Luxembourg, 10/06/2008 (Agence Europe) - There was a breakthrough for European workers in the early hours of Tuesday morning and a personal success for the Slovenian minister for labour, Marjeta Cotman. EU ministers approved by qualified majority the proposal for a compromise from the Slovenian Presidency on working time and temporary work (presented in the form of a “package” during negotiations). They thus set out a stricter framework for derogations allowing workers to work more than 48 hours per week (while keeping the opt-out on this). Equal pay between temporary workers and permanent employees is applied from the first day of work (unless there is a collective agreement or agreements between national social partners). On-call time, particularly in the hospital environment, is counted as working time. At present, both directives are on the table of Coreper, which is to fine-tune them so that they can be put under point A (miscellaneous) at the next Employment/Social Council. The ball is now in the court of the European Parliament which is to take a stance in second reading and whose message on working time is clear: opt-outs should be abolished in time. After the work, Commissioner Vladimir Spidla, who supported Ms Cotman, called on the EP for “active involvement. I trust the Parliament will look as carefully as possible at the compromise, which is real progress compared to the past, and that there will be a majority in plenary”. He went on to add: “After a period of stagnation, and inertia on the labour market, we have been able to breathe some fresh impetus into the labour market”.
The main points of agreement of the two directives are:
Working time: (1) on-call time is to be split into active and inactive on-call time. Active on-call time is to be counted as working time. Inactive on-call time may not be counted as rest time and can be counted as working time if national laws or social partners agree; (2) the standard maximum limit remains at 48 working hours per week unless an individual worker chooses otherwise (opt-out). Workers who opt out can work a maximum of 60 hrs/wk (new protective limit cap) unless social partners agree otherwise. (3) New cap workers who opt out if inactive on-call is counted as working time have a maximum working week of 65 hours; (4) all workers employed for longer than 10 weeks with one employer are protected by the cap compromise; and (5) opt-out can only be under certain conditions such as: no signature during first month of employment, and no victimisation for not signing or withdrawing opt-out.
Temporary work: (1) Equal treatment as of day one for temporary agency workers as well as regular workers in terms of pay, maternity leave and leave. There is the possibility to derogate from this through collective agreements and through agreements between social partners at national level; (2) temporary agency workers must be informed about permanent employment opportunities in the user enterprise; (3) temporary workers must have equal access to collective facilities such as canteen, child care facilities, transport service, etc; and (4) member states must facilitate access for temporary agents to training and child care facilities in periods between their assignments to increase their employability.
“The time has clearly come to relaunch social Europe”, said Xavier Bertrand of France, the future president-in-office of the Employment/Social Affairs Council, during the debate, taking a stance in favour of the Slovenian compromise. Noting progress compared to the first presidential text, Mr Bertrand placed emphasis on the fact that “tomorrow's workers will have more guarantees than today's”. On the matter of working time adjustment, France considers that “inactive on-call periods, albeit not effective working periods, cannot be counted as rest time, as the employee remains available for the employer and is not free to pursue his/her personal occupations”, said Mr Bertrand, before going on to add: “Respect of daily and weekly rest periods is a fundamental guarantee to ensure effective health protection for workers. For these reasons, France states it does not intend to transpose into national law the ability to count the inactive part of on-call time to daily or weekly rest time”. Belgian Employment Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, announced abstention by Belgium but “hopes dialogue will take place in a constructive spirit with the European Parliament”. Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Malta criticised the proposals on working time (inactive on-call time, duration of so-called short contracts, etc.). They abstained on the compromise and presented a statement to the Presidency to be placed on the minutes of the meeting. These delegations also express the wish that, during parliamentary procedure, everything will be done for a solution to be found to the workers' satisfaction, noted Spanish Minister Celestino Corbacho. Sharing the fears expressed by Belgium and Spain, Luxembourg Minister François Biltgen announced that Luxembourg would support the compromise because: (1) “it is better to have a bad compromise than no compromise”; (2) without a compromise, Commissioner Spidla had threatened to withdraw both directives “which is a serious risk”; and (3) “the Council is showing that it is able to do things. This is a good signal for social Europe”. François Biltgen went on to compare the situation to a “football match”. Since 2004, the Council of Ministers has used delaying tactics while the EP has waited to enter play. Council and Parliament have been determined to act and it is expected that the shot will be better at the end of the second vote in the EP. His Portuguese counterpart, José Antonio Vieira da Silva spoke along the same lines, saying that the Council and Parliament have been “making back passes when they should be passing the ball forward”. British Deputy Minister John Hutton said today's agreement is on a good track for Europe to follow. He added that the two directives strike the best balance for workers and employers, and went on to announce that the British vote would be in favour of the compromise. (G.B./transl.jl)