Fai-Cisl, Flai-Cgil and Uila-Uil signed yesterday, on a proposal from Unionfood, Assobirra and Ancit (fish farmers), associations belonging to Federalimentare, a national collective agreement for the renewal of the food industry CCNL.
The start of the signing of the agreement was given by the assembly of the negotiating delegation of Fai-Flai-Uila, which was attended by 180 delegates via video link. The agreement, the signatories point out, recognizes the extraordinary role played by workers in the sector during the Covid-19 emergency, the sense of responsibility and the commitment they made to ensure that the products of the supply chain were not lacking on Italian tables; reiterates the value of trade union relations thanks to which it has been possible to manage the difficulties caused by the health emergency in companies in the sector; confirms the centrality of the national collective labor agreement.
The signatories keep a low profile with an essential communication style. But not everything went smoothly, especially between the industrialists, who have split internally and whose Association (Federalimentare) may not survive the earthquake. It is the first serious incident of a trade union nature that the new president of Confindustria, Carlo Bonomi, finds himself managing internally.
The limit of the national collective labor agreements, which include very uneven realities, finds further confirmation in this story. The negotiations for the renewal of the national contract in the food sector pitted multinationals, brewers and fish farmers who are members of the Federalimentare (the association that groups companies in the sector) against the rest of the companies in the sector which, although smaller in size, would represent 60 % of industry employees. A division within the entrepreneurs that led to a "separate" agreement, but this time between the trade unions and the giants of the Italian food union, which includes companies such as Ferrero and Barilla, the brewers and fish farmers.
For other realities it opens a contractual future to be discussed unless you decide to backtrack. The multinationals and the better structured companies objectively have a greater “ability to pay” compared to the other realities and equally in a hurry to put the contract renewal behind them because all in all they see a favorable market situation.
After all, contracts are the product not only of the contractual strength of the workers, but also of the real condition of the companies that sign them. In this circumstance the union, although aware of opening a dispute with the companies that remain excluded from it, has made a virtue of necessity by signing in the interest of those workers who will benefit from it.
The other companies in the food macro sector, sooner or later, will define if they want to act in associative terms another contract inevitably conditioned also by their economic situation or from new market opportunities. On the other hand, signing an agreement that is too expensive also means pushing marginal companies and their employees out of the market. If the number of these companies were significant, it would be easy to understand the choice of "minor" companies to take different paths in the contractual sphere from that of the multinationals and more solid realities.
It is difficult to understand today whether what happened could bring water to the German contractual model in which there is a national collective agreement for a single sector but which provides for companies and workers who decide to do so, to leave the system and create autonomous company contracts, as did the late Sergio Marchionne in the Fiat-Chrysler case. Of course it's going in that direction.
