The current page is not translated to the selected language.
Download article in original language : ES9711131FES.DOC
A serious crisis between the two principal Spanish trade union confederations has erupted following CC.OO's decision in October 1997 to sign the second general agreement for the construction sector the day before the general strike in the sector called by UGT to protest against the high industrial accident rate.
Negotiations on the second general agreement for the construction sector began in December 1996 between the two main trade union confederations, CC.OO and UGT, and the industry's employers' association, the National Federation of the Construction Sector (Confederación Nacional de la Construcción, CNC). The search for effective mechanisms to fight the high rate of industrial accidents in the sector was one of the main priorities for the new Agreement. A commission was set up to study industrial accidents in the construction sector in 1995, and managed to reach provisional agreement on the adaptation of Law 31/95 of 8 November 1995 on the Prevention of Industrial Risks (LPRL) to the construction sector. However, in July 1997 the negotiations were paralysed because of the failure of unions and employers to agree on whether or not to include the commission's conclusions in the collective agreement covering the construction sector.
In late October, the situation deteriorated. Whereas UGT called a general strike in protest against industrial accidents in the sector, CC.OO signed the second agreement.
The construction sector has one of the highest rates of industrial accidents and of serious and fatal accidents in Spain (ES9710126F). Therefore the construction unions of both UGT and CC.OO participated actively in the campaign for the prevention of industrial risks and a decrease in industrial accidents called jointly by the two confederations in all sectors (ES9711132F). This campaign was planned in the form of marches and demonstrations in front of the headquarters of the employers' associations and the labour authorities of the different Autonomous Communities (regions) to protest against the non-compliance with prevailing legislation on safety at work and the increase in the number of industrial accidents in the sector.
However, given the characteristics of the construction sector, UGT decided to extend the protest by calling another general strike only in this sector in order to demand measures such as:
This strike was not supported by CC.OO, which felt that it would not solve the problem of industrial accidents and did not propose feasible alternatives for the workers.
At the same time as UGT called the strike, the leaders of CC.OO signed the second agreement for the construction sector because they thought that the main problems that had led to the blocking of collective bargaining in the sector (such as the rationalisation of the operations of temporary employment agencies) should be settled outside the framework of the agreement.
According to CC.OO, the problems arising from the use of temporary employment agencies in the construction sector cannot be solved through collective bargaining but must be dealt with jointly with the public administration, which has the powers to carry out appropriate inspections. Since negotiations with the public administration are already underway, and the Ministries of Labour and Public Works (Fomento) have expressed their intention to limit the activities of temporary employment agencies in certain risk areas, CC.OO felt that it made no sense to continue deadlocking negotiations on the agreement for this reason.
In addition, claimed CC.OO, the second issue that was hampering negotiations - the creation of the post of regional industrial safety delegate - was a similar case. The need to create this new post resulted from the problem of industrial safety delegates in the construction sector. The LPRL establishes that all companies with 31 or more workers must have an industrial safety delegate, and that in companies with 30 workers or fewer the workers' delegates must assume the duties of the safety delegate. However, the high rate of temporary employment in the construction sector hinders the fulfilment of this regulation enormously. Temporary workers are reluctant to stand for positions of collective representation, and those elected remain in the company only for the duration of the building project, after which they change company or become unemployed. In order to deal with these problems, the trade unions decided to exercise the rights granted by Article 35.4 of the LPRL, which allows other systems for appointing the safety delegates to be established through collective bargaining, and they suggested the creation of a new post: the regional industrial safety delegate. This delegate would have the same duties as the industrial safety delegates, but rather than being linked exclusively to a company he or she would be responsible for the whole region for which they were elected.
The institution responsible for managing the amounts paid by the companies to cover the time-off rights of the workers elected as regional delegates will be the Labour Foundation for the Construction Sector (Fundación Laboral de la Construcción, FLC), a joint organisation of which most companies in the sector are voluntary members. CC.OO therefore believes that discussions should be taken to the FLC, with the commitment later to include the creation of the post of the regional industrial safety delegate in the collective agreement .
In view of these considerations, CC.OO thought that negotiations had resumed. Consequently, even though UGT refused to sign the agreement and called a general strike in the sector, CC.OO decided to sign with the CNC.
The representatives of UGT claim that the agreement introduces nothing new in comparison with the previous one and leaves the problem of industrial accidents in the sector unsolved. In statements to the press, UGT representatives also claimed that it marked a setback for some of the demands submitted by both unions, such as the rationalisation of the operations of temporary employment agencies in the sector. Consequently, on 31 October UGT lodged an objection to the agreement with the General Directorate for Employment on procedural grounds.
The conflict that has broken out between the two union confederations shows the difficulty of finding solutions to the problem of health and safety.
Both UGT and CC.OO have reacted against the deadlock of collective bargaining in the construction sector, which had been stymied after more than a year of negotiations. However, the two unions have adopted different measures to solve the dispute. With the calling of the strike, UGT wished to protest against the high rate of industrial accidents in the sector and to force the employers to sign the Agreement. CC.OO, by contrast, preferred to resume negotiations and transfer to other spheres those aspects on which an agreement could not be reached.
This interruption in the dialogue between the two unions has placed the workers' representatives in the sector in a difficult situation. Firstly, there exists an agreement of limited application that can be applied only to the companies and workers which specifically adhere to it, and that has been challenged by UGT. Secondly, negotiations in the sector have become more difficult, which raises serious problems for talks to be held over the next few months, such as those transferring the terms of the national agreement to the different provinces, those to settle pay rises at sectoral level for the coming year or those to determine the operations of the FLC, whose membership under the agreement comprises only its signatories.
It is therefore essential for CC.OO and UGT to make an effort to resume dialogue. Otherwise it will be impossible to deal with the problems facing the sector, which are damaging to the interests of both workers and employers alike. (Claudia Vallbé, Fundació CIREM)