Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-13-Speech-1-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020513.6.1-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The next item is a directive that is known as the insolvency directive, but it naturally concerns a directive on the protection of employees, the social protection of employees in this case, when the employer becomes insolvent and when there are insufficient financial resources, or none at all, to pay outstanding wages. The insolvency directive offers employees valuable protection when their employer is in financial difficulty. The existing directive is Directive 987 of 1980.
Clearly, the insolvency directive prevents employees from having to do battle with creditors for outstanding payments. Instead, they can avail themselves of the provisions afforded in this insolvency directive. It is a revision of a directive, which, in this case, means that two very important changes have been made, the substance of which we are satisfied with in any case.
The changes mean that part-time workers, employees on fixed-term contracts and temporary workers will fall within the scope of this new directive. This is based on directives that have been in existence for these employees for some time and that have been brought about in a social dialogue. They cater for a new category of employees and it is important that we pay attention to this, certainly against the background of what is developing in the field of more flexible labour and the need for this, given the processes such as those in the framework of Lisbon, etc.
Secondly, with regard to situations in which businesses carry out activities in various countries, it is made clear where and in what way the directive is applied and in what state. The significance of this is obviously considerable, because, slowly but surely, we can see the impact this has on employees, not only in Spain, such as last year in the company Telefonica, but also in German firms, such as Holzman and Kirch. In 2001, the number of unemployed in Europe rocketed on account of insolvency cases alone. In total, 1.4 million people faced these problems due to bankruptcy sustained by their employers. Needless to say, this is linked to many other factors.
A number of the European Parliament’s amendments were already adopted at first reading – we are now discussing the second reading. This was particularly true of those concerning limiting the possibility of excluding categories of employees and of no longer applying thresholds in the form of a minimum duration of the contract of employment, whereby remuneration in accordance with the directive would not apply until expiry of the contract. In addition, it was already acknowledged that the chapter on the organisation and financing, Article 5 in the old directive, would be accepted. Subsequently, in consultation, the Council added that agreement was also reached on the
situation of insolvency and it was also agreed that an employee can lay claim to unpaid wages from a fund, insofar as this is provided for in national legislation. Eventually, further to this second reading by the Council, and its common position in particular, agreements were also reached about whether or not ceilings should be set per se.
In the light of ever-changing labour market developments, it is important for us to have enquired about all kinds of new categories of employees which have been referred to in discussions for some time and in respect of which we would, in fact, like a definition of the terms employer, employee, self-employed, self-employed without staff, etc. Accordingly, we had asked for this directive to be applied to a number of self-employed that had not been mentioned before, such as self-employed without staff, employees with a training contract, home workers, etc. We wanted to avoid conciliation if in this respect, we received the assurance from both the Commission and the Council that this entire process, which relates to the legalisation of this situation, would be accelerated. Eventually, it was agreed that the Commission will carry out a study into what are referred to as ‘new forms of work and labour relations’ in the Member States and the candidate countries alike. This is a huge step forward in my view. In addition, we agreed that, if this study is published, which will be the case any time between now and six months’ time, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the European Commission will be jointly organising a hearing to discuss the study and subsequently to examine whether, and to what extent, directives, framework directives and suchlike need to be drawn up in order to settle these issues. I would like to repeat that I have clearly indicated that we refer to the need for new and extensive European labour legislation, certainly against the background of a more flexible labour market. I would like to make one brief comment on Amendment No 6 that we have withdrawn, for the very simple reason that, in the light of the Council’s common position, it is not central.
I would once again like to thank the Council, the Commission and my fellow MEPs for the cooperation that has helped us avoid ending up in the follow-up procedure – the conciliation, and managed to reach sound agreements nevertheless. I look forward to statements by the Commissioner."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples