Proposition 53K1614

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 décembre 2007 relative aux élections sociales de l'année 2008.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

June 21, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work occupational safety works council workers' representation election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

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 ¶

July 7, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report, but there is no one. Due to the urgency, it was agreed that I would submit a verbal report.

The Social Affairs Committee discussed the proposed bills yesterday. Minister Milquet stated in her introductory presentation that the next social elections will be held from 7 to 20 May 2012. To ensure that the elections were conducted properly, three draft proposals were submitted.

Colleagues, more than 6 000 companies are involved in the organization. Before that election period, a number of provisions should be adopted to determine the different stages and modalities of implementation. This is normally done by royal decree, but since the government is still in progress, it has been chosen to submit the implementation modalities to Parliament through drafts. In this way, the upcoming social elections can be well prepared.

A first draft sets out the threshold from which a company must establish a business council. The election of the corporate councils is still regulated by the law of 20 September 1948. The threshold was set at 50 employees. Following the consultation of the social partners, it was decided to set the threshold of 100 employees. However, it was stipulated that this does not exclude the threshold that will be fixed next time.

A second draft regulates the electoral procedure. The procedure runs according to a strict calendar and extends over a period of almost 6 months. It implies that companies that are required to organize social elections must start the electoral process from December 2011.

A third draft modernizes and simplifies the electoral procedure. The Minister pointed out in this context the numerous initiatives of the FOD Employment, Labour and Social Consultation with a view to modernization, by enabling computer science. For example, a special website is created.

During the discussion of the draft, a number of amendments were submitted.

There was an amendment by Mr D’haeseleer, which stipulates that the candidate lists for the social elections can be proposed either by representative workers’ organisations or by 10 % of the number of employees in the enterprise.

This was explained by Mr D’Haeseleer.

Ms. Demir asked why no quotas are introduced in the social elections, for the sake of a more balanced relationship between the two sexes. She believed that trade unions also have a role of example in this area.

Mrs Van Den Ende submitted an amendment providing that the staff representative who was elected by law because only one candidacy was submitted enjoys the same protection from dismissal as an elected staff representative. The Minister supported this amendment.

The thus amended bills were all three adopted with 11 votes for and one vote against.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today the Government wants to urgently approve the present bills to enable the social elections of next year. They limit themselves, as they say, to some technical adjustments, but refuse to conduct the fundamental debate over the obsolete provisions of the law of 20 September 1948 concerning the organization of the business.

Colleagues, in theory, social elections should be a thorough exercise in democracy, giving workers in all freedom the opportunity to determine who will represent them in the next four years in social consultation. In practice, however, the three traditional column-linked trade unions have organized a monopoly for themselves, with two legal provisions, namely Article 20ter of the Act of 20 September 1948, which stipulates that candidate lists can only be submitted by interprofessional representative workers' organisations and Article 14 of the same law, which sets the standard for membership in the National Labour Council and the Central Council for Business.

By determining that only voting lists can be submitted by a trade union that has a seat in the NAR and the CRB, the voting threshold for participation is unattainably high. After all, it is the three monopolists ACV, ABVV and ACLVB on the Flemish side who can decide who is part of it. In the past, they have already effectively rejected an application for membership of, for example, NUOS, the National Union of Independent Syndicates.

So it is as if sp.a, VLD and CD&V could jointly decide who can participate in the municipal council elections next year.

There is also a huge problem in terms of representativity. In fact, it is remarkable that the three parties affiliated with ACLVB, ACV and ABVV won no more than 50 % of the votes at the last elections. In fact, Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals no longer have a majority in Flanders. This proposal, with this draft, reaffirms that they receive 100% of the monopoly on the submission of lists at the social elections and thus also 100% of the seats for the next four years in all bodies for individual and collective social consultation in our companies.

More than 50% of Flanders votes for Flemish autonomy and change and that will probably not be less on the next elections, but in the next four years in all those bodies 100% only the Belgicist trade union vote for status quo and against any change. Such a monopoly in elections is undemocratic and goes against the electoral behavior of the Flaming.

There is a simple solution, and I will submit them with an amendment: simply give the Flemish workers the same rights as the Flemish framework members. This means that a list can be submitted provided that 10 % of the employees’ signatures. This is generally the case in our neighboring countries. Why should management members submit their own home lists and employees not? I think there is no objective explanation for this.

Elections where only three monopolies are always involved, of course, generate little enthusiasm among the workers. This leads to the complete sclerosis of social elections, to the extent that the trade unions often have the greatest difficulty in finding candidates and that due to the lack of interest of the workers, they are often not even organized at all. In the absence of candidates or because there are fewer or as many candidates as the number of mandates to be granted, the elections are often also suspended. The remaining mandates are then assigned directly to the candidates.

In some sectors, the failure of employers to hold social elections is also paid cash to the trade unions through large amounts funded through the subsistence funds. A good example is construction. In this sector, a quarter of large construction companies do not hold social elections. In exchange, the trade unions receive enormous amounts from the Construction Fund, without any further control.

Colleagues, there are numerous legal elements to say that the current monopoly of the three pillar-linked trade unions is contrary to the Constitution, the anti-discrimination law and the conventions on labour law and collective consultation ratified by Belgium. Freedom of association implies, according to established jurisprudence, that not being a member of an association must not lead to disadvantages. A worker who is prevented from participating in social elections because he does not want or may be a member of three monopolies is, of course, seriously disadvantaged.

In addition, for several years, the Constitution guarantees the basic social right to information consultation and collective bargaining. This is flagrantly denied to an employee who does not want or may be a member of any of the three monopolies. Various international treaties and agreements, like those of the International Labour Organization, guarantee workers the right to participate in individual and collective labour consultation, as well as participation in normal trade union function. In the current situation and with this bill, a mass of workers is prevented from exercising these rights.

We will vote against it with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak from my bench to say all the importance we attach to social dialogue and therefore to the proper organization of social elections, which is why we did not oppose the government’s demand for emergency last week, and that we will support the first two bills.

On the other hand, we will not support the third bill, which aims to introduce a new derogation that sets the threshold from which a business council must be set up at 100. We oppose this text for four reasons.

1 of 1. The derogation from the threshold of 50 workers was to be temporary in order to allow workers to gradually adapt to the legislation and, in force of perpetuating the transitional, the principle of the rule is challenged.

2 of 2. No opinion of the National Labour Council on this principle of derogation has been issued since 2007.

3 of 3. If it is true that this principle was the subject of a debate in the context of preparing an interprofessional agreement, we know what happened to the text: it no longer exists. If social partners agreed on the subject, this is no longer the case today.

4 of 4. We believe that from an economic and organizational point of view, companies have everything to gain from the establishment of a well-organized and respectful social dialogue. They should not be afraid of it.

Why not establish a corporate council from 50 employees? We do not support the derogation from this legal principle.