Download article in original language : BE0302302FFR.DOC
In January 2003, despite difficult negotiations on issues such as the available margin for pay increases, the Belgian social partners signed a new intersectoral agreement that fixes the framework for collective bargaining in the whole of the private sector over 2003-4. While the signatory parties were largely pleased with the deal, their positions on its strong and weak points vary.
The central Belgian social partner organisations meet every two years to negotiate a new national intersectoral agreement that applies to the whole of the private sector (BE0101337F), setting the framework for subsequent bargaining at sector and company level. In a depressed economic climate, the negotiations over an agreement for 2003-4 were difficult (BE0203303F) and the 'pay norm', which fixes the available wage rises for the period of the deal, was a focus of particular debate, being challenged in some quarters (BE0212302N). The social partners even left the negotiating table, and the government had to play a mediating role. A draft agreement was eventually drawn up in December 2002 and, following consultations with their members, the trade union confederations and employers’ organisations signed the intersectoral agreement for 2003-4 on 17 January 2003.
The intersectoral agreement was signed on the trade union side by:
The employers' side signatories were:
In brief, the 2003-4 intersectoral agreement contains the following features:
The FEB/VBO employers’ confederation is pleased that the social partners have been able to reach agreement on a 'reasonable' pay norm: 'enterprises need a signal on pay restraint so that they can protect their competitiveness, and therefore employment.' However, it notes with regret that it was impossible to make significant breakthroughs on important matters such as increasing the economic activity rate and flexibility.
The FGTB/ABVV union confederation is delighted with the federal nature of the new agreement, which has the additional merit of preserving gains that came under attack during the negotiations (ie pay indexation and the agreements on early retirement) and not including new general measures relating to flexibility. It also stresses the desire expressed by all the social partners to encourage the recruitment of disabled and young workers, immigrants and workers from immigrant families. However, FGTB/ABVV is sorry that the agreement makes no provision for a significant improvement in the status of blue-collar workers with a view to achieving equivalent status for all workers. For the confederation, the harmonisation of these two statuses is a priority objective for the forthcoming sectoral and enterprise-level negotiations.
The CSC/ACV union confederation unanimously approved the new agreement because 'fundamental matters are safe, the worst has been avoided'. However, it has 'mixed feelings' because the agreement is silent on a number of important issues. In giving their approval to the intersectoral agreement, CSC/ACV activists were delighted with the maintenance of the current early retirement schemes, a priority demand of theirs. They were also pleased that automatic pay indexation has been maintained, and that the agreement contains no new flexibility provisions.
However, the agreement's adaptation of the Rosetta plan for young people of foreign origin aged under 30, which is designed to reduce discrimination in recruitment, has prompted reservations in CSC/ACV and a fear of perverse effects in certain sectors such as cleaning. Furthermore, there is disappointment at the absence of any gross increase in minimum pay, and at the two-year deferral of setting up a single status for white- and blue-collar workers. Another regret for CSC/ACV is the absence of any progress in terms of the position of workers in SMEs. It follows that trade union representation in SMEs will continue to be a priority focus (BE0102339N).
The agreement was given a lukewarm welcome by the liberal CGSLB/ACLVB union because of:
However, CGSLB/ACLVB is delighted that the provisions on early retirement have been extended, and that there are no additional flexibility measures. CGSLB/ACLVB delegates approved the intersectoral agreement by a majority of 71%.
As far as the UCM SME employers' organisation is concerned, the new deal is a 'minimal', but realistic, agreement: 'To reach an understanding with the trade unions on valid rules for all employees in the private sector is a measure of industrial peace, and a necessary framework for ensuring that negotiations in sectors and enterprises do not get out of hand.' UCM is pleased with the pay norm fixed at 5.4%, but regrets the absence of any progress in the field of flexibility for SMEs. On the other hand, it is seen as sensible, in the circumstances, effectively to freeze the question of harmonising blue- and white-collar statuses, as 'it was not possible to move forward without triggering unreasonable additional costs for enterprises.'
For the UCM, the issue of trade union presence in SMEs was 'not negotiable', and it is delighted that the matter is not referred to in the new accord.
The farmers' organisations see the agreement is a good one, as it enables people to work more 'calmly', and makes it possible for social concertation to continue in a positive climate.
Examining the positions of the various signatory parties to the 2003-4 intersectoral agreement in detail, the priorities of each become clear, as does the difficulty in finding an agreement that unites all the parties. It underlines the potential breadth of the agreement, even if the accord has been described as 'timid', because it does not deal with crucial points. Indeed, four major issues do not figure in the agreement:
In conclusion, the signatory parties to the agreement are all pleased to have negotiated an agreement, albeit an imperfect one, as it enables them to look forward to the forthcoming sectoral negotiations in an a priori positive climate. (Catherine Delbar, Institut des sciences du travail)