In connection with the draft of the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Labor Code submitted to us, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria considers that the proposals for amendments and supplements to the Labor Code, concerning collective labor agreements at the level of sector and economic activity, in no way to contribute to the development of the social partnership between employers and trade unions. On the contrary, the new texts of the CT /especially para.8 of art.51b/ would create serious problems in the competitiveness of Bulgarian business and would increase social tension in the country.
The use of the new concepts "sector" and "economic activity" according to the Classification of economic activities does not bring clarity to the terminology. KID 2008 is built on four hierarchical levels and deals with concepts such as "sector, section, group, class" and not with "economic activity". For this reason, it is very likely that we will face major problems regarding the definition of economic activities in the Bulgarian economy.
The editing of the new texts /art. 51, paragraph 1/, enables the conclusion of collective agreements on economic activities, which in turn allows for the extreme fragmentation of the subjects of collective bargaining and the creation of chaos in these relations. On the other hand, Art. 51b, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 do not regulate the negotiation of a separate section "economic activity", which is covered by the negotiation at the sector level, which includes certain economic activities in it. At the same time, paragraph 3 of the same article allows the conclusion of only one CTD for a separate sector or for economic activities in it.
The following paragraphs 4 and 5 regulate the relations in the preparation of a general draft of the KTD at the sector level and its presentation to the employer organizations, as there is no such regulation for the KTD at the level of "economic activities".
The above-mentioned texts of the draft zoning code of the KT bring with them a number of questions and ambiguities that should be cleared up in order to achieve their goal.
Regarding the new paragraph 8 of Article 51b, we believe that such a regulation is extremely dangerous for Bulgarian business, as it would significantly worsen its competitiveness in a period of serious economic crisis. Moreover, the text is devoid of any economic and life logic. The text regarding the possibility of extending the action of the sectoral KTD regarding economic activities from another sector causes complete confusion. The proposals do not take into account the real economic relations in the country and drastically diverge from reality. The new text creates a risk of extending the effect of a sectoral CTD concluded in a profitable sector to enterprises operating in a surviving sector. Accepting such a possibility will create extreme tension with major negative consequences. In addition, para. 8 contains unclear concepts that do not have legal definitions, which will lead to additional ambiguity and problems in the implementation - "extension of the scope" of the contract; "core labor standards"; "close working conditions" etc. In addition, the Minister of Labor and Social Policy is expected to extend the effect of the KTD and its clauses in case of "proven primary public interest", at the same time, the parameters of proving the public interest are not clarified and in this way contain a great discussion potential.
The text of paragraph 9 of Article 51b is unclear and cannot be interpreted unambiguously. It is not clear what "cumulative totality" is in question.
We also consider that in the "primary public interest", defined in the project as "prevention or overcoming existing problems related to: unfair competition and social dumping; settlement of industrial relations through dialogue and collective bargaining", is also the creation of conditions for growth and development of the Bulgarian economy and encouragement of business initiative with real measures, which is the only way to create new jobs and increase tax revenues. The second part of this legal definition sounds very strange when the minister decides to extend or not the effect of a concluded sectoral CTD. This is about the issuance of a general administrative act in relation to a significant number of subjects and has nothing to do with the settlement of relations through dialogue and collective bargaining. As an additional argument, we can point to the impossibility of "unfair competition" or "social dumping" in two different sectors of the Bulgarian economy.
In addition, the adoption of the above texts will be the cause of creating extreme ambiguity in the definition of social benefits in collective bargaining at enterprise level.
We also consider it inappropriate to create the authority of the IA GIT to control the conclusion, amendment, supplement and implementation of collective labor agreements. Collective bargaining is a complex contractual process regulated by law, based on mutual compromises between the parties. We consider the creation of the possibility for the IA GIT to exercise control over the conclusion, amendment and addition of the KTD at any level as contrary to the principles of labor legislation. We are facing the risk of an administrative body becoming an arbiter in collective bargaining, which is unacceptable. Pursuant to Art. 399, the GIT performs comprehensive control, and accordingly an explicit definition of the control over each step of the CTD is not necessary. And according to the current legislation, the Labor Inspectorate can exercise control over the legislation on the conclusion, amendment, addition and implementation of collective agreements.
We believe that it is not appropriate to amend the existing provision of Art. 245 of the Labor Code. The proposed text does not achieve the goal set by the proponent.
The proposed new texts of Art. 272, para. 3 and para. 4 impute an additional administrative volume for employers, burdening them with functions that are not inherent to them, outside of the specific individual employment relationship. Both texts concern the employee's personal relations with the relevant trade union organization/insurance company. The unconditional obligation that is created for the employer to administer these personal relationships of the employee (deductions from wages for membership fees and transfer of premiums for personal additional voluntary insurances to different insurers) have no relation to the employer's obligation to administer wages in the company. These are duties not inherent to the employer, going beyond the scope of the collective labor relationship. The settlement of specific personal membership relations in the trade union organization is a matter of personal choice and relations between the trade union organization and its members. The arguments are similar for personal insurance, which each employee can individually take out with different insurers, with different amounts of contributions, different terms and conditions for transferring contributions, which the employer should monitor and control, etc.
In the context of the reasons set out above, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria does not support the draft of the Labor Code Labor Code presented to us for discussion and submitted by the MTSP.
http://www.turbulence.tech