Synthesis report of responses to the commission communication concerning the development of the social dialogue at community level COM (96) 448 final

Executive summary

1. It is generally agreed that ways must be found to make more adaptable, effective and efficient the channels through which the social partners can co-operate more closely at European level with Member State governments and the Commission in the development and implementation of policies concerning employment and economic growth.
    
2. The term "social dialogue" must be used with greater precision and focus. A distinction must be made between a dialogue that involves the social partners on a "voluntary" basis and dialogues that take place between the social partners, the Commission and the Member States in a formal context to satisfy statutory requirements.
    
3. The revision of the Treaty, the possible adoption of an employment chapter and the role of the Employment and Labour Market Policy Committee will have an impact on possible methods of improving social dialogue activities. Some support has been expressed for the integration of the Agreement on Social Policy into the Treaty but the UK Government has recorded its opposition to such a move.
    
4. The main concern that permeates the responses to all the sections of the Communication is the contentious issue of representation in the various consultations and the negotiation processes. In particular, concern has been expressed about the representation of the SMEs in all dialogue activities.
    
5. The need to recognise the autonomy of the organisations involved in social dialogue and the more formal consultative processes has been emphasised.
    
6. In the case of the voluntary social dialogues it has been stressed that the objectives, content, and organisation of the dialogues are the exclusive province of the social partners.
    
7. The value of the Val Duchesse dialogue has been endorsed by a large number of respondents. Suggestions have been made to take it forward by extending the discussions to cover new subjects. The Commission is invited to continue to provide material contributions, balanced support to the parties involved and assistance with the dissemination of the outcome of the dialogue. 
    
8. It has been recognised that most Interprofessional Advisory Committees are not functioning effectively. UNICE, CEEP and ETUC have referred to the Joint Recommendation they adopted in 1993 on the subject. Suggestions include more timely consultation, more efficient administrative preparation, and participation of European representative organisations in their own right.
    
9. The sectoral social dialogue should be complementary to the interprofessional dialogue. Pleas have been made to give it priority and more substance by focusing it on strategic issues and sectors. As the sectoral dialogue is the place where most of the consequences of industrial development, technological change, economic integration and monetary change will be felt, these developments should feature more prominently in future discussions. The Commission services will need to provide a more co-ordinated approach, with the majority of the respondents preferring that responsibility for the sectoral dialogue should remain with DG V but with the close involvement of the sectoral DGs. Support has been expressed for the study on representativeness, as well as for improved dissemination of information concerning dialogue activities. The Commission is requested to make available adequate resources essential for the success of the dialogue, and to improve the administrative aspects of organising the meetings. The possibility of introducing a restricted linguistic regime is acceptable to some but strongly opposed by many others.
    
10. The Standing Committee on Employment is the aspect of the dialogue most in need of improvement. However, there is significant support for the view that its reform should await the outcome of the IGC and the establishment of the Employment and Labour Market Policy Committee. Questions are raised about entitlement to participate in the SCE, and reforms concerning its work programme and decision-making are proposed.
     
11. For a majority, the Agreement on Social Policy has demonstrated its potential for the social partners to play an active role in the development of European social policy. The additional criteria suggested for identifying organisations to be consulted under the Agreement receive a mixed reception, with the first criterion concerning voluntary membership of organisations being particularly opposed The validity and legitimacy of the current representation of the SMEs is challenged. A number of organisations, whether representing European employers or trade unions claim recognition and more direct involvement. An increase in the time-limit for consultation from the present six weeks receives wide support.
     
12. Disenchantment is voiced by organisations that have not been able either to participate in or influence negotiations under the Protocol on Social Policy. Governments have expressed concerns about the competence of the social partners and the practical difficulties that arise in the transposition of agreements into European and national legislation. A suggestion is made that the Agreement could be used to elicit complementary agreements at sectoral level. Claims are made by various organisations for more direct involvement in the negotiating process, while the view is expressed that experience gained during the first negotiation is insufficient to justify changes to the negotiating procedures at this stage.
     
13. While it is recognised that employment is an important responsibility for all in the Community, there is no consensus on focusing the social dialogue at interprofessional and sectoral level more narrowly on employment.
     
14. The offer to assist the social partners in developing links and practical co-operation with counterpart organisations in countries of Eastern and Central Europe is well received by some but raises questions of resources and the impact on existing social dialogue budgets.
     
15. Action to improve the transparency and awareness of the different social dialogue activities is endorsed.
     
16. The Structural Funds are put to the fore as a potential source of funds to encourage further joint initiatives.
     
17. The proposals to assist the development of new levels of dialogue in transnational industries and at regional level attract equal measure of and opposition.