1. Collective bargaining in multinational firms Project promoter:National Commission of NSZZ “Solidarność” Project partner:Norwegian Trade Union Confederation: LO Duration: 24 m-ths: 01.01.2013 – 31.12.2014 Budget:477 394 EUR Grant from Norway:426 669 EUR General objective: Development and dissemination of methods supporting collective bargaining in private sector Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

2. PROJECT RESULTS PLANNED REACHED Research report PL and EN1 + 1 - companies covered8081 - interviews800681 Guide on collective bargaining in Norway11 training program on collective bargaining12 Union trainers prepared14 Union leaders trained116187 Good practises on collective bargaining: a collection01 A book on trade union and collective bargaining in the world of the global companies 1in development Research report in NO1in development

3. Cross cutting issues Sustainability: the project was designed to explain the importance and role of effective collective bargaining system in the social and economic development of a country. This concept was consequently introduced to the participants of the courses and it was delivered in the report and the book. Gender equality: gender issues were introduced as one of the possible new areas to be included in the collective bargaining. Also participation of women in the project courses was fostered. Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

4. Partnership with LO Never left with no help A lot of support A lot of understanding Nothing like a problem that could not been helped LO’s experts and their knowledge and professional experience always available A Lesson learnt: summer holidays are sacred Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

5. Obstacles Problems with sending the application (it „disappeared” between the computers) Once we started: time & money Original project implementation plan – too ambitious, in two major tasks delays occurred: no „space” for unexpected developments, ie. illness etc., Delay in accomplishment of project tasks – shift in payments = lower costs – decrease in the next disbursement Norwegian: a very expensive language Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

6. Norway grants: Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Better flexibility in all aspects of project realization and management: Changes in the activities costs: reasonable accepted by Innovation Norway with no delay Minimum bureaucracy Perfect communication/contact between IN and project promoter: e-mails and texts if necessary; immediate +/- the rules for the use of the public procurement national regulations not „crystal clear” in Polish case ( various interpretations) Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

7. Systematic difference in program management approach: 1.Better flexibility: tailor cut activities „The devil’s in the detail.” 2. Main focus on project objectives and results: whatever improves the results and objectives is welcomed ( even if not foreseen before) 3. Easier to reach and enhance the desired effects of the project. Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

8. Systematic difference in the base logic of the program: 1.Clearly defined „social partner” 2.Funding for SOCIAL PARTNERS 3.Funding to reinforce DECENT WORK Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program

9. What might be improved: Reporting – technical aspects: 90% (of the incurred costs) disbursement: not possible to avoid the „money gap” Another solution: IF min. XX% of the planned costs has been achieved in the reporting period THEN up to 90% of the planned costs for the next RP may be asked for Activity based budget – form of the table – any budget change requires very careful „analogue” check of each line – tiring and time consuming Supported by a grant from Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014, in the frame of the Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue Program