimate social dialogue: Representativeness and funding of employer organisations and trade unions’. The report was prepared by high-level civil servants under the leadership of Raphaël Hadas-Lebel, and outlines the current situation as well as making recommendations for future developments.

In May 2006, Raphaël Hadas-Lebel, a member of the Supreme Administrative Court (Conseil d’État), submitted to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin the report Towards effective and legitimate social dialogue: Representativeness and funding of employer organisations and trade unions (in French, 947Kb PDF). In December 2005, the prime minister had requested a report to be prepared on these matters. However, despite the inclusive title, the publication focuses more on the trade unions than on the employers.

Report findings

The Hadas-Lebel report comprises two main parts. The first section notes that France has traditionally had difficulties in defining the nature and role of representative organisations.

The second part of the report emphasises that the issue of representativeness is the subject of much controversy between organisations: between employers and employees, and between the government and employer organisations.

Criteria for representativeness

Currently, the criteria for representativeness are essentially legal principles, established at national level. Although there have been some changes in the criteria used, these are still based on the situation pertaining at the end of the Second World War. The representative nature of five trade union confederations is assumed: the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT), the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement – confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC), the French Christian Workers’ Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC), the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT) and the General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail – Force ouvrière, CGT-FO). These unions may thus legitimately designate representatives at all the various levels of representation: national, sectoral, regional, company and branch.

The report observes the following:

• an insufficient presence of representative unions in private-sector companies and especially in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

• the unsuitable nature of the criteria for representativeness that are currently in force.

Although changes were introduced in 2004 (FR0507104F) (FR0406101N), these have not yet had an impact and, according to some experts, are possibly not entirely relevant.

Funding

In relation to trade union funding, the report notes a lack of transparency. Sources of funding are extremely varied (government, companies, local authorities, union dues). Moreover, little is known about the funding, and the criteria used for distributing funds among the unions are based on principles that the report considers obsolete. Union dues only seem to account for a small proportion of the total funds.

Regarding the funding of employer organisations, the report limits the remarks to two sentences and there is no analysis of the employers’ funding structures.

Recommendations

The report advocates two kinds of changes in relation to representativeness:

• changes in recognition of representativeness, with a view to taking into account the results of workplace elections;

• a ‘majority endorsement’ rather than the existing ‘majority right of opposition’, when legitimising agreements.

In very small companies, the report suggests leaving more places for elected employees in line with the mandate model.

As far as funding is concerned, the report proposes:

• ensuring greater transparency of union accounts and their various sources of funding;

• increasing the proportion of dues in overall funding, by increasing tax relief for members.

Reaction and commentary

To date, there has been little reaction to the report. Differences between unions and their defence of their mutual interests have no doubt contributed to a deadlock situation. The main employer organisation, the Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF), has distanced itself from the report, ‘fearing more disadvantages than advantages in companies’.

The lack of innovation in the report’s observations and the cautious proposals could be one explanation for the apparent indifference regarding topics that are potentially highly contentious. At the same time, there is a reluctance on all sides to embark on the conflict that would inevitably follow a significant reform of the statutory system of representation and of the equilibrium in external forms of funding.

Because the report is based primarily on a legal approach, it does not represent the best means for implementing the changes it wants to introduce. Furthermore, as already noted and contrary to its title, the report is exclusively devoted to the representativeness of trade unions and almost entirely ignores the shortcomings of employer organisations.

The publication of this report comes after major protest action against the proposed new contract for young people, namely the ‘First job contract’ (Contrat première embauche, CPE) (FR0605059I), and in the context of the government’s own internal difficulties and forthcoming elections. These factors, as well as the complex nature of the subject matter, all mean that the issues of representativeness and funding of employer organisations and trade unions have been given low priority.

Christian Dufour, Institute for Economic and Social Research (IRES)