‘Rule shopping’ with a view to avoiding collective agreements
17.7.2015
Question for written answer E-011517-15
to the Commission
Rule 130
Marita Ulvskog (S&D) , Jens Nilsson (S&D)
There are now several airlines that have avoided entering into collective agreements by moving to another Member State. The latest airline to do so is Ryanair, which, until recently, had two bases in Denmark. In response to reports that staff were not being paid a living wage (among other issues), Danish trade unions demanded collective agreements for Ryanair’s Danish cabin crew and pilots. Ryanair, however, refused to agree to this. Following a notice of industrial action and a threat of solidarity strikes, Ryanair, rather than entering into collective agreements, chose to move to Kaunas in Lithuania.
In accordance with Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements and to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. However, the behaviour of Ryanair and other companies in simply moving to another country when collective agreements are requested (‘rule shopping’) undermines and restricts those rights to such an extent that they could be rendered inoperative. With the foregoing in mind:
What is the Commission doing to ensure that the right to conclude collective agreements and conduct collective negotiations is not undermined in this way?
What is the Commission doing to ensure that the freedom of establishment is not exploited in order to circumvent remuneration and other working conditions in the places in which companies operate?