Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-13-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050113.5.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, on 9 June 2004 the previous Commission took the decision to terminate the contracts of 43 language teachers. This decision has been perceived by certain parties as 'untransparent' and 'unjustified'. In this respect the questions put by the chairman of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs reflect the concerns expressed by the teachers themselves. Before I reply in detail to the questions put by the honourable Member, I would like to make four introductory points.
After that basic introduction, I will now turn to the specific questions asked. The first is: did the Commission inform and consult the Council and Parliament before unilaterally breaching the trialogue agreement? There are three elements that need to be considered here. Firstly, the Commission did not breach the trialogue agreement because this agreement did not constitute a commitment on teachers benefiting from lifelong employment. Secondly, the Commission accepts that it could have informed the trialogue co-signatories – the Committee on Budgets and the Council – of its intention to proceed with the second phase of externalisation. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that its decision was broadly in line with the stated orientations of the trialogue and the budgetary authority.
The second question is: when did the Commission inform the teachers' representatives, the union representatives and the Local Personnel Committee? The Commission informed the teachers' representatives, together with the teachers concerned, at the general assembly held on 18 June 2004, before the decision was notified. Under the social dialogue agreement, staff representatives and the Local Personnel Committee represent persons employed under the Staff Regulations. Since language teachers do not fall into this category, no staff representatives were involved in the case in point.
The third question is: what kind of information was communicated to the teachers' representatives? The Commission informed the teachers and their representatives of the decision taken on 9 June 2004, giving the reasons for this and explaining the practical consequences and arrangements, which included the Commission's plans for compensation payments.
The fourth question is: does the Commission consider that its handling of this matter stands as a good example of best practice in terms of prior consultation and the provision of information in good time? Looked at from a legal point of view, then I would reply in the affirmative: the Commission complied in full with all the relevant obligations, even if, as already stated, the Commission could have informed the co-signatories of the trialogue agreement before adopting the decision.
The fifth question is: does the Commission feel it has fully faced up to its social responsibility to the teachers concerned? The Commission has not only fulfilled all its legal obligations but has also interpreted its obligations in the most favourable way for the persons concerned.
The sixth and last question is: can the Commission comment on and provide copies of any opinions given by the Commission's Legal Service on the dismissal of the teachers requested by DG ADMIN? The opinions given by the Commission's Legal Service are governed by the rules applicable to relations between lawyers and their clients. Therefore, the Commission will not release the opinions or comments of its Legal Service.
In conclusion, the Commission's position can be summarised as follows. Firstly, as regards the substance of the matter, the Commission considers that the decision to terminate the contracts concerned was sound. It was no longer tenable to continue a dual system where half of the courses were provided by internal teachers at a cost approximately four times greater than the courses provided by language schools, with no difference in quality.
Secondly, the Commission implemented this decision in full compliance with its legal obligations.
Thirdly, the Commission accepts that it could have informed the co-signatories of the trialogue agreement before adopting the decision. However, the Commission considers that its decision was broadly in line with the orientations of the trialogue and the budgetary authority.
Finally, the Commission has no intention of reducing the number of courses. It reaffirms its commitment to multilingualism and to continuing to provide its staff with opportunities for a high standard of language learning without compromising on quality. Obtaining better value for money without any loss of quality is obviously a means of attaining this goal.
First, the decision was taken in order to conform to the principle of sound financial management. Since 1997, Commission language courses have been delivered either by internal teachers with direct contracts with the Commission or by language schools selected via an open tender procedure. Each formula accounts for approximately 50% of the courses.
Quality-wise, surveys have shown there to be no difference between the courses given by internal trainers and those given by language schools. On the other hand, there is a significant difference in budgetary terms: one hour's training delivered by an internal trainer costs four times as much as an hour delivered by a language school. On a yearly basis, taking 2003 as the reference year, the costs are approximately EUR 3.5 million as opposed to EUR 900 000.
Second, the language teachers have been granted generous compensation. The Commission offered compensation payments that went well beyond the minimum legal requirement. Minimum compensation would have been three months' salary per five years of service. That would have resulted in compensation equivalent to between 12 and 19 months' salary.
The Commission opted, however, to calculate the compensation on the basis of the maximum amount ever granted by Belgian courts. This resulted in compensation of between 14 and 24 months' salary. This means gross amounts of between approximately EUR 19 000 and EUR 152 000. Furthermore, the Commission opted to pay this compensation without requiring the teachers to serve out their period of notice.
Third, the decision to terminate the contracts in question is not a unilateral initiative by the Commission, but rather the outcome of moves initiated by the budgetary authority in the mid-1990s. In order to understand the decision of 9 June 2004 one must go back to the origins of this matter.
The whole process started in the early 1990s, when Parliament externalised its language training in Luxembourg. At this time, the language courses at the Commission and the Council were delivered by internal trainers who were granted private law contracts, without any call for tender or selection procedure.
In the mid 1990s, the Committee on Budgets criticised both the Commission and the Council for the costs associated with this practice. After lengthy discussions, the trialogue – the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, the Secretary-General of the Council and the Commissioner in charge of personnel – concluded that gradual full externalisation was desirable. As a first step the parties agreed to launch a call for tenders for the supply of language courses, and also, by way of derogation from this principle, to allow existing internal teachers to continue their activities within their existing contract framework.
Fourth, the trialogue agreement did not constitute a commitment on teachers benefiting from lifelong employment. In detail, the trialogue agreed to allow the language teachers to continue working under contracts of indefinite duration without having to participate in the call for tender. This point was made explicit to the unions at the time, as the minutes of meetings show. At the same time, the possibility of terminating a contract of indefinite duration is governed by Belgian law and cannot be waived. Any agreement between parties not to apply the law is null and void."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples