 |
| |
IR Notes 247 – 5 March 2025
www.irshare.eu
|
|
|
| |
| |
A question for…
Roland Erne, Professor of European Integration and Employment Relations,
University College Dublin
What are the main arguments that
can convince the Court of Justice not to follow the
opinion of its Advocate General, who is in
favour of annulling the directive on adequate minimum wages
(see IR Notes no. 244)?
First of all, I agree with the opinion of
several professors of law who take the view that Advocate General
Emiliou’s line of argument is flawed, due to its inaccurate reading
of existing case law (1). Bear in mind that if the Court of Justice
were to follow the interpretation of Article 153 of the TFEU as
proposed by Advocate General Emiliou, it would then have to call
into question a whole series of directives. His opinion is that the
EU has no powers to regulate pay. However, this didn’t prevent the
EU from passing directives that deal directly with pay-related
issues: the Posted Workers Directive establishes the principle of
“equal pay for equal work”, and the recent Pay Transparency
Directive requires employers to conduct audits where pay gaps are
identified, and to remedy the situation. There are also a number of more political
arguments, which I discuss in an article (2). The consequence of
annulling the directive would be to increase mistrust of the EU
among workers, including those from every country that had to accept
rescue plans in order to weather the 2018 financial crisis. At that
time, the Council of the EU didn’t hesitate to take measures that
led to wage cuts, without worrying whether such action was within
its powers (3). The ETUC’s current General Secretary, Esther Lynch,
who was in charge of this file at that time, disputed the Council’s
competence, but in vain. All lawsuits related to this matter were
thrown out by the Court, on the grounds that the wage cuts were
fair, because the European economy had to be stabilised. If the
Court were to decide that the EU has no powers to regulate pay, it
would be contradicting itself. And it will be hard for workers to
accept this. If the Danish
government wins this case, the EU’s popular legitimacy will be
further eroded. Workers won’t understand why pay cuts that favour
businesses are lawful, whereas a directive on adequate minimum
wages, which favours workers, is not. The Court can decide what it
wants, because the treaty contains a number of articles that can be
interpreted in one way or another. Lastly, an annulment might suit
the centre-right parties of Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel
Macron, which have supported the directive in order to enhance the
EU’s popular legitimacy, following a decade of anti-worker
interventions under the EU’s new economic governance. They will then
be able to cry crocodile tears and say “we were in favour of this
directive, which strengthens European workers’ rights, but
unfortunately it wasn’t lawful!”
(1) Kilpatrick, C., Steiert, M., A little learning is
a dangerous thing: AG Emiliou on the Adequate Minimum Wages
Directive (C-19/23, Opinion of 14 January 2025), EUI, LAW, Working
Paper, 2025/02 (2) Erne,
R. (2025) ‘The
EU Minimum Wage Directive: To Be or Not to Be?‘ Social Europe, 24
February (3) see Erne, R.,
Stan, S., Golden, D., Szabó, I. and Maccarrone, V. (2024): Politicising Commodification. European Governance
and Labour Politics from the Financial Crisis to the Covid
Emergency. Cambridge University
Press.
>
See also: Counter-Opinion
published by the European Trade Union
Confederation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Who we are?
IR Notes is a
fortnightly newsletter produced by IR
Share and its
network of experts, and is available in several European languages
(English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). It offers Europe-wide
monitoring of employment law, labour relations and employment policy. It
is available by subscription for 273 euros per year .
The team This issue
was producaed by Ambre Grenier-Boley,
Victoria Fonseca,
Iris Turlan and Frédéric
Turlan. Find out more
about the IR Share team on our
website.
Subscribe to IR Notes
Via the IR
Share website or by calliang us on: +33 (0)6 81 41 53 95
or E-mail: frederic.t@irshare.eu
Legal notice.
Publisher: IR Share SARL – 5, Les Compères – 89520 Fontenoy, France –
Tel.: +33 (0)6 81 41 53 95 – share capital 1,500 euros – commercial
register (RCS Auxerre): 512 567 959. Managing editor: Frédéric Turlan.
Hosting: ALTEO by Damien Cornillet – Château – 89500
Villeneuve-sur-Yonne. CPPAP no.: 0626 Z 93933.
|
|
|
|
| |
Follow us on LinkedIn!
Why not connect to the IR Notes LinkedIn page, so that you can keep up with
developments in the issues we’re covering, between two editions?
You’re welcome to follow us! There are already 687 of you following
us!
|
|
|
|
| |
European Industrial Relations Dictionary
In case reading IR Notes inspires you to
explore this subject further, we are providing links to the European
Industrial Relations Dictionary published by Eurofound. This is updated at
regular intervals by IR Share, which publishes IR Notes. The term
definitions are available in English and can easily be converted
into other languages using on-line translation tools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lead
story
Companies
will be less sustainable and less vigilant
On 26 February, the European Commission put forward two so-called “Omnibus” packages
of measures, seeking to restore competitiveness to European companies by reducing
the cost of their administrative burdens by “more than 6 billion euros”, thanks to a
revision of the directives on due diligence (see Due diligence), on corporate
sustainability reporting obligations (see Sustainability reporting), and
of the taxonomy regulation, i.e. the flagship texts of the Green Deal adopted during
its previous term (see European Green Deal). These
measures are the outcome of strong pressure exerted on MEPs and governments by
employers. As early as 2023, a majority of MEPs voted down a draft resolution to
reject the delegated regulation presented by the Commission, which sets out the EU
sustainability information standards (Environmental and Social Reporting Standards –
ESRS) applicable to sustainable development reports (see IR
Notes 217). At that same time, in its work programme for the term in
question, the new Commission promised to enact a 25% reduction in the cost burdens
associated with citizens’ and companies’ obligations to submit declarations,
“without lowering social, environmental or economic standards” (see IR Notes 217). In
March 2024, after the Council had rejected the compromise text on the proposal for a
directive on due diligence, the Council and Parliament finally reached an agreement
allowing it to be adopted, by sacrificing some of the ambitions set out in the
proposal (see IR
Notes 226). However, its opponents did not admit defeat. They kept up their
intensive lobbying, citing Mario Draghi’s report on the future of European
competitiveness, and prompted the Commission to put forward an emergency revision of
these two texts (see IR Notes
236). The “Omnibus” package is therefore designed to water down the
ambitions of EU legislation in the areas of sustainability reporting, taxonomy and
due diligence. So, several years of preparation and democratic process are now being
brushed aside, as if these texts were the result of collective blindness and they
went some way towards explaining why the EU is lagging behind the USA in terms of
competitiveness. Admittedly, in a handful of the 300 pages making up his
report, Mario Draghi referred to the red tape created by these pieces of
legislation, thanks in particular to a number of inconsistencies and duplications.
However, the thrust of his message was a plea for a genuine industrial strategy, a
capital markets union and a substantial increase in investments, including public
investments, enabled via European borrowing. The Commission is proud of its work on
unravelling existing legislation, and sees its “Omnibus” proposal as “a major step
forward in creating a more favourable business environment to help EU companies
grow, innovate, and create quality jobs”. However, this initiative has
incurred the wrath of trade unions, and NGOs are even more angry, as they have been
removed from the definition of stakeholders. The employers’ organisations are the
only ones who are satisfied (see below). This is an ideological victory though, and
they will struggle to persuade many companies of its benefits, especially those
companies that have committed to demonstrating their sustainability credentials in
order to secure financing by convincing investors. As for workforce
representatives, their rights do not appear to be affected for now. Nevertheless,
many of these representatives no longer come within the scope of these directives,
which were supposed to grant access to information currently denied to them. As for
those workforce representatives to whom the directives do still apply, they are
expected to lose access to a series of indicators (the Commission promises
simplification and fewer items to be monitored), and in all likelihood they will be
less closely involved in the various preparation phases associated with
sustainability reports and risk mapping (the Commission mentions that stakeholders
will be involved in situations where they are essential). The proposals will
now be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council for scrutiny and
adoption. The Commission says that the amendments concerning the CSRD and the CS3D
will have to be given priority and that they “will enter into force once the
co-legislators have reached an agreement on the proposal and after publication in
the EU official journal”. The leadtimes for adoption will be short, in order to
“address the main issues identified by stakeholder feedback”. As a result, this
simplification will not happen immediately, especially since Parliament will
probably not be very keen on the idea of once again undoing laws that it fought hard
to introduce. Unless the EPP’s MEPs play the populist card by joining forces on this
occasion with the far-right parties? Lastly, as the CSRD directive has already been
widely adopted by Member States, governments will have to embark on a legislative
process in order to trim down its scope in their own legislation. Can these changes
really be described as simplification?
|
1. European
Union
Legislation
Industrial strategy and restructuring :
On 26 February, the European Commission published a communication
on the “Clean Industrial Deal”, which contains a series of measures aimed at
boosting the competitiveness of European companies, by helping to decarbonise the
economy and cut energy costs, while at the same time protecting the Union from
unfair competition. The initiative responds in part to the demands made both by the
trade unions (see ETUC
and IndustriAll Europe
press releases) and by the employers (see BusinessEurope
and Ceemet
press releases). The communication makes reference to the future “Quality Jobs
Roadmap”, which is designed to provide “support to workers in transitions”. Thus
“the Commission will discuss with social partners a framework to support
restructuring processes at EU and Member States level. The framework will be focused
on just transition, on anticipation of change, quicker intervention when there is a
threat of restructuring, and an improved information and consultation framework”
(see press
release and Restructuring). Here, the
employers’ organisation representing the metal-working industries, Ceemet, has
stated that although it supports “a Just Transition Framework negotiated and agreed
upon by the social partners, we believe existing national and EU legislation already
address collective redundancies and the restructuring process, making additional EU
measures in this field unnecessary” (see press
release).
|
Projects
Simplifying sustainability reports :
Do sustainable development reports represent an excessive burden
for companies, and especially for SME? Never mind, the Commission is now planning to
trim them back with its chainsaw, by raising the threshold workforce size of the
companies concerned. Consequently, as indicated in the proposal
for a directive amending Directive
2022/2464 of 14 December 2022 on corporate sustainability reporting (the
“CSRD directive”), only companies with more than 1,000 (rather than 250) employees
and a turnover exceeding 50 million euros, or a balance sheet value exceeding 25
million euros, now remain within the directive’s scope of application. This means
that around 80% of the companies concerned have been removed. Companies with fewer
than 1,000 employees would be invited to adhere to “proportionate and simplified
standards” for voluntary use. The largest companies would have to draw up a report
based on the first set of ESRS standards, as originally planned, but these standards
will also be watered down (at this stage though, it is not known exactly which
standards will be sacrificed). The idea is to “substantially reduce the number of
ESRS datapoints by removing those deemed least important for general purpose
sustainability reporting”, says the Commission
staff working document. The Committee also plans to postpone by two years
(to 2028) the reporting requirements for companies that are currently within the
directive’s scope and will have to submit a report from 2026 or 2027 onwards (see proposal
for a directive as regards the dates from which Member States are to apply
certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements).
Limitations are also introduced in terms of information gathering within the supply
chain.
|
Reducing due diligence requirements :
Directive
2024/1760 of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence (the
“CS3D” directive), which has barely entered into force, is now being dismembered by
introducing changes requiring the companies concerned to assess only their direct
business partners (first-tier suppliers). This means that under the proposal
for a directive, beyond the first tier, companies would have to assess a
supplier only when they were in possession of plausible information suggesting the
existence of actual or potential negative effects within the supply chain. As the Commission
staff working document explains, “focusing the due diligence obligations on
direct business partners significantly reduces the material scope and the possible
burden for companies in scope as well as the trickle-down effect on business
partners, in particular SMEs and small mid-caps both in the EU and beyond”. In their
risk mapping work, companies would have to limit the information they request from
their direct business partners (SME employing no more than 500 employees) to that
specified in the voluntary standards applicable to preparing sustainable development
reports (VSME standards), as provided for by the revised CSRD directive. In the
event of a serious violation, companies would no longer be obliged, in the final
instance, to end the business relationship with their supplier, but to suspend it.
The Commission also wants to revise the notion of “stakeholders”, “by simplifying
the definition and limiting it to workers and their representatives, and to
individuals and communities whose rights or interests are […] or could be […]
‘directly’ affected by the products, services and operations of the company, its
subsidiaries and its business partners”. This text appears to sideline NGOs. It
reduces the required frequency of periodic monitoring exercises and assessments of
companies’ business partners from one year to five years. Lastly, the Commission is
also playing for time by deeming it necessary to grant companies more time “to
prepare for compliance with the new requirements” by deferring the application of
due diligence requirements for the largest companies by one year (to 26 July 2028),
while at the same time advancing (to July 2026) the deadline for adoption of the
guidelines (see proposal
for a directive as regards the dates from which Member States are to apply
certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements).
|
Social
update
Reactions of European social partners :
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) believes that the
proposal will weaken “mechanisms designed to hold companies accountable to the abuse
of workers in their supply chains” (see press
release). Isabelle Schömann, ETUC Deputy General Secretary, is highly
critical: “This is not simplification. This is deregulation”, she says. “These two
pieces of human rights legislation are the fruit of years of consultation, of
analysis and of negotiations. As well as being inefficient, going back on the
results of this process is deeply undemocratic.” She argues that the proposal “is
the result of a rigged process in which the European Commission invited five times
as many corporate lobbyists as representatives of trade unions or NGOs to its
‘consultation’”. Among employers, the mood is one of satisfaction, and there are
calls to go even further. “Proposals to address the imbalances in the material scope
and liability under the CS3D mark major steps forward”, says Markus J. Beyrer,
BusinessEurope Director, who is happy with this development (see press
release). He continues: “Moreover, it is welcome that there will be a
significant reduction in the amount of data to be collected, certified and published
annually under the CSRD as they represent tangible simplification efforts, without
calling into question the objectives”. Nevertheless, “more efforts must be made to
ensure a harmonised approach to Due Diligence to avoid fragmentation down the
line”.
|
Case law
Algorithm transparency : On 27
February, the Court of Justice delivered a judgment
in a case brought by a consumer against a telephone operator that had refused to
grant her a mobile telephone contract, on the grounds she did not have sufficient
financial creditworthiness. As the decision was based on an algorithm, the Court of
Justice held that the controller “must describe the procedure and principles
actually applied in such a way that the data subject can understand which of his or
her personal data have been used in the automated decision-making at issue, with the
complexity of the operations to be carried out in the context of automated
decision-making not being capable of relieving the controller of the duty to provide
an explanation.” This solution also applies to labour law disputes if an employer’s
decision is the result of an automated decision made by an algorithm. This ruling
demonstrates that if the Commission refuses to draw up a law overseeing algorithmic
management within companies, the Court of Justice will deal with this issue (see press
release).
|
Sectoral
social dialogue
Civil aviation : On 7 November
2024, European social partners in the civil aviation sector adopted a joint
statement on equality between men and women. It emphasises that women are
under-represented among pilots (5.2%) and in ATM (air traffic management),
maintenance and ground handling activities. The signatories believe that the issue
of gender balance should be a “high priority”. To this end, they commit to promoting
these careers to women, and also to rethinking work organisation, by offering them
flexible work hours, part-time job arrangements and addressing maternity needs. The
text cites the example of Turkish Airlines, a company that has extended legal
maternity leave from 16 to 20 weeks and offered the opportunity to work part-time
until children reach primary school age (see ETF press
release).
|
2. Member
States
Spain
Democracy at work : “If there is
no democracy at work, then democracy is incomplete”. This is what the Minister of
Labour and the Social Economy, Yolanda Diaz declared on 20 February, as she marked
the launch of a committee of experts tasked with proposing ways of strengthening
democracy at work. This committee is chaired by Belgian sociologist Isabelle Ferreras, who is
Research Director at FNRS, Research Associate at Harvard and Oxford, and Professor
of Sociology at the Catholic University of Louvain (see press
release). This committee’s mission is to put Article 129.2 of the
Constitution – which describes various forms of worker participation in the company,
cooperatives and granting workers access to ownership of the means of production –
into practice. Sara Lafuentes, who is a researcher at the European Trade Union
Institute (ETUI) and a member of this committee, explains: “On this basis, the
legislator has regulated the process of informing and consulting workers, and
participation in the social economy, but no laws have been passed on any form of
financial participation or employee representation on company boards.” Following an
initial abortive attempt to debate this subject in Parliament (see article
in Social Europe) in 2024, Yolanda Diaz then embarked on a new initiative,
in which she commissioned a number of experts to produce a two-part report, to be
submitted in September. One of these two parts aims to produce diagnostics based on
scientific literature, with a view to understanding what contributions employee
participation in company decisions can make to solving many different crises, such
as the ecological crisis. “The other part”, says Sara Lafuentes, “involves putting
forward solutions in the form of legislation, with objectives to be achieved and
measures allowing them to be discussed subsequently with social partners, within the
framework of tripartite dialogue social, ahead of coming up with a draft law”. This
initiative is entirely in keeping with Gabriele Bischoff’s parliamentary
report on democracy at work, adopted in June 2021, and the conclusions on democracy
at work and green collective bargaining approved in November 2023, by the
Council of the EU, at Yolanda Diaz’s initiative. The review of scientific literature
on the benefits of democracy at work, which will be undertaken by experts from
several countries, might pave the way for broader thinking and a broader public
debate on democracy at work in Spain, and serve as a basis for work by trade unions
from other Member States, who are seeking better participation in company decisions.
|
Italy
Collective bargaining agreement for the
electricity sector : On 11 February, social partners in the
electricity sector approved the renewal of their sectoral
collective bargaining agreement for the period 2025-2027. The agreement,
which covers 60,000 employees, provides for a revaluation of minimum wages “that
adequately offsets the effects of inflation in recent years”, according to the three
signatory trade unions, and for a reduction in working hours. The three half-days of
“afternoon freedom” now become three full rest days. The personal training
entitlement for employees is also being increased, from 40 to 45 hours in 2026, and
subsequently to 50 hours in 2027. A further innovation is an obligation to provide
information to workers and to consult with them at company level on the topic of
artificial intelligence, before any decisions are taken. This subject is also added
to those being dealt with by the sectoral observatory with equal representation of
management and employees. Other topics include issues related to the energy
transition, the new scenarios arising from decarbonisation and policies for
combatting climate change. The signatories are also extending the leave granted to
victims of gender-based violence and harassment from 6 to 12 months. They will
continue to be paid during this time. The provisions covering facilitation of access
to telework and part-time working remain unchanged.
|
3.
Companies
European
works councils
Negotiations within healthcare groups :
The first negotiation meeting for the purpose of setting up a
European Works Council within the Norlandia group (4,000
employees) was held in Oslo, in mid-February. Norlandia has employees in Finland,
Norway and Sweden. A negotiation is also due to be finalised within the French
healthcare group Colisée,
which manages homes for the elderly (see press
release). These negotiations form part of a plan being pursued since 2020 by
the European Public Service Union (EPSU), which wants to establish EWCs within large
private-sector healthcare groups.
|
Absenteeism : The management of
Clariane (60,000 employees)
and its European company’s works council (SE works council) have compiled a guide to
good managerial practice, which is aimed at combatting absenteeism. The guide is
organised around five themes: work organisation, managing absences, consideration
given to staff teams, the atmosphere at work and prevention-health and safety. When
it comes to managing absences, for example, the guide recommends calling, every
Friday afternoon, staff who are on temporary or fixed-term contracts and are
scheduled to be working over the weekend, to check they will be coming in. Another
suggestion is to identify peak periods of absence and to cross-reference that data
with events occurring on site. Among other things, these recommendations draw on the
experience of managers who have successfully reduced absenteeism on sites they run
in France and Germany. The guide has been translated into all languages and
distributed in all countries. It was produced by a dedicated task force, set up
following the joint
declaration on reducing absenteeism, which the SE works council adopted in
2022.
|
|
|