14 Amendments of Bernard LEHIDEUX related to 2008/2085(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, according to the preamble of the PWD, the promotion of the transnational provision of services requires a climate of fair competition and measures guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers in full keeping with the reference framework of labour law and industrial relations in the Member States,
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Albany judgement (C- 67/96) in the field of competition law gave substantial and large space for trade unions to regulate labour market issues; in fact, at that time the ECJ rejected the direct horizontal effect for competition rules on collective bargaining,
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the ECJ in both the Laval and Rüffert cases made a completely differadopted case-specific judgments interpretation of European legislation than the advocate general the Laval, Rüffert and Viking cases,
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the ECJ in the Rüffert case has significantly diminished the scope for Member States to regulate their collective bargaining and also narrows down the purpose of the PWD, neglecting the PWD’s two fold aim – protection of workers and free movemenserious consequences are liable to arise in relation to the following issues, in respect of which pointers should be established: - reduction in trade unions’ scope to demand better working conditions for posted workers than those applied in the country of origin, - significant reduction in the prerogative of Member States to regulate their collective bargaining, - limitation of the scope and legal basis of the PWD, which should continue to relate to two fold guarantee of the safeguarding of workers and free movement, - introduction of the horizontal direct effect of Articles 43 and 49, which can be used by employers and service providers to challenge collective agreements and industrial actions with a cross-border effect,
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of not allowing the verdicts to negatively eaffecting labour market models that already today are able to combine a high degree of flexibility on the labour market with a high level of security and, instead, of further promoting this approach;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Subtitle II
Subtitle II
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that the intention of the legislator in the PWD and Services Directive is not reflected in the ECJ verdicts,incompatible with interpretations which, instead of protecting workers, is invitinge unfair competition between companies; companies that sign and follow collective agreements will have a competitive disadvantage to companies that refuse to do so;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Questions the introduction of a proportionality principle in the Viking case for the right to use collective action against undertakings which, when using the right of establishment or the right to provide services across borders, deliberately undercut terms and conditions of employment; such a proportionality principle is not compatible with the character of this right as a fundamental right; there should be no question about the right of trade unions to use industrial action to uphold equal treatment and secure decent working conditions;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that the PWD as implicitly interpreted byin the ECJjudgments would prevent demands for equal pay for work for all workers regardless of their nationality or that of their employer in the place where the service is provided; this runs counter to the principle of non-discrimination which is established in the Treaty especially with regard to the mobility of workers;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the fact that even though the PWD was formulated as a minimum standard directive, the ECJ determinescertain interpretative guidelines suggest that those minimum standards must be regarded as the maximum in the context of the Laval judgement; this approach causes great concerns as to whether any directives decided on the basis of a minimum approach are regarded as valid; if all directives in the social dimension were to be reformulated as maximum directives, as in the case of the PWD, the consequences would be enormous;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is of the opinion that the limited legal basis of free movement of the PWD has led the ECJ tomay lead to the PWD being interpret the PWDed in this way, creating an explicit invitation to unfair competition on wages and working conditions driving them downwards, which is in clear contradiction to the stated aim of the PWD (to ensure a climate of fair competition) and the objective of the EU as established in the Treaty (improvement of living and working conditions); therefore, the legal basis of the PWD must be broadened to include a reference to the free movement of workers;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Regrets that the ECJeven judicial rulings fails to take into sufficient consideration ILO cConvention 94, and fears that the ECJ judgement in Rüffert may impede the ratification of ILO 94; this would be counter to the further development of social clauses in public procurement regulations, which is an aim of the Public procurement directive 2004;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21