REPORT on cross-border collective bargaining and transnational social dialogue

15.7.2013 - (2012/2292(INI))

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
Rapporteur: Thomas Händel

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on cross-border collective bargaining and transnational social dialogue

(2012/2292(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Articles 3(3) and 6(3) of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU),

–   having regard to Articles 9, 151, 152, 154, 155 and 156 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–   having regard to Articles 12, 28, 52(3) and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as to the Preamble thereto and the relevant explanations,

–   having regard to Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

–   having regard to Articles 5 and 6 of the (Revised) European Social Charter,

–   having regard to Commission Decision 98/500/EC of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level,

–   having regard to Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses,

–   having regard to Council Directive 2001/86/CE of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees, and to Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees,

–   having regard to Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community,

–   having regard to Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees,

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions (EPSCO) 17423/11 adopted on 1 December 2011,

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document of 10 September 2012 entitled ‘Transnational company agreements: realising the potential of social dialogue’ (SWD(2012)0264),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 18 April 2012 entitled ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ (COM(2012)0173),

–   having regard to the report of 31 January 2012 by the Commission’s Expert Group on transnational company agreements,

–   having regard to the Revised Working Document of 31 January 2012 of the Commission’s Expert Group on transnational company agreements,

–   having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 17 January 2012 entitled ‘Restructuring and anticipation of change: what lessons from recent experience?’ (COM(2012)0007) and its accompanying Staff Working Document of 17 January 2012 entitled ‘Restructuring in Europe 2011’ (SEC(2012)0059),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 27 October 2010 entitled ‘An integrated industrial policy for the globalisation era — Putting competitiveness and sustainability at centre stage’ (COM(2010)0614),

–   having regard to the Commission survey of 2 July 2008 entitled ‘Mapping of transnational texts negotiated at corporate level’ (EMPL F2 EP/bp 2008 (D) 14511),

–   having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document of 2008 entitled ‘The role of transnational company agreements in the context of increasing international integration’ (SEC(2008)2155),

–   having regard to the Commission report of February 2006 entitled ‘Transnational collective bargaining: Past, present and future’,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 9 February 2005 on the Social Agenda (COM(2005)0033),

–   having regard to the ILO conventions on labour clauses (public contracts) (No 94) and collective bargaining (No 154),

–   having regard to the jurisprudence developed by the ILO supervisory bodies,

–   having regard to the ILO tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy (MNE Declaration) (1977),

–   having regard to the ILO Declaration of 10 June 2008 on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation,

–   having regard to the ILO Declaration of 18 June 1998 on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,

–   having regard to the ILO conventions establishing universal core labour standards with regard to (inter alia): freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively (No 87, 1948 and No 98, 1949); and non-discrimination in employment (No 100, 1951 and No 111, 1958),

–   having regard to its study on ‘Enforcement of Fundamental Workers’ Rights’, commissioned by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (September 2012),

–   having regard to its study on ‘Cross-border collective bargaining and transnational social dialogue’, commissioned by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (June 2011),

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on information and consultation of workers and anticipation and management of restructuring[1],

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0258/2013),

A. whereas according to the Commission[2] there were 244 European transnational company agreements (TCAs) in 2012; whereas this indicates that labour relations in transnational companies in Europe are becoming increasingly integrated;

B.  whereas more and more new TCAs contain agreements on dispute resolution procedures, as recommended by both employees’ and employers’ organisations;

C. whereas there is no legal framework for these agreements either at international or at European level; whereas consideration should be given to whether this is a reason for fewer of these agreements being concluded;

D. whereas each EU Member State has its own system of industrial relations, based on different historical developments and traditions, which has to be respected and does not require harmonisation;

E.  whereas crossborder partnerships between social partners have proven to be good practices for promoting the free movement of workers and workers’ rights across borders; whereas EU support for such crossborder partnerships is vital;

F.  whereas European dialogue promotes the preservation and growth of employment, improvements in working conditions and thus greater prosperity for employees of transnational undertakings by innovative means while preserving autonomy in collective bargaining;

G. whereas the EU recognises freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining as fundamental rights;

H. whereas businesses increasingly operate on a European level while the representation of workers is predominantly organised along national lines; whereas this asymmetry is negatively impacting the representation of workers’ interests and puts workers at risk of being played off against each other and forced to agree to lower wages, worse working conditions or other downward adjustments;

1.  Notes that this resolution is concerned with TCAs; notes that TCAs are concluded between European trade union federations, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, individual companies and/or employers’ federations, generally at sectoral level, and that the resolution does not concern international framework agreements (IFAs) signed by international trade union federations with undertakings; highlights the need to strengthen European and transnational social dialogue and crossborder collective bargaining;

2.  Proposes that the Commission might consider whether an optional European legal framework for these European TCAs would be necessary and useful in order to provide greater legal security, greater transparency, and foreseeable and enforceable legal effects for agreements following the framework provisions; proposes that practices relating to European TCAs should be promoted which recognise the contractual autonomy of the contracting parties, and recommends that provisions be incorporated in the agreements concerning dispute resolution;

Optional legal framework for European TCAs

3.  Stresses the autonomy of the social partners, as a result of which they enter into negotiations and can conclude agreements at all levels;

4.  Stresses that TCAs differ from one another, for example as regards extent of applicability, scope and signatories, in accordance with the purposes, points of departure, needs and objectives of those parties, that businesses and corporate cultures differ substantially from one another and that contracting parties’ autonomy with regard to creating different kinds of TCA must be respected;

5.  Proposes that the social partners exchange experiences in the field of transnational company agreements;

6.  Stresses that the Commission should base its consideration of an optional legal framework on voluntary use, which should be optional for the social partners and companies and group of companies involved as well as based on flexibility and referral at national level in order to give the transnational company agreement legal effect; explicitly stresses the autonomy of the social partners and of the parties to collective agreements;

7.  Considers that European works councils should be fully involved in the negotiations with European trade union federations where applicable, notably since they are able to detect the need/opportunity for a TCA, initiate the process and pave the way for negotiations, and help in ensuring the transparency and dissemination of information concerning the agreements to the workers involved; welcomes the fact that some European trade union federations have designed procedural rules for involving European works councils;

8.  Is convinced that the inclusion of the most favourable clause and the non-regression clause is necessary to avert the danger that a European transnational company agreement might result in evasion of national collective agreements and national company agreements, or impair them;

9.  Recommends introducing alternative dispute settlement procedures; considers that a first ad hoc joint mechanism at undertaking level should be agreed, for instance encouraging the signatory parties on a voluntary basis to agree on dispute resolution clauses in order to bring about solutions to conflicts between the contracting parties; suggests that these clauses may be based on alternative dispute resolution templates agreed and provided by the EU social partners at sectoral level; recognises that many of the transnational company agreements already concluded at European level already contain working procedures for extrajudicial dispute settlement, and encourages the social partners to exchange views more intensively on the matter and identify methods for further developing and/or optimising them;

10. Proposes to the Commission that it recommend the social partners to take account of the following criteria in relation to European TCAs: the mandating procedure, i.e. clarification of the legitimacy and representativeness of the negotiating parties between whom agreements are concluded; the place and date of conclusion of the agreement; its substantive and geographical scope; the most favourable clause and the non-regression clause; the period of validity; the preconditions for denouncing the agreement and the dispute settlement procedures; the subjects covered by the agreement; and further formal requirements;

11. Welcomes the activities which the Commission is making available for exchanges of experience for social partners and experts in order to support them, for example collecting examples, establishing databases and undertaking studies;

12. Recalls in this context the positive experiences of crossborder partnerships between social partners, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure EU support for such partnerships in the future;

13. Encourages the European social partners to make full use of the possibility of EU agreements as provided by Article 155 TFEU, on a basis of full respect for their autonomy;

14. Calls for an enhanced role for the European social partners in shaping European policies; in particular, calls for the social partners to participate in drawing up the Annual Growth Survey and to play a stronger role in monitoring the progress achieved by Member States;

15. Stresses the need to encourage, support and increase the representation and participation of women at the different levels of social dialogue and collective bargaining structures and to have the gender dimension mainstreamed in the relevant forums, in order to solicit the views of women and integrate gender equality issues into collective bargaining; points out that social dialogue and collective bargaining have undoubtedly great potential as vehicles for promoting gender equality in the workplace;

16. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the EU social partners and the national parliaments.

• [1]  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0005.
• [2]  Transnational company agreements: realising the potential of social dialogue, Commission Staff Working Document 10.9.2012 SWD(2012) 264 final, p. 2

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Various business strategies – concentration on the core business, the use of ‘assembly platforms’ outside the business, the use of low-wage countries, low-price policies and the attainment of market access with simultaneous adaptation of goods and services to meet customers’ wishes at ever shorter notice – are bringing about major and rapid changes in the businesses manufacturing the products or providing the services. This is resulting in constant fluctuations in orders, organisational changes and restructurings, which have an impact on employees. Businesses generally extend their production systems and business structures to all the companies belonging to the undertaking.

Because of the increasing transnationalisation of the management of groups of companies, there is a growing need for cross-border labour relations systems to solve problems[1].

However, for employees, the scope of labour-law and employment-law systems does not as a rule extend beyond national borders. In many businesses, therefore, the social partners have reached agreements to deal with these upheavals. This process of transnationalisation must not be pursued at the cost of the structurally more vulnerable employees or even result in pure wage dumping and social dumping.

Efficient undertakings with good work and high employment rates are the goal, which will only be attainable by means of a social dialogue of high quality based on legal provisions.

Arrangements in the shadow of the law

However, agreements between representatives of employees and employers are very diverse: from the name they are given (agreement, declaration, code of conduct, company agreement, collective agreement) to the contracting parties, a huge multiplicity of forms exists. The more agreements there are, the greater the need to define the individual forms[2]. So long as there are no binding definitions, however, there will remain scope for different understandings arising from differing systems of industrial relations.

It is astonishing that, in view of the absence of legal provisions and considering the various different rules and the mass of associated problems[3], so many European transnational agreements have been concluded at all.

Whereas the Commission[4] has entered in its database some 215 documents from 138 undertakings, covering more than 10 million employees, BUSINESSEUROPE[5] refers only to 100 undertakings based in Europe which have concluded such agreements.

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has registered around 220 documents of various types (agreements, protocols, declarations) concluded by 138 undertakings[6]. They apply to more than 10 million employees worldwide, although around 85% of them are classified as European agreements because of their geographical scope.

This growing number of agreements demonstrates the increasing transnationalisation of industrial relations in Europe. In addition to economic reasons (see above), the arrangements in this field which were originally agreed in Europe have driven the development of legal provisions, for example the Directives on European works councils[7], the involvement of employees in a European company (SE)[8], the posting of workers[9] and informing and consulting employees[10]. Negotiating processes at the level of European works councils have contributed to a horizontal and vertical Europeanisation of company industrial relations due to cross-border interaction[11].

Collective agreements and European transnational company agreements

European transnational company agreements are generally not national collective agreements in the traditional sense, concluded at national level between trade unions and employers or the latter’s federations, acting within a national legal framework which also incorporates collective measures. The matters covered by traditional collective agreements include, for instance, wages and (in most Member States) working hours.

It may be difficult to demarcate the two fields in individual cases. That is partly because in each EU Member State there is a different system of relations between the social partners, i.e. a system which determines how employers, employees and the State regulate industrial relations.

It is not currently possible to say that European collective agreements exist, even if individual models for coordination in the same field exist, such as the Doorn Group[12]. However, this coordination takes place between trade unions, and only a few sectors are affected.

In view of the different systems governing relations between social partners, a harmonised European system of collective agreements is hardly conceivable. In most Member States, autonomy of collective bargaining is laid down by law, in the Constitution or as a fundamental right. In addition, in the medium term a European system of collective agreements would be difficult to arrange from the point of view of national economies. It will primarily be up to the European social partners to find a framework for transnational negotiations on terms of employment in the medium term.

However, cross-border negotiations on terms of employment are already being held, for which the granting of the right to collective measures needs to be laid down clearly at European level too, as called for in the Andersson Report[13]. The Viking and Laval cases require a solution, which has not been reached by means of the proposal for the Monti II Regulation[14]. In the light of the study commissioned by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which clearly indicates how in some EU Member States the exercise of collective rights is being hampered or impaired[15], there is a greater need for this.

European transnational company agreements are not European collective agreements in the traditional sense, but the substance is changing[16]. Whereas originally the emphasis was more on information, provision is now increasingly being made for further training measures, occupational safety, health, transfers and dealing with restructuring measures[17]. The two regulatory levels could therefore become more interlocked in future.

Mandates and representativeness for European transnational company agreements

One issue which is certainly important and difficult for the European social partners is the mandating procedure and representativeness[18] of those who conduct negotiations and sign an agreement. This should be clear, transparent and comprehensible. Most European trade union federations have already drawn up guidelines for internal use[19].

It is true that European works councils and employees’ representatives in European companies (SE) often begin the talks which later result in agreements. However, only European trade union federations can conclude European transnational company agreements. Only they can be given a democratic mandate by national trade unions and only they represent the recognised national trade unions.

This makes it possible to guarantee autonomy of collective bargaining in the national context despite the interlocking of the two spheres which has already been described. It also means that both negotiations and implementation are more binding. This is because in most countries the trade unions are also directly involved at national level, and they ensure that European and national provisions are compatible.

Extrajudicial dispute settlement

Different arrangements for extrajudicial dispute settlement exist in each Member State as part of the systems of relations between social partners. This has the advantage that negotiating partners themselves are involved in devising solutions, and that decisions are not taken by third parties. Therefore mediation is a particularly good option here, because the participants themselves work out a solution while a fair procedure is guaranteed. Experiences in other fields should be considered for purposes of comparison in this context and/or examples should be gathered, e.g. mediation, procedures involving arbitration bodies in the Works Constitution Act (Germany).

Regulatory alternatives

So far, there are no provisions concerning European transnational agreements. The subject falls under international private law, but Brussels I and Rome I do not provide for any collective agreements.

Even an agreement concluded in an area not subject to regulation would then be fully enforceable at law. Such a radical development would be too extreme and would take insufficient account of the autonomy of the social partners and disregard the social dialogue.

Nor would a directive or a regulation which was not of an optional nature be the right solution, as they would be bindingly applicable.

Agreeing that the national legal order of a Member State applies is not a solution, as this legal order would be alien and inapplicable for all parts of an undertaking located in a different country. Moreover, it would not take into account the originally European transnational character of these agreements and the transnationalisation of industrial relations at European level.

• [1]  Müller, Thorsten/ Platzer, Hans-Wolfgang, Rüb, Stefan, `Transnationale Unternehmensvereinbarungen und die Vereinbarungspolitik Europäischer Betriebsräte, Düsseldorf 2013, p. 94
• [2]  http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/transnationalcompanyagreement.htm
• [3]  Commission staff working document, `Transnational company agreements: realising the potential of social dialogue, SWD (2012) 264 final.
• [4]  These are both international and European agreements: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1141
• [5]  http://www.businesseurope.eu/Content/Default.asp?PageID=568&DocID=31047
• [6]  http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf/EN-ETUC-Position-on-TCA-2.pdf
• [7]  Directive 94/45/EC as last amended by Directive 2009/38/EC
• [8]  2001/86/EC.
• [9]  96/71/EC.
• [10]  2002/14/EC.
• [11]  Rüb, Stefan/ Platzer, Hans-Wolfgang/ Müller, Thorsten `Transnationale Unternehmensvereinbarungen-Zur Neuordnung der Arbeitsbeziehungen in Europa`, Berlin 2011 , p. 245.
• [12]  http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/doorngroup.htm
• [13]  Andersson Report (2008/2085(INI)) 30.9.2008 (A6-0370/2008).
• [14]  Monti II, Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (COM(2012) 130 final, Brussels, 21.3.2012.
• [15]  European Parliament study on Enforcement of Fundamental Workers’ Rights, commissioned by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, September 2012.
• [16]  EUROACTA 02/2012: European Action on Transnational Company Agreements: a stepping stone towards a real internationalisation of industrial relations?
• [17]  http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?jsp?catId=978&langId=en
• [18]  Communication from the Commission — Partnership for change in an enlarged Europe — enhancing the contribution of European social dialogue, COM(2004) 557.
• [19]  e.g. IndustriAll, ETUC.

OPINION of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (3.6.2013)

for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

on cross-border collective bargaining and transnational social dialogue
(2012/2292(INI))

Rapporteur: Antigoni Papadopoulou

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality calls on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas the EU is currently facing the worst economic and financial crisis since the great depression of the 1930s;

B.  whereas the effects of the economic crisis are particularly serious for women, who are affected both directly and indirectly, notably with regard to the difference between the employment rates of men and women;

C. whereas the persistent under-representation of women at all levels of decision-making and in the arena of social dialogue is firmly related to their under-representation within governments, unions and employers’ organisations, the last consistently being the least likely to have women’s representation, and whereas this under-representation can translate into a lack of clear coherent policy regarding gender issues;

1.  Points out that tripartite social dialogue and collective bargaining have undoubtedly great potential as vehicles for promoting gender equality, stresses the importance of collective bargaining between management and labour in order to improve the work-life balance and address and combat the gender pay gap and the glass ceiling;

2.  Points out that patterns of representation at different levels (local, sectoral, cross-industry, national, cross-national and international) are not well documented; stresses that data on women’s representation in relation to age, sexuality, ability, class, ethnicity, citizenship status, and race are virtually non-existent; underlines the importance of disaggregating data,

3.  Urges the Member States to guarantee that women can exercise their rights in all areas of society without discrimination, and highlights women’s right to take part in political life and in shaping and implementing major policy issues, specifically by holding public office and by being elected to trade union and worker representation bodies;

4.  Regrets that women’s specific needs are overlooked in the various stages of collective bargaining, despite the fact that women are the breadwinners in most single-parent families significantly affected by the crisis; underlines that without a shift in the culture of bargaining (who is negotiating and how – which highlights leadership style), there may be little change in what is negotiated; stresses that struggles around diversity, equality, inclusive representation and the democratisation of leadership inside institutions need to be linked to the collective bargaining and social dialogue agenda;

5.  Highlights that collective bargaining represents a valuable complement to legislation and decision-making processes in promoting gender equality and is a key mechanism for gender mainstreaming in employment;

6.  Stresses the need to solicit the views of women, which generally also reflect the interests of children and elderly persons in their care, and to ensure that they are represented in negotiating teams, and calls as well for gender impact assessments of collective agreements;

7.  Stresses the need to increase the representation and participation of women in social dialogue and collective bargaining structures and to have the gender dimension mainstreamed in the relevant fora;

8.  Calls on the unions to explicitly support and train women to participate in negotiating teams, including in the European Work Council;

9.  Emphasises that unions should raise awareness of the benefits of unionisation and carry out special campaigns to encourage women to participate;

10. Calls on unions to ensure that the organisation of trade union life (meetings, travels, activities) responds to the work-life balance needs of both men and women;

11. Calls on unions to promote and enhance gender sensitivity among their members and among employers;

12. Calls on the Member States to ensure equal representation and participation of women and men in social dialogue institutions, resulting in greater attention to gender issues;

13. Calls on the EU and the Member States to promote gender sensitivity among social partners;

14. Highlights the importance of developing the agenda on gender equality bargaining as well as a clear strategy on gender issues;

15. Stresses that gender equality issues, like the gender pay gap, gender segregation in the labour market, reconciliation of work and family responsibilities, promoting career development and combating violence and sexual harassment at work must be integrated into the social dialogue agenda, so that the interests of both women and men are taken into account;

16. Calls on unions to integrate the gender perspective in the collective bargaining agenda;

17. Urges the Member States to implement the Framework of Actions on Gender Equality (2005);

18. Calls on the Member States to give particular attention to small and medium-sized enterprises, which invariably encounter greater difficulties in promoting equal opportunities and in absorbing the costs of absences for maternity or parental leave;

19. Urges the Member States to guarantee the right to equal employment opportunities as regards access to jobs, vocational training and promotion and as regards the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’;

20. Calls on the Member States to bestow an annual Gender Equality Prize on enterprises promoting gender equality at the workplace through their methods of staff organisation and administration;

21. Urges the Member States to give effective recognition to maternity and paternity as an outstanding social function, guaranteeing the rights to leave that are enshrined in the legislation;

22. Calls on the Commission to ensure gender mainstreaming in legislative measures to promote social dialogue and collective bargaining.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	29.5.2013
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	27 1 1
Members present for the final vote	Regina Bastos, Edit Bauer, Marije Cornelissen, Edite Estrela, Iratxe García Pérez, Mikael Gustafsson, Mary Honeyball, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Constance Le Grip, Astrid Lulling, Barbara Matera, Elisabeth Morin-Chartier, Krisztina Morvai, Norica Nicolai, Siiri Oviir, Antonyia Parvanova, Joanna Senyszyn, Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska, Marc Tarabella, Anna Záborská
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Roberta Angelilli, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Katarína Neveďalová, Chrysoula Paliadeli, Antigoni Papadopoulou, Angelika Werthmann
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote	Martina Anderson

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	20.6.2013
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	31 6 3
Members present for the final vote	Regina Bastos, Edit Bauer, Phil Bennion, Pervenche Berès, Philippe Boulland, Milan Cabrnoch, David Casa, Alejandro Cercas, Ole Christensen, Derek Roland Clark, Marije Cornelissen, Emer Costello, Frédéric Daerden, Karima Delli, Sari Essayah, Thomas Händel, Marian Harkin, Nadja Hirsch, Stephen Hughes, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Martin Kastler, Ádám Kósa, Jean Lambert, Verónica Lope Fontagné, Olle Ludvigsson, Thomas Mann, Elisabeth Morin-Chartier, Csaba Őry, Licia Ronzulli, Elisabeth Schroedter, Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska, Jutta Steinruck, Traian Ungureanu, Inês Cristina Zuber
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Georges Bach, Jürgen Creutzmann, Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, Evelyn Regner, Birgit Sippel
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote	Ricardo Cortés Lastra, Jürgen Klute, Marita Ulvskog