Luxembourg, 03/06/2003 (Agence Europe) - Meeting on 3 June in Luxembourg under the chairmanship of Greek Labour and Social Security Minister Dimitris Reppas, the Social Affairs and Labour Ministers of the EU15 and the ten new future Member States were unable to reach a political agreement on the proposal of directive relating to working conditions for temporary workers. The very lengthy discussions and many consultations by delegations showed there were two schools of thought, one grouping the United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland and Germany (minority blocking of the directive) and the other the eleven other Member States (in favour of the directive). Such a situation caused disappointment on the part of Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou despite the complex nature of the issue. Council President Reppas was also disappointed. He stressed that such an agreement is very useful for achieving the Lisbon goals. Ms Diamantopoulou therefore called upon Italian Minister for Labour Maroni to make this dossier a priority during the Italian Presidency during the second half of this year.
Dimitris Reppas said during a press conference that the qualifying period or "grace period" (Ed.: i.e. the period during which the temporary worker must wait before receiving the same salary as a comparable worker of the user company) poses a problem, given that once this period has been run, equal pay between both kinds of workers is ensured. He regretted that "we based our discussion on the initial European Commission proposal which was the subject of various compromise proposals from the Presidency", but that, despite this, no political agreement was reached. He recalled that the Spring Summit this year had called for "an agreement by end 2003". Some Member States (United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Germany) advocate a 12 month qualifying period before the temporary worker can receive the same worker as a fully employed comparable worker, whereas others, such as Greece for example, have a different system with legislation that does not provide for such a period. In other words, the temporary worker receives, from the very first day when he/she enters the company, the same salary as comparable workers, Mr Reppas specified, explaining the Presidency's proposal which provides for a first five year derogation period with a qualifying period of a few months and, after this first period, a second six to eight week period. The United Kingdom is opposed to this, as are Germany, Denmark and Ireland. As a last resort, the Presidency proposed a compromise on a temporary period, between zero and six months, according to the regulations of the various Member States. This, too, was also rejected, Mr Reppas noted.
Noting the diversity of national labour markets, Anna Diamantopoulou insisted on the fact that "all Member States agreed a directive was needed. There is agreement on a comprehensive text but there is still the tricky problem of the qualifying period". She recalled that "2% of workers in the EU are concerned by this kind of work".
We recall that the Commission's proposal is mainly aimed at securing equal rights and equal treatment for temporary workers. It establishes the principle of non-discrimination including at wage level between the temporary worker and the comparable worker of the user company, a principle that must be applied as soon as the temporary worker has worked for six weeks in the user firm. This is the third part of the "atypical employment" triptyque with fixed duration contracts and temporary work (see EUROPE of 21 March 2002, p.11).
During the Council on 6 March, President Reppas had called on Coreper to continue work to reach a balanced compromise on various points in order to achieve a political agreement in June. The points under discussion were: - Article 1.3 of the proposal stressing the need to exclude from the scope of the directive measures aimed at strengthening the insertion of unemployed persons into the labour market; - Article 4 on review of the prohibitions or restrictions in force regarding temporary work, with a view to their abolition; - Article 5.4 on the principle of non-discrimination and the possibility to be dispensed in the event of a contract or work relationship lasting less than six weeks or the qualifying period (for details see EUROPE of 8 March, p;10). Then, on 28 May, the Presidency had suggested to Coreper a first compromise text with a view to amending the Commission's proposal by taking into account the reactions of the various Member States. Regarding status quo, the Presidency submitted a new compromise proposal for debate on Tuesday morning, covering equal treatment, but this was also rejected.
During the public debate (interrupted on several occasions), British Secretary of State Alan Johnson explained that the United Kingdom fully agreed with the need to protect temporary workers but that the qualifying period should not only cover salaries but also the other working conditions, such as paid leave, pensions, etc.
He recalled that, unlike the TUC, the British employers' union (CBI) felt such a directive would entail the loss of thousands of jobs, while the British market is the largest temporary work market in the Union with over 700,000 temporary workers. Danish Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen considered the dossier would be very tricky. He said flexibility, that they are very keen on, must be ensured but that it is not easy if this causes additional costs for firms. The minister asked why is it so important that principles one finds in the legislation of some Member States should be extended to all the others. On the subject of implementing the directive, Finnish national Traj Filaton called for "clear, precise and short" periods of transition. French Minister François Fillon affirmed that it is "preferable for the transitional period to be limited in time, except admitting the principle of permanent derogation". Slovakian Secretary of State Miroslav Beblavy (who did not have the right to vote) called upon the Fifteen to reach an agreement on two aspects of the directive, the level of protection for temporary workers and the adjustment of labour market interests. Finally, Greek Vice Minister Roberto Spyropoulos felt it was necessary to strike a balance between the national employment markets and to paper over the differences, including wage differences, that can be seen today. An effort must be made, he said, as the cost of labour is a factor of productivity.