IR Notes

The Eurofound survey of more than 80,000 European workers who have had to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, confirms a wholesale recourse to teleworking. More than one third (37%) of people currently employed in the EU have switched to teleworking, due to the pandemic. The rate is even higher (43%) among 18-35 year-olds, and is particularly high in the Nordic and the Benelux countries (almost 60% in Finland and more than 50% in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark, and 40% or more in Ireland, Sweden, Austria and Italy). The survey also shows that teleworking is something new for many employees: almost one quarter (24%) of people who have switched to teleworking, had never previously worked from home before the pandemic. 56% of those who had already worked from home “sometimes”, have started teleworking since the pandemic. The survey also flags up a feature of teleworking during the Covid-19 era: a blurring of the boundaries between working time and personal time. More than one quarter of respondents who are currently teleworking say they are having to work during their free time in order to complete their workload. This switch to teleworking, which has been encouraged or even imposed by governments, calls for supervision. For example, speaking before the Spanish Parliament, the country’s Minister of Labour, Yolanda Diaz, asserted that telework “is not an emergency solution”, but “has come to stay”, when announcing a bill to oversee recourse to this practice (see article published by Spain’s News). In Germany, in an interview, Federal Minister of Work Hubertus Heil announced a bill for the autumn, creating a “right to work from home” (“Recht auf Homeoffice”). This would guarantee everyone the right to work from home, even after the Covid-19 crisis has come to an end, provided their job allows them to do so. This entitlement would be exactly the same as the right to work part-time. The right to flexible working, which includes requests to switch to teleworking, already exists under UK and Dutch law (see Eurofound – ILO, 2017, p. 47). In France, the social partners will be commencing discussions at cross-industry level on recourse to teleworking. Teleworking is destined to become the focus of a new form of work management used by companies. For example, on 6 May, car maker PSA unveiled a plan to switch all of its employees who are not engaged in production work, i.e. 80,000 of its total global workforce of 200,000, over to teleworking. The aim is for employees to have an on-site presence of ‘one to one and a half days per week’ (see press release). Xavier Chéreau, the group’s Director of Human Resources and Transformation, set out his intentions in a video (in English), emphasising at the same time that this work management system was also intended to reduce the group’s carbon footprint.

Revision of the biological agents directive : the classification of Covid-19 within this directive is proving a highly controversial issue. The disagreement lies in deciding whether it should be included in group 3: agents that can cause severe human disease; present a serious hazard to workers; present a risk of spreading to the community; and for which there is usually effective prophylaxis or treatment available. Or in group 4: agents that cause severe human disease; present a serious hazard to workers; may present a high risk of spreading to the community; and for which there is usually no effective prophylaxis or treatment available. The Commission opted for group 3 and referred the matter to a tripartite consultative committee: the representatives of governments and of employers approved this decision, whereas the workers’ group declared, almost unanimously, that it is in favour of group 4. Member States subsequently voted on the revised text on 14 May, and the revision will now be published in the OJEU. The European Parliament will then have thirty days in which to approve or reject this text. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) wants to use this time to convince MEPS to reject it. Why? “In practice”, explains Laurent Vogel, a researcher at the European Trade Union Institute, “classifying Covid-19 in group 4 would provide enhanced protection only for certain specific jobs in biological analysis laboratories. However, this has no concrete impact whatsoever on virtually all employees.” So why is ETUC reacting in this way? In fact, the trade-union world fears that classifying Covid-19 in group 3 would result in a relaxation of the efforts being made by employers. “The Commission is sending out an inappropriate political message by playing down the dangers posed by Covid-19, at a time when employees are being asked to go back to work”, emphasises Laurent Vogel (see also ETUC press release).

• Covid-19 and occupational disease: The European Trade Union Confederation has sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Jobs, Nicolas Schmit, asking for Covid-19 to be recognised as an occupational disease, so that greater assistance can be provided to cover healthcare costs and the consequences of the disease for workers (see EPSU press release).
  > see a report published by the organisation Eurogip on insurance cover for workers affected by Covid-19 in eight European countries. The study emphasises that while overall, healthcare personnel are covered for the risk of occupational disease (with a few limitations in the case of Germany and Sweden), other categories of workers either have no cover at all or are covered to only a very limited extent. Recognition that they are suffering from an occupational disease will depend on their ability to prove that there is a link between the pathology and the job they do (i.e. that the latter is either the main or sole cause of the former).

The value represented by A1 Certificates in terms of employment law : The Court of Justice has issued a ruling in a French case involving the construction group Bouygues, which is in charge of construction work on a nuclear power plant, where a chain of subcontractors has been sending posted workers to the site (CJEU, 14 May 2020, case C‑17/19, Bouygues). These subcontractors and the limited partnership set up to carry out the site work, i.e. the Bouygues group, were accused of not making the necessary declarations prior to engaging workers who were being posted to the site. This is an obligation under French law, which enables a check to be made that employees have been properly declared to the French social security scheme, and that various employment law-related obligations have been met. Where a posted worker already has an A1 Certificate, proving that he/she belongs to the social security scheme in his/her home country, does the employer also have to submit a declaration prior to engaging workers? The Court of Justice invites the national court to check the nature of the declaration required at the time of engaging workers: whether its sole purpose is to ensure that the workers concerned are affiliated to the French social security scheme, in which case A1 Certificates “issued by the issuing institution would, in principle, preclude such an obligation”. “Alternatively, whether the purpose of that obligation is also, even in part, to protect the effectiveness of checks made by the competent national authorities in order to ensure compliance with conditions of employment and working conditions imposed by employment law” (editor’s note: this is indeed the case), in which case these A1 Certificates “would have no effect on that obligation” as they are binding on the courts or tribunals of the host Member State “solely in the area of social security”.

• “Working time” directive and exceptional circumstances: The Court of Justice has issued a very important ruling concerning compliance with Directive 2003/88 on the organization of working time, which specifies the maximum permitted working time during periods of exceptional circumstances, such as the era we are currently living through with the Covid-19 crisis (CJEU 30 April 2020, case C-211/19, Készenléti Rendorseg, not available in English). The ruling opens up the way for Member States to depart from certain provisions of the Directive concerning civil service personnel engaged in combating Covid-19. As regards the private sector, this ruling implies that all provisions of the directive apply to employees, even in the event of an epidemic-related crisis.

Negotiations on digitalisation draw to a close : The European social partners have completed the negotiation of a cross-industry agreement relating to digitalisation, whose content has been approved by the European Trade Union Confederation. This agreement has yet to be validated by the executive bodies of the three employers’ organisations (BusinessEurope, CEEP and SMEunited). Once it has been adopted, “we will officially present our agreement, but not before the end of June”, says Liliane Volozinskis, Head of Social Affairs at SMEunited. The draft we have been able to consult indicates that this new autonomous agreement seeks to “optimise the benefits and meet the challenges of digitalisation in the world of work”. The draft comprises four main chapters: 1° Digital skills and protecting employment through training. 2° Modalities of connecting and disconnecting. 3° Artificial intelligence and guaranteeing the ‘human in control’ principle. 4° Respect for human dignity and surveillance. The text defines a common “dynamic circular process” that can be followed by all of the actors concerned in order to tackle the subject matter, reach joint findings, measure the progress achieved and then evaluate it.

Banking sector: : On 7 May, the social partners in the banking sector signed a joint declaration on employment aspects of providing financial services (see UNI Europa Finance press release). The text seeks to raise ethical standards in the field of selling financial products to clients, by promoting an ethical and sustainable banking sector. The social partners at all levels are invited to act on this declaration, which is intended to improve employees’ working conditions and to protect them from stress and commercial pressures.

• Private security: On 8 May, the European social partners in the private security sector adopted a joint declaration on “Ensuring business continuity and protection of workers in the COVID-19 pandemic”.


• Temporary agency work industry: On 29 April, Joint recommendations on ‘Protecting workers in the Covid-19 pandemic’ were adopted.

Monitoring of social distancing : The Wesel employment tribunal has ruled on a case in which a logistics company used videosurveillance techniques to check whether its employees were obeying the rules in force due to the Covid-19 pandemic, requiring them to stay at least two metres apart. The images recorded were anonymised by a software program located on a server in another country. The tribunal held firstly, that transferring data abroad was a breach of the company agreement relating to the use of surveillance cameras, and secondly, a violation of the law on company formation, which stipulates that the works council is entitled to be part of the decision-making process where such equipment is introduced and used to monitor the behaviour or performance of employees (see press release issued by the tribunal).

• Redundancy procedure : On 27 April, trade union representatives expressed their strong opposition to the employers’ request for employment legislation to be amended in order to speed up redundancy procedures and cut the cost of redundancies. The unions are seeking support from the government, whereas the Croatian Employers’ Association (CEA) is emphasising that these changes are necessary.

• Crisis mitigation measures taken without consultation: : following the adoption of the special law to combat the pandemic, the social partners at national level have criticised the hurried way in which legislation was passed, without appropriate consultation. Moreover, the specific measures taken are themselves arousing controversy. For example, the option of introducing working conditions and changes to working hours that are less favourable for employees than those provided for by the Employment Code, has been criticised by the main unions. Admittedly, the employer must obtain the agreement of the workers’ representation body for such changes to be made to the work management system. However, if there is no trade union, a workers’ representative “chosen” by the employer has to give their agreement.

• Maintaining employment during Covid-19 : The European trade-union federation IndustriAll Europe is flagging up an agreement signed on 25 April, by its affiliate union VASAS at the Mercedes production plant at Kecskemét (Hungary), which will maintain the jobs and basic wage of the 4,400 employees working on the site (see IndustriALL Europe press release).

Return to work : On 12 May, the management of the Spanish telecommunications group Telefónica and the Uni Global Union federation signed a global agreement to protect the health of workers returning to work after periods of confinement or short-time working linked to the Covid-19 crisis (see press releases issued by UNI Global Union and Telefónica). As far as we are aware, this is the first agreement on this subject to be signed with a multinational company. In addition to giving priority to collective bargaining and to making sure that employees continue to work from home where possible (see ‘A question for’…), the agreement specifies the protective equipment required and the guarantees to be put in place for the various jobs being performed, in order to reduce the risk of exposure to the virus. “Our concern is to protect the health of our employees and to guarantee the continuity of our business”, explains Tatiana Espinosa de los Monteros, Global LLRR Director, Telefónica Group. “This is what prompted us to sign an agreement in Spain with the UGT and CCOO trade unions. We then agreed that it would be useful to negotiate an agreement with UNI Global Union. This global agreement is not an agreement to be applied as it stands in all countries, but it contains guidelines for the negotiations that are due to take place with the trade unions at local level, taking account of the national context, government recommendations and WHO recommendations”.

Four scenarios for the future after Covid-19 : in an article freely accessible in Social Europe, Philippe Pochet, Director of the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), emphasises the extent to which the Covid-19 crisis is calling into question the main foundations of the EU, i.e. its so-called “pillars”, namely the single market and free movement; the euro and the Stability and Growth Pact; and competition and state-aid law.  He paints four possible scenarios for the future after Covid 19: 1) a return to neoliberalism and budgetary orthodoxy; 2) a slide towards a Chinese model, where the emphasis is on authoritarian regimes and blanket monitoring; 3) a return to growth at any price and to the world we knew before, without any consideration for the environment; or 4) accelerating the ecological transition and rapidly rethinking our growth model, with a return to public services, common goods and solidarity at the heart of economic and social policies. It’s up to us to choose! Or to influence others!

• Towards a European health policy: in a paper, the international department of the German trade union confederation DGB argues in favour of a European public health policy. It’s time to end the privatisation of healthcare systems which, after falling victim to budget cuts, have been unable to cope with the epidemic. States should also rely on the Treaty (Article 168) to establish effective European coordination and guarantee affordable healthcare that is available to every European citizen.