5780447570

126    Zbigniew Hajn

docs not fadlitalc thc crcation of tradc union rcprescntation in smali firmi As alrcady indicatcd, Tradc Unions Ad provklcs for tradc unions* procncc in an undcrtakmg only in thc form of thc $o callcd "workplacc tradc unie* organisation" which may ad if thcrc arc at icast 10 mcm bers. What ii morc, cxtcndcd powers and legał pnvilcgcs of thc uniom make thc etn-ploycrs act against crcating ncw organizations/ Finally, it should be pointed out that uniomsanon has bccn łimilcd ovcr thc last two years by high unemployment ratc (18,7%, March 2003; 18%. February 2006)¹ and other factors Uke thc collapsc of traditional branches of industry, spreading of atypical forms of employment and outsourcing, as wdl as by tbc cmploycrs* “cscapc from labour law** towards employment bascd on cni] law contracu.⁹

In Poland one can also quitc casily noticc thc so-callcd ‘duality of thc labour market/ i.c. thc coexistencc of substamial segments of labour market covcrcd and not covercd by collcctivc agreements.¹⁰ It makes cmploytn cscapc oollectivc agreements in order to cope wilh oompetition on thc pan of employers frcc from burdens stemming from collcctive agreements. A> a rcsult, we havc stagnation of singlc-employcr bargaining assodated witb a smali number of company Collodive agreements.²

The wcakness of multiemployer bargaining is an additional charactcrisu fcaturc of Polish coUedivc agreements (sec: part III bclow). It is the rcsul!

of msufficicnt degrcc to which cmploycrs arc organizcd. thcir rductanoc towards branch bargaining, little presence of unjons in thc private soctor, •cakness of scctoral structures of thc main organisations rcsulting from tfcc tradc union movcment model focused on workplace or on the level of a company. Wc should notc, however, that thc generał scopc of col-|ective bargaining cxcccds tradc unions' membership ratc. Studics of 2005 iadicatcd that 39% of raployees work in undertakings whcrc thcrc arc tradc union organisations.¹¹ Thus wc can assume that even if not ałl of thetn arc covcrcd with col!cctivc labour agreements, they arc covcrcd with workplace rcgulations, c.g. work rules and pay rcgulations which must be łdoptod in establishment.* employing at least 20 people. In undertakings, n which thcrc arc tradc unions thcsc rules havc to be consultcd with tbe organ isation.

5. Tradc union representatioo of crapioyces in coDccthe bargaining within the firm in tbe tight of national capericncc: who represents a union, scopc sod procedurę of bargaining

5.1. Who rcpresents a union?

Law does not spedfy clcarly who can eon duet collcctivc bargaining on bchalf of a tradc union in an undertaking. Tradc Union Aa States ooly that thc statutc of thc tradc union should identify ways and means of its representation, which in my view considers also thc rcprescntation io collcctivc bargaining. The issuc must be dedded by (rade unions. It u not always rcgulatcd in tradc union statutes and rcsolutions. How-ever, cvcn whcrc such rcgulations exist, thc faa that they arc not observcd does not mean, in the assessment of the Supreme Court, that tbetc agreements arc invalid; it only justifics intra-union responsibility of thc person who conduded thc agreement. Collcctivc agreement can be regarded nuli and void only if it was concludcd by persons not duły authorised to do so.^H One should also remember that thc Supreme Court has bccn for quitc somc timc upholding thc idea that avil law provisjons on legał transactions do not apply dircctly to thc represeo-ution of partics in collcctivc bargaining and thc clann to find a co-Eectivc labour agreement invalid is based neither on employment rdaiion

" Report of January 2005, by CSOS (Public Opinkm Research Center), "Complunce with *t empto>*cV nghu and the 'grcy tphere' of employment Trudę unions m coripacict." p. I; Knrer http://www.cbo#..pl/SPlSKOM.POI./2DOS/K 003 05.PDF

" hodgeaeol of the Supreme Court of 12 Aujurt 2004. III PK 38,04. OSNP 2005. No. 4. ttffl 55.

1

Morc M Pliszkicwicz, J. Wojtyła, “Prawo pracy w praktyce małych i irodedt przedsiębiorstw. Szanse i zagrożenia’’ [laboor law m Practisc oT Smali and Medium Pnterprises Opportunitica and Threatsj. a: Conferrnct MotrriaU of XI Congresi of Lob*r Imw and Sonat Securiiy Im Char* ani Departmenis. Westa 21-22 Aaie 1999. Katowice 1999, pp 22-23; M Seweryiski, "Problemy statusu prawnego /wwków zawodowych" [Prebicni of the I.egal Statut ot Tradc tJnicm), m: Zbiorowe prawo procy w społecznej gospodom rynko**j (Cotioctńw labour law in SoaaJ Market Economy). cd. O. Goździewicz, Toni 2000, pp. 123-127; Z. H aj n. “Pozycja prawna pracownika i pracodawcy a funkcje prm pracy" [l>egal Poution of an Eznployae and an Lmploycr and thc Role of l.abcur Lawj, Pmz i Zabezpieczenie Społecw 2000. No. 10. p 6.

^I    Ihe newot GUS (Central SutiuicaJ Office) da u show* that ibere was 16.7% et uneraloyrocm in the rad ot 2003. The data arc unofficial yet; souroc Gazeta Wyborcza Mird 24. 2C06.

• Z. H a j n, “Collcctjvc Labour Agreements and Cootracu of Hmploymcni xi Polał Labour Liw", in: Khswer Law h/emaiUmat, ed M. Scwcrytbki. The HagucLoodon/Nr* York 2003. p 202

2

   i. H. O oldthorpe, ~Ihe End of Convergence: Corporatiu and Dualist lerdcnacs* Modem Socieciea". in* Order and ConfKct ai Contmporary Capttaltsm, ed i H. Goldiborpc. CKford 1984, pp 315 343

¹¹ There were: H W company colIcclivc labour agreements in 1999, 9 118 m 2000, 9 IM in 2001, 8 683 in 2002, 8 803 in 2003. tource: Sprawozdanie Głównego Inspektora Pracy z dziahtnoUi Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy w 1999 r. [The Report of the Chief Labour fo«pec& on thc ActMty of State Labour lnspecuon for 19991, and rapocttvdy: for 2000. 2001. 20tC and 2003, Wimw 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.