|
Which take precedence: EU companies’ freedoms to do business across borders, or workers’ rights to collective bargaining and industrial action? What may once have seemed a fairly esoteric debate for lawyers is now one of Europe’s most high-profile controversies, as illustrated by the recent dispute centring on the Lindsey oil refinery in the UK.
The main bone of contention is the 1996 Posted Workers Directive. This provides that workers sent by their employer to work temporarily in another EU member state - such as the workers from Italy and Portugal whose posting to Lindsey triggered the recent strike - should be covered by the basic employment rights applicable in the country to which they are posted.
A series of European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings during 2007 and 2008 interpreted the Directive in a restrictive way, especially with regard to the role of collective agreements in setting employment rights for posted workers, the ability of member states to exceed the Directive’s standards and trade unions’ rights to take industrial action in this area.
Trade unions and some politicians believe that the ECJ judgments distort the Directive’s original purpose, giving business freedoms priority over workers’ rights, and they have been campaigning for the Directive to be amended to restore the balance. Employers, though, support the rulings and have played down their significance for industrial relations. The Lindsey dispute, which involved allegations of undercutting of UK pay and conditions, as well as of discrimination against British workers, has further fuelled the EU-wide debate and increased the pressure for amendments.
While the European Commission sees no need to revise the Directive at present, it will consider the matter further after the EU-level social partners have conducted a joint analysis of the consequences of the ECJ rulings.
This month’s European Employment Review has much more than we can include in this email, but you will find a full contents list on XpertHR. |
