Strasbourg, 11/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the European Parliament adopted with amendments introduced by the EP Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and by a large majority (345 votes to 264 and 43 abstentions), the report by Alejandro Cercas on the new proposal of directive concerning certain aspects of working time adjustment. In so doing, the EP supports abolition of opt out 36 months after the directive takes effect. It also considers that, for reviewing the duration of the reference period, working hours can be calculated over twelve months especially with collective agreements to ensure monitoring and guarantees of worker health and safety protection. The EP also calls for respect of the Court of Justice rulings whereby inactive time on call should be counted as working time (see EUROPE 8933 and 8944).
During the debate on the eve of the vote, José Silva Peneda (EPP-ED, Portugal) and Ria Oomen-Ruitjen (EPP-ED, Netherlands) described the Commission's proposal as “reasonable and balanced” because it allows greater flexibility of the labour market and protects SMEs in that it does not involve additional charges for them, remaining fully in line with the greater flexibility demanded by the Lisbon Strategy. Speaking against opt out, Mr Silva Peneda said there are other effective ways to promote working time flexibility such as, for example, extension of the reference period imposed by the Commission or time on call where there should be compliance with the Court of Justice rulings. Stephen Hughes (PES, UK) said opt out cannot be justified. If it is not brought to an end, the legislation will have to be cancelled and we shall have to stop claiming that we want to set minimum standards in place for working time, he said in essence, believing that reconciling family and professional life has a great influence on worker health. Bernard Lehideux (ALDE, France) specified that the Commission's proposal does not aim to standardise working conditions in the EU but rather seeks to set up common provisions for worker protection. “We must send a clear message on the social system that we want, namely that a balance must be struck between working time management and working time flexibility”, he went on to add, saying that they have “supported the maintenance of opt out as long as it is under collective agreements and negotiation”. Mr Lehideux pointed out that his group agreed with the rapporteur as far as extension of the reference period to 12 months is concerned “as it corresponds to the needs of corporate flexibility”. “Flexibility concerns not only employers but also workers. A tired worker is a dangerous worker”, Jean Lambert (Greens/EFA, UK) said. Opt out, he said, poses a great problem. Most of the time it is imposed on workers who, in general, do not know that there is a maximum working time.
“I am against the Commission's proposal because it perpetuates the opt out system and encourages social dumping in the name of employment flexibility, because it favours employers by giving them latitude in which to organise working time as it suits them best and because it endangers the health and safety of workers”, Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece) said with force. He went on to state that the Court of Justice supports the fact that “resting time must immediately follow time on call”. “This directive does not aim to create jobs”, Derek Clark (IND/DEM, UK) said highly critical, giving the example of the British experience that shows that “less regulation means more jobs”. Along the same lines, Mogens Camre N.J. (UEN, Denmark) also felt that the new directive was “absurd”, and that the organisation of working time should remain the responsibility of Member States. Jan TAdeusz Masiel (NA, Poland) evoked the context of unemployment and the need to bear in mind all working time available. In his view, time when one is available should be counted at lump sum rates.
At the press conference after the vote, Rapporteur Alejandro Cercas expressed his satisfaction saying it is a victory for Social Europe as the key amendments of the parliamentary committee were adopted by an absolute majority (such was the case especially for the amendment concerning the suppression of opt out). Mr Cercas and British Labour member Stephen Hughes, who was at his side, regretted that, at the end of the debate, Commissioner Spidla had kept to the rather reticent position on the proposals put forward by the parliamentary committee (see EUROPE 8944). There is possibility of dialogue, however, and Mr Spidla has left the door slightly ajar, commented Mr Cercas, adding in response to questions by the press that, if the Commission were able to say “yes” to the Parliament's position before 29 June, this could have a positive impact on the outcome of the French referendum. Honestly, if we have won the vote it is also because I had a look at Article 91 of the Constitution that stipulates that all workers are entitled to a limited working day (…). Opt out would therefore be anti-constitutional ..”. Stephen Hughes went on to add: the Commission would do well to closely evaluate this vote as the EP is the only elected institution, which reflects best people's wishes.
The next Council on 3 June may obtain an agreement on the matter. The subject is a difficult one but the rapporteur is optimistic and Mr Hughes considers that if the Council is able to get a result it will be the one on 3 June under the Luxembourg presidency, as the following presidencies (British and Austrian) will probably be less inclined to take up the matter. For the instant, three large groups are facing each other down: one group of nine members (the United Kingdom, Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and Malta) which now want the opt-out, a group of seven countries which does not agree to it (France, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Finland and Greece) and then the others. In any case, Mr Hughes points out that the situation is one in which co-decision procedure and the Council will have to vote at unanimity if it wants to throw out the Commission's position.