President. – The next item is the report (A5-0283/2001) drawn up by Mr Andersson on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on harassment at the workplace.

  Andersson (PSE), rapporteur. (SV) Mr President, the subject of this own-initiative report is certainly not a new problem, but a problem only recently highlighted. According to the Dublin Foundation, harassment in the workplace is on quite an extensive scale. Eight percent of EU citizens, or around twelve million people, have felt harassed in the workplace during the past twelve months.

What is this due to, and are there any connections to be made? Yes. We know, for example, that insecurity of employment plays a role. We also know that those who are harassed suffer more stress than others. We know that those with high-pressure jobs also suffer more. The issue is one of security in working life and the organisation of work.

What are the consequences of harassment? Harassment naturally has consequences for the individual, who feels less well, is absent from work more often and is ill more often. The whole team, including those who are not themselves being bullied, functions less well. Bullying also has consequences for companies in the form of lower productivity, reduced profitability and poorer working conditions within the company

I have been asked why the EU should concern itself with these issues and what all this has to do with the Community. Well, harassment in the workplace is a problem common to all Member States, but it receives very different attention in different places. In recent years, we have increasingly started to talk about more job opportunities and better workplaces, that is, about the quality of working life. Quality in working life is about health and safety and the organisation of work, and so harassment in the workplace is a problem. The EU has had legislation for a long time regarding health and safety at work.

What do we need to do? Firstly, we have to review the definition of harassment and, at the same time, try to obtain a common definition. We have to obtain significantly better statistical data, and the Dublin Foundation and Eurostat have a future role to play in this connection.

We also have to work on the open coordination method. Member States need to develop their legislation, regulations, etc. so that best practice prevails, and that means looking at each others’ solutions. The Lisbon Process also includes qualitative indicators.

Where does legislation come in? Should we state in advance that legislation is not needed in this area, bordering as it does upon another area in which the EU already has legislation, namely that of health and safety? We currently have a major ongoing debate on health and safety in which it is assumed that it is not only the physical, but also the psycho-social, working environment which has an impact and which will be of ever greater significance for the new working life of the future. Women in particular are affected by atypical jobs, insecure employment, etc.

The issue of legislation is highlighted in two points in the report, although it is not stated that we definitely should have legislation or how such legislation should be formulated. In issuing its communications about a Community strategy concerning health and safety at work and the strengthening of the quality dimension in employment and social policy, as well as in publishing its Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility, the Commission is urged to take account of the problem of harassment in the workplace and to consider the need for legislation. Of course, it is possible that the Commission will say that we do not need, and will not have, such legislation. In that case, we shall have to conduct an analysis, but I find it pretty incomprehensible why the possibility of legislation should be ruled out in advance.

It is likely that the framework directive on health and safety at work also covers aspects of the psycho-social working environment, but we would like clarification on this point. If we receive such clarification, there is no problem but, otherwise, the scope of the framework directive will have to be expanded to include the essential ‘new’ area. In this context, it must also be considered whether there is a need for some kind of regulations or legislation regarding harassment in the workplace.

Let me take an example from my own country. We have framework legislation which states that the employer is responsible for dealing with harassment in the workplace when this occurs. It does not state in detail how, in fact, it should be dealt with, but it is clear that the employer has a responsibility.

Paragraph 24 of the report urges the Commission to publish a Green Paper on the situation regarding harassment in the workplace and then to present an action programme. This is probably the most important point in the whole report.

  Smet (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. – (NL) Mr President, first of all, allow me to congratulate the instigator of this report, Mr Andersson: he has tackled a new issue that is regulated in some measure in only a few Member States. I welcome the fact that, as frequently happens, Europe leads the way in a number of cases. Well done.

Why did the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities give its opinion specifically on this subject matter? It is, of course, a problem which affects men and women alike, but our committee considered that women often, far more often in fact, fall victim to this and other kinds of harassment, which very often lead to sexual harassment. Our committee therefore had its role to fulfil and has issued its advice.

I think that we should all be aware of the fact that this is a new problem. We can learn from the measures which many Member States have taken in terms of sexual violence, for coming up with a policy to tackle moral intimidation in the work place is not so easy or self-evident. But there are a number of Member States that are attempting to do just that, and many Member States have experience of combating sexual violence.

What can we do? First of all, a preventive approach can be adopted, which means that companies must make it clear to their staff that they do not tolerate harassment at work. That would introduce a preventive stance. Secondly, an intermediary could be appointed who could mediate between two parties if a problem arises. To reach a solution in a company via mediation is always preferable to one of the parties having to take matters to court. I prefer this type of solution. Thirdly, if a solution is difficult to find, the management could impose penalties. Fourthly, the option of going to court must at any rate remain open.

The above appear to me to be practical solutions which we could put in place.

  Glase (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have been intending to discuss the problem of workplace harassment here in the European Parliament for some time. The debate has been a long time coming, for the question which has always arisen is this: is this House the right forum for this debate? Some members of my group reject the report because they believe that this is not a European issue. The majority will follow my recommendation and vote for the report, because it is indeed a Europe-wide issue and problem. Bullying exists in every country of the European Union, in all sectors, and even in the EU institutions themselves. It is a difficult issue. It is very embarrassing for many people, and a large number of cases go unreported because no one really wants to talk about it. Victims feel ashamed, exploited and stressed.

Their distress often has a high cost, not only in terms of their own mental and physical health, but also economically: sick leave, medical and treatment expenses, a high staff turnover, lower productivity, a loss of quality and image for the company or institution, and therefore also a decline in the number of customers. Bullying causes all these problems.

The dignity of every individual should not be upheld solely on paper and in the Basic Law, but also in our social relations. A little more respect and fairness and a little less egotism would probably make our debate about harassment unnecessary. European legislation is unsuitable as a means to address the causes of bullying and is likely to be ineffective. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur for his cooperation and for including my ideas in his report.

Measures to tackle bullying should focus primarily on the Member State and actively include the social partners. It is in companies' own interests to ensure that these incidents do not occur within their organisations. Due to the difficulties in arriving at a precise definition, the Commission will not find it easy to draft its proposed Green Paper. However, there are a few models of good practice in tackling bullying here in the European Union, and I believe that everyone should learn from each other. Tasks must be assigned effectively to the most appropriate levels; this will also increase the desire to take action and ensure that this difficult issue is taken seriously.

  De Rossa (PSE). – I want first of all on behalf of my group to thank the rapporteur for this report. It is an important report because harassment is a far too prevalent problem in the workplace. My group will be supporting the report as it stands in its entirety and will not be expecting or requesting any deletions of parts of paragraphs or phrases. It is a sad fact that the Dublin Foundation has found that over 15 million people have reported violence, sexual harassment or bullying in the workplace. It should not be allowed to continue because this kind of bullying and harassment can be fatal and has in many instances resulted in people either taking their own lives or, through misadventure in the workplace, in others taking their lives. It seems to me therefore that it is something which the Commission and the Parliament should address. Legislation is in place in Ireland, as part of the health and safety legislation, to ensure that large companies put in place codes of practice to deal with bullying.

However, it is not clear yet to what extent companies have implemented this legislation. I came across a case recently where a young man starting in a job in a state company was bullied consistently by older men in the job, not by women, but by men, who simply did not want him in that job because they felt threatened by his presence. They did not succeed in forcing him out of that job but it was extraordinary that this should occur in this day and age. It is true that the trends emerging over the last ten years, as shown by the Dublin Foundation, have been on the rise. It is clear also that this is largely due to insecurity in the workplace and changes in the nature of work. Typical work is causing stresses and strains which are being reflected in this kind of activity, so I support the call by the rapporteur for a communication from the Commission by next year and a programme of action by the Commission by the end of next year.

Could I say before I sit down on an entirely different matter, but one related to the work of the Commission, that I would appeal to the Commissioner to ask our colleagues in the Commission to take steps to relax the rules and regulations governing state aid for the aviation industry, otherwise we are going to have to deal with tens of thousands of workers right across Europe who could well be unemployed in the not too distant future.

  Lynne (ELDR). – This is what I call harassment in the workplace. I cannot speak without people smoking behind me and that gives me an asthma attack and that is harassment. I congratulate Mr Andersson on his report. It is important for action at both national and European level because, as we have heard, 12 million people are harassed or bullied in the workplace every year. There are many forms of harassment and as I said, smoking in the workplace in no-smoking areas is a form of harassment. It can also have devastating effects, both physically and pyschologically. The level of stress caused by bullying and harassment in a workplace is tremendous. Disabled people, women and in particular, ethnic minorities, suffer a great deal. They can be doubly discriminated against and are harassed simply because they come from those disadvantaged, discriminated groups.

I am also glad that Mr Andersson referred to those on short-term contracts because again we have evidence that those too, are bullied. But can I turn quickly to the reason for the split votes that the ELDR has asked for on paragraphs 8 and 13. I believe that it is a role of the European Union to have common guidelines, best practice and benchmarking across the Member States, but I do not believe that we need more binding legislation: that is a role for the Member States and a question of subsidiarity. So although I agree with much of Mr Andersson's report, I disagree with the fact that we should have binding legislation and that is why we have called for the split vote.

  Lambert (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, my group would also like to congratulate Mr Andersson for his work on this excellent own-initiative report: it has been a very good evening for those. As has already been said, we should not underestimate the effect that harassment in all its forms has on people's lives and health and the long-term mental and psychological problems we have heard about. If we are looking at figures, then if we were to take this Parliament as an example, we would be looking at a group roughly the size of the Liberal Democrat group as the percentage of those suffering harassment. Up to now, very little has really been done to address the problem of harassment generally, so this report is especially welcome as it allows an open debate on an issue that has all too often been ignored.

A French survey also reveals that 70% of harassment of victims are women and this applies at all points of the employment process, so not only do you get paid less, you get harassed as well, and chauvinist and sexist connotations, which are more often targeted at women than at men, can frequently turn into something more serious. Therefore the Commission should give particular attention to ways of tackling this unacceptable situation for women in Europe. Mr Andersson is right, employers must have the responsibility for preventing harassment in the workplace, not colluding with it, or practising it. However the framework directive on health and safety at work does not clarify whether employers are responsible for the mental, psycho-social or social working environment, so I believe steps should be taken to revise the directive to include this definition.

  Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would also like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for his work, although we do not have a definition of harassment, perhaps because harassment takes many forms and is difficult to define. I would like to express my solidarity with, and sympathy for, Mrs Lynne, who has just told us of a new form of harassment. By way of analysis, an acceptable definition seems to me to be that of the Irish working group for the prevention of harassment, which defines it as direct or indirect, inappropriate and repeated behaviour of a verbal, physical or other nature, directed by one or more persons against a third party or parties in the workplace and/or in the execution of their work, which may justifiably be considered to violate an individual’s right to dignity at work. And, of course, an isolated incident of behaviour such as that described in the definition may constitute an affront to dignity at work, but an individual and isolated incident would not be considered harassment.

We can accept this definition or any other. The fact is that up to 12 million people in the European Union claim to have been morally harassed over the last twelve months, women appear to be victims of harassment to a greater extent than men and certain sectors of activity seem to be particularly affected. Harassment has repercussions for the economy of the company, leads to absenteeism, inefficiency and low productivity. For society, harassment may lead to medical and psychological costs, sick leave, early retirement, etc. Above all it affects the worker and presents risks which add to problems of physical violence and ergonomic issues. Furthermore, there remains much to do in order to eliminate risks to health, both of a physical and chemical origin. Above all, moral harassment, pestering – which is one possible name for it – seems to me incompatible with Article 1 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: ‘Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected’.

Harassment therefore constitutes a risk to health but above all an attack on the person’s dignity. I therefore welcome this initiative aimed at preventing harassment in the workplace and at preventing workers suffering the pain of helplessness.

  Koukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the question of harassment in the workplace relates directly to respect for fundamental personal rights, the right to dignity and the right to participate in economic and social life on equal terms.

In his initiative, Mr Andersson has revealed new aspects to us which need to be borne in mind when it comes to the material application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to a more integrated approach to policy on employment standards. Most importantly, we should welcome this initiative because it gives us an opportunity, with an issue which is played down and which is usually included in our interests as an afterthought, to see how important it is if we are to issue a successful series of policies, such as a policy against discrimination and exclusion, a policy for the disabled, a policy for unemployment and employment standards. Only once all employees feel safe in the workplace from harassment from colleagues and superiors, once all employees, rather than being ridiculed for their disadvantages, feel comfortable in the work environment, then the groups – and there are a lot of them – which fall victim to harassment will choose to enter the labour market and the fruits of their labour will far exceed any weaknesses they may have.

If we bear in mind that, according to the statistics, the number of people which make up these vulnerable groups is over 8%, the political dimension is easy to see. At the same time, there are numerous groups which fall victim to harassment, from women and the disabled to foreigners and people of a different faith. This gives us an idea of the size of the problem.

We must use this report as a springboard to draw up a plan to combat all levels of harassment, which starts as simple sarcasm and disdain, coupled with intimidation, humiliation and undermining, and ends up in more violent acts, a plan which will be applied irrespective of whether it is top-down harassment of an employee by a superior, bottom-up harassment or horizontal harassment. In addition to measures to ban harassment, the action plan must require employers to foster a climate of non-harassment between colleagues, accompanied by mutual encouragement between colleagues in the workplace. And because no one is deliberately bad, it must be flanked by measures to abolish distrust and superstition towards the people which make up these groups.

  Hermange (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, the report we are discussing today concerns 12 to 15 million people in Europe, that is, between 8% and 10% of European workers. There are three aspects to this modern evil. There is an economic aspect, since according to the report of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions the deterioration in working conditions over the past 10 years is due to the faster working rate and to flexibility in all its forms. There is a sociological aspect, symptomatic of the individualism that is increasingly threatening to take over our society. There is a psychological aspect, which makes harassment particularly odious and can sometimes cause individuals to suffer a breakdown without leaving the slightest trace.

At present there is a serious legal vacuum at national level and a wide disparity at European level, which, however, is being counteracted by an increasingly solid body of case law. That is why this report, which is well documented and rigorous, provides a highly encouraging response and sends out a strong signal to the working environment. In paragraph 12, among the envisaged measures, it emphasises the need for more serious dialogue on this subject between all the social partners and the appointment of an independent external mediator, as also advocated in the amendment I tabled, which I regard as an important guarantee of real progress in this field. But it is up to all the European institutions to continue to fight an evil that is now firmly entrenched, as they have been urged to do since the European Social Charter. I therefore welcome the rapporteur's proposal to call on the Commission to publish a Green Paper and to present a Community action programme by next year. On behalf of my group I also support the inclusion of these matters in the Green Paper discussions on corporate social responsibility.

We must all support this fight, at our own level, persuaded as we are that society as a whole will enjoy the benefits of balance within society and within individuals.

  Mann, Thomas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, around 12 million people in the EU are reported to have been subjected to bullying at work. The real figure is far higher. The victims suffer exclusion and harassment, rumours are spread about them, they are deliberately denied information and scapegoated. Managers or staff – anyone can become a victim or a bully. The impact of harassment is still completely underestimated, so very few effective instruments are available. Yet it is a serious workplace problem. It causes aggression and stress, sickness, resignations, staff turnover – all of which cost the economy and the social systems several 100 million euro per year.

Together, the fifteen EU Member States must take stock of the situation. Best practice approaches will help us all benefit from an exchange of experience and devise effective measures to combat the problem. However, solutions must be tailored to the type of bullying involved, which can be gender-specific, age-specific or racist. Jan Andersson has submitted an outstanding report. It was quite rightly adopted unanimously by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Almost all the proposed amendments from the PPE-DE have been integrated, such as consultation with Europe's social partners on developing joint anti-harassment strategies. In practice, this will involve constructive conflict management, better internal communications, and the creation of support networks for victims. We also propose appointing a confidential mediator at the workplace to whom employees can turn if they so wish.

Ms Diamantopoulou, we firmly expect the Commission to submit a Green Paper next year on the issue of bullying at work so that we can develop an action programme which will have a sustained impact.

  Diamantopoulou, Commission. – (EL) Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Andersson on his excellent report. I quite agree that harassment is an extremely important issue, it is dangerous in the workplace and it has significant social and economic repercussions not just on the employee and the company but also on the economy as a whole in that it is one of the main reasons for falling productivity.

I should like to assure the House that the Commission is fully aware of the problem, which is why this issue is one of the important aspects of the Commission communication on standards released in June and one of the issues for which we are also examining the question of indicators.

Similarly, as regards current tools, I must remind you that the social partners need to provide protection and can play an important role here and remind you of Directive 89/391/ΕC which states that, when preventing danger in the workplace, account must also be taken of psychosomatic pressure which, of course, is not always easy to define.

I should like to inform you that an advisory committee of representatives of the Member States is already up and running and is examining the question of health and safety. It has set up a sub-committee especially to study the question of violence in the workplace. This committee completed its work yesterday and we now have a general definition of violence in the workplace. The proposal for an initiative and a Green Paper on this subject is not feasible now and I can tell you why immediately. As you know, the Commission has taken the initiative to overhaul its strategy on health and safety in the workplace. And this report will play an important part; it will help bring about change and propose a new strategy on health and safety and for this reason I should like to make a point of thanking the rapporteur.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.