Hungary

Kun, Attila

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16977-0_12

Attila Kun^13,14,15

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 32))

440 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyse the state of play of collective bargaining in Hungary, especially in the context of the new regulatory environment. The new Labour Code that came into force in 2012 has changed the very role of collective agreements as contractual sources of labour law. The new Code broke with the former principle of “relative dispositivity” with respect to the statutory regulation–collective agreement correlation that allowed deviation from the regulatory provisions only in favour of the employee. The new Code is based on the idea of a double-sided (“absolute”) dispositivity that opens up a new, broader horizon for the parties at negotiations on concluding collective agreements. In sum, important goals of the labour law reform have been to revitalize the contractual sources of labour law, to strengthen the role of collective agreements and to reduce the regulative functions of state regulation. This new regulatory context poses an enormous challenge for Hungarian trade unions: it is yet to be seen whether they can live up to the increased expectations and whether they can become effective bargaining partners of employers within an even more autonomous and contractual system of labour law regulation. As experiences show, bargaining parties are still rather reluctant and cautious in innovatively using the increased scope for bargaining. One of the main arguments of the paper is that meaningful promotion of collective bargaining and facilitation of the conclusion of collective agreements would be a much desired policy-direction in Hungary.

After describing the general legal framework for collective bargaining in Hungary (Sect. 1), the paper (Sect. 2) puts forward an elaborated analysis and discussion on the reality of collective bargaining in Hungary. Additionally, the paper (Sect. 3) highlights some aspects of flexibility which might be achieved via collective bargaining in Hungary and discusses issues of the insufficient promotion of collective bargaining. The paper finishes with a brief outlook on the—rather immature—transnational dimension of collective bargaining in Hungary.

The manuscript was closed in September 2018.

This research was conducted within the framework of the MTA [Hungarian Academy of Sciences]-PTE Research Group of Comparative and European Employment Policy and Labour Law.

Some parts of this paper extensively draw on the author’s earlier research on the same topic, especially on the following report: A. Kun, International Research Project DIADSE (Dialogue for Advancing Social Europe), Country Report-Hungary; Project financed by EU, European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Social Dialogue, Industrial Relations (Agreement number. VS/2014/0530) Duration: December 2014–December 2016. Project Management: Universiteit van Amsterdam (Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut), http://hsi.uva.nl/en/diadse/reports/reports.html (2017).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Article XVII, Sections (1)-(2) of The Fundamental Law of Hungary (25 April 2011).
2.
On labour law in Hungary, see generally Hajdú (2011).
3.
Berke (2015), p. 117.
4.
In the judicial practice it is a prevailing position that parties to the employment contract—who otherwise are not covered by a collective agreement—might stipulate the use of a specific collective agreement.
5.
See § 12, Section (3) of the LC, according to which, among others, relevant labour market conditions can be taken into account in weighing the equal value of work for the purposes of the principle of equal treatment.
6.
§ 209, Section (3) of the LC.
7.
On the reform in general: Kun (2014).
8.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 17.
9.
§ 13 of the old LC (1992) laid down the general rule as follows: the collective agreement—unless otherwise provided by law—may derogate from the rule to the benefit of the employee. However, the term “unless otherwise provided in this act” in § 13 referred to the possibility for the legislator to eventually create cogent or (absolute) dispositive norms in certain cases (but the latter was very exceptional under the old LC).
10.
According to data from 2009, only 33.9% of all employees were covered by collective agreements. Industrial Relations in Europe 2010, European Commission (2011), p. 36. Since then, this rate has certainly decreased to a considerable extent.
11.
Fodor et al. (2008).
12.
These are the so-called “Parrot clauses”.
13.
The general rule is laid down in § 277, Section (2) of the LC.
14.
On Hungarian trade unions in general, see: Girndt (2013) and Kahancová (2015).
15.
Pál stands for an alternative opinion: he acknowledges that the number of trade unions’ rights in the new Code is indeed curtailed, but emphasizes that—content-wise—there are no significant differences between the old and the new Code in this regard. Pál (2015), p. 90.
16.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 58.
17.
Neumann and Boda (2011).
18.
The structure of the Act is very difficult because of this complex system of derogations and because of the extensive use of cross-references.
19.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 25.
20.
§ 77 of the LC.
21.
§§ 82–83 of the LC (however, compensation liability cannot be excluded).
22.
§ 53, Sections (1)-(2) of the LC.
23.
§§ 139–145 of the LC.
24.
§§ 148–152 of the LC.
25.
Berke (2015), p. 127.
26.
§ 135, Section (3) of the LC.
27.
§ 97, Section (4) of the LC.
28.
§ 50, Section (4) of the LC.
29.
§§ 205–207 of the LC (“Employment relationships with public employers”).
30.
In this context, Nacsa and Neumann emphasize a further harmful side-effect of this rule. They call it “negative solidarity”. The essence of this tendency is described as follows: “As the law implied stricter labour standards for the public sector, now private-sector employers also incline to implement public sector rules into the collective agreement and aimed to levelling downward labour relations. Therefore sectoral union’s main concern is to prevent such ‘negative solidarity’ of employers.” Nacsa and Neumann (2013), p. 108.
31.
Tóth (2012), p. 8.
32.
§ 206 of the LC.
33.
Berki (2015), p. 67.
34.
Berki (2015), p. 73.
35.
§ 2, Section (2) of C098—Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
36.
Collective agreements concluded by multiple employers are explicitly referred to in § 276 Section (5) of the LC.
37.
§ 276, Section (1) of the LC.
38.
Berke (2015), p. 129.
39.
§ 276, Section (7) of the LC.
40.
§ 276, Section (5) of the LC.
41.
§ 278 of the LC.
42.
§ 279, Section (5) of the LC.
43.
§ 277, Section (1) of the LC.
44.
§ 279, Sections (2)-(3) of the LC.
45.
§ 276, Section (2) of the LC: trade union shall be entitled to conclude a collective agreement if its membership of workers at the employer reaches ten per cent: (a) of all workers employed by the employer; (b) of the number of workers covered by the collective agreement concluded by the employers interest group. According to Section (6) of the same §, in the application of Section (2) hereof, the average statistical number of employees for the half-year period before the date of conclusion of the contract shall be taken into consideration.
46.
§ 276, Section (4) of the LC.
47.
Kiss (2015b), p. 42.
48.
Berke (2015), p. 133.
49.
Gyulavári and Kártyás label it as a “soft” criterion, which may foster collective bargaining. Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 28.
50.
Nacsa and Neumann (2013), p. 103.
51.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 26.
52.
§ 276, Section 8 of the LC.
53.
Berke (2015), p. 118.
54.
For the purposes of the Labour Code, “employment regulations” shall mean legislation, collective agreements and works agreements, and the binding decisions of the conciliation committee. § 13 of the LC.
55.
See § 43, Section (1) of the LC: Unless otherwise provided for by law, the employment contract may derogate from the provisions of Part Two and from employment regulations to the benefit of the employee.
56.
§ 43 of the LC.
57.
http://mkir.gov.hu/.
58.
Berke (2015), p. 137.
59.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), pp. 27–28; Article 64/A of the 1992 Labour Code, introduced by an amendment of the original text in 1995.
60.
§ 268, Section (1) of the LC.
61.
Berke (2015), p. 125.
62.
Only the chairman of the works council enjoys labour law protection (against termination of employment). See § 260, Sections (3)-(5) of the LC.
63.
Szabó calls it “a secret weapon” for employers. Szabó (2015), p. 211.
64.
As of 2018: Ministry of Finance.
65.
Neumann (2017), p. 12.
66.
In Hungary the official number of registered agreements and their coverage did not change between 2008 and 2013. However, earlier figures on agreements registered with the Centre for Social Dialogue indicate that collective bargaining coverage fell by 14 percentage points between 2001 and 2012—from 47% to 33%. Borbély and Neumann (2015), p. 202.
67.
Borbély and Neumann (2015), p. 202.
68.
See generally Képesné Szabó and Rossu (2015).
69.
In most of the post-socialist, CEE-countries, collective bargaining (if any) has always taken place mostly at micro (company) level.
70.
§ 277 of the LC.
71.
In contrast, the old LC had laid down the relative (exclusive) dispositivity (allowing no derogations) of collective agreements with a broader scope.
72.
Krén (2013) and Glassner (2013).
73.
Kohl (2015), p. 288.
74.
Act LXXIV of 2009 on sectoral social dialogue committees (In Hungarian: Ágazati Párbeszéd Bizottságok, ÁPB).
75.
The Act (and its Annex) lays down specific and overly complex and bureaucratic criteria of representativeness/collective contracting capacity (based on scores in various indicators).
76.
Képesné Szabó and Rossu (2015).
77.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 23.
78.
“Practically zero” as Berke frames it. Berke (2015), p. 128.
79.
Krén (2016), pp. 8–9.
80.
Neumann (2015), p. 55.
81.
Fulton (2015).
82.
Kiss (2015a), p. 43.
83.
Berke (2015), p. 126.
84.
Neumann (2015), p. 59.
85.
Neumann and Boda (2011).
86.
Szabó (2015) and Neumann and Boda (2011). However, this attitude is not fully equivalent to the standard “concession bargaining” policy pursued by American and West European labour unions, since the unions in Hungary do not have the bargaining power to prevent the management from carrying through their intentions. What happened in Hungary mostly was that the unions simply accepted their management’s crisis-relief measures—as a necessary evil—in order to preserve jobs. Fazekas and Molnár (2011), p. 93.
87.
Szabó (2015), p. 208.
88.
European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions 2014 (HUNGARY) Articles 2, 5, 6, 21 and 22 of the Revised Charter, January 2015, 18.
89.
ILO, Memorandum of Technical Comments on Hungary’s draft Labour Code, 8 November 201. The Memorandum criticised several provisions on both collective and individual rights which run counter to Hungary’s obligations under various ILO Conventions.
90.
Code of Conduct, Procedures of the MTVSZ is available here: http://www.jogpontok.hu/download/vitarendezes__kodex.pdf (Last visited: 01.10.2018).
91.
Laki et al. (2013) and LIGA (2015).
92.
Gyulavári and Kártyás (2015), p. 28.
93.
Mass privatization after the change of regime; domination of micro, small and medium sized enterprises in the economy, etc.
94.
Lack of skills, tradition, know-how of collective bargaining, etc.
95.
Low coverage of collective bargaining is a typical feature of post-socialist countries.
96.
Company traditions and company culture (especially in Hungarian subsidiaries of multinational companies) play an important role in the way of dealing with collective contractual relations.
97.
Szabó (2015), p. 211.
98.
Borbély and Neumann (2015), p. 169.
99.
The literature on TCAs is extensive and constantly evolving. Among others, see: Papadakis (2008); Hammer (2005); Schömann et al. (2008); Müller et al. (2013); Garcıa-Muñoz et al. (2011); Ales and Dufresne (2012) etc.
100.
On TCAs in Hungarian, see generally: Kun (2015).
101.
The Volkswagen Charter is also mentioned in the literature as a unique agreement that extends substantially and globally the “co-decision” model of the German model, that is, a number of topics are expected by the interest representation organizations involvement in corporate decision-making. Leonardi (2012), p. 10.
102.
Csapucha (2014).
103.
See for further details: Neumann (2011).
104.
https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Accord_social_europeen_2016-ho2.pdf (Last visited: 03.05.2018).
105.
Lloyd-Cape (2014), pp. 83–100.

References

Ales E, Dufresne A (2012) Transnational collective bargaining: another (problematic) fragment of the European multi-level industrial relations system. Eur J Ind Relat 18(2):95–105
Article Google Scholar
Berke G (2015) The collective agreement in the new Labour Code. In: Kiss G (ed) Trade unions and collective agreements in the new Labour Code. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 115–144
Google Scholar
Berki E (2015) Collective agreements at employers with public ownership. In: Kiss G (ed) Trade unions and collective agreements in the new Labour Code. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 63–75
Google Scholar
Borbély S, Neumann L (2015) Similarities and diversity in the development of wages and collective bargaining in central and eastern European countries – a comparison of Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. In: Van Gyes G, Schulten T (eds) Wage bargaining under the new European Economic Governance Alternative strategies for inclusive growth. ETUI, Brussels, pp 169–221
Google Scholar
Csapucha A (2014) Győrben találkoztak a szakszervezetek. Available at: http://gyorplusz.hu/cikk/128737.html. Accessed 10.09.2018
European Commission (2011) Industrial relations in Europe 2010. Brussels
Google Scholar
Fazekas K, Molnár G (eds) (2011) The Hungarian labour market review and analysis – the effects of the crisis. Institute of Economics, IE-HAS, National Employment Foundation, Budapest
Google Scholar
Fodor TG, Nacsa B, Neumann L (2008) Comparative analysis of collective agreements covering one or more employers (Egy és több munkáltatóra kiterjedő hatályú kollektív szerződések összehasonlító elemzése, in Hungarian). Kende Ügyvédi Iroda, Budapest
Google Scholar
Fulton L (2015) Worker representation in Europe. Labour Research Department and ETUI. Produced with the assistance of the SEEurope Network. Available at: http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations
Garcıa-Muñoz AMA, Ter Haar BP, Kun A (2011) Soft on the inside, hard on the outside: an analysis of the legal nature of new forms of international labour law. Int J Comp Labour Law Ind Relat 27(4):337–363
Google Scholar
Girndt R (2013) Trade unions in Hungary 2012: new hope in a year of woes? Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Budapest and FES Regional Project on Labour Relations and Social Dialogue, Warsaw
Google Scholar
Glassner V (2013) Central and eastern European industrial relations in the crisis: national divergence and path-dependent change. Eur Rev Labour Res 19(2):155–169
Google Scholar
Gyulavári T, Kártyás G (2015) The Hungarian flexicurity pathway? New Labour Code after twenty years in the market economy. Pázmány Press, Budapest
Google Scholar
Hajdú J (2011) Labour law in Hungary. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands
Google Scholar
Hammer N (2005) International framework agreements: global industrial relations between rights and bargaining. Eur Rev Labour Res 11(4):511–530
Google Scholar
Kahancová M (2015) Central and Eastern European trade unions after the EU enlargement: successes and failures for capacity building. Eur Rev Labour Res 21(3):343–357
Google Scholar
Képesné Szabó I, Rossu B (2015) An attempt to revitalize social dialogue and national industrial relations systems in some of the CEECs - lesson learnt and best practices in the way out of the crisis. Country Report, Hungary, VS/2014/0588. Available at: http://site21.rootor.com/img/21120/hungary_country-report_en_-ir_vs_2014-0588.pdf. Accessed 01.03.2017
Kiss G (2015a) Opportunities and limits of application principles and Civil Code rules in Hungarian labour law - crisis management with means of civil law. ELLN Working Paper 4/2015
Google Scholar
Kiss G (2015b) The legal dogmatic status and law policy opportunities of trade unions based on Hungarian employment regulations from 1992 till today. In: Kiss G (ed) Trade unions and collective agreements in the new Labour Code. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 11–45
Google Scholar
Kohl M (2015) Convergence and divergence – 10 years since EU enlargement. Eur Rev Labour Res 21(3):285–311
Google Scholar
Krén I (2013) Hungary: impact of the crisis on industrial relations. EurWORK. Available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn1301019s/hu1301011q.htm. Accessed 01.08.2015
Krén I (2016) Annual review of labour relations and social dialogue, Hungary 2015. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Regional Project on Labour Relations and Social Dialogue, Bratislava
Google Scholar
Kun A (2014) Labour Law reform in Hungary in context of the global economic crisis: a rugged journey towards flexicurity? In: Aydin U, Oguz Ö (eds) The recent changes in EU labour law. Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, Eskisehir, Türkiye, pp 3–24
Google Scholar
Kun A (2015) A transznacionális vállalati megállapodások szabályozási kísérlete - a kollektív autonómia és az EU-munkajog metszéspontjában. In: Horváth I (ed) Tisztelgés: Ünnepi tanulmányok Dr. Hágelmayer Istvánné születésnapjára. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest, pp 263–281
Google Scholar
Kun A (2017) International Research Project DIADSE (Dialogue for Advancing Social Europe), Country Report- Hungary. Project financed by EU, European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Social Dialogue, Industrial Relations, Agreement number VS/2014/0530, Duration: December 2014–December 2016. Project Management: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Hugo S. Instituut. Available at: http://hsi.uva.nl/en/diadse/reports/reports.html
Laki M et al (2013) Az új Munka Törvénykönyvének hatása a munkavállalók és a munkáltatók közötti kapcsolatokra (Kutatási zárójelentés. Műhelytanulmányok MT-DP – 2013/2 Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Közgazdaság- és Regionális Tudományi Kutatóközpont Közgazdaság-tudományi Intézet, in Hungarian)
Google Scholar
Leonardi S (2012) Transnational company agreements: a stepping stone towards a real internationalization of industrial relations? In: EUROACTA, European Action on Transnational Company Agreements: a stepping stone towards a real internationalisation of industrial relations? Final report. Istituto di Ricerche Economiche e Sociali – IRES, Roma, pp 4–19
Google Scholar
LIGA Trade Unions (2015) Analytical Study: Impact Assessment of the New Labor Code (original title: Elemző tanulmány: az új Munka Törvénykönyvének hatásvizsgálata). Független Szakszervezetek Demokratikus Ligája, Budapest, TÁMOP-2.5.3.C-13/1-2013-0001, A Munkáért
Google Scholar
Lloyd-Cape M (2014) Hungary, CSR between socialism and export-oriented MNCs. In: Preuss L, Gold M, Rees C (eds) Corporate social responsibility and trade unions. Routledge, London, pp 83–100
Google Scholar
Müller T, Platzer H-W, Rüb S (2013) Transnational company agreements and the role of European Works Councils in negotiations, A quantitative analysis in the metalworking sector. ETUI Report 127, Brussels
Google Scholar
Nacsa B, Neumann L (2013) Hungary: the reduction of social democracy and employment. In: Lerais F et al (eds) Social democracy under the strain of crisis: an essay of international comparison. Noisy, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales, IRES, pp 99–115. Available at: http://www.fe.ccoo.es/comunes/recursos/25/doc169861_Estudio_europeo_comparativo_sobre_el_impacto_de_la_crisis_economica_en_los_sistemas_de_negociacion_colectiva_y_dialogo_social_%28ingles%29.pdf. Accessed 12.02.2017
Neumann L (2011) Labour relations of the Électricité de France (EDF) European Works Council within the frame of the project “Electricity networks in Europe”. Project number: VS/2010/0776, Budapest
Google Scholar
Neumann L (2015) The practice of collective agreements: a corporate research experience. In: Kiss G (ed) Trade unions and collective agreements in the new Labour Code. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 45–63
Google Scholar
Neumann L (2017) Annual review of labour relations and social dialogue, Hungary 2016. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Regional Project on Labour Relations and Social Dialogue, Bratislava
Google Scholar
Neumann L, Boda D (2011) The effects of the crisis on company policies. In: Fazekas K, Molnar G (eds) The Hungarian labour market: review and analysis 2011. Institute of Economics, IE-HAS, National Employment Foundation, Budapest, pp 76–96
Google Scholar
Pál L (2015) The legal status of trade unions in the new Labour Code. In: Kiss G (ed) Trade unions and collective agreements in the new Labour Code. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 85–93
Google Scholar
Papadakis K (ed) (2008) Cross-border social dialogue and agreements: an emerging global industrial relations framework? ILO, Geneva
Google Scholar
Schömann I, Sobczak A, Voss E, Wilke P (2008) Codes of conduct and international framework agreements: new forms of governance at company level. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxembourg
Google Scholar
Szabó I (2015) Between polarization and statism – effects of the crisis on collective bargaining processes and outcomes in Hungary. Eur Rev Labour Res 19(2):205–215
Google Scholar
Tóth A (2012) The New Hungarian Labour Code - background, conflicts, compromises. Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Budapest. Available at: http://www.fesbp.hu/common/pdf/Nachrichten_aus_Ungarn_june_2012.pdf. Accessed 01.02.2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Faculty of Law, Károli Gáspár University, Budapest, Hungary
Attila Kun
Institute of Human Resources, Faculty of Political Sciences and Public Administration, National University of Public Service, Budapest, Hungary
Attila Kun
Research Group of Comparative and European Employment Policy and Labour Law, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
Attila Kun

Authors

Attila Kun
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Attila Kun .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Ulla Liukkunen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kun, A. (2019). Hungary. In: Liukkunen, U. (eds) Collective Bargaining in Labour Law Regimes. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16977-0_12

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16977-0_12
Published: 02 October 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16976-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16977-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics