6 Amendments of Andrey NOVAKOV related to 2015/2295(BUD)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Regrets that EGF mobilisation is proposed for only 108 redundant employees who are to benefit from the instrument and points out that wider interpretation of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation may not be appropriate;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Observes that this proposal aims to mobilise the EGF with effectively the smallest number of laid off workers proposed so far;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)
Paragraph 14 d (new)
14d. Notes that almost 80 % of the redundant employees are aged 30-54 and therefore they represent a highly employable group with lower risk of long- term unemployment;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)
Paragraph 14 e (new)
14e. Points out that all 108 redundancies are in the economic sector classified as "Repair and installation of machinery and equipment", and more specifically aviation jet engines, which renders the employees skilled and adaptable to the labour market;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)
Paragraph 14 f (new)
14.e. Underlines that the redundancies took place in Rathcoole, which is located in the vicinity of Dublin, an economic and industrial hub where decreasing unemployment, increased business activity and overall economic growth are observed;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 g (new)
Paragraph 14 g (new)
14g. Draws attention to the fact that any reference to application EGF/2009/021 IE/SR Technics is too far reaching as the case in question dates back to 2009;