Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Monday, 15 November 1999 - Strasbourg OJ edition

7. Informing and consulting workers
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – The next item is Mr Rocard’s oral question (B5-0034/1999), on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on informing and consulting workers in the European Community.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ghilardotti (PSE).(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, in April 1999, the European Parliament adopted at first reading its legislative resolution on the Commission proposal establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Union. The proposal for a directive establishes a framework which aims to remedy the gaps and counter the shortcomings of the national and Community legislation currently in force.

The objectives of this proposal are the following: to ensure that the right to regular information and consultation of employees on economic and strategic developments in the firm and on the decisions which affect them exists in all Member States of the European Community; to consolidate social dialogue and relations of trust within the firm in order to assist risk anticipation, develop the flexibility of work organisation within a framework of security and enhance employees’ awareness of the need to adapt, encouraging this; to include the situation and anticipated development of employment within the firm among the subjects of information and consultation; to ensure that workers are informed and consulted prior to decisions which are likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations; ensure the effectiveness of these procedures by introducing specific penalties for those who seriously violate their obligations in this field. In this regard, we have seen recently – judging by some debates held in this Chamber – how important it is to lay down a precise reference framework for information and consultation.

This proposal will ensure minimum standards for information and consultation to be applied throughout the Community, by harmonising the fundamental rights of employees – these are already in place in many Member States – and helping to strengthen the European social dimension, which is what we are all aiming for.

The European Parliament has adopted a series of amendments, aiming, in particular, to specify procedures and definitions for information and consultation, in particular as regards the moment at which information should be transmitted. We believe, however, that it is important for this to be carried out during the planning stage so as to allow employees to anticipate change, extending the Directive’s field of application and ensuring that it contains minimum provisions at Community level, derogations from which may be allowed only if they are more favourable to employees, as well as extending the content to the areas which directly affect the workers and their future.

The Commission reacted positively to some amendments to our report and voiced reservations about others. Nevertheless – and here is the reason for this oral question – it still has not tabled a revised proposal that clearly states its position on Parliament’s amendments, and also – and I must say this with regret, in that we had expected the Finnish Presidency to take this issue into account – the Finnish Presidency has not shown the political will to continue with this dossier. The reason for this question is, in fact, to ask the Commission not just to express its position on Parliament’s proposals clearly, but, above all, to ask it for the procedures and time periods for the tabling of its own revised version on Parliament’s position.

On behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the question I would like to ask the Commissioner – who moreover, has displayed great sensitivity on these subjects in other circumstances – is the following: can you tell us what the conflicting aspects of the matter are and the reasons why a revised proposal has not yet been tabled? Moreover, can you anticipate the proposal to be tabled before the end of the year? But above all, what measures do you intend to adopt to facilitate a political agreement on the issue, an agreement which is of prime importance for the Commission, Council and Parliament to be able to take a final decision on this matter? We consider this to be especially important, and besides, it is part of a more wide-ranging issue which is concerned with preparing and accompanying the changes underway in the labour market, so that they do not produce negative results, especially as far as employees’ job security is concerned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diamantopoulou, Commission.(EL) Mr President, without a doubt the European Parliament plays an important role in many significant issues concerning social awareness, but it must be said that particularly here, Parliament has played a forceful role in this directive.

Mr Ghilardotti described the facts. I should just like to make four basic points on the issue of the Community directive. This proposed Community directive is a framework which will enable us to adjust to industrial change. It is an essential political framework which will enable us to welcome this inevitable change in a socially acceptable way. In the last discussion we held in this Chamber on the Michelin case, I had said that such changes are by no means a smooth operation since we are living in an age of major restructuring, technological advances, changes in the work place, and expanding globalisation. We must therefore prepare ourselves to welcome this change at a social level.

The next point I would like to make is that in this age of restructuring, Europe has been generally successful. It has the internal market, which is deepening day by day, and it has Monetary Union, which is widening day by day. Now, the time has come for Europe to prove its social dimension. Thus, this directive is indeed a very important political choice. It was proposed following some three years of dialogue in April with the social partners and in November 1998 it was proposed both in Parliament and in the Council. Parliament reacted with the resolution and the 35 amendments. A year on, however, the Council has not even considered this directive.

As far as the amendments are concerned, the Commission accepts nine of them, seven of them are in principle acceptable, but we did not make further progress and I would like to explain why. Under the Finnish Presidency, which as you know is responsible for pushing forward directives and planning the six-month period, a strategy was announced in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. This strategy envisaged the first ballot on the European company statute directive to be followed by the ballot on the directive on consultation and information. Reasoning that if the directive we are discussing today were to come first, then the ballot on the employment directive, which as you all know has been on the table for discussion for more than 14 years now, would become extremely complicated.

The Finnish Presidency’s strategy was for there to be a discussion on the issue of the European company statute. However, the directive we are discussing today did not make it to the negotiating table and I would like to reply to Ms Ghilardotti’s question regarding what issues are still controversial and what issues are still giving rise to disagreement among the national representatives. Firstly, the companies’ personnel threshold should be higher than the one we have been discussing for consulting and informing. In my opinion, the issue of small and medium-sized businesses must be treated separately. The situation regarding small and medium-sized businesses is different, but of course, there must be a threshold higher than the one we have been discussing. The threshold of 50 people had been suggested. I repeat that this is a major topic of discussion and there have been many differences of opinion over it. The second issue concerns what is actually meant by the term ‘consultation and information’. There were some dissenting opinions which depended largely on the differing state of affairs in various Member States and, in many cases, on the political viewpoints we adopt. The third issue concerns the degree of self-reliance and the terms of agreement between the social partners in each Member Sate and how far they can go. The final issue is that of sanctions.

Those issues are to a greater or lesser extent still open. The question at present is what we will have to do and how we will have to proceed in order to achieve the desired result. And the desired result is for us to be able to vote for such a directive as soon as possible. It is not important for us to have a particularly sound directive on the table for discussion. What is important is that we create the right framework with set preconditions and that it is voted for so that it can enter into force.

So, what is the timetable and what does the Commission propose to do hereafter? Firstly, we are awaiting the completion of the Finnish Presidency’s term of office and to see if there will be some final agreement on the issue concerning the European company statute. If there is no result at the end of the year, I intend to propose a new strategy to the Portuguese Presidency, a different approach to the issue and a different basis for negotiations so that we can make quicker headway with the directive in question, and, as soon as we have the Council’s initial reaction, proceed with this new approach which, in my view, is quite a straightforward one. It is not difficult for us to readjust the proposal based on the amendments accepted so far and then to refer this to the Council. I believe, however, that under the Portuguese Presidency we must adopt a very different approach from the largely unsuccessful one adopted under the existing Presidency, and proceed in the way I prescribed before.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Menrad (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, in April the PPE Group voted for the legislative resolution on the directive on a European framework for informing and consulting workers in the Member States. Partnership and subsidiarity are the hallmark of the Parliament and Commission proposals. Companies should be provided with a tailor-made solution for informing and consulting workers, based on agreement between the two sides of industry.

One of Parliament’s proposals is that existing national workers’ organisations must be involved in drawing up this agreement. It would be unthinkable to have an agreement that local works councils had not been involved in shaping! Although the Commission’s initial reaction to the various amendments was positive, they have not yet put forward an amended proposal, as you yourself have said. You cannot just put everything that was so carefully worked out in Parliament on ice! It is high time that the right conditions for a Council common position were created. There is obviously a lack of political will in the Council.

How does the Commission view the situation, Commissioner? I did not entirely follow you. Does the Commission believe that the Finnish Presidency and possibly also the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency should be concerned that the United Kingdom, for example, might switch back to the opposition camp in the dispute over workers’ participation rights in the European Company, which has not yet been created? After all, it is an open secret that the British Government was only persuaded to support a European Company with minimum participation rights because of a promise to hold back on the directive on information and consultation for one year.

When we have considered examples of company restructuring in this Chamber, we have often complained about management’s failure to provide information in good time, as with Hoover, Renault and Michelin. But we have some good news now. This relates to the success story of the directive on the European Works Council. For it to work well, national workers’ organisations at local level should be able to forward their information to the European Works Council, and they should have sufficient rights to react in good time. This directive will ensure that.

I would like to state my question even more clearly, Commissioner: was I right in understanding you to say that the Commission does not intend to present an amended proposal before the end of this year? I would deeply regret that. Timely information for workers means transparency, which in turn creates confidence and avoids friction in European companies. Employers and employees stand to gain from this in equal measure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Damião (PSE).(PT) Mr President, I am not going to repeat what the previous speakers have said about the need for this directive. A few days ago, Commissioner, it was said on the subject of the Michelin debate that intelligent approaches to restructuring were required. I shall give you the example of the restructuring of a company of European dimensions which has a European works council, which is intelligent, but only in one respect. And this is exactly what we are trying to avoid: a lack of balance in social dialogue. All of Parliament’s amendments have been very significant, and one that I consider to be extremely relevant is the one that expresses the need for ethics and good faith on all sides. What happened, for example, with the restructuring at Ford in Portugal is a prime example of what happens when this good faith is missing. At the end of the 1980s, Ford in Portugal had twelve hundred employees. The company moved the factory to Poland and promised investment in that country in return for state tax and other incentives. That investment was never fully made in Poland. And Ford is now announcing the closure of both factories: in Poland and in Portugal.

This kind of relocation and restructuring, Commissioner, is this century’s way of doing business. It has nothing to do with introducing new technology or with companies’ needs to maintain productivity levels. According to Ford, they do not have problems with their productivity levels; on the contrary, they say that these two plants and their workers are enormously productive. And the result is that because these employees are so highly specialised they will only be able to find work as unskilled workers.

We should be concerned by all of this social upheaval. It requires a response, it requires steering through, and it requires legislative measures and more besides! It was high time that the Commission started monitoring companies of this size because it is not the companies of fifty or a hundred employees that are under threat. Let us begin, then, with companies of European dimensions, and let us begin by assessing what a necessary restructuring actually is. We in the European Parliament represent both sides of industry, and one of them has no voice of its own, Commissioner. It is crucial that we let it be heard.

I sincerely hope that the Portuguese Presidency will provide a response to this and I shall use all my influence to this end.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jensen (ELDR).(DA) Mr President, I want to say that I too am sorry that the Commission has still not submitted a revised proposal on the subject of informing and consulting workers. Even if, after the election, a new and different majority is formed here in Parliament, we support this inquiry into the issue, even if there are some amendments which we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party value more than others; yes, even if there are aspects of the proposal we should definitely like to have done without. The political process should not be directed by delays.

We in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party want to promote the cause of informing and consulting workers, but it is also important to us that the necessary respect should be shown for differences in traditions and culture in this area. No new bureaucratic systems should be established which are out of harmony with labour markets where there is at present an effective dialogue between the social partners. We attach particular importance to the fact that life should not– even with the best of intentions – be made more difficult for small and medium-sized businesses where, in the nature of things, management is close to the workers. The amendments which Parliament adopted at the first reading in April mean, among other things, that the regulations governing the consulting of workers will apply to businesses with 50 or more employees and that it will no longer be possible for individual nations to be exempt from these. We prefer the original proposal which makes it possible in certain circumstances to raise the limit to 100 employees. On the other hand, we can support the tone of the amendments which clearly points in the direction of making the directive a minimum directive with the Member States having the option to go further.

As we say, we like some of the things in this proposal from Parliament, and some other things we like rather less. However, a delay in the decision process is something which we definitely cannot countenance. I think, however, that Mrs Diamantopoulou has provided a good explanation of the problems there are in implementing the proposal, and this shows in fact that there are real political problems.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lipietz (Greens/ALE).(FR) Commissioner, I come from a country where the boss of a multinational company, Michelin, decided to inform his shareholders first of his decision to make 10% of his employees in various countries redundant over the next three years.

In the course of last month’s part-session, Commissioner, you stated, in a warm and convincing way, the Commission’s determination to protect employees’ rights in terms of information and consultation about their future. We are delighted that you are determined to see this into the Portuguese Presidency.

However, and contrary to what the previous speaker has just said, the Greens think that these rights should be extended to all companies that are not part of the small-business sector and we propose a minimum of twenty employees. If we adopted, as the Commission seems to want to do, a minimum of fifty employees, this would cause serious distortions of competition, affecting only 3% of European companies.

One day we will have to go further. In several European countries, the participation of workers is something which society sets great store by. Participation in decision making and also participation in the results. The European Council did not want to follow Parliament’s advice on this matter. Today however, by means of pension funds, pensioners are participating more and more in companies’ capital, in their management and in their profits.

It would be paradoxical and would even threaten a war between the generations if current employees were to be excluded from this kind of participation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, during our debate on 27 October on the Michelin affair, I reminded all those present that Parliament had amended the directive on informing and consulting workers and that we were still waiting for the Commission to adopt these amendments.

The two main amendments – I shall remind you of them – covered two points: firstly, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs wanted the directive to apply to companies with twenty or more employees, and Parliament to companies of fifty employees or more, whereas the Commission is proposing the figure of one hundred or more, if I am not mistaken. On the other hand, the second major amendment stated that any withholding of information from the employees’ representatives by a company’s management should be penalised, and not only the withholding of information that the management considers important (far too vague an idea).

What does the Commission have to say today about these two points? Nothing new, and we will get back to that in the year 2000. Frankly, Commissioner, I do not think that we can do things this way. This wait-and-see policy is completely turning its back on the way society is waiting for an answer. We should not only listen to the message that was sent to us in the last elections, and adopt these two amendments, but I have also put forward additional proposals which strike me as being crucial today.

I proposed the introduction of a waiting period of six months for any restructuring plan in order to allow an independent trade union review to take place, and I also proposed that if the company had received public subsidies but is not complying with the rules which have been laid down, it should pay back the subsidies it had received. I think that, now, you should present an amended draft directive, incorporating these further measures, this waiting period, and use your role to put pressure on the Council rather than falling in line as a measure of precaution with the lowest common denominator in our respective governments. I also expect, Commissioner, that Mr Prodi will include these references too in the programme that he will be presenting to us.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pronk (PPE-DE).(NL) Mr President, I would like to extend my warmest thanks to the Commissioner this evening for her promise. 1 January 2000 is very close indeed, and a certain strategy has already been put in place by her predecessor for keeping an eye on what is happening as regards the European plc. It is clear that something needs to be done about this. I am delighted that the Commissioner has taken this so well. Indeed, I think, as far as this is concerned, that we must go further from 1 January onwards. I should also add that with this strategy, it has been the case before that we have lost sight of the fact that the European plc has to be voted on with unanimity, whilst this is a directive requiring majority voting. We may well speed up in the long run by putting this directive back on track, rather than continuing endlessly with the European plc. This may be an unnecessary consideration but I do think that we achieved our purpose tonight. We have made some progress.

Mr President, of course it is not the Commissioner who is keeping a low profile – although they tried to play down the fact that nothing has been submitted yet, but that has now been addressed as far as I am concerned – rather it is the Council itself. Then we have to shift our attention to the somewhat mysterious Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr Blair. Mr Blair who would very much like to join forces with Europe, yet is trying to stop Europe from bringing this issue to a satisfactory conclusion. This is the problem we are facing, Mr President. In all manner of ways, using traditional politburo tactics, attempts are even being made to thwart debate on this directive, that is people expressing their opinions as to the content. Surely, this is not something we should expect to happen. I can only say, Mr President, that the Blair administration and some other socialist governments are so frightened to admit how little they are prepared to do for the employee, that they cannot cope with this in debate, as they used to, but have to resort to all kinds of underhand politburo tactics. This must end and I am really pleased that this has been highlighted this evening in this debate in one way or another.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Hughes (PSE). – Mr President, I could tell my good friend, Mr Pronk, that if he will have a word with Mr Aznar, I will have a word with Mr Blair. It is a majority proposal. We have problems with a number of governments.

I should like to thank the Commissioner for what she has said. I see now the sense in the strategy that she is adopting. I hope the delay in a revised proposal might lead to progress. I would say this, however: please bear in mind that if part of this strategy is that a new proposal is brought forward after the turn of the year that is substantially different to the first then we, Parliament, would need to be consulted from the beginning once again. Please bear that in mind.

One argument in addition to the list of crunch points that you mentioned in your introduction that has been deployed by my own government and others is that of subsidiarity. It is not a very good argument in this particular area. In the ten years up to 1996, following the introduction of the Single Act, there was a tripling in the number of mergers and take-overs in both the service and manufacturing sectors. An interesting thing is that two-thirds of those mergers and take-overs were at national rather than transnational level. They were, however, directly related to the completion of the internal market. Therefore developments at Member State level are inextricably linked to the changes we have put in place at European level. That is one of the strongest arguments against subsidiarity – denying progress in this area.

In the 1970s our governments, despite the unanimity rule, introduced a directive on transfers, one on collective redundancies and one on insolvency to try to bring about responsible restructuring following the oil shocks. It is absolutely dreadful that the Council now seems to be paralysed when it comes to this directive, to the worker involvement in the company statute and indeed the Commission in relation to a revision of the Works Council Directive. We need to get this moving once again.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – May I start by saying, Commissioner, that I was very pleased with what you had to say and I am as surprised to be saying that as perhaps you might be to hear me saying it. But given that there is a delay, which has already been deplored, I would hope that the period of that delay will be used constructively and that the Council and the Commission and indeed Parliament will reflect on how to get things as right as possible in what is clearly a key area. I was concerned to read a comment in the Financial Times last week when you, Commissioner, were in London – where you made quite an impact – about you forcing the creation of workers’ consultation committees and stating that Anna Diamantopoulou’s decision will dismay the UK Government and industry. Whilst I accept that the fact that it may dismay such illustrious bodies does not automatically make your proposals wrong, I trust that you would also admit that it does not automatically make them right either. I would like the Commission to bear in mind that at the time when Parliament put forward the amendments last April, the composition of this Parliament was indeed very different. At that time the Socialists were the largest group; happily that state of affairs no longer applies and hopefully will continue to no longer apply long into the future. But certainly the composition of this Parliament is very different and I would expect its conclusions to be different.

Clearly we will continue to work in a spirit of constructive consensus but the epicentre of that consensus has moved sharply. So finally I would say that when the second reading comes up, if we are serious about creating jobs, if we are serious about keeping our industries really competitive, if we are serious about encouraging enterprise, then some of us may feel we have gone too far and that it may well be time to draw a line.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diamantopoulou, Commission.(EL) Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Matthews that, following my visit to London, there was a party statement accusing me of having “crazy ideas”. I hope that this was not the general consensus. In response, I must say that– and politicians too are always faced with such dilemmas – you have to decide between being a likeable individual or one that is effective. I could quite easily be a likeable person. Parliament’s amendments from April could have been accepted, incorporated into a text and referred to the Council and from there on I could quite easily have said that it was just a matter for the Council. However, it was I who introduced the reform, accepted the proposals and forwarded them to the Council and left it in the hands of the Council to resolve.

However, I believe that for such a demanding directive – and Parliament is quite aware that it is not a straightforward one – we must take the current state of affairs of each country, the various aspects of social dialogue, the positions of the social partners and the various discrepancies in all the points I mentioned before, piece them all together and thereby find a very fine balance between them all, so that we can be as successful as we possibly can. If we approve the amendments straight away, and take the new proposal to the negotiating table, then that will necessitate unanimity, which, as we all know, as things stand at present, will not achieve the desired result. I believe therefore that we need to be more effective and I shall endeavour to do just that. Already we are in constant communication with national representatives and governments, with all the individual ministers. In my view, this directive is not merely a directive which will help workers. I believe that it is of great social significance because of the major problems and reforms ahead of us. And we all know that there are sectors, such as the banking sector, which will undergo radical change in the coming years.

We must therefore prepare a framework to make us all aware that it will facilitate competition, and that it will not be just a framework of social awareness, but one that will protect social equilibrium and social rest in Europe, and ensure stability and development. We shall proceed on this basis, and on this basis, I shall also proceed, with the aforementioned timetable, in the belief that, under the Portuguese Presidency, we will indeed be able to find a new strategy.

I, like Ms Damião, note that there are such endeavours and laws at national level and two directives at Community level. With this new directive, we wish to reinforce the right of workers to be consulted and informed, which to date has not been reinforced. There is more to be done on a voluntary basis and this can be interpreted at will. We want to see stronger reinforcement and greater responsibility being taken, but we also need to have the consensus of both Member States and social partners because acceptance from all quarters will play an extremely important role in its effective implementation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.(1)

(The sitting was closed at 8.15 p.m.)

 
  

(1) Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes.

Legal notice - Privacy policy