Proposition 52K0258

Projet de loi réglant les recours judiciaires introduits dans le cadre de la procédure relative aux élections sociales de l'année 2008 (2).

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 23, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work labour tribunal occupational safety civil procedure works council workers' representation appeal election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

LDD

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 22, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will open the joint general discussion on the two draft laws. Who subscribes to the discussion of the draft laws, besides Ms. De Maght, who had submitted an amendment? I note Mr. Vercamer and Mr. Gilkinet.

Ms. De Maght has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Dear colleagues, on 18 October last year, when discussing the draft law determining the threshold applicable to the institution or association of representatives of staff in the corporate boards on the occasion of the social elections, I have already stated that the outgoing parish government has been negligent and therefore was sentenced by the European Court to a fine of 2.9 million euros. The bill adopted on 18 October 2007 does not comply, five years after date, with the European Directive of 11 March, as the government wants to give preference to corporate boards in companies with more than one hundred employees next year, while Europe obliges us to organize information and consultation for workers in companies from fifty employees.

The amendment submitted by List Dedecker, however, meant a solution that complies with that European directive. In companies with more than fifty but less than one hundred employees, we do not want to choose a corporate council – not necessarily for Europe – but the right to information and consultation could then be exercised by the representatives of the staff elected to the Committee on Prevention and Protection at Work. The approval of the amendment we have submitted would have eliminated the risk of the effective payment of the fine and the fines.

The parties of the future orange-blue majority voted against our amendment and thus knowingly and willingly chose to pay the European fine. In the absence of an agreement between the social partners, which the government hopes for, there will be no choice but to pay that fine.

The draft law concerning the social elections in 2008 is being voted today. Again, we must note that this bill still does not comply with the European directive. Thus, the risk of paying the European fines persists.

The State Council also states in its opinion, which is contained in the draft law that lies at the table, the following. Article 6 provides for the establishment of a committee for prevention and protection at work in those undertakings which usually employ an average of fifty workers and for which there was no need to establish a committee at the previous social elections, but which does not meet the information and consultation measures required by the Directive. Also, the proposed arrangement in accordance with the directive remains problematic because the bill does not provide for alternative forms of information and consultation,” the Council of State said.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, why this case has not been addressed with more common sense, and why the Minister is not willing to set up a committee in companies with more than 50 employees that can exercise the right to information and consultation as required by the European directive, is a mystery to me. The amendment that List Dedecker submits today for approval explicitly grants the right to information and consultation as prescribed in the European Directive to the Committee on Prevention and Protection at Work, thus fulfilling the Directive as a matter of course.

Their responsibility is very great. Because it will not be the outgoing ministers, nor the social partners, who will have to pay the European fine. It will be tax money that will be used to pay that fine because today again a law is being submitted and will be approved that does not comply with European regulations.

We consider it our duty to point out to the members of this plenary session the consequences of not approving our amendment, and yet call on them to take advantage of the European directive at this last opportunity and to intervene in order to approve our amendment. I thank you for your attention.

As a rule, what happens is normally settled by a royal decree. However, given the political situation in which we are today, it was decided to regulate the organization and procedures for the social elections through the present bill.

The design includes the traditional rules for social elections and also meets the demand of the social partners. We will therefore also support the bill so that the social elections can be organized timely and correctly.

Important in the margin of this – Ms. De Maght also referred to – is that in the meantime negotiations on the transposition of the European Directive on the information to be given to workers are underway between the social partners. The European Directive dates from 2003 and should have been transposed in 2005.

European Commissioner Spidla gave us a deadline that expires at the end of November 2007. The social partners had committed to reach a final agreement on the issue by the end of November 2007. It is important that the deadline is met. Otherwise, we will not be able to avoid the fines and penalty amounts.

I would like to ask the Minister how far the negotiations are. Is there a prospect of a final agreement by the end of November 2007?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, if we cannot question the government on the current matter since our assembly has decided so because of the lengthy period of current affairs, we can apparently vote on laws.

We are almost united just for this reason. It is starting to do well! The situation is painful for our democracy and damaging for the good management of our country.

If the submission of a bill by a government in ordinary affairs is exceptional, I confirm, however, that the Ecolo-Groen!, as a responsible political force, will provide its support to this bill, as for the previous bill that allowed the fixing of the date of the next social elections.

We will vote on it with the regret that the outgoing government has not been able to resolve the issue better and faster.

The uncomfortable timetable to which the social partners are subjected does not allow any false step, since in order to allow a vote in May 2008, electoral operations must begin on December 7 next year. It remains to be hoped that our colleagues in the Senate and the current affairs government will do everything necessary to keep this tight schedule.

We will vote for this project without enthusiasm but because it is necessary to allow our country’s social democracy to organize itself in the least evil conditions possible.

In this politically troubled period, however, there is at least something that works in our lives and organizations that call for solidarity and reason. I quote a part of the text that the social partners and trade unions took the initiative to write and that I signed, as well as other members of this assembly: "We are Wallons, Brussels, Flemish. We are citizens of the world. We do not want to build new walls between people, between regions and between countries. We do not want the basic principle of solidarity to be replaced by those of competition and selfishness.”

Mr. Minister, such a clairvoyance deserves to be underlined and supported by this vote that we will conduct soon.

Overall, the text of the law, which is a transposition of the implementing decree of 15 May 2003 and which takes into account most suggestions issued by the National Labour Council, does not call for major remarks. I will therefore not return to the various technical questions that I have been able to formulate in the committee and to which you have fully answered, even though I personally remain doubting about the validity of the legal assembly.

You specified in particular that in case of appeal, both the professional centers and the regional federations of trade unions were entitled to act on behalf of their mandants. You have also committed to the proper progress of the follow-up of the procedure, insofar as it falls within your responsibility – we never know – especially for the appropriate work sector and I welcome this.

However, like my colleagues, I would like to return to the question of the non-transposition of the EU Directive on workers’ information. This non-transposition of the directive is evident, as is the case for the previous law text that we have analyzed and voted for, and it was again raised by the State Council. We took note of your explanations on the subject in the previous discussion, such as commitments by the social partners to seek consensus in order to be able to respond to this situation.

It must be noted, more than a month later, that the ultimatum put by European Commissioner Spidia expires within a week. Therefore, Mr. Minister, it would be useful that you can specify in your response the state of progress of the discussions as well as the steps you have taken to help reach an agreement at the level of the social partners. Indeed, no more than a month ago, we could not satisfy ourselves with this state of shortage, since that directive opens in our eyes interesting and positive prospects in terms of workers’ information and dialogue within enterprises, which is quite rare at European level to be once again highlighted.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene, but since we are the only party that voted against the previous bill a few weeks ago, I, like my colleagues, would like to take the word.

I want some clarity from the Minister regarding the transposition of the European Directive on information and consultation of workers. The minister had promised that the trade unions would come up with a proposal at the end of this month. I read today in the press that there would indeed be almost an agreement, at least for the companies with 50 to 100 employees. It would mean that the prevention and protection committees would take over the powers of a business council without contacting additional protected workers. When it comes to companies with 20 to 50 employees, I think we are still as far away as we were months and years ago. The conflict between trade unions and employers is still deep.

I would have liked to hear from the minister, before he plunges into his opposition role, when he expects a full agreement. If there is no agreement, what initiatives will he take to resolve this urgent matter? As colleagues have already said, we will face millions of euros of fines if this is not resolved very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I may have to give you a tip for one of the following bills that it is one of the plots of the House that you also let the reporter speak first. The reporter was prepared, but come.

I will come to the interventions of parliamentarians. With these bills we are indeed regulating the social elections of 2008. I have never argued that the transposition of the Directive as such is not very urgent. However, the social elections are bound by a very strict procedure that begins on 7 December. That timing must be ⁇ ined. This is the first time that employers have to take a certain action. Therefore, it is of great importance that the procedure for the social elections of 2008 is quickly decided in Parliament so that they can begin in accordance with the normal procedure.

There were questions about the state of affairs in the transposition of the European Directive. The social partners have met several times this month. Tomorrow, November 23, they will normally do this for the last time on this file. The informal contacts I have with the group of ten about this indicate that they are still, the day before, very hopeful that they can reach an agreement tomorrow. What you read in the press doesn’t have to be correct. I am receiving signals from various sides that one is evolving towards an agreement. If that is announced tomorrow, it would be obvious that in anticipation of the new government, the current government of ongoing affairs based on the agreement of the group of ten again tries to translate that agreement through a bill. I still have to look at that. After that, a debate in Parliament can follow so that we can not only organise the social elections on time but also avoid the threatening fines and fines.

I’m waiting to see what comes out of the bus tomorrow. If the group of ten is hopeful, I am hopeful too. If there is no agreement from the bus tomorrow, we will have to take other initiatives. At that moment, in the first instance, the urgency of a new government will once again be demonstrated.