Activities of Magda KÓSÁNÉ KOVÁCS related to 2008/2085(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Challenges to collective agreements in the EU (debate)
Amendments (25)
Amendment 12 #
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 ofconditions of free and fair competition and measures guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. Whereas the objective of the PWD – to provide for a climate ofconditions of free and fair competition and measures guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers – is more important than ever; in an economic era in which transnational provision of services is expanding, the PWD is expected to play a key-role in protecting the workers concerned, while respecting the framework of labour law and industrial relations of Member States,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. Whereas the ECJ in both the Laval and Rüffert cases made a completely different interpretation of European legislation than the advocate generalindicated that the posting of workers directive has not been properly implemented in respectively Sweden and Germany, therefore unequal treatment of workers was possible,
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. Whereas the ECJ in the Viking case introduces a 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; the autonomy for collective bargaining from competition rules is thereby not extended to the field of free movement with a risk that industrial relations in the Member States will be put under legal scrutiny; consequently, this new uncertainty in industrial relations could result in a “flood” of cases to the ECJhas also indicated that the posting of workers directive should be properly implemented,
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is of the opinion that any EU citizen should have the right to work anywhere in the European Union; therefore regrets that this right is not applied uniformly across the EU; is of the view that transitional arrangements remaining in place should be subjected to rigorous review by the European Commission, to assess whether they are truly necessary to prevent distortions in national labour markets and, that where that is not found to be the case, they should be removed as quickly as possible;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the freedom to provide services is not superior toshould be considered on an equal basis with the fundamental right for trade unions to take industrial action; especially, since this is ae right to take industrial action and the right to establishment are constitutional rights in several Member States and both are basic principles of the EU;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that equal treatment, equal pay for equal work as well as Articles. 39 and 12 of the EC Treaty form the foundation of EC law which needs to be restored;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of not allowing the verdicts to negatively effectcontinuing to promote 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 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets that all conditions imposedBelieves that the principle onf foreign employers above minimum levels are seen as obstacles to free movement, if employees do not already receive more favourable conditions in the country of originedom to provide services across internal EU borders is best served by ensuring that, so far as possible, domestic and non- domestic service providers face similar economic and labour markets conditions;
Amendment 160 #
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 usingStresses that the right of establishment or the right to provide services across borders, deliberately is not to undercut terms and conditions of employment; such a proportionality principle is not compatible with the character of this right as a fundamental right; and therefore 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 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that the PWD as interpEuropean law has to respect the principle of non discrimination, in particular ensuring that obstacles are not created byto the ECJ would prevent demands forose collective agreements, which are in accordance with the PWD, establishing 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, or to industrial action in support of such an agreement;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the fact that even thoughStresses that the PWD was formulated as a minimum standard directive, the ECJ determines 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 enormou on the basis of which social partners can negotiate better conditions;
Amendment 191 #
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 to interpret the PWD 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 objecn order to strengthen free and fair competition, calls the Commission to examine from time to tivme oif 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 workersre is abuse of the rights of the posted workers during the application the PWD;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the current situation could lead to a situation where workers in host countries will be pressured byMember States should use all legal instruments provided by the PWD to protect workers and in order to avoid low wage competition; this which, in turn, could lead to xenophobia andcause counterproductive anger against the EU;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Regrets that the ECJ fails to consider ILO convention 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 200Calls the Member States to ratify the ILO convention 94;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. RegretNotes that the ECJ fails to recogniseaccording to ILO conventions 87 and 98; restrictions on the right to industrial action and fundamental rights can only be motivated with respect to health, public order and similar concerns;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on all the Member States to properly implement the PWD properlyin order to ensure transparency of bargaining systems and employment;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that the ECJ has interpreted EU legislation in a way that was not the intention of the legislators; calls on the Commission, the Council and the EP to take immediate action to ensure the necessary changes in EU legislation to change the new praCalls on the Commission to start infringement procedures against those Member States, which have failed to implement the directisve of the ECJproperly;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Therefore calls on the Commission to take immediate actiStresses that the European Commission and the Member States should encourage strong social dialogue in the EU with strong to make necessary changes in European legislation in order to counter the possible detrimental social, economical and political effects of the ECJ judgementsrade union and employer representation and make sure that no European or national policy or legislation weakens social dialogue in the EU; recalls that this is the cornerstone of successful labour market, social and flexicurity policy across the EU;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Therefore welcomes the Commission's statement from the 3 April 2008 which clearly states that they will continue to fight social dumping and that the freedom to provide services is not superior to the fundamental rights of trade unionslow wage competition and encourage better cooperation between Member States' authorities as well;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Therefore cCalls oin the Commission to review the PWD and consider the following issues: - a new legal basis for the PWD to better protect workers; workers posted within the framework of services should be regarded as using the right of freedom of movement of workers and not the free movis respect on the Commission, to assess the impact of the judgements of services; - a possibility in the Directive for Member States to refer in law or collective agreements to the 'habitual wages' applicable in the place of work in the host country as defined in the ILO 94 and not only ‘minimum’ rates of pay; - a limit to the period of time during which workers can be considered as being 'posted' to a Member State other than the Member State of their ordinary place of work in the framework of services; after that period the rules on free movement of workers should apply, i.e. host country rules with regard to wages and working conditions have full application; - an even clearer expression that the Directive and other EU legislation do not prohibit Member States and trade unions from demanding more favourable conditions for the worker; and - the recognition of a wider range of methods of organizing labour markets than those currently covered by Article 3(8)the ECJ in the cases C- 438/05 (Viking), C-341/05 (Laval), C- 346/06 (Rüffert) on the workers and in face of the legal consequences, calls on the Commission to consider the use of its right of initiative to review of the PWD if it is necessary in order to prevent low wage competition;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25