Lithuania adopted a new Labour Code [1] in 2002, which actualised social partnership. According to Article 40 of this Code, social partnership means the system of interrelations between the employees’ and employers’ representatives and their organisations and, in certain cases specified by this Code and other laws, also the system of interrelations between the state institutions with a view to reconciling the interests of the subjects of labour relations. Hence it may be concluded that social partnership can be both: tripartite or bipartite in Lithuania. The purpose of this article is to determine which one is prevailing in Lithuania, why and what are the advantages and disadvantages.

There is a widely spread opinion that tripartite social partnership is prevailing in Lithuania and that bipartite social partnership is rare [2]. This statement was true at the beginning of social partnership in Lithuania in 1995. Firstly, this legal institution was new and did not have any traditions in Lithuania [3]. Historically the state did regulate everything and collective agreements as legal acts were a novelty in legal regulation. Secondly, there was no clear and efficient legal regulation for employees’ and employers’ representatives to negotiate alone without state institutions. Thirdly, employees’ and employers’ representatives themselves were weak and not solidary. Although the later argument is a negotiable one, because the trade unions were the initiators of establishment of Tripartite Council in Lithuania. As well as this, actualisation of social partnership in Lithuania has been realised by formation of tripartite councils. This form of social partnership was the most convenient for social partners: it was clear, less unusual and properly binding. These reasons (some more, others less), mentioned above, have determined that Lithuania has started to actualise social partnership through tripartism. The question is, whether nowadays (fourteen years later) tripartite social partnership is still prevailing.

According to the Lithuanian Labour Code [1] a. 43, social partnership can be realised:

1) by participating in the work of tripartite or bipartite councils (commissions, committees);

2) by representatives of employees realising information and consultation rights and other rights of participation in employers’ decision making;

3) by conducting collective bargaining and concluding collective bargaining agreements.

State institutions (in the concrete – the Government and municipal institutions) can realise social partnership only by the first form. According to current legal regulation, other forms of social partnership are available only for representatives of employees and employers or their organisations. On the other hand, all councils (commissions, committees) at national, sector or territorial levels are tripartite [4]. Bipartite councils (commissions, committees) exist only at enterprise level.

To sum up, state institutions nowadays participate in social partnership only in one form out of three possible in Lithuania. There is a lack of realisation of this form through bipartite system, but this does not exaggerate the role of tripartism. At the beginning of social partnership in Lithuania participating in the work of tripartite councils (commissions, committees) was almost the only realisation of social partnership, but now it is only one of the possible forms and some authors say [5] – not the most important one. Therefore, tripartite social partnership is important in Lithuania, but the tendency is that bipartite relations are gaining more and more attention. Similar situation is in Poland [6].

Some reasons for realisation of tripartite social partnership has been already mentioned (it is easier to realise, the transition from entirely governmental regulation to contractual one was easier involving state institutions). As well as this, participation in International Labour Organisation and ratification of Convention No. 144 [7] were legal grounds for adjusting the model of tripartite social partnership. The step towards bipartite relations was influenced by the progress of legal regulation, growing strength of representatives of employees and employers and development of social partnership. Firstly, with the adoption of the Lithuanian Labour Code [1] a systematic, clear and binding legal regulation was set. This law did define social partnership, its parties, forms, levels, system and procedure. Legal clarity laid the foundations for successful realisation of both tripartite and bipartite social partnership. Secondly, representatives of employees and employers and their organisations have developed as well. They have gained governmental acknowledgement, experience and influence. Thirdly, social partnership has been exercised for some time already. Tripartite social partnership has proved its benefits and revealed its weaknesses. Social partners became ready to negotiate without presence and supervision of state institutions. Finally, membership in the European Union and the example of Western European countries have encouraged exercise of bipartite relations.

Advantages and disadvantages of tripartite and bipartite social partnership are the final subject of these proceedings. To begin with the advantages of tripartite social partnership (and these aspects are the disadvantages of bipartite relations), the role of the state institutions acting as a moderator in social dialogue between social partners must be mentioned. Secondly, tripartite relations have been exercised in Lithuania for a longer time. If traditions have not been formed yet (the period was too short for that), some rules has certainly been settled. Thirdly, the agreement once reached is very universal and significant – because all interested parties have agreed on that.

To continue with the advantages of bipartite social partnership (and these aspects are the disadvantages of tripartite relations), this procedure is more simple. There are less parties and it is easier to collaborate and to reach an agreement. As well as this, this system better embodies the essence of contractual regulation. So it is obvious that tripartite system does fill the defects of social partnership (when social partners are weak, when legal regulation is not clear etc.). However, once the defects are solved, bipartite social partnership does provide a more beneficial, convenient and effective collaboration.

In conclusion, tripartite and bipartite social partnership are both applicable in Lithuania. Because of historic, pragmatic and legal reasons tripartite relations came into being first. However bipartite social partnership has emerged, successfully evolved and most likely is going to develop further. It is a change for the better because bipartite relations are more beneficial 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