Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Opinion | ECON | MURPHY Simon Francis (PSE) | |
Opinion | JURI | ODDY Christine Margaret (PSE) |
Legal Basis RoP 132
Activites
-
1997/02/03
Final act published in Official Journal
-
1997/01/17
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
T4-0021/1997
summary
In adopting the report by Mr Winfried MENRAD (PPE, D), Parliament regretted that the Commission had not consulted the social partners at European level before adopting this communication and noted also that this document contained no analysis of the existing participatory schemes in the Member States. It recommended firstly that the Commission submit, on the basis of the results of the group of high-level experts recruited from both sides of industry, framework conditions for worker participation. The group should clarify what role the European works council could play in an overall concept of codetermination and whether it could participate actively in negotiations on the codetermination model of the European company. It should also examine whether the statute on European companies could provide for negotiations between the management of a company and its worker representatives, with an obligation to reach agreement between the two sides. Parliament also considered that three main principles should guide the drawing up of a model of participation for European companies: flexibility, negotiated solutions and minimum standards. The Commission should be able to submit framework conditions for worker participation which took account of Parliament's wishes in this respect and which would permit sufficient flexibility to enable the procedures and rules on participation and codetermination to be defined at branch and possibly corporate level, with the possibility of being defined at company level. These rules and procedures must take account of the various models of worker information and consultation in each Member State and, if necessary, of the specific situation of small undertakings. Furthermore, defining rights of participation in the economic activities of companies could not involve transferring a specific model of codetermination existing in only one, or only a few, Member States to the other Member States. If a national model was not to be exported, neither must the adoption of a European statute result in companies being able to use a European legal instrument to avoid codetermination ( no 'flight from codetermination'). It proposed as a minimum standard in the dualist system, a seat for workers on the supervisory board and in the monist system, an institution which would agree with the management of the firm on opportunities for participation in economic matters and on the obligation of employers to negotiate in respect of decisions concerning workers. Pointing out once again that the creation of European forms of company must be inseparably bound up with the rules on workers codetermination, Parliament lastly called on the Commission to draw up without delay a draft directive on minimum standards for the information and consultation of workers in their firms in the Member States and to pursue its measures aimed at evaluating and hence improving the implementation of the Council directives in this field with a view to making consultation with the social partners more binding. �
-
T4-0021/1997
summary
- 1997/01/16 Debate in Parliament
- 1996/12/17 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- #1974
- 1996/12/02 Council Meeting
- #1948
-
1996/09/24
Council Meeting
-
1948
summary
Commissioner Flynn put to the Council a number of suggestions, the objective of which was: i) to lay down rules, at Community level, for worker information and consultation in each Member State; these rules would be complementary to the directive on European works councils, which came into force on 22 September 1994. The Commission intended to consult the social partners before presenting a formal proposal based on the agreement on social policy annexed to the Treaty on European Union. ii) to set up a high-level panel of experts charged with examining the question of worker participation in company management, and especially in the context of the proposed statute for the European Company. The panel would be given a mandate to examine national systems and draw up recommendations for future action.
-
1948
summary
- #1914
- 1996/03/29 Council Meeting
-
1995/12/11
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
1995/11/14
Non-legislative basic document published
-
COM(1995)0547
summary
OBJECTIVE: to improve the present Community system of worker information and consultation by enabling the adoption of certain important directives in this area currently blocked in the Council. SUBSTANCE: through this communication, the Commission hopes to open the debate on the approach to be adopted to break the current deadlock in the Council over a series of proposals concerning worker participation, particularly the following: . the proposals concerning worker participation in the European Company as well as the European Association, the European Cooperative and the European Mutual Society, . the articles concerning worker participation in the "fifth directive" on company law, . worker consultation in companies with complex structures ("Vredeling proposal"). Given the complexity and delicate nature of the discussions being held, the Commission felt that, before proposing any new formal initiative in this area, it should use this communication to initiate a wide-ranging debate in the Council, Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, which would also serve as a preliminary consultation of the social partners under Article 3(2) of the Social Protocol. The adoption in 1994 of the directive concerning the European Works Council highlighted another aspect of the problem of worker information and consultation since it demonstrated the benefits of establishing general legal standards in this field at European level. The next stage is to determine whether the case-by-case approach in the proposals on "participation" should be maintained, although they have the drawback of remaining blocked within the Council (which implies serious consequences for companies in the Union which must adapt to the internal market and global competition), or whether a new strategy should be found to unblock these issues. Indeed, the Member States are urging that the European Company be adopted immediately. This is a legal instrument which is particularly important in attracting private capital to establish extensive European networks and its adoption is blocked purely because of the provisions concerning worker participation. As far as the Commission is concerned, there are several options available to help move the issues forward: - maintaining the status quo, in other words continuing the discussions in the Council on the basis of the existing proposals and maintaining the case-by-case approach: this option offers little hope for progress; - a general approach, instead of the case-by-case approach, which would enable general frameworks for worker information and consultation to be established at European level: in this way, the proposals annexed to the European Company, the European Association, the European Cooperative and the European Mutual Society could be withdrawn. This should then be followed by the adoption of a Community instrument relating to information and consultation at national level; - immediate action on the proposals concerning the European Company, and so on: if a general approach establishing general frameworks is adopted at Community level, in light of the European Works Council Directive immediate measures could be taken to break the deadlock surrounding proposals such as those relating to the European Company. This action could be implemented in two ways: . no European Company, European Association, European Cooperative or European Mutual Society could be established in a Member State which had not transposed the European Works Council Directive, . there would be no conditions, but existing Community provisions on worker consultation and information would be applied to these bodies ("works council", "collective redundancies", "the transfer of undertakings") with the disadvantage in this case that the United Kingdom would not be involved since it was not affected by the European Works Council Directive. �
-
COM(1995)0547
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(1995)0547
- Debate in Council: 1914
- Debate in Council: 1948
- Debate in Council: 1974
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A4-0411/1996
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0021/1997
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
council |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
EMPL/4/07288New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 132
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 132
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|