Belgium's four-yearly 'social elections' of employee representatives on works councils and committees for prevention and protection at the workplace took place in May 2004. Over a two-week period, 1.4 million employees in 6,000 private sector businesses elected representatives from over 120,000 candidates. This article highlights the main features of the 2004 election campaign.
Between 6-19 May 2004, social elections were held across the Belgian private sector to elect workers’ representatives on enterprise-level information and consultation bodies, both works council s (conseils d'entreprise/ondernemingsraden, CEs/ORs) and committees for prevention and protection at the workplace (comités pour la prévention et protection au travails/comités voor preventie en bescherming op het werk, CPPTs/CPBWs). The elections occur across the private sector every four years, and the 2004 poll was the 14th since their introduction in 1950 (for works councils).
All private sector companies employing more than 100 employees are obliged by law to set up a works council and a CPPT/CPBW, while businesses with over 50 workers only have to establish the latter (BE0309304T). The CPPT/CPBW looks after safety, health and the protection of the living and working environment, as well as the application of legislation relevant to this matter. The works council has a more strategic purpose. It has to be informed on economic, financial and employment issues, and consulted on a range of matters (such as work organisation, working conditions, the introduction of new technology, training, staff policy and collective redundancies), as well as having a decision-making and monitoring role in some areas.
Election process
While some other EU Member States also have 'social elections', the Belgian system is notable for the nationwide organisation of the elections during a brief period (BE0309302F). Within two weeks in May 2004, an estimated 1.4 million employees in 6,000 private sector businesses elected representatives on approximately 6,000 CPPTs/CPBWs and 3,000 works councils. More than 120,000 employees participated as candidates.
In the social elections, lists of candidates representing most categories of workers (except managers) may be presented only by the intersectoral trade union organisations that are recognised as representative. These are: the Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique/Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België, CGSLB/ACLVB); 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). In the previous social elections in 2000 (BE0006316F), CSC/ACV obtained around 53% of the vote, while FGTB/ABVV received 37% and CGSLB/ACLVB around 10%. The 2004 results are not yet available at the time of writing (in late May).
The importance of the social elections is recognised by trade unions, academic observers, the media and most employers. The Federation of Belgian Enterprises (Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique/Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, FEB/VBO) makes only a few critical comments on the cost of the election procedure. The main criticisms are that the elections are 'too time-consuming' and too 'complex'. Trade unions counter the criticism of bureaucracy and costs by stating that these formal and extensive procedures are necessary to prevent violations of the democratic process by employers with a negative attitude towards the electoral system. Although the relevant legislation on workplace information and consultation was passed over 50 years ago, unions state that in some companies they still have to fight cases in the labour courts to defend the right to organise social elections and set up workers’ representation. In 2004, several cases of abuses were reported in the media: for instance, a worker who intended to be the first-ever candidate for social elections in her company was reportedly asked by the employer to withdraw as a candidate in return for six months' extra pay. However, trade union spokespeople believe that the system of social elections is becoming more and more institutionalised and that problems caused by employers’ unwillingness are diminishing. There are reported to be no organised 'witch hunts' of candidates on the part of company management.
Although, in Belgium, computerised voting is widely used for political elections, this is rarely the case for social elections. Nonetheless, the 2004 social elections experienced a small 'e-revolution'- registration of the voting results by the Ministry of Labour took place for the first time via computer and on the internet.
The 2004 campaign
Trade unions spent a lot of money on nationally coordinated campaigns for the 2004 social elections. The largest confederation, CSC/ACV, alone spent approximately EUR 1.25 million on its promotional campaign. CSC/ACV stressed the theme of 'security in times of insecurity' in its campaign, with the slogan 'your job, our work'. This represented a return to the 'traditional' issue of employment security and defending workers’ rights. Historically, this theme was emphasised more by the Socialist FGTB/ABVV, but in 2004 it chose to campaign more around the issue of the quality of working life, an issue usually given more prominence by the Christian CSC/ACV. The smaller Liberal ACLVB/CGSLB tried to 'sell' itself as the 'other' union, stressing its efficiency and modernisation. In general, however, the three trade union organisations focused on the same issues: more and better jobs; equality in pay; combating stress; a better combination of work and family life; and no breakdown of the (widely-used) early retirement system.
Media observers highlighted that the social elections are first and foremost a 'local story', with the national campaigns playing only a supporting role. In social elections, it is suggested, people vote for a candidate with whom they are familiar and who they recognise as a valued colleague. Nevertheless, social elections can have an effect on the industrial relations system beyond the company level - eg on the balance of power inside trade union confederations, between unions and possibly between unions and the world of politics.
At the start of the social elections, the media, inspired by recent research figures (Een volledige strijd: sociale verkiezingen en democratie cijfermatig bekeken, G Van Gyes, Leuven, Steunpunt WAV, 2001), also stressed just how incomplete the system is. Social elections are not organised in the public sector or in the construction industry. Workers’ representatives in the civil service and construction industry are not elected but are appointed by the trade unions. Because of the legal workforce-size thresholds for the establishment of representative bodies - among the highest in Europe - employees working in small businesses do not have the legal means to set up a committee for prevention and protection at the workplace (possible only in companies with over 50 employees) or works council (possible only in companies with over 100 employees). Lack of candidates in about 10% of the companies concerned is another reason why, overall, only 37% of all employees in Belgium have the possibility to vote in the social elections (figure based on the 2000 results). Taking only the private sector into account, half of all workers have the possibility to participate in the social elections.
Preliminary figures on the 2004 social elections are promising in terms of the number of candidates. The three trade union organisations, and especially the smaller ACLVB/CGSLB, announced that they had been able to find more candidates than ever before for these elections. Figures calculated by one of the largest human resources services companies, SD Worx, confirmed the trade union message.
In the run-up to the social elections another major human resources services company, Randstad Belgium, organised a limited, but interesting, survey on employee participation. The ICMA market research company interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 employees about their opinions on this issue - the first such study in Belgium. The level of general satisfaction with employee participation possibilities averaged 6.6 on a 10-point scale. A section of the survey was dedicated to the workers’ opinions on the various forms of 'indirect' (ie representational) participation. The overall level of satisfaction with the functioning of works councils and committees for prevention and protection at the workplace was comparable, being found to be slightly positive. Blue-collar workers were more positive about the representative bodies than were white-collar workers, while trade union members were slightly more positive than non-union members. The survey also confirmed the coverage rate of these bodies (for instance, 35% of respondents stated that a works council existed in their company). Three out of four employees, confronted with these legally backed and trade union-dominated representations, were positive about the communication provided by their representation. In the last year, 30% had consulted this trade union representation at least once. One important point was that people working in the public sector were less satisfied with the forms of indirect participation - as stated above, no social elections are organised in the public sector.
Commentary
Key points to emerge from the above are that:
- the system of social elections is getting more and more institutionalised and recognised as a positive process in the Belgian system of industrial relations;
- the limited coverage rate of these social elections has to be a matter of concern;
- as a result of extensive trade union efforts, in 2004 there seems to be a promising rise in the number of candidates; and
- opinion surveys show that the forms of indirect participation for which the social elections are organised (ie works councils and committees for prevention and protection at the workplace) have broad support amongst the employees involved, but there is still a need for improvement in the way they function.
(Guy Van Gyes, HIVA-KU Leuven)