EP Passes Working Time Directive Proposal

by Ulrika Lomas, for LawAndTax-News.com, Brussels

13 May 2005

A plenary session of the European Parliament voted on Wednesday in favour of the Commission's proposals to reform the Working Time Directive, which scrap the UK's opt-out from the Directive on health and safety grounds.

The existing Directive allows UK workers to work more than the EU's standard maximum 48- hour week; the new proposals would allow individual workers to opt out of the 48-hour week limit, but would impose stricter conditions to prevent employers from requiring staff to work longer hours.

The report was adopted by 345 votes to 264. 378 MEPs voted to phase out the opt-out, whilst 262 voted against Member States will now discuss the proposal at the June 2/3 Employment Council. This is not one of the areas in which the UK has a veto, and it must be likely that the opt-out will go.

Alejandro CERCAS (PES, ES), rapporteur for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, said it was Parliament's responsibility to restore confidence in the European social model given the high expectations of Europe's citizens. He considered that working conditions were the way to do this. "We need to give a clear signal of our commitment to and trust in the European Social model. Just as citizens are looking for progress on the constitutional front, they are also asking what the EU can do for them".

He called for the opt-out to be scrapped without exceptions, saying that there must be the same legal base in all Member States. "The opt-out runs counter to the goals of worker health and safety, and violates the fundamental principles of the Constitutional treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights". Citing the Lisbon Strategy, he said that he was in favour of flexibility, but that the opt-out clause had to be struck out.

Philip BUSHILL-MATTHEWS (EPP-ED, UK) focussed his comments on the opt-out. He disagreed with the rapporteur who stated that the opt-out "goes against the fundamental principles of the treaty". The Commission, he said, thought that the opt-out should exist 10 years ago and it is continuing to support it. The question on working time was about who decides; Mr Bushill-Matthews stated that it was not for "out of touch" politicians to decide but rather for the millions of workers to decide and for the opt-out to continue to exist. Many of the new Member States supported the opt-out as did all the social partners except the ETUC. SMEs disagreed, he said, with abolishing the opt-out. He stated that he would oppose the report from the rapporteur.

The Working Time Directive lays down minimum safety and health requirements for various aspects of working time including maximum weekly working time, rest breaks and annual leave. The directive sets a limit of 48 hours per week up to which an employee can work although voluntary opt-out provision means that members states may allow workers to exceed this limit on average weekly working hours provided that they have official agreement of individual workers. The UK is the only member state to make use of this ‘opt-out’ provision across the board as opposed to on a sectoral basis (used in some other member states).

The proposed review would cover three main areas: on-call time, the reference period for calculating working time, which Member states would be able to extend from 4 to 12 months after consultation of the social partners, and the individual opt-out. Currently extension of the reference period can only be granted if a collective agreement is reached.

The individual opt-out from the 48 hour week, widely used in the UK, would still be possible, but with stricter conditions: companies which have a collective bargaining agreement with a trade union would have to obtain the agreement of the trade union in order to enforce the opt-out. This would only be the case if the union has the power to negotiate on working time. This is dictated by national law.

For companies where no collective agreement is in force and there is no employee representation, individuals would be able to negotiate the opt-out directly with their employer (as is the case now). A directly-negotiated opt-out to the 48 hour week would also be subject to stricter conditions: the employer would not be able to obtain the employee’s consent at the same time as signing the employment contract or during an employees’ probation period and the individual opt-out would have to be renewed annually.

Recommended