Proposition 54K1048

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 décembre 2007 relative aux élections sociales, la loi du 20 septembre 1948 portant organisation de l'économie et la loi du 4 août 1996 relative au bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 29, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work works council organisation of elections workers' representation appeal trade union election election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

May 21, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will present a brief report and for the rest I refer to the written report.

The current draft law regulates the social elections that will take place in our country in May 2016. A novelty is that this is arranged in one design, where that was previously arranged in different pieces. The draft has been submitted quite on time, knowing that social elections will only take place next year.

The procedure is based on an agreement between the social partners, as was informed by the Minister of Labour. The procedure is very similar to that of 2012, the previous social elections.

The boundaries for the organization of social elections remain at the same thresholds: fifty for the Committee on Prevention and Protection at Work and one hundred for a business council. This gave rise to some animosity in the committee between members who want to permanently uphold the thresholds and members who believe that the thresholds should be set at fifty anyway.

There was some criticism of the agreement of the social partners when it comes to gender, the list vote and the fact that the three representative organisations can submit lists. This criticism was discussed in the committee.

For the rest, I refer to the written report.

From 9 to 22 May 2016, the next social elections will be held within our companies. These elections, which take place every four years, are an important democratic moment, as they allow workers to elect their representatives in business boards and committees for prevention and protection at work (CPPT). Currently, they concern more than 3,500 companies for the election of corporate boards and more than 6,800 companies for CPPTs.

The election of corporate boards is governed by the law of 20 September 1948, while the institution of the CPPT is, in turn, governed by the law of 4 August 1996. These two laws require enforcement measures that have traditionally taken the form of a royal decree. However, in the 2008 and 2012 social elections, it was the legal path that was chosen to implement these two laws as the government was in common affairs.

Since the adopted legal provisions concerned matters covered by both Article 77 and Article 78 of the Constitution, it was necessary to draft two separate laws: the Act of 4 December 2007 and the Act of 4 December 2007 on judicial remedies.

In view of the 2016 elections, it is now necessary to re-adjust these laws taking into account two new elements. On the one hand, there is the sixth state reform that substantially changed the legislative procedure. On the other hand, in view of the preparation for the 2016 social elections, the social partners gathered in the National Labour Council (CNT) had been asked to evaluate the existing regulation. This assessment led to the adoption by the CNT of Opinions No. 1883 and 1919 containing proposals for the adjustment of the procedure.

Considering these two developments, as well as the experience of organizing previous social elections, the bill, first, groups the two laws of 4 December 2007 into one. Second, it incorporates in this law provisions that were previously governed by two royal decrees. Third, it simplifies and modernizes the electoral procedure by following the unanimous recommendations of the social partners. Fourth, it adapts the conditions of eligibility of candidates for the social elections of business boards, in order to make them equivalent to what prevails at the level of the committees for prevention and protection at work. Fifth, it ⁇ ins for the 2016 social elections the threshold for the establishment of corporate boards of 100 workers.

On behalf of the group MR, I can only welcome this bill, of which I would like to highlight three aspects in particular.

First of all, I would like to highlight the effort of Mr. the Minister to submit this bill to us quickly, so that social elections can be adequately prepared.

Next, I would like to welcome the work done to centralize all provisions relating to social elections into a single text, thus making legislation clearer and more legible. I am also pleased that the Minister has taken the opportunity to simplify and modernize the procedure.

Finally, and as provided for in this bill, it is essential to renew the derogation granted in the previous elections, setting the threshold for the establishment of business boards to 100 workers. Indeed, a change in this threshold a few months before the start of the preparation for the elections would have been inoperable for our companies and the services concerned. However, Mr. Minister, I consider that it would be desirable to provide a definitive legal anchorage at this threshold of one hundred workers in the future in order to avoid any controversy in the future and to bring the necessary clarity and legal certainty. This could be considered after these social elections and ahead of those of 2020. Therefore, I propose to carry out a reflection around this important topic in collaboration with colleagues from all parties that wish to do so and to set this threshold in a law.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the MR group will vote in favour of this bill which aims to make the legislation on social elections more coherent and legible and which therefore fits perfectly into the government’s policy of administrative modernization and simplification.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I will be relatively brief, because this project does not require very long discussions.

We know that social elections represent a ⁇ important moment in our democracy and require great organization. Given the number of disputes they are sometimes the subject of, they also require sharp legislation.

You are the Minister in charge of social consultation. You therefore know pertinently, though, that it precedes the drafting of legislation, as well as the opinion of the National Labour Council. This is a crucial moment for companies and workers’ representative organisations – even though some question their existence. Of course, everyone wants all of this to work as best as possible.

This is exactly the same for other types of elections, whether they are municipal, provincial or federal.

On November 25, 2014, a unanimous agreement was reached within the National Labour Council. Therefore, we are not dealing with the Group of Eight, but with a unanimous agreement. This agreement is translated into your bill, but as I pointed out in the committee, it seems to me that it leaves three questions pending: two questions that had been raised by the National Labour Council and one additional question that was not included in the CNT agreement but is nevertheless in your bill.

You know that the social partners demanded that the introduction of an electronic list be followed by an accusation of receipt. Today, workers' representative organizations file a paper list and receive a receipt certificate. Tomorrow we will introduce this also electronically. While I am pleased that technological progress is taken into account, it seems quite normal for me that a receipt statement is also established, especially since this does not seem difficult to implement. This helps to avoid disputes as it will give a certain date for the submission of the list. I therefore ask a simple question: will a receipt statement be transmitted to trade unions when submitting an electronic list of candidates?

The National Labour Council also considered that we were facing social elections and that the formalism of the lists to be submitted on paper should not be increased. There is a certain formalism. I remember having experienced, before the labour court of Charleroi, contestations of social elections simply because the margins were not respected on a specified form. A trade union organization which considered that it had not achieved sufficient results and therefore elected members of the business board had filed an appeal because it claimed that the other trade union organization had not formally complied with the paper form. This caused disputes for months; it cost a huge amount of money to the company that, having edited the forms, had to defend itself.

You can imagine that it can be dramatic. The National Labour Council considered that no additional formalities were needed for paper filing. However, as part of your bill, the lists must comply with the template in the annex to the bill. Suppose there is a slight disagreement. Can you confirm that a non-compliance of a list of candidates submitted on paper will not result in invalidity? Yes or not? If necessary, you will fully respect the unanimous agreement of the National Labour Council.

The National Labour Council did not discuss the transmission of the lists. You added, as part of your project, that the lists should no longer be transmitted to the unions as there is a trade union delegation. Imagine that in a company, the liberal trade union or the socialist trade union has a trade union delegation and that the CSC, the ACW, has no representative, because there are not enough affiliates. But a good election campaign and very high demands for workers make it likely to go to seek enough votes to be present in the business board.

The only problem is that she can’t move forward, transmit her electoral program to the workers, because she doesn’t have the list. Organising a trade union meeting in a company where you do not have a trade union delegation is not easy. Could the provisional voting lists, like before, be passed on to all trade unions?

I believe, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, that three yes from you – reassure yourself, this is not a marriage request – would demonstrate that you are really the Minister of Social Consultation, the one who has well understood and well integrated some legitimate clarifications to be made, or some legitimate requests.

This would lead me to withdraw, on behalf of my group, the amendments we have submitted that go in this direction. As you are in good faith, as I feel you want to move forward, it would lead me to trust you for the respect not only of the employers but also of the workers, for the proper organization of the social consultation and the proper organization of a very important democratic event in our country: the social elections. I want to give you that confidence, Mr. Speaker. I wish, on behalf of my group, that we can say yes to you and vote on this bill. I hope you answer yes three times and we can go forward together.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I will not resume the discussions we had in committee on this bill, but simply synthesize these discussions on a few points.

You have continued the work started during the previous legislature to optimize the social election procedure.

This project brings more clarity and visibility; this is obviously a positive point. A number of elements alleviate the administrative burden of the procedure. Recognize that it is not always easy, both on the trade union bank and for employers, to follow the procedure accurately and clearly.

It may be a blunder, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister. From the unanimous opinion of the CNT, you took everything back, except for the request of the social partners that a receipt statement be generated in the case of electronic submission of a list of candidates.

For reasons of legal certainty, it would be appropriate that the opinion of the social partners be followed on this point. I had submitted an amendment in the committee, which was not followed by the majority. I re-submit this amendment because, from a legal point of view, taking into account the views of all the social partners, it would be reasonable that the submission by electronic means could be fully in place in order to avoid, subsequently, any possible recourse.

Everything is perfectionable. Social elections are repeated. They are not the first and they will not be the last. In this context, I would like, in a prospective way and not for next year’s elections, but for 2020’s elections, to raise three points. In fact, it is you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, who will also have to prepare the legal texts for the elections. They will have to be published in 2019.

The first is about the thresholds. One cannot, continually, write legislations that violate the basic legislation, which is done here, since the basic law is the law of 20 September 1948, that this debate on the threshold is not new. It was established in 2008, in 2012. He rests with the social partners for the 2016 elections. For the 2020 elections, we will have to decide on the legal level. This can only be done in consultation with the social partners. On this level, it is high time to no longer deviate from the basic laws and that the next law in the matter is clear on this point.

The second aspect for the future is the question of the distinction between workers and employees. Everybody agrees today that the distinction between white and blue collars is no longer necessary, especially given the reality within many companies.

The Constitutional Court also ruled on the notice period and the day of default in a very clear ruling, with a basic argument that reminds that the distinction between workers and employees constitutes a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed by the Constitution. It is true that the law of 20 September 1948 for social elections provides for a separate representation of workers and employees in the business council and the CPPT. Again, Mr. Minister, I think you will agree: by 2020, this aspect of things will have to be settled. This is the call I make to you: it will be necessary to ensure that workers can still be represented. The same could be said in some ⁇ where the workers are in the overwhelming majority. Employees need to be represented.

The third and final point on which we will need to make further progress in the future is the representation of women. This is not guaranteed at all. Certainly, there were initiatives, including a charter. There has been a slight improvement in the last elections. As customs do not obviously evolve on their own, a small legislative boost will be needed to support the presence of women on the lists. The argument that in some sectors there are few women is admissible. However, there are many sectors where women are the majority, but unfortunately, they are not, or very little, present in corporate boards and CPPT.

Here are, dear colleagues, the elements that I wanted to put forward here, you will have understood it, essentially so that, in a more prospective way, we can evaluate and evolve this legislation in view of the 2020 social elections, at least on the three points I just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, even if our amendment is not accepted, we will vote positively for this bill, as I have done in committee. Social elections are an integral part of our model of social consultation as well as the consultation bodies within companies that are ⁇ important.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief. Since I come from Mr. Peumans’ school, I dare not other than hold my short speech on this speaker’s floor. I have notes, but I will only use them to quote.

I am not against trade unions, on the contrary. I think our trade unions in the past have contributed to allowing us all to be socially deprived. We must thank the trade unions for this.

There are also trade union headquarters who continue to fulfill their duty and do what they must do, namely defend the interests of the workers on the workplace. From a number of dramatic records from the recent past, especially in the manufacturing industry, we have learned that the trade unions were often the only ones who dared to stand up against the great capital, for which we thank.

Does this mean that we agree with the whole trade union? and no. The national trade union leadership too often engages in national politics and abuses the strike weapon too often. I regret that. At some power stations, the accounting is quite blurred, usually unclear, and then I express myself cautiously. And yes, there are trade union centers that conduct a discriminatory policy against people with clear political beliefs. We have criticisms about this.

The present draft law is a technical draft law that adapts a number of matters to existing legislation and that should not actually give rise to a deep political debate. However, after reviewing the committee’s report, I read the words of Mr Hedebouw, in a response to colleague Clarinval, and I quote: “The high rate of syndicalization in Belgium proves that workers in our country are highly demanding parties to be involved in corporate policy.”

I think Mr Hedebouw has a too idealistic image of our employees. Mr Hedebouw, our employees do not become members of a trade union because they are idealist syndicalists. No, they do that for practical, pragmatic reasons.

I will give an example from a sector that I know very well. In the port of Antwerp, every port worker is affiliated to a trade union because he must be affiliated. You cannot become a port worker if you are not a member of one of the three recognized port trade unions. Even worse, you can not promote in the port of Antwerp if you are not a member of one of the three recognized port trade unions. Worse, one cannot change shift in the port of Antwerp and also in the other Flemish ports if one is not a member of one of the three recognised port trade unions. At the end of your career, you can also not take advantage of the preferential scheme for reduced working capacity if you are not a member of one of the three recognised port trade unions.

Am I against it? Not by itself. I support the principles set out in the Law on Port Work. I am a supporter of what can be called a closed shop. I would even like to conclude with the story that the trade unions can decide in this regard. But, and now I come to the essence of today’s debate, there’s something thoroughly loose with the strength ratio between the three unions.

For 50 years or more, the Socialists have been able to nominate more than 60% of the number of port workers. The green trade union follows with a little less, and the blue trade union with even less. There is no one who asks this question, no one who asks that in this company, not with hundreds but with thousands of employees, Mr. Hedebouw, social elections would be organized.

Worse, not only in the pool of port workers, but also in the port company itself, which provides facility services and where thousands of people are employed, social elections are never held. There, too, the social relations have been fixed for more than 50 years: so much for the red trade union, so much for the green, so much for the blue.

Isn’t all this legislation hypocritical? I read that Mr. Van Quickenborne also pointed out in the debate that there are never social elections. And this applies not only to the pool of port workers and port companies but also to many public and semi-public sectors. This whole debate is becoming a bit hypocritical. What are we doing then? We demand democracy, transparency and fair relations. We want to know how the social relationships in Flanders are and we debate whether it should be companies of fifty or a hundred people, while we overlook companies with thousands of people.

For these reasons, Mr. Minister, I find this proposal a little hypocritical. As long as you do not have the political courage to organize social elections also in the large government companies, in the pool of port workers and in the port companies, this is nothing more than a vodka paper. Therefore, we will not approve that vodka paper this time.

I am ⁇ concerned with today’s discussion, not only for political and democratic reasons, but also for personal reasons. The issue of protection of delegates and trade union life affects me heavily. I had the misfortune of having lived the example of a mother who worked in a chemical company in Verviers and who, because she was a trade union delegate, was fired by her boss.

Worse yet, she won the Labour Court which made it clear that the dismissal was abusive. Today, in Belgium, when a boss dismisses a worker for political and trade union reasons, he has no obligation to reintegrate that worker into the company. What is worse, from a repressive point of view, than taking away someone’s salary and work for the expression of ideas in a company?

Dear colleagues, this makes me know that in Belgium, on this type of skills, human rights stop at the doors of companies. This is the discussion we have today. Yes, it touched me strongly, when at the age of 14, for six long weeks, my mother conducted, with her fellow unionist, a trade union action in front of the company in a caravan to demand to be reintegrated into the company. No professional fault was found. No defects in the production were found. The boss must have said himself in court: “Mrs. Hertogen – that’s how my mother is called – disturbs me in the management of my business. I am the boss of the company. I decide who works in this company.”

Dear colleagues, this cannot happen again! This is the subject of the debate that we lawmakers have today. This is the debate we have about the organization of trade union and social democracy in companies!

Mr. Lachaert would not be surprised, but he is no longer there.

I regret that this bill does not comply with the 2002 European Directive on social consultation and the exchange of socio-economic information in SMEs. The Directive provides that social consultation and the provision of socio-economic information must take place in undertakings from 50 employees or in establishments from 20 employees. In Belgium there are only social consultation bodies from 100 employees and from 50 employees for branches. The directive that Europe normally imposes on us is still not applied in Belgium today. This means that today in companies with 50 employees it is not possible to vote for a corporate council.

In that sense, I am a little surprised at the carte blanche in the opinion piece of Lachaert and Van Quickenborne. I read, Mr. Van Quickenborne: Democracy seeks in social elections. You say that there is no democracy in social elections. You are right. But you do not say anything about the fact that there is no voting right in Belgian SMEs. Why don’t you talk about that? Fifty percent of employees work in SMEs and have no voting rights. Why don’t you ask for voting rights for all those workers, if you want democracy in social elections? Give democracy to those 50% in SMEs.

Give democracy to 50% of these workers by giving them the right to vote in a corporate board! Instead, no, you want the limit of one hundred to be engraved in marble, while the European Union demands fifty. Therefore, you want a restriction of democracy for all workers in SMEs.

The worst thing is that after World War II, in 1948, 67 years ago, when the corporate councils were established, a limit of 50 employees was already established. Since 1948, however, in practice, the limit in Belgium remained at 100 employees.

In the Group of Ten, the social partners agreed to keep the limit at 50 for 2008 and 2012. Today’s discussion is about 2016. My question is why we do not put the limit at 50 in Belgium.

You asked the committee for a historic act. You know I want to help you, Mr. Minister. Today we can get into the history books. It will later be said that Mr. Peeters, under the impulse of the Labour Party, brought the limit back to 50 again. You can write history today, but then you must have the courage to say to your colleagues from Open Vld and the N-VA that you should not bring the limit to 100. Many workers and employees in SMEs will no longer be able to vote.

There is also a practical reason. Why is it important that trade unions can organize elections in SMEs? For me, this is, among other things, a matter of security. Statistics confirm that the most serious accidents occur in SMEs. SMEs employ 36.8 % of the total number of workers, but the SMEs share of fatal accidents is 55.9 %. Therefore, there are far more fatal accidents in SMEs than in the rest of the enterprises. It is therefore necessary that the trade unions in SMEs can monitor the application of the safety rules in our companies.

Europe proves that it can be different. There is no threshold in Sweden. In Germany and Austria, a threshold of 5 employees is applied. In Spain, the number is 6, 10 in the Netherlands and 11 in France.

The limit is 15 workers in Luxembourg and Italy, while it is 20 in Greece and Finland. The question now arises: why is it not possible to apply the limit of fifty, which, however, was concluded in 1948 at the foundation of the corporate boards and which is requested by us by Europe?

That is why, Mr. Minister, the PTB - as a party concerned with democratic law to an organized trade union expression in small and medium-sized enterprises - will not endorse this bill. We want to support a real democracy at the base, so as to confer all its rights on social democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone, the President of the Committee and all the members, for the discussion and the interventions today. It is true that the social elections are a very important moment in this country. 1 979 000 workers can vote, which is a very important group that will realize a moment of social elections and outcome.

Therefore, we have very carefully poured the opinion of the National Labour Council into this bill and we have very carefully taken into account a number of issues that Mr. Clarinval, Mr. Lachaert and others have emphasized, in particular to introduce after the sixth state reform and with time the electronic possibilities in the social elections.

There were comments, which were also discussed in the committee, and which also received a response. I want to go past them for a moment.

Ms Fonck, and other members of the committee, have rightly pointed out the problem of workers/employees. Ms Demir also asked a question about the unity lists, which was also answered. We cannot now go so far that the distinction between workers and servants is completely ignored.

Ms Fonck, you well underlined the importance of holding social elections in 2020 with a unified list.

Social elections with a unified list of workers-servants are hopefully possible before the next social elections.

You also discussed the problem of men and women. This was also discussed here.

I think you rightly refer to the charter signed by the trade unions in 2004, with which they promise and will continue to make additional efforts to ensure that men and women are represented on the candidate lists. On 6 May 2015, I myself made a call to respect the relationship between men and women in the composition of the candidate lists for the 2016 social elections.

You correctly pointed out, Ms. Fonck, that there is a difference between sectors, for example, hospitals.

There is also the port sector. We must take this into account.

You are right. We must encourage trade unions to organize a balance between women and men.

This has also been emphasized in the committee. I can join it.

A third element is the threshold of 100 employees for a corporate board.

by Mr. Clarinval and Ms Fonck highlighted the importance of organizing a law for the future as well, regarding thresholds.

We answered that we now, of course, implement the advice of the National Labour Council.

I agree with you to organize this in a different way in 2020.

Mr. Mason, you have asked three questions.

As for your first question, there is de facto an accusation of receipt of documents.

Regarding your second question concerning the nullity, I can tell you that in order to introduce the list of candidates on paper, you must use the document template contained in the annex to the law. If, at the time of the introduction of candidates, the document does not comply 100% with the model, this does not mean the nullity of the procedure or the elections.

With regard to your third question about sending lists, we have not changed anything. We have added the possibility, for some companies, to inform the delegate. I confirm to you that in practice, the unions receive the lists and we will not change anything.

As regards the follow-up of the National Labour Council opinions, I have already mentioned that we have followed them almost to the letter.

I hope that all the trade unions and the PS will agree to approve the bill.

The present bill is an important bill. I hope that we will soon be able to approve it by a large majority.

After all, it is a very important fact in this country that we organize social elections and that we organize them in a very good way, being in a legally regulated way with documents and everything on and on.

I hope that with this law we can organize the elections in May in a very good way and be aware of their results.