European Social Dialogue & the Civil Service Maastricht, 23 Nov.2004 European Social Dialogue & the Civil Service Georges Monard President of the Board of Directors Personnel and Organisation Belgium page

Background: Interprofessional level EU Cross-sector Social Dialogue produced 3 framework agreements > Directives ECJ Case-Law (art 39) considers civil servants as ‘workers’ > Directives apply to Civil Servants Negotiation Cross-Sector Social Dialogue = UNICE (private sector Employers) CEEP (public sector Employers, mainly public entreprises) ETUC (private and public sector Employees) Public Administration Employers by-passed Page 2 page

Background: Sector level (Admin) No formal EU Social Dialogue Sectoral Committee Informal EU social dialogue for Central Public Administration sector : Decided by Ministers in Strasbourg (2000) Between Presidency/Troïka and Trade Union Representatives (EPSU, USSP/CESI, Eurofedop) Information/Discussion based on agenda Ministers and DGs meetings Involvement (Dutch Presidency) of the T.U. Representativess in HRM WG Has proved ‘problematic’ Page 3

Follow-up Ministers’ mandate The DGs will examine ways to improve the activities in the area of social dialogue (Ministers in Rome, 2003) Belgian Survey: where do DGs stand on this issue ? Interprofessional and Sectoral levels Employers and Employees Representation Scope of a ‘Central Administration’ Sector Page 4

Interprofessional Social Dialogue A large majority of DGs want to be present at that level (16 of 21) Why ? Because agreements are made at that level which become binding for Public Administration staff Page 5

Sectoral (Formal) Social Dialogue A majority is in favour of upgrading from informal to formal dialogue in the Central Public Administration Sector (13 of 21) A few prefer to keep it informal or think time is not yet ripe for this upgrading Page 6

Employers’ Representation A large majority (14 of 21) favours EUPAN to play that role Some would rather go through CEEP (4 through national affiliations; 1 through a collective affiliation of EUPAN to CEEP) Some wonder if there is an appropriate answer… Page 7

Employees’ Representation A vast majority favours a pluralistic representation where the 3 European organisations be represented, based on their representativeness One favours a representation by EPSU alone Some expect a role of the European Commission to settle the issue, on basis of the Representativity report (Louvain) Page 8

Scope (« périmètre ») of a PA Sector Central P.A. first MS who have specific problems (e.g. federal states; countries where Central Civil Service has authority over regional and/or local government) may have to involve sub-national entities, at home, in preparing and formulating their ‘national’ positions Page 9

Conclusion : a suggestion Could we ask the Luxembourg Presidency to : take over this issue and report to the Ministers next June ? Page 10