1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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