Brussels, 26/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - Relative consensus appeared among employment and social affairs ministers, meeting in informal Council in the Danish town of Horsens on Tuesday 24 and Wednesday 25 April to discuss whether or not to strengthen the 1996 directive on the posting of workers. There is clear intent to beef up the legislation but significant differences appeared between member states as to how this is to be achieved.
A proposal had been put on the table by the European Commission on 21 March in the legislative package, which also included the Monti II Regulation (see EUROPE 10579). Revision of Directive 96/71/EC could prove to be a difficult exercise. Most states agree on the need for stronger administrative cooperation and systems for exchanging information, for re-definition of “posted worker” and for review of the legislative framework of the companies which employ them in order to address the problem of so-called “letterbox” companies.
However, it is around the technical and legal details that differences could crystallise, according to a European source. Several ministers, including those of Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland and the United Kingdom have made abundantly clear their opposition to one of the most emblematic points of the proposal - the principle of joint and several liability (which offers the possibility of pursuing in law both the sub-contractor and the main employer).
The welcome reserved for the proposal on the Monti II Regulation, which seeks to clarify the relationship between economic freedoms and social rights, was even more mixed. “With regard to Monti II, a number of theoretical questions were raised by various member states”, said Danish Employment Minister Mette Frederiksen after the Council meeting on Wednesday 25 April. Frederiksen was being euphemistic, according to a European source, who spoke rather of “widespread scepticism”. Some governments are concerned at the possible limitation of the right to strike, others do not wish to put in place any barriers to the free revision of services, while for some the regulation simply has no added value. (JK/transl.rt)