Implementation of the European Directive on information and consultation of employees has relaunched the debate on trade union representation thresholds in small and medium-sized enterprises in Belgium. At the end of February 2006, a new bill was filed in the House of Representatives, and the social partners are currently debating the issue.
The transposition into Belgian law of Directive 2002/14/EC on information and consultation of employees has relaunched the debate over trade union representation thresholds in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (EU0204207F). Following different proposals from some trade unions, Members of Parliament of the French-speaking Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste, PS) and the Flemish-speaking Progressive Social Alternative (Sociaal Progressief Alternatief, SP.A) put forward a bill that, if adopted, would impose the setting up of a social dialogue body in enterprises with over 20 employees.
Belgium has still legislative changes to make in order to comply with the European directive. At present, only companies with more than 50 employees are obliged to set up a Workplace Prevention and Protection Committee (Comité pour la prévention et protection au travail/Comité voor preventie en bescherming op het werk, CPPT/CPBW). These committees act to ensure safety in the workplace, but currently have no powers in terms of the organisation and dissemination of economic, financial and social information on the company. Those tasks, however, are carried out by works councils (Conseil d’Entreprise/Ondernemingsraden, CE/OR) in companies with more than 100 employees.
Threshold for formal social dialogue
Implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC requires a lower threshold for employee consultation. Member States are obliged to apply the directive either to undertakings with at least 50 employees or to establishments with more than 20 employees.
Since Belgium must transpose the European text into its legislation, some trade unions maintain that the term ‘establishment’ includes SMEs. The Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV) and the Belgian General Federation of Labour (Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, FGTB/ABVV), therefore, propose to extend formal social dialogue to companies with over 20 employees.
According to the CSC/ACV, lowering the threshold of employees currently required for setting up a Workplace Prevention and Protection Committee would improve safety at the workplace by introducing a social dialogue system to enforce respect for labour law and safety legislation.
Reaction
The CSC/ACV proposes a flexible system that would keep the administrative burden to a minimum. Without the need for elections, a formally structured social dialogue body would be responsible for basic union delegation tasks and would provide employees with information on safety-related matters as well as economic and financial information on the company. A limited number of delegates would be protected against dismissal. The FGTB/ABVV supports these demands and also the creation of inter-establishment delegations.
The Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique/Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België, CGSLB/ACLVB) has called for extending the powers of the Prevention and Protection Committees to allow for the provision of economic and financial information for employees. The European Directive could, therefore, be applied without creating more cumbersome procedures or hampering the direct and informal communication methods that already exist in SMEs between employers and employees.
According to the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique/Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, FEB/VBO), the current level of social dialogue in SMEs, which is organised informally and directly, is satisfactory because it allows frequent and broad dialogue. This is due to the almost family-like atmosphere of companies, distinctive features of production, and the employer’s presence on-site. The FEB/VBO proposes strict application of the directive, without lowering the consultation threshold. It points out that these trade union representation thresholds can sometimes discourage employment or lead employers to split a company in two as a means of remaining below the thresholds.
The Organisation of the self-employed (Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers, UNIZO) shares the FEB/VBO’s views, and emphasises the importance of sectoral autonomy – which allows adaptations to specific situations – and of encouraging and sharing best practice for informing employees. In fact, several sectors (66 joint committees out of 103) have already adopted a model of structured social dialogue, including in companies with less than 50 employees.
Commentary
On 22 February 2006, the federal MPs referred the matter to the National Labour Council (Conseil National du Travail/Nationale Arbeidsraad, CNT/NAR), where the social partners will be asked to debate it and to submit an opinion on safety in SMEs, and on the situation in neighbouring European countries (TN9905201S). The opinion, followed by another debate in the House of Representatives, is expected to be published in April.
There is little chance of a government compromise on the issue. As debate on competitiveness and on generating employment take priority, trade union representation in SMEs is often seen as an obstacle to entrepreneurship and investment. The challenge of the current debate is to find a solution to which all the social partners can agree in order to bring the Belgian situation in line with European legislation.
Cécile Arnould, Institut des Sciences du Travail (IST), UCL