Brussels, 19/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - On 17 March, the European Commission published a communication on the directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (2002/14/EC). In its communication, the Commission, after consulting member states and European social partners by means of a questionnaire, takes stock of how the directive is being implemented, with a view, if necessary, to proposing amendments (as provided for in Article 12 of the directive). After consideration of the responses, the Commission says that, for the moment, it does not intend to bring forward any amendments, despite the fact that some of the arrangements could be improved. The reason behind this decision is that some time is needed to allow national implementation measures to bed in to member states' industrial relations systems. However, the Commission says that one point needs action: the possibility for member states to remove crew members of vessels on the high seas from the scope of the directive (Article 3 §3). The Commission points out that, on 10 October 2007, it began the first phase of consultation of social partners which might lead to other measures at EU level to ensure appropriate protection for seafarers' rights to be informed and consulted. The Commission notes that the directive on informing and consulting employees plays a key role in promoting social dialogue and good relations with companies, and that it is a considerable step forward towards consolidation of the right to be informed and consulted which forms part of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Transposition of the directive. After assessing how well transposition of the directive is progressing, a number of things can be said, including: (1) Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom have adopted transposition measures within the deadline (23 March 2007 at the latest). The national legislations of Austria and Germany already comply with the arrangements in the directive; these two countries, therefore, do not need to transpose the directive in question. In Bulgaria and Romania, the directive had been transposed into national law before the date of their accession to the EU, as had been asked of them, the Commission points out. Greece, Italy and Spain have adopted legislation transposing the directive, while Belgium and Luxembourg have only partially transposed it. (2) In most member states, transposition is done by law. Belgium and Denmark have carried out transposition through an Act of parliament and collective agreements. Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy and Poland have adopted a law of general application. The Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden simply made some amendments to existing legislation. (3) Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Poland and the United Kingdom, not having a general system, have used the transitional arrangements of the directive (Article 10) which allows them to apply the directive's implementing measures to companies employing at least 150 people and to companies employing at least 100 people until 23 March 2007, and, in a second phase, to companies employing at least 100 workers and to companies employing at least 50 people until 23 March 2008.
Assessment of how the directive is being implemented. In response to the Commission's questionnaire, both member states and European social partners said they found the directive sufficiently flexible and appropriate. Several member states said that the impact of national transposition measures on their industrial relations systems was expected to be minimal, given that they have long had legislation in this area, while for some member states it was too soon to pass judgment. Most member states do not see the need for a review of the directive nor for any need to improve coherence between directives (such as with, for example, the directive on European Works Councils, 94/45/EC). From among the European social partners, BUSINESSEUROPE felt that it was still too soon to gauge the impact of the directive. UEAPME (European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) pointed out the risk that the directive might impose a uniform model in some member states, creating additional administrative formalities and social unease. CEEP (European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest) noted that, in some countries, the implementation of the directive boosted some workers' representatives, to the detriment of others. ETUC (European Confederation of Trade Unions) said the directive had had a positive impact, in particular because it makes industrial relations more participative, and this despite the lack of precision in some arrangements, the weakness of procedures and sanctions and there being no reference to trade unions.
BUSINESSEUROPE and UEAPME did not see any need to review and clarify the directive, unlike ETUC, which believed a number of points in the text could be improved and elucidated. BUSINESSEUROPE and UEAPME did not feel that coherence between directives in the area of information and consultation needed to be improved, but recommended that the Commission examine existing Community arrangements in terms of what they bring to the “better legislation” initiative. CEEP said that specific directives override the general directive (2002/14/EC). They questioned, then, its usefulness. ETUC said it would be useful to harmonise existing directives to avoid duplication, and called for the directive on European works councils to be updated. On this point, the Commission recently invited the social partners to enter negotiations on the changes to be brought to this directive (see EUROPE 9605). (G.B.)