Brussels, 19/04/2005 (Agence Europe) - The debate was turbulent at the plenary of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) last Thursday. Opposition took an “unusual head-on” collision between the Socialist group on the one side, and on the other most of the other political forces represented at the CoR. Divergences centred on the on draft directive on introducing changes to working time legislation. The plenary vote on the recommendation of Joan Hanham (EPP-ED, United Kingdom) was close and proceeded via a real battle of amendments. The bone of contention: the opt-out to the maximum working week and the inactive part of on-call time. The recommendation was finally adopted by 44 votes for, 39 against, with 14 abstentions.
The stumbling block focused on the individual opt-out to the maximum number of hours worked a week. Although the British Conservative Joan Hanham strongly defended the opt-out, Onno Hoes (ALDE, Netherlands) succeeded in getting her amendment adopted, which affirms that it necessary to gradually get rid of the possibility of workers having the individual freedom of choice on whether to work more than the average working week of 48 hours in order to “encourage development of the spirit of enterprise and creativity, as well as active citizenship, while working for a better balance between professional and private life”. Onno Hoes explains that retaining the opt-out clause undermines efforts by the EU and Member States to encourage citizens to get more involved in society and will also undermine the problem of the low birth rate.
Baroness Hanham did not agree with this assertion and abstained from the final vote. She supports the Commission's proposal on several points: a definition of working time that includes “on-call time” and “inactive part of on-call time” and the possibility for Member States to set a standard reference period of up to 12 months for all workers. Ms Hanham declared, “I support the retention of the 48 hour opt-out but this should be an individual choice”, adding, “I agree that the conditions to the opt-out should be made more explicit and well publicised. However, some of these additional conditions merely add bureaucracy and do not present any further protection to workers”.
PES amendments aimed to frame determine framework for using opt-out
The PES group at CoR announced in a press release that the “recommendation was adopted against the wishes of the socialists and by a small majority of five votes, although the rapporteur abstained on her own tex,t which had become politically inconsistent with the vote”. More in line with the position of the European Parliamentrapporter, Spanish Socialist Alejandro Cercas said that most of the amendments submitted by his group wanted to set out a framework limiting the use of the opt-out and defended the safeguards to this effect introduced by the Commission. The PES group added that “although, thanks to the support of the Liberal group at the CoR, the rapporteur succeeded in imposing her point of view opposing these safeguards, she lost on the amendment on the opt-out to the maximum working week”.
On the issue of the inactive part of on-call time where workers are available at their workplace but do not exercise their functions, Liberals and Conservatives at the CoR asserted that this period should not be counted as working time unless Member States affected decide otherwise or where a collective agreement has been concluded to this effect. This position is opposed by the PES group, which consider the “inactive” part of on-call time should be counted as a form of working time.