Israeli Industrial Relations Research Association(IIRRA) in Cooperation with the International Labour Organization(ILO) and Friedrich Ebert- Stiftung Special International Conference Commemorating the CENTENARY of the ILO, Tel Aviv, 28/11/19 Tripartism as a Leading Concept in Both ILO's Work and Labour Relations in Israel New Challenges in Labour Relations at the Public Sector in Israel and the World Research and edited by Adv. J. Gattegno, Coordinator

Table of Contents Opening Session 3 The Tripartism Principle – the Government, Unions and the Employers' Organizations in ILO and in Israel 6 Tripartism in Israel 8 Proposals for Improving the Basis of Tripartism in Israel 15 New Challenges in Labour Relations at the Public Sector in Israel and the World 17 Proposals regarding the realization of challenges facing the public sector and the issue of strikes in vital services sectors 20 Appendices 22

Most of the speakers in the opening session have stressed the importance of the 100-year anniversary for the establishment of the International Labor Organization(hereinafter ILO) and the uniqueness of this organization. Dr. Roby Nathanson, chairperson of the IIRRA Steering Committee, marked the importance of this organizations' activity and its collaboration with the State of Israel over the years in the introductory speech of the event. Guy Rider, D.G. of the organization, was invited to attend this special centenary conference but unfortunately was unable to attend. He has sent, however, a greeting to the conference participants which Dr. Nathanson read aloud. Nathanson addressed the changes the world of employment is undergoing as a result of the advancing technologies and stressed the importance of vocational training in a world where the only constant thing is ongoing change, and in which the challenges of tripartism in the labour world of the present and of the future need to be tackled. Advocate Orly Bitty, chairperson of the IIRRA, has expressed concerns in regard to the existence of Tripartism and the hardship it encounters which threatens its future existence due to technology and the tendency to individualize relations at the workplace. She has welcomed the IIRRA’s conference part icipants and the keynote guest speaker from the ILO and expressed her hope for the continued collaboration with the organization and with the Fredrich Ebert Stiftung in their joint collaboration and in their contribution to the conference and to the IIRRA. The speaker has mentioned some crucial issued to be handled in the tripartism framework such as raising awareness and implementation of work safety, improving supervision and enforcement in the area of labour laws and keeping the importance of collective agreements. Dr. Avigdor Kaplan, D.G. of the Ministry of Labor, Welfare and Social Services, has touched upon the association between labor and welfare in his speech. He emphasized the importance of removing barriers in employment of the elderly and retirees in view of the current prolonged life expectancy. With regard to the problems at the level of pensions as for the increased capital risks of the pension funds and the current rate of interest, he called for better implementation of technological education for the purpose of improving both its image and attractivity as well as of the required reforms. Dr. 3

Kaplan has placed an emphasis on improved social dialogue in the context of labour relations and mediation processes between employers and employees as a contributing and vital component of this system. He highlighted his preference for mandatory mediation and expansion of its prevalence over the proposals for mandatory arbitration. Advocate Ofir Alcalay, D.G. of the New Histadrut, has brought forth Histadrut’s position on the importance of Tripartism as an essential collaboration between the central players in the economy. He has identified the ROUND TABLE as an elemental component in understanding the needs of each and every party and as a key requirement for economic and social success. Adv. Alcalay gave some examples of how this type of collaboration has saved some industry plants from collapsing and discussed the topic of employment of people with disabilities and their potential contribution to the economy. Furthermore, he has mentioned that proposals for mandatory arbitration harms the freedom of association and that mandatory arbitration is obsolete in view of the responsibility demonstrated by the Histadrut in labour disputes. Advocate Michal Waxman Hili, Head of Labor and Human Resources Division, Manufacturers' Association of Israel, dedicated her words to the Labor Court authority and to the importance of its rulings and the mediation processes it runs. Adv. Waxman Hili has stressed the ongoing collaborations with the Histadrut representatives on a variety of topics and insisted on the need to remove barriers with regard to employment of people with disabilities and the need to raise the mandatory retirement age for women to 64 of age, while taking all the required steps for its establishment. Mr. Micky Drill, Representative of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Israel, started his speech by stressing the importance of the collaboration between all the functionaries organizing the conference. He furthermore raised attention to the activities of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Israel and worldwide and emphasized the importance of this conference for the issues to be discussed in its scope. The main goals which are necessary to consider are sustainable development, decent work, improving work conditions and economic growth. Lastly, Mr. Drill has stressed the tight cooperation that exists between the activity of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Geneva and the ILO. 4

Adv. Valerie Van Goethem, representative of the International Labor Organization in this conference, has brought up the ongoing cooperation and collaboration between ILO and the IIRRA and highlighted the benefits rising from this cooperation and has delivered the D. G’s and the T ripartism Department’s greetings to the conference. 5

The Tripartism Principle – the Government, Unions and the Employers Organizations in ILO and in Israel Introduction The Philadelphia Declaration " 1(d) the war against want requires to be carried on with unrelenting vigor within each nation, and by continuous and concerted international effort in which the representatives of workers and employers, enjoying equal status with those of governments, join with them in free discussion and democratic decision with a view to the promotion of the common welfare. -------------- 3(e) the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining, the cooperation of management and labor in the continuous improvement of productive efficiency, and the collaboration of workers and employers in the preparation and application of social and economic measures;" The Philadelphia Declaration of 10 May 1944 is considered to be a fundamental document which initiates and renovates the values and activity principles of the Labor Organization that was established already in 1919, at the end of WWI, and was inspired by the American president, Woodrow Wilson. This quotation was recited countless times in the various treaties constituted by the ILO as well as in its constitution. The declaration, of which two paragraphs are quoted above and which exhibits references to the positions taken by the various unions and employers’ organizations, also appears as an addendum to the ILO constitution. The principles and structural frameworks of Tripartism already appears in this early Philadelphia Declaration – the government, employees’ and employers’ organizations as a basic value for the operation of the ILO, for the economy of nations, for the existence 6

of social justice and the association it has with world peace, decent work and a reasonable standard of living for human beings. Among all United Nation’s agencies, only the International Labor Organization was established on the basis on three parties of which two are not nations but civil entities employees’ and employers’ organizations. The principles of Tripartism is expressed in the task of balancing these three parties within the labour organization as well as in their positions in the various countries, while aiming to maintain effects balancing the three parties. The need to strengthen the democratic values in the various nations after two world wars, the importance of organizing and operating economic forces to act from and within the civil population, pushing for economic rehabilitation and imparting wellbeing to the countries’ populations by creating new jobs, recruiting initiatives, increasing productivity and pushing motivation up, are the forces that pushed for the existence of this basic principle. The ILO impacts the labor relationships in its member countries by setting norms expressed via an entire array of international conventions and recommendations set by the Organization through discussions between and within its three constituting groups acting at an international level. The conventions impact the various trends and labour legislation in the various countries as well as cover gaps that exist in these countries’ legislations. In view of the special position set for the two civil bodies, the unions and the employer´s organizations, in the triangle as mentioned above and the establishment of the collective negotiations and collective agreement a central and unique tool, an autonomous legal system was constructed. It sets standards and norms using these tools and operated by the employees and employers’ unions and reflects on labo ur life, level of payments and the standard of living for large populations within the country, and at times, even the entire population of that country. This tool characterizes and expresses democratic processes of the employees’ freedom of association and employment in voluntary frameworks. The collective negotiations improve labour conditions, social benefits, safety means and rules, career management, employees retirement arrangements, professional training, disciplinary proceedings and many others. 7

The agreements embodied in the collective agreements at their various levels- at the nationwide level, the sector level and even at the plant level – are expressed by employment terms, production and wages, beyond the minimum thresholds set forth by the countries’ legislation. Furthermore, these collective agreemen ts cover wide areas of activities and employment terms that are not specified in the legislation, either due to the varied nature of areas of activities or due to the fact that various achievements of the employees and employers’ organizations have not rea ched the legislation process for political or other reasons. In activating the collective agreements tool, one can see an important stage expressing variability between sectors segments, plant level segments as well as processes of change. This displays improvement and update that are not expressed via legislation which, in turn, is dependent on party coalitions under the condition of an ever-changing prioritization existing in the Knesset and in the various parliaments all over the world. It happens that the intense activity of employee’s unions and employers’ organizations precedes and establishes areas of discussion where both parties reach an agreement. The government is attempting to object at times. The public pressure, however, has its own impact by forcing the government to adhere to the agreement. This public pressure on the government sector intensifies at times since this sector is organized in broad scopes and so the power of the unions plays its role in adopting standards and norms that were previously achieved in the private sector. Tripartism in Israel A number of speakers at the 2019 conference have stated that the Tripartism principle was adopted in a natural and sympathetic manner and that it was successfully implemented numerous times as part of the labour relations in Israel. The issue in question was caused due to several reasons – the Histadrut that was a dominant part of the future state was staffed by persons who later on became its leaders, its accumulated economic and organizational strength, which was maintained for many years(Histadrut contained approximately 30% of the economy, in addition to all social and other 8

organizations concentrated by it), the relations between the leading political party and the Histadrut, the weakness of private employers and more. The Coordinating Bureau of Economic Organizations was established in the mid- 1960’ s. The Bureau united the majority of the organizations that represented the private sector. The Histadrut swapped its organizational activity to conducting negotiations with said organizations, indirectly causing their empowerment in comparison to the public framework. Collective agreements began to be signed. The said agreements determined the preliminary norms regarding collective negotiations, sectorial labour conditions, etc. The Histadrut, due to its organizational strength, did not support labour related legislation at that time due to its authority and ability to dictate the said terms. The negotiations that were held with organizations from the private sector have added a real economic dimension with respect to demands and labour conditions as well as the costs that were finalized at the end of the process. The process, as well as its results, has reflected the price of economic stability in a more adequate manner., The(more or less) proper ratio between labor and capital has caused an increase of investment activity, either local or foreign, and created trusting relations between the parties, based on rational parameters rather than on political influences. Main milestones reflecting the tripartistic structure and the influence of social partners on achievement realization, initiatives that were later on adjoined by the government: 1967 – A basic collective agreement between the Histadrut and the Manufactur er’s Association that determined the principles of any negotiations held regarding the renewal of collective agreements, including the“industrial peace” clause, set out conduct and discipline rules, work safety related issues, as well as other agreed upon clauses, such as the establishment of labour courts. The State, through the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labour, handled the establishment of said courts as a separate professional judicial framework that would operate in parallel to the general judicial system. The respective courts act in the field of labour legislation, both on the level of individuals as well as on the level of collective agreements. The tripartism became 9

apparent due to the fact that any proceeding held by employees’ and employers’ organizations were prioritized over personal proceedings regarding time and the issues dealt directly by the National Labour Court. The panel of judges includes, beside the professional Judge appointed by the State, two lay judges – representatives of the public, coming from employees and employers, who are experienced in labour related aspects. Each panel member has one vote in any judicial resolution. 1970 and so forth – Dialogues and agreements regarding inflation decrease, economy stability improvement and economy performance enhancement –“ Frame Deals Agreements” initiated by the government between all three parties, based on the partial freeze wage, taxation and prices freeze principle. Each party contributed its part to the improvement of the economy. 1975 – 2011 – Cost of Living Allowance(COLA) Agreements Throughout this entire period, there was a constant dialogue between organizations that represented the private sector and the Histadrut. Collective agreements regarding compensation in a form of COLA(Cost of Living Allowance) additions based on economic formulas have been signed. These agreements were based on a concept which states that it is impossible to construct a reasonable and logical labour relations framework without compensating a part of the inflation with an automatic compensation that varies according to inflation rates and pace. The private sector was the one that negotiated the said COLA agreements while consulting with government representatives. Said agreements have been expanded by extension orders and are applicable to all employees, including those of the public sector. 1976 – 1987 – Minimum Wage The Employers’ Organization and the Histadrut have signed a“Framework Agreement” in 1976 to this effect. As part of this agreement, the minimum wages for all industries included in this part of economy have been determined for the first time. During the following years, some of them were amended and updated agreements have been signed. 10

In 1987, the Minimum Wages Law was enacted. The law used most of the terms of the collective agreement. At some point and due to the pressure applied within the Knesset, the Histadrut agreed to the enactment of the Law, which was dedicated to replace the collective agreements that settled the issue up to that point in time. It should be noted, however, that this was cogent law. In 2011, as well as at later times, an action w as conducted between the employers’ representatives and the union organization, based on which a collective agreement has been signed. In this agreement, the minimum wage was set higher than the wage stipulated by the law. This collective agreement has been expanded as well, and it now binds all employers. Collective agreement regarding comprehensive occupational pension In 1979, a fundamental industry agreement, which determined a mandatory plan with respect to comprehensive occupational pension was signed. This pension includes an aged-retirement allowance, disability insurance in case of illness caused during work and dependents insurance in the event of death of an employee during work. This model of collective agreement has expanded the pension insurances, mutatis mutandis , into additional industries as well. This model constituted the basis of the comprehensive agreement signed between the employers’ organiza tions and the Histadrut. The aforementioned agreement has been extended and has been implemented in the beginning of 2008. The agreement is applicable to all employees who do not have an adequate pension cover, all throughout the economy. The Ministry of Finance did not oppose the implementation of the agreement in order to avoid as far as possible any financial or other accountability. Although the mandatory pension originates from a collective agreement and an accompanying extension order, the Enforcement Law, it was imposed over the agreement and its enforcement Thus, it is included as an integral part of the supervision by the Ministry of Labour regarding the overall implementation of the pension scheme. 11

1984 – 1985 The highlight of the cooperation between economy factors is the consensus they concluded in the 1985 economic crisis. Following the 1984 elections, a national unity government was formed. Mr. Shimon Peres from the“Avoda” party was the first to serve as a Prime Minister, with Mr. Itzhak Moda’i from the“Likud” as his Minister of Finance. The economy was extremely dire at that time – 450% annual inflation, impoverishment of foreign currency balances, employment difficulties and the severe economic crisis of 1985. Under these stressful circumstances, a group of prestigious economists came up with an stabilization plan which the government requested to implement via numerous emergency regulation orders. These were difficult measures, for they required freezing prices during hyperinflation, freezing wages for a period of six months and additional actions intended to constrain the inflation. As stated, the government attempted to pass the measures by means of enforcement, without precedent emergency legislation on economic issues and without any dialogue with the representative organizations. At first, the later have contemplated to oppose the plan and the unique emergency measures that were taken. However, following intricate negotiations between the tripartistic structure parties, agreements that included numerous consented actions were concluded. They have eventually stabilized the economy, restrained the inflationand increased economic growth and employment. Despite the natural internal disagreements within the unity government and severe disagreements with the social partners, each party did its part by helping to provide security for the economy. In light of the consents that were achieved following the long negotiations, the employees have agreed to wage erosion with a view to the inflation during the wage freeze period. The employers, on the other hand,have agreed to profitability erosion due to the prices freeze, while the government contributed by not increasing taxes. Several months later, the economy slowly returned to a growth path, the inflation was gradually reduced and the following agreements have gradually increased the wages to the level prior to the economic plan, and even beyond 1 . • 1 A significant portion of issues which reflect tripartistic activity throughout the years were taken from an article by Dr. Motti Netzer that was published in the Human Resources Magazine 2008, P. 8,“ 60 years of labour relations and legislation 1948- 2008”. 12

From 1988 onwards On three different instances throughout the 1988 – 2018 period, additional collective agreements with extension orders have been signed. These agreements determined the gradual reduction of work hours set for various economy industries. The first stage, a reduction to 45 weekly work hours, was followed by the amendment of the Hours of Work and Rest Law. Subsequent amendments of collective agreements and accompanying extension orders have recently reduced weekly work hours in the economy to 42 from 45. In 1995, the structure of the Histadrut has changed. Services provided by the Clalit Health Maintenance Organization(HMO) – the largest health fund in Israel – are no longer considered as activities by the Histadrut. The billing and collection of the HMO were primary revenues sources for the vast activities of the Histadrut in various fields. The decrease of its activities as a result of which it serves mainly as an organization that represents merely union matters has caused the Histadrut severe financial difficulties. The recovery plan involved employees’ termination and assets’ sale. In addit ion, there was a problem with the collection of membership fees and fees from those who enjoy the benefits of the negotiations(on a plant level) but are not full members of the Histadrut yet. In order to face this challenge, two collective agreements have been signed simultaneously in the private and in the public sectors. These agreements enabled an aggregate concentrated collection from all Histadrut members through pay slips generated by employers who are a part of the organization. The aggregate collection prevented various expenses that would have been incurred due to the need for establishment of a collection system and resulted in direct collection from the employees. The“practice” of paying membership and management fees from nonmembers did not exist, so these payments were included in the HMO membership fees. 13

A collective agreement was signed between the employer´s organizations and the Histadrut. It stipulated that employers shall collect membership fees from their employees belonging to labour unions and transfer these payments collectively to the Histadrut. 2009 – Amendments to the Collective Agreements Act in order to reinforce freedom of association principles among employees prior to collective negotiations The Collective Agreements Act was amended due to the“round table” negotiations that were held in 2009. Regarding employees’ undisputable freedom of association, the underlying principles of the negotiations were reinforced, stating that the“ bona fide” principle(principle of good faith) would be required in negotiations as well as the protection over workers who are active members of workplace organizations. Significant financial sanctions were set for any workplaces whose administrations would be proven of interfering and impeding obstacles to the initial organization of their employees. From 2007 onwards S everal collective agreements have been signed between private employers’ organizations. Even though these agreements were signed by the private sector, they affected the public sector as well. • A collective agreement regarding employees’ privacy protection • A collective agreement regarding employment of workers with disabilities on a rate of total employees at workplaces over certain scope Proposals for improving the basis of Tripartism in Israel Note: In general, it seems that any negotiations in the private sector, in all their aspects, are mostly conducted on professional issues and tend to reflect the economic position of the industry or the workplace. The negotiations that are held in the public sector are usually finalized after a considerable period of time after the expiration of the current 14

collective agreement. These negotiations are held under pressure and usually have an aggressive nature due to differences of position between the negotiating parties. In general, rational parameters should be set for any negotiations held in the public sector as well as reinforcement of relevant discussions in a bona fide manner while attempting to neutralize, as much as possible, any non-relevant pressure of political nature. • Even though the tripartistic framework is existent among the parties, whether as part of principle legislation processes or during an economic or an employment crisis process, no orderly system with defined rules was yet established. Some rules regarding meetings with respect to material issues should be set in the absence of a crisis, and all parties should participate in said discussions. • Providing a legal and formal basis for said framework • Given the challenges of the labour market with regard to digital work and the changes of the occupational map, it is more important than ever to prepare for these circumstances through mutual deliberations. • Due to the technological revolution, a collaboration should be created which accords to the elements of the tripartistic structure. Therefore, it should stipulate that each segment of the working society has to develop a modern strategy in order to jointly address the challenge of technical revolution by relevant vocational training. In addition, this process will need to be monitored by the three constituencies of the tripartistic structure. • With respect to any issues that requires specific and unique expertise, it would be appropriate to cooperate with civic organizations that specialize in the aforementioned aspects in order to obtain their expert opinion which would further contribute to the discussions. • As budgetary proposals presented to the Knesset after government resolutions refer to social partners in various areas, it is recommended to present them during the discussions to the parties involved in order to consult them and receive their comments and reservations. 15

• One should try to stay as close to the agenda of the meetings as possible without being tempted to formulate any position that reflect the political position of any party. • It is advisable to act transparently without trying to surprise any of the other parties in order to maintain mutual trust and cooperation. 16

New Challenges in Labour Relations at the Public Sector in Israel and World In Israel, the public sector is known for its significant scope of workers’ organizations and the vigorous activity of their representatives. For many years, this sector was a leader in statistics related to standstills. This mostly included strikes in vital service industries, some of them even by government owned companies. It should be noted that during recent years said statistics have changed due to privatization processes carried out in some of the government owned companies following collective agreements. They defined the above and other procedures, such as the Ports and EL-AL, due to changes in the Histadrut’s policies. It seems that the opinion of the public which suffered from aforementioned standstills of public services, had some effect on reducing the number of strike days and its scope. It does not mean that underneath the surface all is quiet with respect to working relations, as it is expressed in sanctions by the social security authority, train authority, tax authority, medicinal sectors, the judicial system, etc. The freedom of strike is relatively wide in Israel. Being a middle-small size country that does not exhibit a federative framework, government officials and municipal personnel are permitted to strike correspondingly. Strike is defined within labou r courts’ rulings as any change of employee´s activity at workplace that is based on their discretion and not instructed by the employer. Recently, there were some sayings and suggestions coming mainly from right-wing representatives of the Knesset. They suggest to apply pressure on the planners and the organizers of strikes held in vital service industries by conducting extensive and complex proceedings prior to the beginning of the strike, defining mandatory arbitration and mediation processes for said industries. All the above goes beyond the regular activities of the labour court. There are various limitations, either set by law or by practice, regarding standstills of public sectors in general, and specifically vital service industries, in numerous Western countries. The legislators in these countries tend to define the term“vital services” as a 17

wide range that includes numerous sectors, by which they restrict the unions’ ability to strike. At times, they determine longer freeze periods of time between the declaration and the execution. An additional option is to determine a conduct of formal proceedings which creates a complex situation that delays or prevents the outbreak of the strike such as the need of a secret ballot before an upcoming strike. Several countries have introduced mandatory arbitration and mediation processes with the purpose to prevent the organizational steps. Prior to the outbreak of some sort of a standstill in any industry there are several regulations that postpone or reduce the workers’ ability to strike in Israel: the Histadrut has to approve the strike, otherwise it shall be considered a non-legitimate standstill and no recognized securities with respect to any damages caused by the strike shall be applicable. According to the law, it is mandatory to declare the purpose of the standstill prior to its outbreak. After such a declaration and for a period of two weeks no organizational actions are permitted. As of the moment that a party to the dispute brought an action before the Labor Court, it serves as a leading agent that interferes in the discussions. Whether because it is authorized to issue an injunction against said planned strike, whether by pressuring the parties to withhold from the strike or postpone it, or whether by interfering with the order of proceedings concerning the dispute and the mechanism of the negotiations, while assuming the authority of a mediator between the parties. The Court permits various bodies such as employers’ and other organizations who would be affected by said projected standstill to join the legal discussions. The Court assesses the damages that might be inflicted upon various public sectors who are not involved in the conduct of the negotiations between the public employer and the relevant employees’ representatives. On several occasions, the representatives of the third party, the injured party, have been informally involved in the deliberations in order to reduce or prevent the organizational process. It is important to state that during recent years the scope of employer’s prerogative has been reduced and it includes matters that turn to be legitimate issues that underlay negotiations held between the parties, such as the demand to expand the number of positions, labour conditions improvement, reduction of pressure applied over 18

employees, enabling consultation procedures in the event of privatization and mergers by sale of governmental owned companies, etc. 19

Proposals regarding the realization of challenges facing the public sector and the issue of strikes in vital services sectors Preliminary note: Most of the speakers at the conference did not accept the existence of mandatory arbitration with respect to vital services due to various reasons: data with respect to reduction of strike scopes, there is no magic prescription to prevent the strikes in these sectors, the existence of several barriers prior to the outbreak of said standstills, the handling of the issue has to be concentrated on significant improvement of dialogue proceedings or an agreed framework for negotiations and exhaustion of proceedings. It seems that there is no consent among the representatives of the public sector per se with respect to supporting mandatory arbitration procedures. In light of the impression that the subject of conducting a relevant and substantial dialogue between the parties to collective negotiations, on all the various levels, is not being properly exhausted. And as in addition to that any discussion quickly turns to confrontations and mutual accusations and the parties are“arm- wrestling” while mostly implementing aggressive measures, it is proposed: • To increase the professional level of public sector employees by providing qualifications relevant for tasks bestowed upon various units, based on the technological changes of the economy. • General and comprehensive improvement of the level of negotiations that are held between labou r relations’ parties. The tripartistic structure should determine agreed terms regarding the dialogue framework, taking into consideration all negotiations underlying data, agreed definition of agenda and an unanimous use of arbitrating systems in order to determine the conduct of the proceedings. • Reaching clear consents regarding exhaustion of negotiation procedures between the parties prior to taking any hostile or organizational measures. • Establishing a professional tripartistic entity which will act as a mediator between the parties in any negotiations in the public sector in general, and those related to vital services(as shall be defined) in particular. This body should deal and focus on 20

the conduct of negotiating proceedings and especially on exhausting the conflicting issues. • Working together to improve the level of dialogues and communication, while emphasizing public service through periodical meetings that take place at times where there are no negotiations. • Following the undersigning of the Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) treaty signed by all relevant parties over a decade ago, the component of ADR in collective agreements, among other frameworks which address settling any disputes by the ADR system, was not included. An inclusion, however, is highly recommended. • It is recommended to present the elements of the negotiation, the conduct of the proceedings and the conclusion to the awareness of its’ parties as part of the industry and plant level frameworks in mutual training sessions for employers’ and employees’ representatives. This will promote better understanding and will lay out betters grounds for successful negotiations. • It is as well necessary to integrate the subject in schools, in appropriate classes. 21

Appendices Israeli Industrial Relations Research Association(IIRRA) Event celebrating the Centenary of the ILO& Conference“ Tripartism as a leading concept in both ILO’ s work and labour relations in Israel” Tel Aviv, 27-28 November 2019 Message by Guy Ryder, Director General, International Labour Organization (ILO) It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to your celebrations of the ILO’ s Centenary, in Tel Aviv. First of all, I would like to thank Israel’ s tripartite constituents for their long-standing commitment to the ILO. As well as the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the General Federation of Labour Histadrut, and the Manufacturers’ Association, I would also highlight the contribution made through the framework of the Israeli Industrial Relations Research Association(IIRRA). The ILO has a long tradition of cooperation with IIRRA, as well as with the FriedrichEbert-Stiftung, which is co-hosting this event. Over the years, the IIRRA’ s annual conference has produced many valuable reflections and inputs, both to the work of the ILO in general and to our thinking on the future of work in particular. Such contributions, along with those of the ILO’ s other member States, made an important contribution to the ILO’ s“ Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work”, adopted by the International Labour Conference last June. The Declaration reaffirms the need to promote a“ human-centred approach” to the future of work that places people and the work they do at the centre of economic and social policy and business practice. It outlines three pillars of action that we need to focus on and invest in, if we are to make this happen. First, investing in people’ s capabilities, so that they are equipped to benefit from the changes taking place in the world of work. Second, investing in the institutions of work. Third, increasing investment in decent and sustainable work. This means investing in people, in jobs, in equality(particularly gender equality), in skills and lifelong learning, 22

in universal social protection, in technology, in the green economy, and in the hard and soft infrastructure that promotes a just and equitable development path. Crucially, it also means investing in labour market institutions and social dialogue, including promoting freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. In this regard, I welcome your decision to make Tripartism the central item on your conference agenda this year. In our current uncertain and complex times, tripartite dialogue and cooperation are needed more than ever, as I had the opportunity to discuss with the ILO’ s constituents and many other parties during my visit to your country last year. In recent years, the concepts and practice of tripartism and social dialogue have been under pressure. In many countries, unionisation and collective bargaining have declined; the aftermath of the financial crisis brought a particularly significant drop in several countries. However, I do not know of a better way to build consensus in society than through tripartism. It is a mechanism that allows the broadest range of society to have a say in economic and social developments.In a century of the ILO’ s work, we have seen that social dialogue and collective bargaining lie at the root of every sustainable success story. It is also notable that the countries that better resisted the impact of the financial crisis were those with effective social dialogue institutions. So, it is no coincidence that the Centenary Declaration emphasizes the need for better social dialogue and collective bargaining if we are to address the challenges of the 21st Century- be they technological, demographic, environmental or social. I look forward to working with the IIRRA and all the tripartite Constituents of Israel to meet these challenges and implement the ILO’ s future of work agenda. I wish you the best for your Conference. 23

Program of the Conference 9.00-9.30 Get together and Registration 9.30-10.15 First Session: Opening Statements: Chairperson: Dr. Roby Nathanson, Chairperson of the IIRRA Steering ommittee Adv. Orly Bitty, Chairperson, IIRRA Dr. Avigdor Kaplan, D.G., Ministry of Labor, Welfare and Social Affairs Adv. Ofir Alcalay, D.G., Histadrut, Adv. Michal Waxman Hili, Head of Labor and Human Resources Division, Manufacturers' Association of Israel, IIRRA Board Member Mr. Micky Drill, Project Manager, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Adv. Valerie Van Goethem, Governance and Tripartism Dep., Labor Law Unit, ILO 10.15-11.00 Keynote speech: Prof. Guy Mundlak, Tel Aviv Univ. Faculty of Law:“ Tripartism as an organizational model for the ILO and Israel – strengths and blind spots” 11.15-11.00 Adv. Valerie Van Goethem, Governance and Tripartism Dep., Labour Law Unit, ILO:“Tripartism as a Leading Concept in both ILO's Work And Labor Relations in Israel” 11.30 511.1- Break 11.30-12.30 Second Session- Tripartism in Israel- Past, Present, Future? Chairperson: Dr. Ozer Carmi, An IRRA Board Member Mr. Ilan Levin, Former Director of Wages, Ministry of Finance Mr. Shai Biran, Head of Economy and Policy Divison, Histadrut 13.10-12.30 Break 13.10 15.35 – Third Session- New Challenges in Labour Relations at the Public Sector, in Israel and the World Chairperson: Prof. Itzhak Harpaz, President, Academic College Yizreel Valley, IIRRA Board Member 13.10-13.30 Mr. Ariel Yaakobi, Chairperson, Government Employees Union 24

13.30-14.15 Adv. Valerie Van Goethem, Governance and Tripartism Dep., Labour Law Unit, ILO:”Comparative overview in several countries- An ILO Perspective” 14.15-14.35 Mr. Yehuda Segev, D.G., Business Organizations Presidium 14.35-15.05 Adv. Michal Harel, Orna Lin, Law Offices “ A Legal Overview – the Israeli Case” 15.05-15.35 Prof. Avi Simhon, Chairperson, National Economic Council, Prime Minister Office 15.35-16.30 Panel Discussion Chairperson: Dr. Gadi Nissim, Academic Center Rupin, IIRRA Board Member Participants: Mr. Ephraim Malkin, First Deputy Head of Wages and Labor, Ministry of Finance Mr. Alon Weiss, Ports Portfolio, Association of Transportation Workers, Histadrut Mr. Nir Yitzhaki, V.P. Supply Chain& Resources, Haifa Group, Chairperson, Logistic Committee, Manufacturers' Association of Israel Mr. Yoav Zuckerman, Author of the Book about Israeli Port Structural Reform, Former Vice-President of the Israel Ports Company(IPC) 16.30-16.50 Closing Session Concluding Remarks: Dr. Roby Nathanson Adv. Orly Bitty Mr. Peter Lerner D.G., International Relations Division, Histadrut Adv. Valerie Van Goethem, ILOThe opening session of the conference The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. The commercial use of media published by FES without written permission by FES is strictly forbidden. 25