Fundamental rights related to social partners

Participants in this session stated that Slovenia had historically had high standards in terms of social dialogue. The social partners had always cooperated well by reaching compromises and adopting legislative acts after fruitful discussions in the Economic and Social Council (ESC), the body responsible for social dialogue. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of political will under the previous government had had a negative impact on social dialogue.

It was explained that the model of Slovenian collective bargaining dated back to the 1990s. Currently there was no general collective agreement for all economic activities. According to participants, the Act regulating collective agreements would need to be reformed. One participant felt that collective bargaining agreements needed to apply to all activities, even in cases where employer associations would not be signatories. The Act on trade union representation also dated back to the 1990s, and set a minimum threshold of trade union members employed in an individual sector, profession or by an employer as the entry condition for acquiring the properties of the union's representativity at a certain level. Trade union membership had been declining and differed significantly across sectors.

Participants informed the delegation that, since 2017, all socio-economic and labour-related draft law had to be discussed in the ESC before being put forward by the government. They also referred to a non-written rule whereby such fundamental proposals had to be adopted with the consensus of the social partners. According to participants, this prior agreement of the social partners had been an accepted practice until the situation changed under the previous government. Participants acknowledged the government's urgency to act fast in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but they also indicated that the social partners' trust had been abused on multiple occasions in that context. In their view, the COVID-19 pandemic had been used as an excuse for accelerated law-making, bypassing meaningful consultations with the social partners. As a protest against what they considered as disrespect of social dialogue standards, the trade unions stepped out of the ESC in 2021. They returned to the negotiation table in mid-2022, trusting that the change of government would be conducive to a revitalisation of social dialogue.

Despite acknowledging the re-establishment of the former consultation pattern, participants remained worried about the potential long-lasting weakening of social dialogue. They feared, in particular, that the involvement of the social partners in upcoming reforms related to the labour market, the pension system and healthcare would not be sufficiently meaningful. Participants perceived that social dialogue was treated by the government as a way to inform the social partners rather than as an proper consultation process. The Slovenian authorities acknowledged setbacks over the past two years, but sought to reassure the delegation that social dialogue had been re-established since mid-2022. Participants were very critical of the fact that, in their view, trade unions had not been properly involved in national discussions on EU initiatives such as the European Semester, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), and the Energy Package. They wanted the social partners to be informed in good time and involved in the preparation and design of measures, especially those related to European funds. They suggested that the European Commission could request an independent opinion from the social partners, and that it could also check their level of involvement in transposing EU legislation.

It was pointed out that hate speech had escalated under the former government and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the social partners were among the recipients of such attacks. One participant mentioned that the new government had promised the introduction of a coordinator for the prevention of hate speech-related activities.