Tripartite and bipartite social partnership in lithuania

Tripartite and bipartite social partnership in lithuania

In 2002, Lithuania introduced a new Labour Code [1], which brought social partnership to the forefront. As stipulated in Article 40 of this Code, social partnership is understood as a framework of interactions between representatives of employees and employers, their organisations, and, in cases defined by the Code and other legal acts, also involving state institutions. The goal is to harmonise the interests of the parties engaged in labour relations. From this definition, it is clear that social partnership in Lithuania can take both a tripartite and a bipartite form. This article aims to identify which of these forms is dominant in the country, the reasons behind this, and the respective strengths and weaknesses of each.

A common perception holds that tripartite social partnership is the dominant model in Lithuania, while bipartite partnership is less frequently encountered [2]. This was indeed the case when social partnership first emerged in Lithuania in 1995. At that time, the concept was a legal novelty without any local traditions [3]. Historically, the state had been the sole regulator, and collective agreements were an unfamiliar element in the legal landscape. Furthermore, there was a lack of clear and effective legal provisions that would allow employee and employer representatives to negotiate independently, without state involvement. Additionally, the representatives of employees and employers were not yet strong or unified. The latter point is debatable, however, as trade unions were the driving force behind the creation of the Tripartite Council in Lithuania. The initial implementation of social partnership was also carried out through the establishment of tripartite councils. This particular form proved to be the most suitable for the social partners, as it was straightforward, less unconventional, and legally binding. These various factors, to differing degrees, led Lithuania to develop social partnership through tripartism. The question remains whether, fourteen years later, tripartite social partnership still holds its dominant position.

According to Article 43 of the Lithuanian Labour Code [1], social partnership may be implemented through:

1. participation in the activities of tripartite or bipartite councils (commissions, committees);
2. employees' representatives exercising their rights to information, consultation, and other forms of participation in employer decision-making;
3. engaging in collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements.

State institutions, specifically the Government and municipal bodies, are limited to the first of these forms. Under the current legal framework, the other two forms are exclusively available to representatives of employees and employers or their organisations. It is also noteworthy that all councils (commissions, committees) operating at the national, sectoral, or territorial levels are tripartite [4]. Bipartite councils (commissions, committees) are found only at the enterprise level.

In summary, state institutions currently participate in social partnership through only one of the three possible forms in Lithuania. While bipartite implementation of this form is lacking, this does not diminish the overall importance of tripartism. In the early stages of social partnership in Lithuania, involvement in tripartite councils (commissions, committees) was nearly the sole method of its realisation. Today, it is just one of several options, and some authors argue [5] it is not even the most significant. Consequently, while tripartite social partnership remains important in Lithuania, there is a clear trend towards bipartite relations gaining increasing prominence. A similar pattern can be observed in Poland [6].

Some of the reasons for the initial adoption of tripartite social partnership have already been discussed (e.g., its relative ease of implementation and the smoother transition from state regulation to contractual relations with state involvement). Furthermore, Lithuania's participation in the International Labour Organisation and the ratification of Convention No. 144 [7] provided the legal basis for adapting the tripartite model. The subsequent shift towards bipartite relations was driven by improvements in legal regulation, the strengthening of employee and employer representatives, and the overall development of social partnership. First, the adoption of the Lithuanian Labour Code [1] established a systematic, clear, and binding legal framework. This law defined social partnership, its parties, forms, levels, system, and procedures. This legal clarity created a solid foundation for the successful operation of both tripartite and bipartite social partnership. Second, the representatives of employees and employers, along with their organisations, have matured. They have gained state recognition, experience, and influence. Third, social partnership has been practised for a considerable period. Tripartite social partnership has demonstrated its advantages while also revealing its shortcomings. Social partners have become prepared to negotiate without the oversight of state institutions. Finally, Lithuania's membership in the European Union and the examples set by Western European countries have further encouraged the use of bipartite relations.

The final topic of this discussion concerns the advantages and disadvantages of tripartite and bipartite social partnership. Starting with the benefits of the tripartite model (which also represent the drawbacks of bipartite relations), the role of state institutions as moderators in the social dialogue must be highlighted. Second, tripartite relations have a longer history in Lithuania. While established traditions may not have fully formed in this relatively short period, certain rules and practices have certainly been established. Third, an agreement reached through tripartite negotiations is highly universal and significant, as it has the consent of all interested parties.

Turning to the advantages of bipartite social partnership (which are the disadvantages of tripartite relations), the process is simpler. With fewer parties involved, collaboration and reaching an agreement become easier. Moreover, this system more accurately reflects the essence of contractual regulation. It is therefore clear that the tripartite system serves to address the deficiencies of social partnership, such as when social partners are weak or legal regulation is unclear. However, once these issues are resolved, bipartite social partnership offers a more beneficial, convenient, and effective form of collaboration.

In conclusion, both tripartite and bipartite social partnership are viable in Lithuania. Due to historical, pragmatic, and legal reasons, tripartite relations were the first to emerge. Nevertheless, bipartite social partnership has since appeared, developed successfully, and is likely to continue growing. This represents a positive change, as bipartite relations are more advantageous for strong and determined social partners.

List of used case-law and legislation:

1. Lithuanian Labour Code, approved by Law No. IX-926 of 4 June 2002. Valstybės žinios, 2002, Nr. 64-2569.
2. Director of EU Structural Support Department Ministry of Social Security and Labour Nijolė Mackevičienė. Contribution of the ESF to the reinforce capacity building of Social partners in Lithuania. Access through internet