Here is the list of participants in the round table: 

• for the employers’ side of the banking sector: 
  • Jens Thau, President of the Banking Committee for European Social Affairs of the European Banking Federation 
  • Emanuele Recchia, Head of Industrial Relations for the Unicredit group 
  • Giancarlo Ferrara from the Italian Banking Association 

• for the trade unions: 
  • Angelo Di Cristo for the European and international level. He is the Head of UNI Global Finance, the international federation with which FISAC-CGIL is affiliated, together with the major trade unions of our sector. UNI also represents workers in Commerce and, more in general, in the Communication Industry
  • Susanna Camusso, former Secretary-General and currently Head of International Policies for CGIL 
  • Nino Baseotto, Secretary-General of FISAC-CGIL. We will not ask him any direct questions, but we will ask him to conclude proceedings, the round table and this 3-day event.

The round table is coordinated by Mario Ongaro, European Project Director.

Each participant will be asked two questions. Some questions are the same for several participants, others are different depending on the specific role of each participant.

MARIO ONGARO

My first question is for the President of the Banking Committee for European Social Affairs of the European Banking Federation, Jens Thau:

During our latest meeting, when we had a very interesting exchange of views with some of you as employers’ representatives, we were able to identify in particular two important points of agreement concerning our proposals for the review/recasting of some parts of the EWC Directive and, more in general, the Directives on employee involvement. These points of agreement are:

• EU Directives on employee involvement also need to take into account recent changes. Therefore, it is necessary to update the current regulatory framework to ensure that social dialogue keeps playing its crucial role in all EU Member States.

• The definitions of information and consultation are different and inconsistent from one Directive to another. Therefore, we need them to be re-written or amended in order to make these definitions more uniform and rational. In this way, in all the EU Member States represented within a transnational group, social dialogue can take place in a legally consistent framework and with clear definitions of the available tools and of the common objectives to be pursued by the social partners. 

Could you please confirm that we agree on these two points? Could you suggest a way to work on them together with us as trade union representatives and as European Works Councils?

JENS THAU

Thank you, Mario and good morning, everybody. I am happy to take part in this Project and in particular in this important round table.

What Mario referred to is something he and I, together with UNI Finance, have often discussed in relation to social dialogue. The banking industry has to face several challenges, which must be seriously taken into consideration. The EWC Directives do not fully represent the needs and demands of the banking industry with regard to European consultation within groups.

This happens in several EU Member States for a number of reasons.

We are certainly facing some complex challenges. Due to local rules, traditions and habits, in the banking sector there are different employee involvement models already at the national level. Of course, these national rules go back a long way and they predate EWCs. The problem is how to successfully transpose the European legislation on EWCs into the existing national legislations.

To put it diplomatically, the rules on how to combine the European Directive with national legislations are not always perfect. They definitely need to be improved. In order to make EWCs more effective, we must absolutely create an area where they can operate. It is not enough to simply add EWCs to the existing national rules.

So our dialogue is very important to understand which values we can add at the European level.

In this regard, Mario has already highlighted two very important points.

In the very different regulations existing across Europe, no one has dedicated enough time to harmonize things and to make all local and national initiatives consistent with the European ones.

We obviously know that Directives are one thing and daily work within individual companies and industrial groups is another. We know that we can always find a way at the European level. We need to do the same also at the company level, in order to harmoniously integrate the added value of EWCs within a company.

In this respect, I think it is important to leave companies free to find the solution that best suits them. This is the best possible solution for them. I think both parties agree on this. 

Of course, someone’s evaluation of legislation and idea of what Directives should depend on the actual functioning of the EWC in a given company.

Some believe that it may be best to find a single model that is simple enough to be applied in all situations, without too many changes. 

In my opinion, this is feasible in the banking industry, but not necessarily in other sectors.

With respect to changes in work organization, considering the speed of change in the banking sector, I think this topic should be treated separately from the Directive. When the Directive is adopted, the speed of change has already made it obsolete. 

Furthermore, work organization is in a way an issue of competition between one bank and the other, both in relation to employees and clients. It goes back to what a company represents on the market and for its employees. If you think that there could be a single approach for the whole sector – the only possible one for a Directive – you risk leaving out the needs which a highly digitalized, project-oriented banking sector requires, also in relation to the functioning of the EWC. This is why I think that many of the rules adopted by works councils are in certain respects different from the prescriptions of the Directive.

This is the first issue raised by Mario. I want to strongly underline that we support increased flexibility. And the people sitting in a bank’s EWC deserve more trust. They are highly trained, skilled workers with many ideas and a considerable potential. They can organize their own EWC activities more independently than workers from other sectors, who would need more help for the legislative aspects. In the banking industry we focus more on the freedom we need to have new forms of work – which are also reflected in the work of EWCs.

This potential can be better exploited in the framework of the Directives. 

With respect to the second point, what Mario said is of key importance. The various Directives on employee involvement create a sort of mosaic. It is not only a matter of clarifying or harmonizing the rules. I would not say that they are contradictory, but they are hard to align. This adds to the difficulty we have to align EWCs with the national traditions of employee involvement.

With respect to the European level, I would like to go back to our latest Plenary, which took place in Rome in November 2019. There, we said that it is necessary to clearly distinguish the different roles. 

With regard to employee involvement, EWCs must be able to make the most of their abilities. For instance, EWCs are not supervisory boards. The real issue for EWCs is getting the information in good time and being free to make assessments and discuss with employers. A supervisory board does not have this kind of freedom. 

This potential strength of EWCs is very important. We need to promote this idea and we need an adequate regulatory framework. In this respect, since our sector is at the forefront of knowledge-based work, I believe it is very important to check what the needs and desires of employees’ representatives are in order for European Works Councils to work effectively.

 

It will be very interesting to hear what other participants in this round table will say, especially about possible improvements. Many organizations have EWCs which work very well – not thanks to the Directive, but thanks to the rules which the EWCs gave themselves, going beyond the Directive. 

We should also take into account what Mario said. I think we agree on this point, but we need to continue to work in this direction.

I believe that the best way to do so in the framework of European social dialogue is not an exclusive of the banking sector. So we are exchanging views with other sectors, including in the field of social dialogue. But I think we should also consider the four bullet points presented by FISAC, the views expressed by the representatives of the Unicredit EWC, as well as the issues raised by professor Filip Dorssemont.

In my opinion, these are the foundations for our next steps. We need to make the most of the results of this very important Project. With the format we will be allowed to use, we need to continue to work in this direction in order to put these points in practice. We could also lobby together the European legislator in order to bring these issues to its attention. These are indeed very relevant issues for a sector like ours, which represents knowledge-based work.

I will stop here for now, and I will be happy to take any other question.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you very much, Jens Thau. You gave a very exhaustive answer to my first question and, in part, also to the second one I had prepared.

I see that Emanuele Recchia is online, so I would like to ask you to reply to the following question, which I had prepared specifically for you: 

The speed of change in work organization is transforming most professional profiles and it requires a quick reskilling and upskilling of a large group of industry workers. These trends have been further accelerated by the pandemic, which forced the physical relocation of workforce at all levels.

The optimization of human capital, together with workers’ motivation, is more decisive than ever for business success in an increasingly competitive global context.

Do you think that social dialogue, information and – above all – consultation of workers’ representatives in EWCs (and, more in general, in the framework of industrial relations within the whole group – not just in Italy) are up to these challenges? Or do you think that changes are needed to tackle them? If so, which changes are needed?

EMANUELE RECCHIA – HEAD OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FOR THE UNICREDIT GROUP

First of all, good morning everybody. It is a pleasure to be here with all of you, even if only virtually. Hopefully, sooner or later these virtual meetings will be replaced by traditional physical meetings. We need to meet in person, because after one year of remote work we are all a bit tired of it. I really hope that next time we will be able to greet each other and shake our hands.

To reply to Mario’s question, I deem it appropriate to first contextualize the situation in Unicredit to give a more pertinent answer.

In the last 10 or 15 years, there has been a strategic and competitive repositioning process in the entire banking system. The way banks work has changed. Adaptations have been made after the various financial crises. This has been necessary also in order to regain credibility and customer trust.

In this very difficult period and during this repositioning process, Unicredit has been able to successfully govern the situation. This has been possible also thanks to the excellent relations with trade unions, which have traditionally played a major role in our group. 

Two days ago I signed the agreement on the productivity bonus, which will be awarded to all employees. This is another achievement that was made possible by our collaboration with trade unions.

The Unicredit group has regularly involved trade unions, not only in Italy, but also in all the European countries where it is present. This involvement has traditionally led to positive results, as it has helped to manage very difficult moments.

Another peculiarity of the Unicredit group is that we are the only systemically relevant bank in Italy. We are a real multinational. Just to give you an idea, we are the first bank in 13 European markets, and our network covers another 16 markets around the world.

Our presence across many countries has necessarily required us to adopt a different model of industrial relations from most other Italian banks. Our headquarters are located in Italy, so we are one of the few international groups with a EWC to be based in Italy.

The other Italian multinationals do not always have a successful operational structure like ours.

Our approach to industrial relations has necessarily been influenced by our DNA as an international banking group.

We are used to saying that we have a global approach, a global strategy and a local implementation plan. 

What does it mean? 

I will get back to this later on. We like to devise HR management strategies at the global level by involving the EWC of the Unicredit group. Then, the local implementation occurs with the involvement of the local trade unions, which play a primary role, without the EWC prevailing over them.

It is always important to consider the objectives of the European Works Council and, more specifically, of the Unicredit group.

In our constituent agreement we established four objectives:

• Improving the communication process. Our group has more than 80,000 employees. In large-size organizations like ours, the communication process must necessarily be adapted and the EWC has always helped in that.
• Improving the level of understanding of the communications of the group management.
• Ensuring and strengthening the international footprint of the group.
• Improving and encouraging industrial relations at the local level.

In the last 15 years, the Unicredit EWC has always worked effectively and explicitly to pursue these goals. The EWC has always strived to play an important role in the international framework of our group.

I would like to remind you that our EWC has signed five Joint Statements, which have often preceded contract innovations later introduced in many countries. For instance, our provisions on work-life balance were later integrated in the Italian national collective bargaining agreement for the banking industry. But there have been also other important Joint Statements, such as the latest on remote work.

Mario earlier referred to the physical relocation of workforce. This is, and will be, a central issue to be discussed with trade unions, always in compliance with local legislation. 

Three months ago, the Unicredit EWC signed a Joint Statement on remote work, another result of our successful collaboration.

The next years after the pandemic – which hopefully will end soon – will be full of challenges for all of us, management and trade unions alike. We can only meet these challenges together, by being on the same side.

At such a difficult time, confrontation risks generating no added value for our colleagues. Traditionally, the Unicredit group has been favourable and open to debate, to constructive dialogue, and even to productive disputes, but always looking for a shared solution for the good of our employees.

Considering all the Joint Statements signed between 2008 and 2020, the history of our EWC demonstrates how proactive it has been and how the Unicredit management has invested and believed in the functioning of the European Works Council.

I would also like to mention the GFA signed with UNI. The discussion took years, but it led to the signature of one of the very few Global Framework Agreements existing in Italy and abroad. I really hope that other multinationals will follow the same road.

The challenges ahead of us mainly pertain to sustainability. We must understand how the model will evolve. And let me say once again that the best way to do so is together with trade unions.

In this regard, confrontation risks generating no added value for our colleagues, unless in the case of a constructive exchange for the drawing up of an agreement.

I use to tell Unicredit colleagues from the trade unions that it does not make sense to sign an agreement if it does not generate any added value for our colleagues – the resources we are all interested in.

In the last 15 years, the recent history of our EWC goes exactly in this direction. To reply to Mario’s question, we are happy and satisfied with the way the Unicredit EWC has functioned so far. 

But we cannot stop here. In the future, we need to be even more determined and practical. To reply to Mario’s question, I think that, in order to improve their functioning, EWCs must be more proactive and bolder. They must discuss topics without necessarily prevailing over national negotiations, but they should ensure a consistent strategy across countries and guarantee the implementation of equitable agreements everywhere.

We are happy with the relations we have with the EWC of the Unicredit group and we hope that this will be the case in the future as well. We also hope that the EWC will sometimes have the courage to face issues which do not affect the local level, which is where we need to continue to make negotiations and agreements with trade unions.

We have the utmost respect for national prerogatives and for each stakeholder.

Thank you, Mario.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Emanuele Recchia. I would like to ask Giancarlo Ferrara from the Italian Banking Federation the same question I addressed to Jens Thau. We identified two points of agreement during our previous meetings between trade unions and employers’ representatives.

They are the following:

• EU Directives on employee involvement also need to take into account recent changes. Therefore, it is necessary to update the current regulatory framework to ensure that social dialogue keeps playing its crucial role in all EU Member States.
• The definitions of information and consultation are different and inconsistent from one Directive to another. Therefore, we need them to be re-written or amended in order to make these definitions more uniform and rational. In this way, in all the EU Member States represented within a transnational group, social dialogue can take place in a legally consistent framework and with clear definitions of the available tools and of the common objectives to be pursued by the social partners. 

I would like to ask Giancarlo Ferrara if he agrees on these two points and if he can envisage working together with us, the representatives of trade unions and EWCs, in order to develop them.

GIANCARLO FERRARA – BANKING COMMITTEE OF EBF – ITALIAN BANKING FEDERATION

Thank you, Mario. First of all, I would like to greet all the colleagues who are online and I really hope to be able to meet them in person as soon as possible.

I would like to thank FISAC for inviting me to this round table and I would like to thank you, Mario. As you know, we have followed all the stages of the Project, which I think is very interesting.

The first aspect I would like to underline is the importance of EWCs in conveying group values across companies which have acquired a common culture across different EU Member States. Employees have also greatly benefited from the exchange of information across different countries and I believe that this is the primary added value of the introduction of EWCs.

EWCs are certainly affected by the many different systems of industrial relations existing across different Member States. Consultation procedures also vary considerably from one country to the other. For instance, in some countries collective bargaining agreements and company-wide agreements do not exist. All this should be taken into account in a complex framework like the one of EWCs.

Another important aspect is to acknowledge that EWCs are not a negotiating body. This is very clear to all of us. But EWCs can generate a virtuous circle, as in the case of the Joint Statements – above all the ones of the Unicredit EWC – which are transposed into national collective bargaining agreements. European social dialogue, which is also based on non-binding joint statements, also promotes good-quality relations and plays a very important role.

As Mr. Recchia correctly pointed out, dialogue should be on a continuous basis and the Italian Banking Federation has invested a lot in European social dialogue. We have had an intensive exchange for years. This has led to the signature of several joint statements, some of which have also been integrated in the national collective bargaining agreement, e.g. the ones on continuing professional education and on corporate social responsibility.

This proves the importance which these topics have for us.

I will speak more in my capacity as member of the Banking Committee of the European Banking Federation then as representative of the Italian Banking Association. Indeed, we have a European approach and I have been involved in social dialogue for 20 years now. Together with Jens and several union representatives who are here with us, we have often discussed delicate issues. Yet, after long negotiations, we have always been able to find a win-win solution for both parties.

To reply to Mario’s question, I would not say that the Directives on information and consultation need to be rewritten. There are a lot of Directives, with different scopes of application. I would rather say that it is necessary to rationalize information and consultation procedures at the European level.

This should probably lead to the rationalization of the whole system. As a result of rationalization, we could have less detailed and less contextualized, but more effective procedures.

With regard to new scenarios, they are certainly the basic aspect of what we are talking about here.

It is hard to imagine future scenarios. The COVID-19 emergency is a key factor for the redefinition of labour relations. 

At present, the only thing I can say is that the channel for dialogue has been reinforced, especially at the European level. This is something we can further improve already in the coming months. I found the Joint Statement on telework adopted by the Unicredit group very interesting. This is also a topic we need to discuss and work on.

In my opinion, all that we have done so far can be very useful. As Jens said, I think that the debate we have launched can be integrated in European social dialogue. I think this would be the best framework for this kind of discussion with the three employers’ associations which represent the European finance industry, with the Savings Bank Federation, the Cooperative Bank Federation and UNI Europa.

A day of discussion and in-depth analysis would be very useful, starting from all the material produced by this Project run by FISAC and from the points raised by professor Dorssemont.

I will stop here for now.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Giancarlo. The next question is for Angelo Di Cristo, Head of UNI Finance. Here is my first question for you:

With respect to your dialogue, collaboration with and support to unions affiliated with UNI in the framework of transnational groups, could you briefly tell us what our strengths are? And what are the critical aspects we need to work on and overcome? What can you tell us about our experience so far with Global Framework Agreements and the renegotiation of EWC agreements?

ANGELO DI CRISTO – UNI FINANCE

Thank you, Mario. I would like to thank FISAC-CGIL, in particular its Secretary-General, Nino Baseotto, the national secretariat, and the Head of the international Department, Claudio Cornelli. I would also like to greet all the participants in this interesting conference. I would like to say hello to Emanuele. We had some labour disputes with him, but we also collaborated for the GFA of Unicredit, the only Italian bank to have this kind of instrument.

I would like to say hello to Jens, President of the Committee for Social Affairs of the EBF, and Giancarlo Ferrara. We have been in touch and faced common issues together for many years now.

To come to Mario’s question:

Strengths:

UNI is an international federation which represents national unions at the international level. As other speakers have already said, for us it is fundamental to have relations with large multinationals of the various sectors. In this case, I am obviously talking about UNI Global.

In recent years, in the finance sector, we have drawn up global agreements with the main multinational groups. 

Mr. Recchia mentioned the Unicredit one, but I would like to add the ones with BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, ABN Amro, just to mention a few in Europe, and the agreements with Banco ITAU and Banco do Brasil in the Americas.

 

The signature of these Global Framework Agreements is fundamental for national trade unions, as it gives us the opportunity to negotiate national agreements on the topics covered by the GFAs.

For instance, I am proud of having negotiated, together with the other Italian trade unions, the Protocol on the responsible sale of financial products with Unicredit, back when I was the union coordinator in the company. That negotiation, which ended in 2016, was a pioneering effort, but the topic was later included in the national collective bargaining agreement and, above all, in the global agreement. 

Unfortunately, commercial pressure is still very strong, but the Protocol gives unions the possibility of having an exchange with management on this delicate issue.

The EWC also adopted this instrument through a Joint Statement.

So we were able to take this aspect to the European level. We did the opposite of what Giancarlo said. Instead of starting from European social dialogue to go down to national or company-level collective bargaining, we started from the latter and two years ago we got the issue on the agenda of the banking committee for social dialogue. Together with the three employers’ federations of the finance industry, we were then able to sign a Joint Statement on this topic.

Our European federation creates several instruments. Of course, the employers’ associations must be willing to accept them. And the trade unions must be willing to engage more regularly in these international initiatives.

What do I mean by that? 

As Jens and Giancarlo know very well, we adopted a lot of Joint Statements at the European level. I am proud to say that, immediately after the outbreak of the pandemic, we worked with all the European employers’ associations of the finance industry, including insurance companies (it is important to underscore it) and on 30 March 2020 we signed a Joint Statement on the management of the pandemic.

This demonstrates once and for all that European trade unions reacted very quickly. I must also give credit to the employers for acknowledging this need and for signing the Joint Statement.

However, in order to be effective, Joint Statements must be implemented at the national level.

Giancarlo mentioned the European statement on continuing professional education. Signed more than 15 years ago, it was later integrated in the Italian national collective bargaining agreement. Only Denmark did the same.

I think that, if they deem it appropriate, our affiliated trade unions should make the most of European and international achievements.

They should not be afraid of an intrusion by the European or international federations. We work at the international level. We are not interested in bargaining and negotiating at the national level. We clearly want negotiations to be in place, but we have no interest in intruding into the national level.

Unfortunately, this happens with some EWCs. 

As Giancarlo pointed out, I also think that EWCs are not negotiating bodies. They are information and consultation bodies. I quite agree that improvements must be made in this regard. 

EWCs can act as an incentive for collective bargaining and for the negotiations of trade unions at the national level. For instance, Emanuele earlier mentioned the Joint Statements approved by the Unicredit EWC, which later served as an inspiration for national collective bargaining. This can be one of the benefits of EWCs.

Unfortunately, in Europe there are some EWCs which do not act in the same way. They are the EWCs where the presence of trade unions is not welcome or insufficient.

Trade unions need to make investments to improve the situation. They need to invest in the training of union representatives within EWCs, because EWCs are an essential source of information. In the European Works Councils where trade unions are present, UNI Europa has a representative who acts as expert/coordinator. This helps us collect information on industry trends. At the European level, we have the social committee for the banking and insurance sector. 

It is an important, even essential body. In recent years it has drawn up valuable Joint Statements on real issues. But also the information we collect from our experts in EWCs is valuable. However, we sometimes notice that this is not considered as a priority by trade unions, but it should be.

Together with the European Trade Union Confederation, our European federation organizes training courses for EWC representatives. I think it is important for our affiliates to develop their knowledge and skills. In Europe the situation is very straightforward. Regulators are no longer at the national level, but at the international, European level. As a consequence, it is now essential for our affiliates to invest in their participation in European-level discussions.

It is also fundamental to develop our organization and to become more effective at the international and European levels. If trade unions believe in this, we grow stronger.

Just to give you an example, in order to sign the global agreement with Unicredit mentioned earlier by Emanuele, it took us 10 years – no kidding.

I am really proud of it, because I was an employee of Unicredit, and I was also the president of its EWC. So I was really proud when we were finally able to sign a Global Framework Agreement.

But why did it take us 10 years? 

I do not want to blame anyone. Trade unions also made mistakes: we made one step forward and three backward. But this is now part of the past. I hope that this will no longer happen in the future, because there are many other companies in the finance industry in Europe and around the world which need these agreements.

Many of us take it for granted that everyone has the same rights we have. 

I actually believe that there are more people without rights than people with rights. Even within the European Union, there are some problems in some countries, such as Slovakia. This problem was brought to the attention of social dialogue in the finance industry, as well as to the companies which created the situation.

Unfortunately, Slovakia did not make any steps forward, but it actually took a backward step. In Slovakia, all the companies of the banking sector – I am not accusing one in particular – decided to put an end to industry-wide national collective bargaining.

This happened five years ago and I am really sorry about that. We made a campaign to raise awareness of the issue. Unfortunately, our campaign has not yet borne fruit, but we keep on supporting the Slovakian trade unions and we will not forget this problem.

I hope that in the future we will be able to reopen negotiations and to conclude the national collective bargaining process. 

On the other hand, there are some good news. For instance, Romania adopted industry-wide collective bargaining and the first industry-wide national agreement was signed 2 or 3 years ago.

This means that trade unions and employers’ associations agreed to have a national collective bargaining agreement in the finance industry for the first time in the history of Romania.

But it has not been all plain sailing. For instance, most finance industry employees have no contractual coverage – hence no rights – because either legislation or undertakings do not allow the trade unions to have rights.

This happens in the United States. With all due respect, I am not talking about states like Burundi or Nepal, where collective bargaining actually exists. 

We have a lot to do together. With the experience acquired over the years, Europe can be a driving force, but it must be aware of the need to do more.

Unfortunately, when I make reference to Europe, I am referring to negative practices used by European undertakings outside Europe. 

There are very serious situations caused by the behaviour of European companies outside the EU. Since we have repeatedly underlined the importance of social dialogue, I urge the European legislator to bind European undertakings to apply European standards everywhere in the world. European companies cannot be left free to ignore European social standards, which are a fundamental achievement and strength of the European Union, outside the EU.

I will stop here for now.

MARIO ONGARO
Thank you, Angelo. You say you have replied to both questions, but I may get back to you to ask you to integrate your answer to the second question.

Now I would like to ask Susanna Camusso, who I see online, two questions concerning her role within CGIL. Susanna Camusso, formerly Secretary-General of CGIL, now serves as Head of International Policies.

From your observatory at CGIL you can have an overview of all sectors – not just of the banking industry – so I would like to ask you the following question:

How do you assess the quality of social dialogue, of information and consultation in transnational groups and in the EWCs of the various sectors? I ask you this question also thinking about the general speed of change I mentioned earlier, which poses significant challenges to the effectiveness of workers’ representation bodies in transnational groups (like EWCs).

SUSANNA CAMUSSO – HEAD OF INTERNATIONAL POLICIES FOR CGIL

Good morning, everybody and thank you for inviting me. I think the results of this Project are very important. Later on I will go back to some of the things mentioned by Angelo. I must say that the banking sector is not necessarily representative of the functioning of EWCs in all European sectors. 

As usual, when you make an overview, you find all sorts of situations. There are undertakings where we cannot even create EWCs because they are not owned by European entities (we cannot forget them). In other cases, the EWCs cannot perform their basic tasks – established in the Directives – of information, consultation and early discussion of business reorganization projects.

This does not discourage us. EWCs remain an essential instrument. It is true that they are not a negotiating body, but I firmly believe that collective bargaining is part of our activities, which should acquire a more European and less national dimension. For the moment, this may sound utopian, but we should take it as an objective.

Together with the other major Italian trade union confederations (CISL and UIL), CGIL is not only supporting the training of EWC delegates through the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI). As our friends from FISAC Claudio and Annamaria can confirm, we are also promoting the exchange of views and experiences within EWCs and among EWCs of different sectors, in order to collect best practices across Europe and to establish relations between the European and the national dimension.

This is true for EWCs, but also for the international agreements signed in the various sectors. As Angelo pointed out, the national trade unions affiliated with the European federations must increase their participation at the international level. But affiliates also need to improve their knowledge. This is why best practices are such an important element. They show what can be achieved and your sector has set several positive examples.

The situation is a bit more complex for social dialogue. I have just heard that the EBF is very open to dialogue. However, I must admit that we have a negative opinion of the employers’ attitude in social dialogue. 

Let me give you two examples. As you know, in European social dialogue there can be tripartite dialogue, but also bilateral dialogue. In case an agreement is reached, the latter can lead to the elaboration of Directives. 

However, this has not been possible for too many years.

There have also been problems with the implementation of previous agreements. For instance, it took Italy 12 years to implement the Bilateral Agreement on sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. The same is now happening for the agreement on digital work.

There has been a slowing down in the effectiveness of social dialogue in redefining rules that are useful for collective bargaining in all countries.

Yet, the latter is a fundamental instrument. As other speakers said, collective bargaining does not exist in all countries, especially industry-wide collective bargaining. 

In some countries, collective bargaining only occurs at the company level. In others, there are practical obstacles both to the free organization of trade unions and to collective bargaining. An example is the current discussion on the Directive on minimum wages and collective bargaining. In this case, the employers’ associations replied negatively to all proposals for the introduction of a Directive and of rules to support collective bargaining in the EU Member States.

We have to take this into account. In any process to negotiate possible advancements, we have to deal with the actual situation, which, in my opinion, is currently not very advanced.

We have an opportunity. 

As it took over the six-months’ rotating presidency of the EU Council, Portugal announced that the Pillar of Social Rights would be one of its top priorities. In this regard, as European trade unions, we will raise all the topics concerning collective bargaining and the improvement of working conditions. I think we really need to engage at the European level, in order for the social pillar to be truly implemented and not just remain a declaration of intent.

While we certainly have a very broad work programme, the quality of social dialogue is not always adequate. I am referring in particular to bilateral dialogue (the discussion and negotiation of the new social dialogue work programme will start in June).

However, the general attitude does not seem in favour of introducing regulations and agreements, and of promoting collective bargaining and dialogue in all European countries. 

In my opinion, this is even more of an issue now that organizational change has accelerated and that the impact of digital technologies has exploded because of the pandemic. 

For instance, there are sectors in which we have been able to make progress in the field of health and safety during COVID-19, and others in which this has not been possible. 

Even when faced with emergencies, differences remain. In this respect, it is absolutely necessary to find and propose national solutions to the countries which encounter more difficulties with collective bargaining and to provide instruments to address changes. I am thinking of aspects like training and discussion on new technologies. FISAC knows them because they are covered by national agreements, but this is not the case everywhere in the world.

We are facing together the same challenge. This challenge concerns part of the Directives, which are now being openly debated. We must bear in mind that our goal is necessarily the generalization of industry-wide collective bargaining across Europe. This is the only possible way to introduce elements of European collective bargaining. Indeed, the European dimension should not be seen as an interference in the national one, but as an opportunity to fully implement the same social standards across Europe.

Thank you, Mario.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you very much, Susanna. My second question to you will get more into the details, as I would like to further examine a very complex – to say the least – situation, which represents a major challenge for all trade unions.

Now I would like to go back to Emanuele Recchia and ask him the same question I asked to Jens Thau and Giancarlo Ferrara. I would like to hear his point of view in his capacity as the manager of a multinational company which is represented in this Project.

We have identified two points of agreement on the topics we have addressed as trade unions and as CGIL during this Project. Since our October meeting, we have discussed with employers’ representatives and I would like to thank in particular Monica Carta from Unicredit for making an interesting and very stimulating contribution to our discussion.

My question has partly been inspired by some of the considerations which Monica Carta made in October.

These are, in our opinion, the two points we can agree on:

• EU Directives on employee involvement also need to take into account recent changes. Therefore, it is necessary to update the current regulatory framework to ensure that social dialogue keeps playing its crucial role in all EU Member States.
• The definitions of information and consultation are different and inconsistent from one Directive to another. Therefore, we need them to be re-written or amended in order to make these definitions more uniform and rational. In this way, in all the EU Member States represented within a transnational group, social dialogue can take place in a legally consistent framework and with clear definitions of the available tools and of the common objectives to be pursued by the social partners. Furthermore, the information and consultation instruments need to be the same for everyone.

EMANUELE RECCHIA

Thank you, Mario. Addressing change, especially now that we are facing an emergency, is a priority. It is a matter of subsistence, of survival. Therefore, we believe that the possibility and the need for European Directives to address changes is essential.

Let me go back to the central role of industrial relations with the European Works Council of Unicredit. Their central role is a starting point and it establishes a framework of rules and guarantees that can be useful for all trade unions within Unicredit, anywhere they are.

Angelo Di Cristo earlier mentioned the case of Slovakia, which I am fully aware of. 

We are one of the many Slovak banks and we play a role in Slovakia, where the model of collective bargaining and industrial relations has ceased to exist. As Unicredit, we had a duty to maintain collective bargaining within our company. 

Only those who work with me, in my team, know how many times I called the HR office in Slovakia to ask and encourage them to reach an agreement. Even if collective bargaining had failed at the national level, we wanted to preserve it at the company level.

All this has always been done in the framework of the guarantees provided to all the Unicredit group employees by the 5 Joint Statements signed in the last 14 years and by the Global Framework Agreement.

So the central role of social dialogue is not an end in itself, but it is aimed at ensuring a framework of guarantees in industrial relations. Industrial relations then have different nuances in the various states. They may be more or less advanced depending on the maturity of the socio-economic context where we work. 

The Unicredit group is one of the largest banks in Italy, Germany and Austria, but also in Russia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Therefore, as a group we have to deal with very different trade unions and labour situations. The degree of maturity of industrial relations also varies greatly between Western European countries and Eastern European countries, where the tradition is less strong, less rooted and more recent.

So for us the central role of the EWC helps ensure a number of guarantees.

Those who know our group, like Angelo Di Cristo, know that, during my tenure as Head of Industrial Relations of the Unicredit group, the Joint Statements have always been signed by our CEOs.

Even if I have the power to sign this kind of statements on behalf of the group, we have always wanted not only to keep our CEOs informed of everything, but also to directly involve them. And I must say that our CEOs have always been very committed. 

Those who know Jean-Pierre Mustier and Federico Ghizzoni know that they do not do anything if they are not 100% convinced. They wanted to get personally involved and to sign the statements to give tangible proof of the importance of Joint Statements for the Unicredit group.

To go back to the issue of change, I would like to say that we cannot follow change.

If you follow change, it basically means that you are already late. 

It is true that there are different phases and different intensities of change, but it is our duty to manage it, especially in a very traditional context like the finance industry. In the last 10 years, we have governed strategic repositioning processes and we have dealt with the need to combine tradition and physical presence on the one hand with the increasingly remote nature of distribution channels on the other.

We should neither follow nor be overwhelmed by change. Change must necessarily be governed together by employees and trade unions. 

Especially when dealing with change, which traditionally occurs more quickly than expected, if industrial relations are conflictual, they can only have negative and detrimental effects.

Therefore, in our opinion it is really essential to manage change and to have European Directives that allow us to regulate and govern it.

Susanna Camusso earlier talked about best practices and said that the knowledge of affiliated unions needs to be improved. I completely agree with her. In my capacity as Head of Industrial Relations of the Unicredit group, my dream in relation to EWCs would be to create a network of EWCs, not only from the finance industry, but also from other sectors, and with the participation of employers’ representatives.

I am a curious person and in the last six years I decided to invite to the biannual plenary meetings of the Unicredit EWC several representatives from the EWCs of other major European financial companies, namely some of the largest European banks.

To be honest, I encountered huge difficulties. The first problem was identifying EWCs that were truly functioning – not just merely a cosmetic exercise – and that had signed in recent years some Joint Statements. This was a major obstacle. 

The second problem was the lack of interest of other EWCs – which are often less active than expected – in exchanging best practices and information and in learning from each other. 

To quote Susanna Camusso, I think that a best practice would be to create a network of best practices, i.e. a network where the major financial companies can share their results and learn from each other. In this network, trade unions would exchange views not only with an individual company’s management, but with several other trade unions and employers. I think this would be an important opportunity of growth.

To come to your question, Mario, we think that European Directives on employee involvement must necessarily adapt to change. But two things are needed.

• Firstly, rationalization. The proliferation of rules does not lead to certainty and to a clear framework of reference. This is why it is important not to draft too many European Directives. There should only be few well-done Directives that clearly establish a framework of reference.
• The rules must necessarily allow the stakeholders to act in relation to the specificities of the business context.

I truly hope that European Directives can lay the foundations to manage change together.

Before concluding, I would like to go back to what Mario said about the physical relocation of workforce.

As I have already told you, three months ago we signed a Joint Statement on remote work. I think it was one of the first of its kind in Europe. So why should the European Directives help us to improve clarity and dialogue?

Because – this is our common position – no one expects Unicredit to revolutionize work organization in the future. After the pandemic, there will probably be an evolution of work organization. I say an evolution – not a revolution – which should benefit everyone, employees and clients alike.

The situation we are currently experiencing has been imposed on us by the crisis and by the emergency. When the pandemic is – at long last – over, we will no longer be the same. It is not just a saying.

At the same time, for instance, in the banking industry we expect an evolution towards a better and stronger integration of on-site work with remote work.

This is the future model on which all companies, including Unicredit, are working. We are beginning to plan the work organization of the future. This is a spontaneous change which will not be imposed on employees. On the contrary, they will play an active and positive role in it.

In order to turn this change into a positive evolution, we obviously need trade unions and employers to have an open dialogue, with clear rules which ensure mutual respect.

Thank you.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Emanuele. I would like to make a brief remark.

When we propose to rewrite or rationalize European Directives, we do not want to further complicate or enrich the existing legislation to make it longer, more complex and more detailed. Not at all! 

We want European Directives that help information and consultation bodies to be effective, that have clear and easy-to-interpret rules, and that are not difficult or require a long time to interpret them. 

We welcome simplification, provided that it does not weaken the rights, procedures and guarantees of employees and those who represent them in information and consultation bodies.

So I think we agree on this, as well as on the need to absolutely and clearly distinguish between transnational information and consultation and collective bargaining.

We have always very openly stated that the two dimensions – collective bargaining on the one hand and consultation on the other – should integrate each other, but also that there should be clearly distinct roles and possibly different people involved.

The most important thing is that EWCs do not engage in activities they are not entitled to perform. EWCs should not engage in collective bargaining. They must be good at collecting information and at making consultation effective. This is what EWCs should do. They should not be involved in activities they were not supposed to perform when they were created.

I am not saying it to argue with you, but just to clarify what our point of view is.

Now I would like to get a bit more into the details and ask Jens Thau a more specific question.

We have made you two proposals, summarized in the “4 key points” and in the “13 proposals”, and we have started an exchange of views on them.

On which points can we agree to write together a joint document as a result of this European Project? This joint document would be a fitting example of the remarkable cooperation and dialogue we have had during the Project.

This question is also connected to a possible path of dialogue (which we imagined together last October), on which we could embark soon after the end of this European Project. UNI Finance and the European Banking Federation could start to reflect together on these proposals – of course also with your industry partners in Europe – and later try to involve as well other sectors under the UNI umbrella.

Thank you.

JENS THAU

Thank you for your question, Mario. In a moment I will also talk about a future road map in relation to the 4 key points and the 13 proposals.

But I would like to go back to what you and Angelo said. It is a pleasure to see that we are all here. But like everyone else, I hope that this situation will end soon and that we will be able to meet in person.

Emanuele said: “Let’s not do the revolution, but an evolution.” I agree, but we should bear in mind that evolution is not linear, but exponential. 

This is true for the banking sector, in which technology is driving an exponential evolution. It is important to understand that, for the human brain, it is quite difficult to handle this pace. Not only is change quick, but there are also multiple simultaneous changes and the impact of artificial intelligence makes everything more problematic.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) will implement its own programmes. We are no longer talking about what surrounds us, a world that we like. We are talking about something that is no longer physically around us. The real issue for all of us is that, in order for EWCs to generate an added value, we need to exchange information and views on what happens around us. All this is fundamental to understand what is actually going on.

Then there is the issue of the competence level. 

In Germany there are Betriebsraete (Works Councils) at the employee level, at the company level and even at the group level. And now, with the EWC, there is also the European level. So who is responsible for what? This question is in the DNA of all those that use this instrument in their working life.

The real issue is not whether employee involvement occurs, but what the right level of consultation is.

As I have said earlier, Germany adopts the principle of subsidiarity. If something can be done at a lower level, this should be the level of consultation. If something must be done at a higher level, then this is the level of consultation. 

This means that there must be a clear separation between the competence levels. 

Having four different levels to discuss the same issue is not only inefficient – we are not talking about efficiency here – but it does not even ensure a concerted procedure. The result is a cacophony of voices, with no one knowing what to do.

Therefore, as other speakers said, we must clearly distinguish consultation in EWCs from collective bargaining. I am happy to hear that we all agree on this, because this is an extremely important point.

But we need to more specifically define the level at which the EWCs can play a role that others cannot play, especially when changes occur within a group.

EWCs are obviously a competent body. However, we must bear in mind that things have changed. In the past, decisions were made by the management and then implemented in a top-down approach. Nowadays, many of the decisions are actually made by clients, who no longer come to the office because they use a smartphone. This is not a decision of the management, but an external factor. Yet, it is something that we – both employees and managers – have to react to. 

Whatever the level of consultation, we must bear in mind another important thing. The cases in which the decision is made at the highest level and implemented in a top-down approach are now limited to very few strategic and structural decisions. 

The vast majority of decisions, even the most general ones, are not implemented in a top-down approach, but in a bottom-up approach, as a result of the work of employees involved in planning and HR management. The idea of a distant body that makes decisions does not help us understand where added value is generated. To come to your questions, the idea of a constant debate is another point that we must take into consideration. 

We simply have to align consultation with the actual new decision-making centres. This is something we must clearly understand.

And this is why what Emanuele said about best practices is so important. We should create a sort of market where we can buy ideas on how to manage problems. This exchange will become very important within a works council, between employers and employees, but also among the various local works councils, within the EWC and among employees at all levels. It will clearly be important also in the context of collective bargaining and social dialogue.

With respect to the points raised, as I have already said, we believe that responsibility should lie with the partners who decide and promote consultation. So we need to build a context that works at the level of the company, of the EWC, etc. 

This is one of the most important topics, which also plays a role at the procedural level.

We all agree that the right to information should go hand-in-hand with the right to exchange opinions – defined as the right to consultation – and that the opposite party should reflect on these opinions. This is obviously another role. Indeed, if we want our ideas to be taken into consideration, this means that the decision should not be definitive. Consultations should be taken into consideration.

Any consultation required by the Directive also requires an earlier phase. It is not just a matter of receiving information on a given problem. There is also the time dimension. This means that information should be provided before decisions are already made. Opinions must have the opportunity to influence the decision. So it is a matter of what comes before and after.

This approach should not be limited to the business plan or other plans. It becomes an actual requirement for the full implementation of the concept of consultation. It is not an issue of substance. It is about the way in which consultation should be managed and defined. This is something that concerns everything.

The last time I was in Rome we talked about the issue of confidentiality. I see that you addressed this topic also in the 4 key points which you sent me. The obligation of confidentiality should obviously be maintained. Otherwise, there could be no significant exchange. Without confidentiality, consultation cannot occur.

Building trust is a really important point. We have said that this means building rules autonomously. By building rules and by incorporating them in the procedure, we can build trust. This is why enforcing rules is essential.

I am not thinking of violations to the rules established by the legislator. Rather, the two parties should commit themselves to building the context of consultation in such a way to build trust. Without trust, consultation will never be ideal.

Because of our idea of consultation, we think that, if consultation – at any level – is predefined, it is hard to establish a method to make decisions and implement them.

This is what we have clearly said about the definition of our role, whether it is in a supervisory board or in a works council. The roles are simply different and we cannot use the methods typical of corporate management when we speak of consultation.

We have to make very clear distinctions of the roles. This is our position with respect to the points raised.

In conclusion, this is the plan for the future. 

We need to have a constant exchange at the various levels. As I said, and as is demonstrated by our debate, this Project is a wonderful opportunity for exchange. Of course, we can continue our discussion and get more and more into the details. We have been talking about these issues for eight years through the various Projects. We now need to make concrete steps forward on the fundamental issues. We need to gain more freedom in relation to the decision-making procedures. And we need to discuss how we can implement these ideas through Directives, which in the future will hopefully be more consistent and contain fewer contradictions.

Thank you to the interpreters who help me understand Italian.

MARIO ONGARO
Thank you, Jens. Yours was a very structured and precise answer.

Starting from some of your considerations, I would like to say that consultation should also have the power to influence the final decision. Of course, it has its limits and its task should not be confused with others. However, it plays an important role, which must be enhanced, developed and supported also through effective and efficient legal tools.

Now I would like to ask the same question to Angelo Di Cristo.

ANGELO DI CRISTO

With regard to the elaboration of a joint document at the end of this Project, I agree with what Giancarlo said when he replied to the first question.

It is appropriate for FISAC-CGIL to draw its conclusions. But in October we said that this Project could be the starting point for a collaboration between UNI Europa Finance and employers’ representatives, including the insurance sector (there are many examples of EWCs in insurance companies). The goal of this collaboration would be for UNI to organize a conference on this topic by the end of 2021. 

During this conference, trade unions and employers’ associations would openly discuss the strengths, weaknesses and problems which the Directive of 2009 creates in the functioning of EWCs.

For instance, I have been saying for years that involving trade unions only in the setting up of European Works Councils is a strong limitation. At present, the term “trade unions” immediately disappears after the creation of the EWC and only the general term “employees’ representative” is used.

In Italy, when the European Directive was transposed into national law, the legislator established that employees are represented by the trade unions that sign national agreements. However, this is an Italian peculiarity and the situation is not the same in other European countries. In fact, the representation of employees is so diverse across EU Member States that we have to strike the right balance.

UNI Europa Finance is willing to have an open discussion with employees’ representatives on how to possibly improve the Directive. We have to take other stakeholders into account, such as ETUC, Business Europe, UNI Europa and the European employers’ association.

I agree with Susanna that the pandemic has led to the explosion of certain factors which we would have seen at play in a few years. For this reason, on 16 February UNI presented its principles on remote work. If you are interested in reading them, you can find them on the website of UNI Europa. You will see that they insist on one concept: collective bargaining. 

Sometimes, we as trade unionists make a mistake, as we speak of remote workers as a separate entity. However, they are simply employees who work in different situations. I do not want to contradict Emanuele or start a dispute here. Dialogue is good, and sometimes you find solutions also through the clash of differing principles between the parties. This is normal.

For us, collective bargaining is fundamental and it should cover remote workers as well. We are concerned about what I would call the “new digital relocation”. In some ways, it reminds me of what happened in the early 2000s, when in our sector – like in others – there was a considerable relocation of activities to other EU Member States.

I am going to be blunt. These relocations occurred because labour costs were a lot lower and, above all, because there were no trade unions and employees were not as organized as in Western Europe.

As Emanuele and I said earlier, in Romania there has been a positive evolution. 

When Unicredit relocated its records centre to Romania, workers were not organized there. They later organized themselves and formed a Romanian national union federation. Nowadays, both companies and employees are happy to have an industry-wide national collective bargaining agreement in place.

This gives us reason to hope that the same can happen in other countries as well. It is something that can and must be done. I think that employees have the right to receive guarantees and protections through collective bargaining.

Emanuele mentioned that, in certain cases, other European Works Councils did not generate any added value. 

At UNI Finance we have a network of EWC representatives and we meet twice a year. I must say that I have also found some good practices. Without making any ranking, I would say that each EWC has its own peculiarities. The EWC of Unicredit is certainly an active one. Other European Works Councils are “passive”, while others have set some good practices.

I would like to give you one example, which surprised me a lot. The EWC of Santander signed a Joint Statement on the responsible sale of financial products already in 2006. Without blaming anyone in particular, in Italy this only occurred 10 years later, in 2016, at Unicredit.

That was a welcome development anyway!

The EWC of Crédit Agricole has made steps towards a Joint Statement on the protection of employees’ data in relation to digitalization.

This shows that many different achievements are possible.

I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the EBF representatives that tripartite dialogue at the ILO has been officially postponed to 2022. This is a very important moment for our sector.

UNI has asked the ILO secretariat to invite the companies which have signed GFAs with us in order to talk about digitalization. We will certainly address the consequences of the pandemic as well, since the emergency has clearly accelerated digitalization processes and the adoption of remote work.

The future is now. We must be vigilant, because we do not want a fragmentation of employees. Collective bargaining is fundamental for us, as we want to make sure that all employees have the same rights, regardless of where they work, be it at home or in the office.

Let me now come to future steps. 

To meet your expectations, Mario, I think that this Project can serve as the starting point to continue the discussion in the framework of social dialogue. 

I make this commitment on behalf of UNI Finance and limitedly to our sector. After the conference we would like to organize by the end of 2021, we will see whether other UNI sectors are interested in collaborating. Then, we may have a broader discussion with the other sectors where European Works Councils are also active.

I do not deem it appropriate for now to sign joint documents. What you are working on is a document by FISAC. We will certainly read it very carefully. Since we have participated in this very interesting Project for the past two years, you can rest assured that this is not an empty promise. On behalf of UNI – and I think Jens would do the same on behalf of the EBF – I promise you to engage in a very frank discussion, outside the official European social dialogue with the European Commission. I can tell you that we are ready to very openly discuss any proposal coming from the finance industry and that we are willing to collaborate with UNI Europa on the one hand and with Business Europe, the European Banking Federation and the European Insurance Federation on the other.

Thank you very much and thanks to the interpreters as well.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Angelo for your second answer. I am very glad that you have made this commitment. I know that there is a major difference between a short, generic joint document that is almost bureaucratically presented to the European Commission and a joint path made of an intense and in-depth discussion.

I will get back to this later on. It will be very interesting to listen to what MEP Brando Benifei has to say about the Directives and how to possibly rewrite them.

Now I would like to ask Giancarlo Ferrara the same question I have just asked to Angelo and Jens.

GIANCARLO FERRARA

I will be brief, because much has already been said. I agree to embark on a common path. I think that the biggest merit of this Project is that it has highlighted and summarized a number of considerations on this topic. We are talking about an age-old problem we have discussed for a long time. But it is no surprise, because, as I mentioned earlier, labour relations vary considerably from one situation to the other. That is why we need to reflect very carefully and in-depth on this topic. This is all the more so in the present scenario.

I think that social dialogue in the finance industry is the most appropriate level for this discussion. Indeed, we have mentioned the quality of social dialogue and of course these issues pertain to the banking industry.

I must say that in recent years the social partners have been quite bold, as they have addressed some delicate subjects. I will not make a complete list, but in few years we have approved Joint Statements on continuing professional education, CSR and remote work. The latter is a very relevant topic today and, in the next two years, we will check if this Joint Statement is suitable for the current evolution or if it needs to be updated. 

I would also like to mention the Joint Statements on digital work, on new technologies and their impact on employment, and on sales policies. The latter was a major achievement that was inspired by the national agreement signed in February 2017 by the Italian Banking Association and by the trade unions of the finance industry.

This means that best practices spread around in a virtuous circle. Angelo earlier mentioned the Joint Statement with Santander. It being understood that national collective bargaining agreements remain central, I think it demonstrates that the connection of various levels generates cultural change towards a shared European approach. 

This is not a secondary topic. During this pandemic, we must assess what cultural and social model Europe promotes in the framework of global competition. This is something in which social dialogue plays an extremely important role.

There is also another factor to be taken into consideration. As a representative of the social partners of the banking industry, I would like to say that there have already been two project phases, Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, on the impact of Community rules on the sector.

The first Pillar was about the monitoring of Community rules for the financial sector to assess their impact on employment levels and the kind of new jobs and new functions they generate.

The second Pillar attempted to rationalize everything. We ask Community institutions to more regularly involve the social partners in the assessment of the impact of legislation. 

We are currently experiencing a phase of radical change, but, as Mrs. Camusso said, the pandemic has only accelerated processes that had started years ago. Now we have to rationalize everything, but the process had already started. Nothing is new, except maybe the way we want to face it. 

I think we must strive to create a shared culture and shared values at the European level.

This is important because, in my opinion, competition will be fierce, also in our sector. So the social partners must be ready and our dialogue with Community institutions must be strengthened.

With regard to simplification, during our Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 project, we observed that there are a lot of sometimes contradictory rules that are added to national legislation and local collective bargaining. This generates some overlapping that does not help industrial relations.

In conclusion, I definitely welcome the idea of a deep dive into these topics and of a one-day event for an open and frank discussion. I am sure that the results of this Project will be very useful to this purpose.

Thank you, Mario.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Giancarlo. I would like to underline your point about the importance of an effective dialogue with Community institutions in order to strengthen our work.

Now I would like to ask my second question to Susanna Camusso, which is somewhat related to this topic. Susanna, what do you think of the two proposals drawn up by FISAC-CGIL with the help of our expert in EU law, professor Filip Dorssemont, who has often collaborated with European trade unions before?

Do you think that our proposals could become an integral part of the discussion and action of the Italian trade union confederations like CGIL and of the ETUC?

SUSANNA CAMUSSO

Thank you, Mario.

As I said earlier, CGIL is already working with CISL and UIL on EWCs and on the Directive. I imagine that FISAC will participate in this activity, which involves all sectors and examines the different issues they may have.

I think it is necessary to “update” the Directive (I will use this term because it is more neutral). I think it is a logical and coherent process. Years of experimentation have demonstrated the effects of the activity, as well as the need to address the changes that have occurred in the meantime.

I believe this should be done in the framework of social dialogue. I do not think it is up to the Commission or the Parliament. I keep on believing that one of the strengths of the European Union is the idea of a supporting legislation, which does not replace nor is imposed on national legislation. 

We have to bear in mind that European countries have different problems and different levels of progress and that in the European Union we should strive for convergence. We cannot simply ignore differences and continue the path of the countries which have the most relations or experience.

Otherwise, we are going to repeat the situation which was mentioned earlier, i.e. competition among European countries on the basis of the cost and rights of employees.

This is not the scenario we want. Otherwise, we would not be here to talk about the convergence of salaries, minimum wages, contract models and collective bargaining as general principles of reference.

From this point of view, I think we should all do our best to overcome the stalemate in European social dialogue I described earlier. We cannot simply ask the Commission to solve the situation for us, because I think it would not work.

I would also like to make two observations on the proposals I heard. Part of the logic behind it is that the terminology of the Directives is sometimes contradictory. There is no doubt about it. 

This does not only apply to EWCs. I am thinking about all the different terms for parasubordinate and self-employed workers. But we can look at it in a different way. Language has changed over the years because we have faced problems of a different nature and quality.

Together with the legal experts who support us, we also believe that, out of the many existing terminologies, we should try to create a single one of the Commission. 

We earlier mentioned that the European Directives generically speak of employee representation bodies. In the framework of European dialogue, this risks being a sort of downgrading in comparison with the role played by trade unions in collective bargaining.

There is also the issue of drawing up the definition of employees. It may sound very easy, because the European Union has traditionally decided to take ILO conventions as a point of reference. However, not all European countries have ratified the same conventions. Therefore, it is definitely necessary to adopt a uniform language. But we need this language to be in line with the changes which were already occurring and which the pandemic has certainly accelerated – also with the introduction of some new elements.

Someone said that it is necessary to work on the Joint Statement and then on the Directive on telework, because they are no longer applicable to the situation we have now. But, above all, we have to deal with new issues, because technologies keep on evolving. While it is easy to agree with employees’ representatives that there needs to be a contract system, it is much more complicated to have a discussion on the definitions of artificial intelligence and learning machines. Yet, the European Union is working on relevant rules and we also need to address this issue. Trade unions need to receive information and gain a better understanding of these technologies. Otherwise, on the one hand we claim the right to information and consultation and the right to collective bargaining, but on the other hand dialogue does not occur because everything is done through technological tools.

So I believe that we must argue that Europe needs a supporting legislation, i.e. legislation that supports collective bargaining, the definition of its various levels, as well as the convergence process we need to build in Europe. We also need to spread knowledge that these issues are also influenced by technological changes and innovations.

Thank you.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Susanna for your well-structured and comprehensive answer.

Now I would like to speak with MEP Brando Benifei, who is following us from Brussels.

In recent years we have already fruitfully collaborated with Brando Benifei on the issues we are addressing during this round table. In particular, we have previously talked about the limits of Directive 2009/38 on EWCs and, more in general, of the Directives on employee involvement.

Brando Benifei has voiced our concerns and launched specific initiatives at the European Parliament and with the European Commission.

This is why we have invited him to this round table. We sincerely thank him for his participation.

In my first question I would like to ask you to tell us your opinion and to update us on the most recent initiatives and on the political conditions which may have influenced the fitness check of the Directives on employee involvement previously launched by the European Commission.

Today, what are the main positions and forces in the European Parliament and in the Commission that may facilitate or block a fitness check aimed at making the Directives more effective?

BRANDO BENIFEI

First of all, let me thank you, Mario, as well as FISAC and UNI Europa for your work in this area. As you said, in recent years we have repeatedly met in person in Rome and in London to talk about these issues, and in particular about the reform of the EWC Directive.

Unfortunately, in the current situation we cannot yet speak of a full-fledged reform. We are still stuck in a preliminary analysis phase about the use, functioning and implementation of European legislation on EWCs. 

Let me say it clearly. I fear there is no political will to pass a reform – not only by the Commission, but also by political representatives and employers alike.

I am sorry to say that, because during the latest parliamentary term we waited for the publication by the Commission of the Evaluation on the implementation of the EWC Directive (Recast). The Evaluation was published in 2018, two years behind schedule, under the umbrella of the fitness check of the Directives on employee involvement.

Mario certainly remembers that we submitted a written Question to urge the Commission to publish this Evaluation, which, despite being mandatory, was released very late.

Based on my experience at the European Parliament, especially in relation to many aspects of social and labour policies, I would say that the REFIT evaluation was inspired more by the willingness to reduce the administrative and bureaucratic burden, rather than by the desire to truly assess how to review, improve and strengthen the Directives.

To use some popular terms in Brussels, I would call it deregulation rather than smart regulation.

In the IMCO and JURI Committees we are working on REFIT evaluations and I can confirm you that this is the general trend. Unfortunately, the much awaited Evaluation published in 2018 is proof of that. It is a 10-page report which very briefly analyzes the benefits of EWCs and the need to spread them across EU Member States. Even if it is very short, the evaluation clearly identifies a list of existing problems:

• Limited number of EWCs in Europe
• Limited effectiveness of the consultation procedure
• Need to strengthen the exchange of best practices
• Serious shortcomings in the implementation of the Directive

 

Considering all this, I would have reasonably expected a proposal for the revision of the Directive, but this was not the case. 

Some suggested creating a Practical Handbook on EWCs to ensure a more effective transposition of the Directive into national law. However, this document has never been drafted and no one knows what the Commission plans to do to ensure the enforcement of commitments in the Member States and to provide additional resources to the social partners for the implementation of EWCs. 

In this regard, I think it is worth saying that I successfully negotiated and fought for the inclusion of an obligation for the European Commission to develop capacity-building of social partners in the European Social Fund Plus.

Through this fund, we gave the European Commission an instrument to provide additional resources to the social partners for the implementation of EWCs, as was requested in the Evaluation. Now I truly hope that the Commission will do so and we will certainly monitor the situation.

But I think this is definitely not enough.

I think what we need is a strong political push by the European Parliament and by the national governments.

As Mario Ongaro knows well, I promoted two own-initiative reports on the topic in the EMPL Committee. One was about democracy in the workplace and the other one about the revision of the EWC Directive, for which I will be the rapporteur for the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

In both cases, we are still waiting. Due to COVID-19, the Parliament had to postpone part of the activities of last year, which concerned other things. However, I think that this delay is in part due to the lack of political will – something that deserves an in-depth discussion.

I am insisting to break the deadlock and I will keep you informed.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Brando. I not only appreciate your hard work, but also you being very straightforward. The situation you described is concerning an disappointing. You clearly said that there is no political will to reply to the questions that were raised on the topic. What you say confirms the concerns expressed by professor Dorssemont, our legal expert, when he said: “The fitness check is seen more as a way to deregulate, simplify and eventually weaken legislation, rather than as a way to make it more effective and implement it.”

From this point of view, my second question to you becomes even more important. What do you think of our 4 key points and 13 proposals? Do you have any recommendations? Knowing that we can count on your support for our proposals – especially once we agree on some specific points with our social partners – how can we integrate them in the debate at the European Parliament? 

Of course, we do not want to generate confusion between European Social Dialogue, which is run autonomously by the social partners, and the institutional tasks of democratic bodies like the European Parliament and the Commission. However, I think that the two should run in parallel in order to ensure the best functioning of procedures and practices.

BRANDO BENIFEI

With respect to your 4 key points and 13 proposals, I must say that they outline a series of measures that are truly necessary in order for EWCs to be up to current and future challenges. 

To be brief, I will focus on a point that I consider truly essential, i.e. information to employees and how to make it effective.

I think we need to lobby some of the main players in the European Parliament, such as Gaby Bischoff, who is a trade unionist, but also Dennis Radtke, who will also be the coordinator for the proposal on minimum wages. In my opinion, this may distract him from his work on the own-initiative report on EWCs.

We also have to start dialogue with the European Trade Union Confederation and with Business Europe in order to avoid polarization and a face-to-face confrontation in view of the parliamentary debate.

At present, the Commission does not seem to be willing to act without a resolute initiative of the European Parliament and of some governments to change the EWC Directive.

Therefore, we need to involve a wide range of political forces and social partners already in the early stages, in order not to end up with a Parliament resolution that is not ambitious enough in asking for a reform.

I mentioned Gaby Bischoff for the report on democracy at work and Dennis Radtke for the own-initiative report because I work closely with them. I have no doubt that they will work hard. I also believe that, without a push by different political forces and without the support of some governments, we risk losing time – which would not be a good thing.

In general, I think that all of your proposals are good. We must strive to include them in the two reports I mentioned, i.e. the one on democracy at work with Gaby Bischoff as rapporteur, and the one on the revision of the EWC Directive, for which I am the rapporteur for the Socialist group. Dennis Radtke is the co-rapporteur, but he also needs to play an active role. Otherwise, this would be the initiative of only one side of the Parliament, which may lead to its failure.

I will work in this direction and I will keep you updated on future developments. I hope I can give you good news in the future.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Brando. I took note of what you said. I was very happy to hear that you confirm your commitment despite the difficult and somewhat discouraging situation. However, we believe that, by bringing together different forces and by looking for the support of the social partners, we have the opportunity and the potential to continue our path and to break the deadlock.

BRANDO BENIFEI

I would like to clarify one thing. 

I think we can make steps forward through lobbying and actions. 

After the very significant delay in the presentation of the Evaluation, together with you, the social partners, we lobbied the Commission, we submitted an informal question and in the end the Commission was forced to act.

I do not know if they would have done it without our lobbying. This is why I was very realistic, maybe even pessimistic. We know who we are dealing with and we definitely need to make pressure.

But I firmly believe that, with our work, things can be changed.

MARIO ONGARO

Thank you, Brando for your correction. This is good to hear and it certainly motivates us to continue to work.

We will certainly stay in touch with you to work together on this issue and on other possible fields of collaboration.

Final Goal IX of this Project:

Produce a Proposal of EU Policy on 4.0 Finance aiming to:

1. connect effectiveness of EU law on employee involvement with the outcomes and current practices of industrial relations in the industry in terms of changing work processes;
2. use part of productivity increase brought by smart working and digitalization to address resources to LLL and vocational training in order to foster employees skills and the quality and social sustainability of finance products;
3. provide a relevant input to the EU Social Dialogue both at sectoral and general level

This goal IX. has been met essentially through:

our 4 points document + the 13 points document that our external Expert wrote taking into punctual account our observations and our priorities

We have proposed both documents to:

-our social partners (BCESA-EBF + Unicredit Group Industrial Relations and EWC Management

-Uni Finance

-EU Parl. member in charge of Employment Committee

• Our social partners find both documents very interesting and consider them a solid basis on which a follow-up should be framed in the Banking EU Social Dialogue, in parallel with the already planned agenda for 2021-2022.
• Uni Finance completely share both documents and fully support the follow-up proposed by our social partners here above
• MEP Brando Benifei is working on the Directives on Employee Involvement (namely the 2009/38 one) together with Dennis Radtke and Gaby Bishoff, both MEP on the dossier concerning proposals to review the a.m. Directive
• I, as Project Manager, am personally in steady contact with the a.m.MEP Benifei, in order to

coordinate any further outcome that our work with our social partners will produce