Transcript SLIC THEMATIC DAY

Social Dialogue including Health
and Safety in Micro and Small
Companies
Jean-Michel MILLER
Research Manager - Eurofound / Dublin
Ljubljana, 5 June 2014
1
EUROFOUND

EUROFOUND: European
Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions





Established in 1975 / Dublin
Comparative socioeconomic research
Tripartite European Agency
Staff: 120 persons
Budget: EUR 20.5m
2
•
“ …an EU-wide framework for occupational safety and
health is and will remain crucial to establishing a level
playing field on the Single Market for all firms —
regardless of their size, location or sector of activity. This
is especially true for small and medium-sized enterprises,
which employ most of the EU’s active population.”
•
László Andor Commissioner for Employment, Social
Affairs and Inclusion speech: “Better working conditions
for an inclusive growth” (Conference on working conditions Brussels, 28 April 2014)
3
László Andor's reflection on 2.5 years in the Barroso II Commission
•
•
“… Ensuring the health and safety of workers while doing
more also for competitiveness will not be easy.
But whilst acknowledging the importance of reducing the
regulatory burden on SMEs, I warn against the simplistic view
that would propose blind scrapping of legislation. One cannot
play with the safety and health of workers. Moreover, as
Europe's workforce shrinks and grows older, we need to extend
working lives and increase productivity, and this will not
happen without adequate protection of workplace health and
safety. ..(p 32)
4
Micro and Small Companies (MSCs)
Important - heterogeneous group


In 2011, and with view on the EU 28 non-financial business economy,
 93% of all enterprises were micro companies, 7% were SMEs
 30% of all employees worked in micro companies, 38% in SMEs
 17% of the turnover was made by micro companies, 38% by SMEs
Micro and small companies contribute more to job creation, 2002-2010:
 85% of all new jobs created have been in SMEs
 Between 2002 and 2010 nearly six out of ten jobs created by SMEs
came from micro companies
 while employment in larger companies increased only by 0.5% on
average per year, the on average increase in micro and small enterprises
was 1.3% and 1% respectively
5
Social Dialogue in MSCs - Research Questions
/ Deliverables
What are the changes, “the update on regulations on social
dialogue, including on health and safety and content of
social dialogue”.
• What is the practice of social dialogue in small and micro
companies in the EU?
• Report:
• - Literature review
• - Update on regulation
• - Case studies
• Executive Summary
6
Literature review - Findings
 Research has addressed SMEs rather than micro and/or small
companies with less than 50 employees
 Topics addressed with view on SMEs:
 Performance of SMEs with view on aspects such as employment
development, job creation, internationalisation, training, HR practice
(DG ENTR)
 Restructuring, effects of the crisis (Eurofound)
 OSH, working conditions (Eurofound, OSHA)
 Training and skills development (DG EMPL, DG ENTR)
 Workplace labour relations and working conditions (Eurofound)
 What we don‘t know / gaps of research
 Specificity of micro and small companies
 Role of collective representation and organisation at local, regional and
sectoral/profession level
 Driving factors of more formalised structures of social dialogue at
company level
7
Some findings from the EWCS (2010)
8
Some findings from the EWCS (2010)
9
Spain
Table 4. % Employees who receive training or information on risk prevention
2011
%Unknown
%No
%Yes
%No
response
Between 1 and 10
46.4
52.3
1.2
0.2
Betwen 11 and 49
63.8
34.9
1.2
0.1
Between 50 and 249
68.2
30.8
1
0.1
250 or more
72.9
26.4
0.5
0.1
Source: Own elaboration with figures extracted from the 7th National Survey on Working
Conditions (2011)
10
•
Employee representation and influence on management decisions on OSH
 Findings from the European Company Survey 2013:
 26% of small establishments had an official employee representation structure,
compared to 60% of medium-sized and 82% of larger enterprises.
 Nearly one third of employee reps in micro companies state that they have no
influence on management decisions in the area of OSH!
 Employee representatives stating to have “some influence” on management decisions
in small companies (56%) is higher than in medium and large ones (54% and 53%).
 But only 12.8% of employee reps in small companies felt that they have a “strong
influence” on decisions, compared to 17% in large companies.
60.0%
50.0%
Small companies (10-49
employees)
Medium companies (50249 employees)
Large companies (250+
employees)
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
No influence
Some influence Strong influence
11
What makes the difference?:
Findings from a special evaluation of the IAB survey
12
Questionnaire survey

carried out between May and September 2013

to study current regulations governing social dialogue in all its forms in
small and micro enterprises, including those on health and safety, structures
(both formal and ad-hoc) and content of social dialogue, providing an
update of a previous Eurofound review on the subject (e.g. on health and
safety);

to describe major trends in social dialogue, OHS, training and wages in
micro and small companies by means of a set of selected indicators;

to document initiatives and examples of good practice where social dialogue
devised tailor-made solutions for small and micro companies tackling major
structural problems in policy implementation, such as workers’
representation, and participation or health and safety.
13
Regulatory frameworks and changes

Workplace representation

General representation structures are present in both M-SCs in 22 MSs +
NO, while in 5 only in small ones: trade unions representatives tend to prevail
over elected ones. In many countries they carry out also OHS duties in MSCs.
They are compulsory in small firms only in LU;

OSH representatives (or committees) are compulsory in small firms in AT,
DK (10 employees), FI, DE (20 employees). In BE only in some sectors
(mining) and in RO if required by Labour Inspectorate;

Regulatory changes are concentrated in MSs affected by severe
macroeconomic adjustments: GR, CY (OSH) in more inclusive sense just
before, while exclusion of micro firms in HU and RO are part of the
adjustment package in restrictive sense;

Territorial-level representatives is an increasing option in IT, NO for OSH
14
and envisaged by social partners in FR.
OSH as a topic of social dialogue in micro and small
companies: tripartite

Tripartite initiatives at cross-sectoral level:
 Germany: 2013-2018 German Common Occupational Safety Strategy involving also work
insurances addressing (GDA) initiative on musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in MSCs as
part of 2013-2018 OSH strategy;
 Italy: partnerships on OSH certification between Inail (national work accidents insurance)
and social partners

Tripartite initiatives at sectoral level:
 United Kingdom : CONIAC, tripartite committee in construction complementing
resources from the sectoral skills council providing Construction Skills Certification
Schemes (CSCS) and employers’ Construction Industry Training Board (CITB);
 Ireland: National Health Agency and Social partners’ Construction Safety Partnership
initiatives such as SMP20 (toolkit for contractors) and various ‘safe system of work plans’
(SSWPs)
 Greece: tools for risk assessment developed jointly by ELINYE and social partners in car
repair, hairdresser, bakeries, carpenter workshops, retail, butcher and business catering 15
OSH as a topic of social dialogue in micro and small
companies: bipartite

Bipartite initiatives:

Link with tripartite and/or public policies
•
•

Initiatives among social partners
•
•

Luxembourg: SCIPRISC: coaching on OSH in construction;
Sweden: collaboration between bipartite OHS institute (Prevent) and bipartite work
insurance (AFA); initiative in local governments
Public institutions - employer initiatives
•
•

Denmark regular update in all sectors;
Netherlands arbo-catalogues used as reference standards by labour inspectorates
Sweden: information website on welding established by IVL, a governmentemployers partenrship
UK: “small trade associations forum” between employers and HSE
Distinctive feature: Sectoral level initiatives exploit social partners’ better knowledge of
specific situation
16
Social dialogue in micro and small companies: SBAs
and training

Small Business Acts – three strategies:
 Unilateral approaches: UK (register of OHS consultants; Lofstedt
report, -35% in regulations by reviewing sector-speficic regulatory
consolidation; no inspection in low-medium risks), ES (simplified
forms in MSCs), SI (implementation in MSCs as “soft laws”);
 Concerted simplification: MT (OSHA calls on SPs and WRs support),
NO tripartite action;
 “neutral” transitions to ICT: AT, IE (BeSmart), SK.

Training and labour market management
 IT: specific interprofessional training funds for MSCs financing
territorial-level training plans
17
Coverage of MSCs by social dialogue
institutions and collective bargaining

SD coverage varies significantly between large/medium companies and MSCs in most EU
countries.

Presence of collective bargaining, company agreements and representation structures
increases with the size of the company.

MSCs less covered by SD instruments (e.g. in Western Germany just 10% workers in
companies 5-50 employees covered by workers council vs. 44% average).

Clear divide between micro companies and small ones, where the situation is more
favourable (e.g. , in Spain 32% employees in micro companies benefit from a collective
bargaining structure vs. 58% in small companies).

Employee’s representation bodies more common in micro or small establishments belonging
to a larger company or group (e.g. France).

Remarkable case of Denmark: in spite of following the general pattern, MSCs show
relatively high figures of collective agreement coverage: 67% of companies 5-9 employees,
18
74% in 10-19 employees; 82% in 20-49 employees.
Quality and contents of social dialogue and workers
participation in MSCs

Difficult to determine general quality patterns concerning SD in MSCs. Both negative and
positive assessments depending on countries.

Positive assessments:



quality of the works council in micro companies (NL)

possibilities of involvement and influence in companies (BE, FI)

the smaller the company, the more open and confidential relations (FI)

lack of formal structures can be compensated by direct dialogue
Negative assessments:

Very low union density and reduced company membership in employers’ assoc. (PL)

Minimal presence of and dialogue with TU (IT); Unions face worse conditions (CZ)

Important number of companies operate ‘outside’ the participation model (NO)
MSCs contain simultaneously the best and the worst examples of social dialogue => Not
19
possible to generalise

Case studies: Objectives, rationale and
selection criteria
Objectives and rationale
 10 practical examples and experience from five countries where social dialogue in micro
and small companies has worked well
 illustrating the added value of social dialogue as well as describing national context
factors
 practical examples of implementation/adjustment of social dialogue frameworks to the
specific needs of micro and micro companies
 Case study reports are based on interviews at company level as well as interviews with
national level social partners
 Selection criteria and selection process
 countries with different industrial relations models (BG, DE, DK, ES, IT);
 sample includes countries with a high presence of small and micro firms and countries
with a comparative strong system of collective bargaining and social dialogue;
 “new cases” a priority
 selection of cases in consultation with national SPs, professional organisations, OSH
institutions
 Selection process proved difficult and much more lengthy as expected for different
20
reasons, in particular for the micro company cases
Elements of social dialogue in practice: Three major
forms

Social dialogue as bilateral communication
 Lack of formal structures; ad-hoc and depending on concrete needs
 Employer driven

Social dialogue as information and consultation
 Based on legal regulation of I&C or company solutions for continuous
information and consultation

Social dialogue as negotiation
 Formal structures of information and consultation in place
 Regular negotiation on pay and other issues
21
Elements of social dialogue in practice: Main
characteristics

Bilateral communication




Information and consultation




Micro companies in DE, IT and ES; small company in DE
No formal structures of employee representation (e.g. works councils) and ad-hoc provision of
resources
Main topics/content: working conditions, OSH, work organisation
Micro companies in BG and DK, small companies in BG, IT, ES
Formal structures of dialogue in place, including employee representation
Resources in accordance to legal requirements
Negotiation



Small company in DK
Formal structures of I&C and formal negotiation rounds on pay and other issues related to working
conditions and work organisations
Resources available for employees go beyond I&C practice (consultation amongst employees,
external trade union support, training)
22
Internal factors of influence for good practice
social dialogue

General internal factors supporting social dialogue at company level

Participatory approach of leadership and management applied by the
owner/manager based on mutual respect and trust

Employer/owner actively involved in local, regional and sectoral/professional
networking

Orientation towards a business model and competition strategy that is based on
quality of products/services and not on competition on the basis of prices and
costs

Certain degree of employment stability and low staff fluctuation

Work organisation based on team-functioning and high degree of autonomy and
responsibility of individual workers

Occupational safety and health as well as pay and working conditions at the
23
upper level of sectoral/occupational standards
Internal factors of influence for good practice social
dialogue
 Internal
factors that characterise more structured and
institutionalised practice of social dialogue

Size, i.e. small companies are rather likely to be covered by
regulatory requirements of I&C and OSH that foresee
company-level structures and institutions

Not only the employer but also employees are involved in
local, regional and sectoral organisation and networking, in
particular trade union organisations

Openness of the employer towards the establishment of
structures of interest representation and cooperation at
24
company level
External factors of influence for good practice
social dialogue



Industrial relations and collective bargaining

National “culture” of social dialogue and representation by employer and trade union
organisations

Collective bargaining agreements at national as well as regional level both at sectoral
and cross-sectoral level
Local, regional and sector-specific organisation and networking:

Local and regional employers organisations such as craft guilds, industry employer
organisations or networks of employers at various levels

Territorial social dialogue and bipartite institutions in fields such as OSH, mutual
insurance associations and general interest representation (e.g. craft chambers)

Territorial, local and regional workers and trade union organisations, again both at
sectoral and cross-sectoral level
Public authorities and governments

including tripartite initiatives, e.g. with view on OSH, CSR, work-life balance, further
training
25
Key findings on trends and challenges

Social dialogue and industrial relations
 Decreasing organizational strength of employers organisations at local and sectoral level
 Local presence of trade union organisations is eroding, lack of capacities

Working conditions and OSH
 Companies face increased competition, in particular from low cost competitors - The
‘high road’ is becoming narrower
 Increased pressure on costs have a negative effect on employment and working conditions
as well as OSH standards

EU level developments and deregulation
 Positive effects: I&C regulation, concrete outcomes of EU level social dialogue, OSH
regulation and guidance
 Negative effects: Deregulation (craft sector), effects of common market, “softness“ of SD
regulation
 OSH regulation: Lifting of regulatory frameworks for micro companies not regarded as a
specific need
26
Overall conclusions
 What
we already knew:

MSCs have received little attention by research on industrial
relations and working conditions, including OSH

Social dialogue in MSCs is shaped and influenced very much by
the peculiar character of the employer – employee relationship

In particular in micro companies social dialogue is mostly not
based on formalised structures

OSH practice in MSCs and in particular in micro companies is
characterised by a lack of awareness, resources and influence
27
Overall conclusions

What we didn’t knew (or now know better):

The differences between micro and small companies are significant

The role of the employer is key - good practice in social dialogue is often resulting from a specific
leadership approach and often linked to a specific business strategy

Good practice is very much shaped by the national IR context of labour relations ‘culture’ which
favour or obstruct social dialogue at company level

Representation and availability of resources provided by local and regional resources (often at
sector/professional level) is a crucial factor of influence, in particular for micro companies

Consultation and negotiation practice at company level prerequisites not only solid involvement of
the employer in representative structures but also strong employee representation within and outside
the company

The trend of decentralisation of IR and collective bargaining affects social dialogue in micro and
small companies much more than in larger companies

The influence of EU level policy and regulation is contradictory

With view on OSH we found no evidence that existing regulation is regarded as unnecessary
burden
28
•
Many thanks for your attention !
•
Jean-Michel MILLER
•
•
[email protected]
www.eurofound.europa.eu
29