Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.7.1-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Mr Menrad for his thorough work in drawing up this report, including the hearings he organised together with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in order to examine closely the incorporation of the directive into national legal systems.
This study shows, without a doubt, that the incorporation of the directive into national legal systems is, for the most part, having positive results and that European works councils have been set up in around 2000 European companies. In many companies, the directive has contributed to eliminating the barriers to information and consultation. What is more, the timely participation of the Company committees in some of the decision-making processes has certainly yielded positive results, first and foremost for the workers in areas such as health, safety and equal opportunities but also for the companies in that the number of disputes has fallen.
Having said that, the Menrad report – which we support – also reveals a series of gaps in the directive itself, and I consider it absolutely essential that the Commission takes measures to amend the directive to deal with these gaps without delay.
I would, in particular, like to focus on three elements which, in addition to those cited by other Members, I feel are the most sensitive points and those which require swift action to be taken.
Firstly, the information timeframe: there is no clear stipulation in the directive regarding the timely provision of information and, in recent years – we have often discussed the matter in this House – we have adopted resolutions but have, I regret to say, had a great deal of negative incidents such as workers learning of their fate from the press or being presented with a final decision by companies. In this regard, we could cite cases such as
and many others. Well then, if this is the case, it is necessary, absolutely essential for the directive to be more precise, for it to lay down timeframes which ensure that information is provided and consultation carried out before any decision is taken, to provide a real opportunity for negotiation, otherwise it will serve no purpose at all!
Secondly, I am sure the Members will agree with me when I say that there are no rules in a legal system which, if disregarded, lose their effect. It is strange that it is only in the area of work and social rights that this is almost the norm! There have thus been many disputes and incidents of recourse to industrial tribunals in recent years, precisely because the failure of companies to respect the stipulations of the directive does not on any account place in question the validity of the effects of the decision taken and certainly does not do so automatically.
It is therefore necessary for appropriate, dissuasive penalties to be laid down and, similarly, in serious cases of breach of the directive, it is necessary to provide for the suspension of a decision in order to allow negotiations to continue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Adb"1
"Ahlston"1
"Marks and Spencer"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples