Proposition 51K2223

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 11 juillet 1978 organisant les relations entre les autorités publiques et les syndicats du personnel militaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 23, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces trade union

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 23, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I will give you a very brief oral report of our discussions on the Bill amending the Act of 11 July 1978 regulating the relations between the government and the trade unions of military personnel.

The draft law was essentially discussed in the Defence Committee during the meeting of 8 February last year and it was discussed for the second time in the committee, yesterday, 22 February, because an additional amendment had been submitted in the plenary session.

During the meeting of 8 February 2006, the Minister explained the bill. The minister said the bill fits into the general revision of the military trade union statute. The draft aims mainly at the establishment of consultative bodies in the field of well-being within the military force, and in particular the establishment of basic consultative committees and the appointment of prevention advisors.

A number of other provisions in the present bill are intended primarily to strengthen the prerogatives of the trade unions and their representatives.

Subsequently, colleague Meus initiated the general discussion. Ms. Meeus said that this bill would increase legal certainty. However, Ms. Meeus asked that the new arrangement would be sufficiently communicated so that the military knows what it is about.

Mr Sevenhans criticized some elements of the draft law and subsequently submitted an amendment, in particular to delete the first and second paragraphs of Article 8 of the draft law. In terms of content, it is actually about the discussion of which trade unions can represent which category of soldiers, or specifically: former or retired soldiers. The amendment was put to the vote after the discussion and at the end of the meeting and rejected.

Ms. Vautmans asked the minister to clearly create in the different welfare structures. Ms. Douifi expressed her support for the bill on behalf of her group. Ms. Wiaux also gave her consent and welcomed the fact that the text had been drawn up in concert and with the great contribution of the trade unions.

The proposal was initially accepted with 12 votes for and 2 abstentions. In second instance, the draft was returned to the committee due to an amendment by Ms. Douifi and myself. The amendment referred to a forgetfulness in the text, in particular that candidate-military musicians also cannot be accepted as union representatives.

This opportunity has been used by the services to make some text corrections. The amendment was adopted with 10 votes and 2 abstentions, which was also the result of the final vote on the draft.

Here is my brief report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Geerts, thank you very much. There is an oral report because we did not have an additional written report. Their

Is no one registered for the general meeting? Mr Sevenhans is? How is it possible; this has to do with the army and I had not seen you!

First Mr Sevenhans is speaking and then Mrs. Meeus.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I have heard the report of Mr. Geerts. It was indeed a short report. Therefore, I would like to add something to it.

Colleagues, I would like to acknowledge that this bill is useful and necessary, but there is still a famous adder under the grass. This bill regulates a number of aspects concerning the trade unions, but it also specifies a number of provisions that I think cannot be overcome.

The bill, which was submitted to the military negotiation committee in June 2005, in fact contains a facelift of the law of 11 July 1978. Colleagues, the ACOD has used these negotiations to request an amendment of Article 12 of this law. That article sets out the conditions for recognition of a trade union. It includes, among other things, that a trade union should represent the interests of all categories of military personnel, former military personnel or their rightholders. However, former military personnel or their rightholders have no influence on a mere representativity check, as only active personnel are considered for this purpose. Furthermore, such a representativity control applies only to the trade unions that are not affiliated with the National Labour Council, in other words, to the non-political trade unions. On this basis, since 1995, only the ACMPCGMP was recognized as representative of military personnel.

To the surprise of the neutral trade unions, but also to the surprise of the military government, the ACOD, during the negotiations on the bill in June 2005, proposed to replace in Article 12 of the Act of 11 July 1978 the term "pensioned military personnel" with "pensioned military personnel". Colleagues, this is ⁇ not an innocent change, because as a result all former, but not retired, military in practice can no longer be a member of a non-political trade union, because there is currently no one.

For political trade union organisations, this problem does not occur, as the former military personnel can join the civil defence personnel sector of the organization concerned. However, military trade unions are also competent in matters relating to former, unpensioned military personnel. I mean, for example, the compensatory pensions. As an argument, the ACOD argues that, as a military trade organization, one should only focus on the target group of military personnel. They were joined by the chairman of the negotiating committee and the two other political organizations, CCOD and VSOA.

Those three unions together form the colour unions. For the neutral trade unions in general and for the ACMP in particular, this could have serious consequences after the introduction of the mixed-track concept in which a large part of the military could flow to a civilian function at the Department of Land Defense.

On behalf of the Flemish Interest, I therefore object to the amendment of Article 12. For political trade unions, this problem does not arise, since former military personnel may, as I have already said, join the civil defence personnel sector of the organization concerned. In other words, there are ⁇ two sizes and two weights. Colleagues, this bill is no less than an attack on the non-political trade unions. To such sluggish manoeuvres the Flemish Interest does not wish to cooperate. Therefore, I will not support this bill.

Dear colleagues, I will be very brief. The army is changing. The army of more than thirty years ago, in which the officer spoke and the soldier listened and executed virtually without rights, no longer exists. Today, Defence has evolved into a modern company with a modern management. Think about the introduction of sliding hours. Who would have ever thought thirty years ago that the military today could decide when to start and finish his day’s task? Who ever thought that Defence would organize childcare? These are only a few examples.

Defence modernizes and adapts to the needs of the time. This bill also stands in the sign of modern management, of corporate culture. A modern company with modern management where consultation is central, where consultation is first consulted and only then carried out in broad consensus. In the negotiations, trade unions are primarily at the centre. Therefore, a general revision of the military trade union statute was necessary and also urgent. There was an urgent need for adjustments to the example of the trade union statute of the public office. The members of the VLD consider that this bill deserves all support. The modernization of defence must continue. As VLD-ers, we will therefore continue to ensure that this modernization gets a lasting passage.

Mr. Speaker, this bill can be welcomed, since it is about responding to the necessary adaptation of the legal provisions relating to consultation, which follow the implementation, within the armed forces, of consultation bodies in the field of well-being, in particular by the creation of a basic consultation committee and the establishment of prevention advisors.

In addition, this bill responds to a comment from the Arbitration Court, which is to strengthen the prerogatives of trade unions and their delegates. It should also be noted that the observations of the State Council are met. I repeat this, and Mr. Geerts also stressed this: there was a trade union consultation on this bill; it is therefore the fruit of the trade union consultation.