Fundamental rights related to social partners

Participants described Luxembourg as a melting pot with a diverse workforce, with workers from many different nationalities. The social partners have continuous social dialogue. They come together two times a year and they also discuss social security. There is a long tradition of tripartite social dialogue and the parties generally adopt a positive proactive approach, it is a good long-term system. 

With regards to freedom of association for employers, a small fringe of employers have complained about mandatory membership of the chamber of commerce, however, in employers’ associations there is no mandatory membership. 

One participant mentioned that the employer side was concerned about EU initiatives on social dialogue, because ‘strengthening social dialogue’ was sometimes shorthand for companies being forced to the negotiating table. Instead, there should be incentives for companies to agree to collective agreements. Labour law was advantageous for trade unions, with strong legal and social protections, and no possibility of derogation. It was thus difficult to obtain advantages in collective bargaining, leading to a decrease in agreements with only about 5-6 sectoral agreements remaining. As an example, a working time agreement in the cleaning sector was found illegal by the courts and even the trade union that had signed the agreement was ultimately against it in court.

 The tendency towards legislation instead of collective bargaining had been increasing in the last 10 years, and also at the European level. The employers felt that what was not obtained with them, trade unions went to the government to obtain. The trade unions on the other hand felt it was the opposite. Negotiations are often tripartite and when no agreement is found, the government decides through legislation. The outcome then depends on the political orientation of the party in power. 

The right to strike was not limited to conflicts connected to collective bargaining agreements, and it was allowed to strike in reaction to social or employment policies. The additional protocol to the European Social Charter had not been ratified. One participant mentioned that many companies did not respect the information obligation linked to democracy at work, despite research showing its positive socio-economic benefits, and more enforcement tools were needed. With regards to respect for fundamental rights in companies and due diligence, the trade unions were for binding legislation affecting all sectors and the entire supply chain. For fundamental social rights to be implemented there was a need for more efficient control, financial sanctions and public shaming of companies. Labour inspection should be well resourced and cross-border cooperation enabled. With regards to workers with a disability, there was a unique structure for work reintegration and people in a protected work situation had equal status. The state provided for special material for assistance, job coaching and awareness raising in work places. However, further inclusion in the real labour market was needed. Although consultations were always granted, they mostly felt like a formality and there was a lack of representation of people with disabilities in decision-making processes that affected them.