Proposition 53K1671

Proposition de recommandations relative au harcèlement au travail.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Valérie De Bue
N-VA Miranda Van Eetvelde

Submission date

July 11, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work working conditions violence mental stress sexual harassment psychological harassment workplace

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The Social Affairs Committee decided to study this issue and set up a working group that organized a series of hearings over several weeks. Representatives of the General Directorate of Labour Welfare Control, representatives of trade union and employer organisations, representatives of MACtac and bpost companies, representatives of external services of prevention and protection at work, representatives of medical, associative, labor auditors and lawyers. A few weeks ago, the committee also took note of the report of the research conducted by the SPF Employment, Labour and Social Consultation on the evaluation of legislation on the prevention of psychosocial burden caused by work, including violence and moral or sexual harassment at work.

After hearing the Minister of Employment, the work of the committee resulted in this resolution.

Based on a series of findings from all these hearings and reports, the committee makes a series of recommendations. The law of 11 June 2002 on protection against violence and moral or sexual harassment at work, as amended by the laws of 10 January 2007 and 6 February 2007, helped to remove the taboo of harassment and violence in the workplace by imposing the development of a preventive policy in this regard and offering victims appropriate solutions.

Overall, this legislation is judged positively but it has not yet achieved its purpose, in particular due to the complexity of the combated phenomenon. This legislation contains a number of inaccuracies, it is insufficiently known and poorly applied. There is also a lack of adequate and uniform training on this legislation.

The resolution presented to you today presents a series of recommendations on the legislation that needs to be developed, on the policies for raising awareness to be carried out, on the control of law enforcement, on other important points, among which the system of clarification should be cited.

I will address various points relating to the evolution of legislation. My colleague, Miranda Van Eetvelde, will complete the presentation.

The prevention policy in companies must be strengthened. It is requested to include in the Labour Welfare Act a definition of risk analysis and measures to prevent these risks. It is also necessary to consider whether the definition of "moral harassment" should be refined.

The trusted persons to whom workers can address, who feel victims of violence, must have the necessary competence to perform their functions appropriately. As such, training is essential and must meet uniform quality criteria, established by legislation both at the level of its content and at the level of its organization.

The intervention of trusted persons should be limited to the informal procedure. Trusted persons should be more closely associated with the general prevention policy regarding psychosocial aspects in enterprises.

For counselors in prevention psychosocial aspects, in the jargon called CEPA, the training provided by law should be reviewed, in particular to improve the understanding of the possibilities and limits of the different procedures and to strengthen mediation.

There are two types of procedures: the informal procedure and the formal procedure. At the level of these procedures, there should therefore be a clear distinction. It will be a notification or request for intervention for the informal procedure and a reasoned complaint for the formal procedure.

A reasoned complaint can only be submitted to the prevention counsel on psychosocial aspects. It no longer qualifies the facts, as it was before. The Psychosocial Aspects Prevention Advisor’s report must at least provide a clear description of the facts, contain the analysis of the causes, facts and proposals for ending those facts.

This report shall be communicated in writing to the employer, to the prevention adviser of the internal service and to the inspection service. We also sought to improve the deadlines within which these reports must be provided to one or the other.

Within one month, the employer shall inform the parties concerned. If the Psychosocial Aspects Prevention Advisor finds that no measures are taken, he takes the inspection of the Work Welfare Control with the consent of the complainant. More generally, the Committee on Prevention and Protection at Work should be involved in the follow-up of collective recommendations from concrete cases.

In the processing of follow-up, reports and complaints, an exchange of information should be ensured between all parties that can contribute to solving the problem, seeking a balance between, on the one hand, the duty of discretion and, on the other, the need for publicity.

Before speaking to Mrs. Miranda Van Eetvelde, I would like to thank in particular the Minister, Mr. The Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee, all the colleagues who worked on this dossier, of course all the people who agreed to participate in the hearings – and I think especially of the representatives of the administration and cabinet, who are here present – as well as the departments of the House without whom the report and recommendations would not have been possible. I give the floor to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will subsequently report on the other recommendations, as agreed by consensus in the Social Affairs Committee.

I will conclude the legislative part. After that, I will explain the sections sensitization, law compliance supervision and the other points of attention.

In terms of legislation, two other points were agreed, the protection of dismissal and the sanctions. With regard to the dismissal protection, it was provided that the employee who submits a reasoned complaint enjoys a dismissal protection. Initially, it should be intended that the employee can remain in the company even after submitting a complaint. If the employee is dismissed, he will be entitled to a special dismissal compensation. If the employee does not want or can remain in the company as a result of the facts, the employer must provide for accompanying measures such as outplacement. Furthermore, it will be examined under what circumstances an employee will have the possibility to terminate his employment contract without termination and without loss of the dismissal compensation.

With regard to the sanctions, it will be examined whether the extension of the limitation period to ten years contributes to the protection of victims. Furthermore, it was determined that the penalties and limitation periods relating to siege in the Criminal Code should be adapted in order to better take account of aggravating circumstances. In the field of civil sanctions, it is necessary to provide for a flat-rate compensation of six months gross wage by analogy with the compensation provided for in anti-discrimination laws. The sanctions in the Welfare Act should also be examined, in particular the sanction that punishes not preparing a risk analysis.

In terms of awareness, first and foremost, more information on existing legislation should be disseminated to the various target groups. In addition, the FOD WASO should set up a awareness-raising campaign with respect to these target groups. This is primarily a campaign aimed at employers and members of the hierarchical line emphasizing the importance of prevention, psychosocial risks and possible work tools. The campaign should also target the members of the committees for prevention and protection at work, trade union representatives and trade union exempt. The emphasis on respectful behavior and their specific role is central here. Also the prevention advisors – occupational doctors will be sensitized by pointing out the possibilities they already have to work around prevention on the psychosocial level.

Finally, a large-scale campaign should be aimed at the general public, so that everyone faced with this problem knows what actions can be taken.

In addition to the legislative aspect and the awareness-raising aspect, the supervision of compliance with the law is also emphasized. In this, both the inspection and the prosecutor’s office play a crucial role.

The mandate of the Inspectorate for Occupational Welfare Surveillance should be strengthened, as it is best placed to provide the necessary information. There should be greater monitoring of the correct application of the relevant legislation, with particular attention to the obligations of employers with regard to psychosocial risks, such as having a prevention advisor, a trust person and following the necessary procedures. In order to properly carry out these inspection tasks, an extension of the training and specialisation of the inspectors must, among other things, take place.

As regards the role of the public prosecutor, labor auditors should have access to the statements of persons who have been heard, subject to the consent of the persons concerned. Furthermore, it is necessary to examine whether the labor auditor should be entitled to refer the complainant back to the internal procedure.

Finally, several other points of attention were agreed. First and foremost, the government should examine how the workplace harassment legislation can be better aligned with the anti-discrimination legislation. In addition, the Government should examine whether the rules on judicial procedures need to be refined. Finally, in implementation of the interprofessional agreement, the Government should examine with the social partners how to modernise the current tariff scheme for external prevention services, taking into account the objectives of the Welfare Act. Some considerations should be taken into account, such as the legal tasks and assignments of the external prevention services, the emphasis on risk analysis and prevention measures, the promotion of the tasks and assignments of the external prevention services in SMEs, the distinction between types of services that are mandatory included in the flat-rate package and those that are extra payable, and the non-increase of the overall financial pressure on companies.

In addition, it is necessary to examine whether a system of centralized collection can lead to a better distribution of costs for undertakings and whether it is appropriate to design a statistical tool on workplace harassment.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues from the Committee on Social Affairs, the administration, President Mayeur and Mrs De Bue for their good cooperation on this issue. The discussions were often at the pinnacle, but they led to a consensus document. I think I can speak for everyone in the committee, but also for everyone in this Parliament when I say that we hope that the fight against harassment at work will be intensified with this work and the problem will be effectively addressed, because every case of harassment is one too many.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we were faced with terrible images of harassment at MACtac. Then the political climate was suddenly ripe to evaluate the anti-pest legislation.

Open Vld then took the lead and requested the establishment of a special working group, which therefore came into the womb of the Social Affairs Committee. That request did not come simply by the delusion of the day. After all, already in 2004 I had already submitted a bill to get a systematic periodic review of the anti-pest law. After all, the legislation is relatively new and the phenomenon of bullying is evolving rapidly. At the time of drafting the law, for example, the term “cyberbullying” was still unknown.

I say this to draw attention to a permanent follow-up of the anti-pest law. My request to screen and update the law at least once per legislature remains valid. I hope that we will not have to experience new, striking cases in order to start again.

A thorough assessment can be useful, and this was also demonstrated by this special working group. All staff members were thanked and I would like to join them.

Where we saw salvation in the establishment of a contact point and the extension of the limitations, the hearings brought us to more nuanced insights. I want a few emphasis.

First, it has been shown that increasing awareness and better informing workers is more desirable than the establishment of a notification point. There really needs to be a different culture in the workplace. One must know that one should not do to other people what one would not like to suffer himself. Also here the rule applies that prevention is better than healing. It is therefore no coincidence that our recommendations for better prevention policies in enterprises are at the forefront.

Secondly, we wanted to strengthen the informal procedure. The role of the trust person is crucial in this. As the name implies, the trust person should radiate trust. Therefore, he must have the appropriate know-how, which requires compulsory training and further training through the uniform legal criteria. This training and his emotional intelligence should be the pillars of the maturity he or she must radiate. A trusted person should also show respect and understanding to those who feel badly treated.

The choice of the trust person is crucial. Therefore, one should not go ice overnight and one should strive for as much consensus as possible in the company.

The role of the prevention counselor is also important. According to the formal procedure, he must now deliver his report to the employer within three months. In order to ensure that the report does not, as in the past, end up in the employer's or a human resource manager's box, a copy of the report is requested to be sent to the inspection. This should help to guarantee the independence of the prevention advisors. Independence is a necessary prerequisite, as is the involvement of prevention advisors in the general welfare policy of the company. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, these are three important points.

Already at the time of drafting the original anti-pest legislation, we were overwhelmed to provide too much protection for dismissal. It is no different now.

Of course, victims must be protected, but we must also not be blind to possible abuses. Some trade union representatives did not show themselves from their most virgin side in the affair-MACtac. This gave dust for further reflection. We believe that trade unions have a role of example. It is therefore up to the trade unions to teach them the right attitudes through many training programs. A trade union whose representative makes a mistake has the moral duty to correct it.

We have been constructive with this recommendation. Rather than focusing unilaterally on dismissal and dismissal protection, we provide that harassed workers who no longer can or wish to stay in the company are directed to another job, for example through outplacement.

We would like to emphasize that it is a sensitive passage in the text of the recommendation, but it is necessary to examine the circumstances under which the employee has the possibility to dismiss and to come to some sort of punishment with his employer when the atmosphere on the workplace is too hardened and when the employee carries too many scars of what happened to him. We want to find a solution, in consultation with the employers.

We do not want to see that possibility realized without pre-closing mechanisms being developed that can prevent abuse. We recognize that allowing a derogation from the rule that an employee who resigns himself cannot claim cancellation compensation presents a great danger. In connection with these specific and general issues, we expect much from the opinion of the High Council for Prevention. There will still have to be discussions on this.

Colleagues, I remember that during the drafting of the anti-pest law at the time, the then competent minister, Ms. Onkelinx, assured us that the costs for the companies would not increase. Even today, SMEs are ⁇ concerned. L’Histoire se répète for Miss Milquet. We were now also approached by several companies who insist that the scheme should not cost them and that the financial implications should be limited.

I would like to expressly ask you to pay attention to this too. With vinegar one does not catch flies and with unnecessary additional burdens for SMEs one does not reap goodwill for a constructive attitude towards designing a coherent and efficient anti-pest policy.

It will indeed be a balance exercise, a great art to make the updated anti-pest law applicable and follow-up in both large and small enterprises as well as in the government administrations. It will undoubtedly be running spits.

The work has not ended with the recommendations submitted – and this has also been said several times in the committee – but we could not do more than give recommendations in ongoing matters. We have tried with the working group to lay the right foundation and to indicate the right direction.

I hope, together with you, that the Parliament and the next government will now provide for the legal translation, and I hope that from now on we will impose on each legislature the discipline to further evaluate and update the case.

Only in this way can we prove to the victims of bullying that we have understood the message that they have suffered a trauma, which they and their family carry for the rest of their days. Let us support the constant care for a solid anti-pest policy.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, everyone in our country has seen what colleagues do to another colleague: tie him to a pallet and humiliate him in an unheard of, inhumane way. These facts were filmed by a trade union representative. Then the latter said it was actually a joke.

Such facts are unacceptable in our society and therefore also in a company. A workplace should be a healthy, pleasant environment, where an employee is present every day, day out of day, and where he is happy to come to his work. It is unacceptable for colleagues to treat their colleagues in this way. It is also unacceptable that employers do not do what they should do, namely ensure a healthy working environment. It is also unacceptable that workers’ representatives do not intervene when they should.

Bullying, as well as unwanted sexual behavior at work, do not belong anywhere at home, ⁇ not at work.

Not only the bullying events at MACtac, but also other bullying at work, have caused the Social Affairs Committee to re-examine the bullying law. I must thank colleague Mayeur, the chairman of that committee, for making sure that everything was discussable in the committee, even the role of the trade union representatives who commit such acts.

We held several hearings. People from the field came to speak. We also received an evaluation report from, among other things, the FOD Employment.

Based on those hearings and evaluations, we made the following conclusions.

First, the current pest law provides for a set of procedures and measures that can be invoked.

Second, most ⁇ have the structures and procedures to deal with bullying and unwanted sexual behavior.

Furthermore, we have found that the current pest law sometimes lacks its purpose due to three elements. First is the complexity. The victim does not always know where it can go. Second, the uncertainty of the law. Third, the lack of knowledge and its application. In other words, we have a fairly good pest law. The hearings and the evaluation report have shown that we need to adjust the law where necessary, without making it unnecessarily more complex. The starting point of the amendment should be that the victim of work-related harassment or unwanted sexual behavior is better taken care of. The focus should be on the mediation phase. We also agreed on this in the committee. Moreover, there is a need for awareness among workers – victims of bullying at work do not always know where to go – among employers – they must provide the necessary information at the company – but also among trade union representatives.

The recommendation proposal that we are presenting to the House is a consensus text across party boundaries. There were occasional discussions, as colleagues Kitir and Vanlerberghe have proven, but we also learned from each other.

I have three concerns about the consensus text.

First, the psychosocial tax. In the consensus text, we ask to include this concept in the pest law. Workers who suffer from psychosocial stresses at work need a specific approach. It is wrong to provide the procedure already in place for harassment at work also for workers who suffer from psychosocial burden. If the recommendations are translated into new legislation, we need to provide for a specific approach to that psychosocial burden.

Secondly, I also have a concern about the extension of the limitation period. Colleague Fonck wanted to increase that from five to ten years. I personally think that we will not be able to help the victims. If one comes before a court, then one must prove pest facts. Pest events often have to do with behavior. If we bring the limitation period to 10 years, I fear that the evidence will no longer be available. This is not in the benefit of the victim of harassment at work.

The recommendations also suggest that the employee who has filed a complaint for harassment at work should have the possibility to leave his work without termination and that he should be able to benefit from a dismissal compensation. In the committee I have expressed my concern about this, because we do not help the victim. A victim of bullying at work who really wants to leave his work, we need to help. The employer must take responsibility and ensure that there is indeed outplacement and guidance, so that the employee who no longer feels well on the workplace, who is bullied and absolutely no longer wants to work in that company, can also go to another employer.

However, if one gives such an employee a dismissal compensation, this is actually an exception to the abc of labour law, because normally a employee who wants to leave himself does not necessarily have the right to a dismissal compensation. I fear this opens the door to abuse. I am in favour of providing outplacement and accompanying measures for such employees.

Nevertheless, I also welcome the proposal that we are presenting here to the House. I now look at colleagues Vanlerberghe and Kitir, who wanted to make the trust person mandatory in every enterprise. At first glance, I was not directly in favour of it, but the way it is now formulated in the text is good.

The trust person can be someone from the company, a staff member, or an external or internal prevention adviser. This is good for SMEs. I think it is difficult to appoint a trust person from the company itself in a company where three or four people work. It is good that such a small and medium-sized enterprise can resort to an external prevention advisor, if there are pest facts.

Second, I am also pleased that there is now finally a clear distinction between the informal phase, in which the emphasis is placed primarily on the conciliatory and mediating aspects and in which the trust person – who will also receive training – plays an important role, and the formal phase, in which the official complaint can be submitted to the prevention adviser.

It is good, even for a victim of harassment at work, that someone knows clearly what stage he or she is in.

The hearings also showed that in the formal phase the prevention adviser, when a complaint is submitted to him, as was the case with MACtac, carries out a whole investigation. He shall subsequently submit a report, with the measures to be taken, to the employer. However, the hearings showed that at MACtac the report had remained in the drawer of a colleague. Nothing has been done with the measures.

Therefore, I am pleased that we have now recommended binding deadlines. When there is an official complaint, the prevention adviser will normally complete his examination within three months. The employer must also, within the month after he has taken knowledge of the measures, link back to the prevention adviser, to indicate what he actually did with the complaint.

Finally, I am also pleased that the regional directions of the Inspection Supervision on Workplace Welfare should normally be given a reinforced position. The regional directions would be given a kind of locket function or connection point function – I don’t know how we will call it exactly. However, it is important that individual workers, as well as the families of the workers concerned, will be able to access information on the procedure to be followed and on the places where they can go if they are faced with bullying at work.

This is important for employees who feel a threshold within the company to submit a complaint to the employer. Those employees may also, if necessary, contact the regional directions of the Inspection Supervision on the Welfare at Work.

However, the necessary resources should also go to the regional directions. In the other case, I fear that the regional directions will not be able to carry out this task.

Colleagues, for the rest, and finally, I hope that the present recommendations will be quickly translated into legislation so that the victims can be treated even better. When translating the recommendations into a law, a healthy balance should be sought, in which the victim workers are treated properly. However, it must also be a balance, in which the procedures within the company do not become unnecessarily more complex and in which no additional costs are realised again for the companies.

However, I realize too well that this law, unfortunately, cannot exclude all plagues. However, we must pursue this. We can still make a lot of laws to exclude those bullying facts, but much also depends on the atmosphere that prevails on the workplace. It should be a healthy atmosphere. I am convinced that the responsibility for this lies with both employers, workers and trade union representatives.

Finally, I would like to thank all colleagues from the Social Affairs Committee for the good and warm cooperation. Of course, I admit that it has not always been easy to reconcile the different opinions, but it has nevertheless been possible to come to the Chamber today with a consensus text. I would also like to thank the experts of the administration who helped us with advice and action.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, everyone still has in memory the unsustainable images of violence carried out against staff members in a Hanoi company by other employees including a trade union delegate. Parliament could not remain unresponsive to such acts.

The MR welcomes the establishment of this working group, these countless hours of work and the recommendations that are the result.

I would like to highlight a few topics that are ⁇ dear to us.

The first development that I find interesting is the consideration of the notion of the psychosocial burden of work. The notion currently incorporated in the law is too narrow and should be able to better take into account the organization of work by separating the professional sphere from the private sphere.

It will be necessary to intensify prevention policies and generalize risk analyses that will help to avoid certain conflicts or, in any case, provide tools to learn how to better manage them. Awareness-raising campaigns will need to be organized to improve the information of all stakeholders. The informal conciliation procedure within the enterprises should be encouraged as it is the best solution for all parties. Most of the problems in the field of work could probably be solved with more communication and dialogue.

Another important point is training. That is why we advocate a stronger training of trusted people and a better knowledge of corporate legislation so that everyone has all the tools at hand to accomplish their mission. It is only by improving their knowledge that those people who will be the first to find a sustainable solution among the parties involved will be able to bring a real plus to the well-being at work.

This is ⁇ a major challenge in the evolution of the workplace: to continue to promote dialogue, to raise awareness among all workers about this type of situation so that the psychosocial burden does not take over well-being, which must remain a priority.

In addition to raising awareness and enhancing informal procedures, it has become essential for our group that the penalties are tougher for the offenders but also and above all that justice takes into account aggravating circumstances in cases where workers’ representatives are challenged.

Both the employer, the hierarchical line and the representatives of the workers must be the example, otherwise it follows a loss of the values and landmarks, the basis of the construction of our society.

Joining my colleague Maggie De Block, it seems obvious to me that we must remain attentive to this phenomenon and the evaluation. The establishment of a statistical tool will allow us to continue to evaluate the evolution of cases in our country.

Efficient prevention policies and procedures defined even more clearly in legislation will avoid increasing financial and administrative burdens on companies. Similarly, the reform of the pricing system, which we will have to discuss in the future with the social partners, will not have the effect of increasing the overall financial pressure on companies.

As for other colleagues, for the MR, these recommendations are a first step. This is a consensual document. It is true that not all the topics discussed have reached an agreement, such as the protection of the trade union delegate or the limitation period. In the first place, it should be aimed at the continuous improvement of practices on the ground, in particular regarding the prevention and training of trusted persons and prevention advisers; then, the legislation will need to be improved and, in any case, clarified.

There is consensus on all these principles. Further opinions are expected to continue the work and translate the principles into a text of law.

Again, I would like to thank all participants.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, despite the fact that we have a law on harassment at work in our country, which was revised in 2007, and despite the fact that a lot of awareness-raising campaigns have been conducted, however, some recent cases show that harassment is not out of the world. Research also shows that harassment at work has not decreased significantly since 2004. A survey shows that 14% of workers in Flanders suffer from harassment. In the education and healthcare sector, even one employee out of four has suffered from harassment, physical violence or unwanted sexual behavior at work. This is evidenced by a study by the SERV following a survey of more than 9 000 employees.

Mr. Speaker, it was therefore good that we in the Committee on Social Affairs for a long time organized hearings with everyone who has a close or distant relationship with it, from the inspection to the trade unions and the employers. We have seen a lot of people during hearings for weeks. That happened partly following the MACtac case, but I hope that we can go beyond this and that with these recommendations we can push forward measures to better tackle workplace harassment, both in terms of prevention by raising awareness and in terms of legislation, with sanctions if necessary.

I will not repeat the report in its entirety, as it has been magnificently highlighted. From CD&V, however, I would like to emphasize four accents, four things that are important to us.

First the definition. It is important that, through the recommendations, we also requested that the definition be interpreted wider than what is currently understood in the strict sense of bullying at work in the law. This prevents the filing of bullying complaints for cases where it is not necessary, which often escalates the situation on the ground. CD&V has very clearly advocated for a clarification of the definition. We also want to include psychosocial burden caused by work. In this way, we could also take measures to address it, thus beyond the strict definition of bullying, without actually touching it.

It is important that we have expanded the recommendations in order to be able to work much better preventively.

Second, the trust person. We find it very important, and we have also pledged, that from now on every workplace, of large or small enterprises, a trust person must be present. This can also be combined with another function. Important, however, is the principle that it must be everywhere and that from now on he must also receive an appropriate training so that he has the necessary capabilities. These capabilities must be obtained through pre-training, through a modular system, but of course we still find it important that people can also form and re-train over the years. That is very important.

We have also emphasized that mediation in the informal phase has proven to be very efficient, much more effective also for solving problems of harassment at work than moving to the formal phase by filing a complaint. That is why the role of that trust person is so important. He is actually the key figure in this informal phase. That’s why we wanted to strengthen his role and that’s why his appointment is now mandatory in every enterprise, large or small.

Given the important role of the trust person in resolving and preventing further escalation in work-related harassment, this obligation is therefore also imposed.

Since the trust person usually performs another function in addition to his role as a trust person and due to the great complexity of handling formal complaints, the role of the trust person is also very explicitly limited to the informal phase; the submission of the formal complaint can, in other words, only be with the prevention advisor. We also find it very positive that there has been a clear separation between that informal phase and the formal phase.

As regards the trust person, the professional secrecy of the prevention counselor and of the trust persons will also be adjusted so that judges and labor auditors also have access to important documents if they need them.

Third, as a group, we find it very important that there is a good arrangement for the tarification, the tariffs charged by the external services.

We have said in the recommendations that the tariff scheme will be evaluated, but we emphasize above all – which we think is good – that the social partners also have a role to play in this. They should be involved in the further tariff arrangement because this is very important. We believe that the financing of external services should be revised. The employee’s privacy should be guaranteed during the informal procedure. In our view, therefore, it should be forbidden to charge an additional premium in that informal phase. In some cases, this has happened before. Only if a formal complaint is filed, it is in our opinion negotiable that an additional premium is charged. These are issues that need to be discussed with the social partners. Importantly, when pricing more emphasis is placed on the other forms and not only on the medical. The problems facing ⁇ today are not just medical but rather psychosocial. It is therefore important that this role be expanded.

Last but not least, Mrs. Minister. I am now addressing you primarily for the inspection services. It is established that the supervision of the work inspection by the FOD WASO is absolutely insufficient. This is not due to the fact that those individuals would not work hard. They work hard. They also helped us in the committee with their expertise. They gave us a lot of useful suggestions in the committee. However, the service is sub-crew. This is reflected in the annual report of the Supervision of Welfare at Work. In other words, the chance for people to break the law becomes very small because the services are underpowered. This was stated by both employer organisations and trade unions. The service itself also identified the undercrew as a major problem.

According to figures from IDEWE, there is also a major problem with the application and knowledge of the law. Ten percent of companies have no policy on harassment at work. Forty percent of companies have only a minimum policy that is completely insufficient. This again indicates the urgent need, Mrs. Minister, to strengthen the inspection services so that they can verify that the legislation is being properly applied.

Colleagues, it is very positive that the recommendations call attention to the role of the inspection services. They must have sufficient personnel for this.

The recommendation calls for the strengthening of the personnel and capacities, not only of the financial resources but also of the appropriate instruments, for the regional directions of the Inspectorate Surveillance on the Welfare at Work, so that they can perform their tasks properly.

The inspection services have a task mainly in two areas. First, they are responsible for prevention, awareness raising and providing information on legislation, options, measures and procedures. Second, they must verify whether the legislation is applied correctly. Especially this must be covered. We must ensure that the package chances increase, and therefore we must sufficiently strengthen the inspection services.

Furthermore, it is of course important that the inspectors are formed and that they have access to individual complaint files. That is what we have included in the recommendation.

Colleagues, so far a fourth case that CD&V wants to put extra in the paint within the whole of the recommendations, which we of course fully support. These are recommendations addressed to the government, but also to ourselves. They call on us to take further initiatives. They also call on employers’ and workers’ organisations to fulfill their role. They call for strengthening the fight against harassment at work. We all need to contribute to this. Only when we do the work together, each from his perspective, Parliament, government, social partners, will it succeed.

Colleagues, the recommendations that we hope to adopt tomorrow will not change the world, but they are a first important step. Mr. Speaker of the Committee, I hope that after the recession we can take a second step and address additional legislative proposals on harassment at work in the committee. I hope that then we will be able to work together as well to bring them to a good end, as we did today.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, many of you have recalled this: the MACtac affair has marked the minds. That is the least that can be said. We have all experienced it, whether through commission work or through the images spread in the media. However, even though this case was more than appealing, it seems to me important to reaffirm today that the victims of the MACtac case are obviously not the only ones and that many other victims, most often unknown to the media, are not second-zone victims. They are as much victims as those in the MACtac case, even though the acts of violence may be less media-related. For some victims, the facts are more insidious, repeated and subject to moral harassment. I repeat: these victims of workplace harassment are obviously not second-tier victims.

We can be satisfied with these recommendations. This is a necessary first step and I think it is important to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar! That is why I would like to welcome here all the evaluation work done with the researchers of the KUL and the UCL, all the evaluation work done by the SPF Employment, Labour and Social Consultation as well as the work of both the SPF Employment and the cabinet of the minister which has led to a whole series of recommendations. Mr. Minister, you also had the opportunity to give us in committee the strengths of potentially feasible improvements and new policies to be implemented in the area of harassment at the workplace. It was from all these elements that we were able to discuss this in committee with all the political parties and lead to these recommendations.

On behalf of the CDH, I would like to draw attention to a few points that I find ⁇ important. Of course, I will not take them all over again, but I will pinpoint a few recommendations that, I hope, can take effect in a second time.

First, it is the extension of the notion of harassment to all the psychosocial burden felt by workers. Limiting yourself to harassment as such is too reductive given the impact that can be produced by some improvements in terms of well-being at the workplace.

The second element is the distinction to be made between the formal procedure, which results from a reasoned complaint, and the informal procedure. When the trusted person is dedicated only to the latter, the chances of success increase and the problems can therefore be settled ahead of the filing of the complaint and tougher procedures that do not always result and therefore do not improve the situation of the victims.

Next, the financing of external prevention services should be reviewed and their independence guaranteed. This involves the revision of the tariff system. It should be remembered that the social partners could have seriously advanced in this direction, well before the AIP episode. The text joins their common position.

Strengthening the Labour Inspection is a key element. The figures demonstrate this by wish. An inspector per 20,000 workers represents the European average, while in Belgium, it is an inspector per 100,000 workers.

It is also important to raise awareness and launch campaigns aimed at the general public and the management of companies. Several speakers have spoken about this in the tribune, so I will not return to it.

I also think of the flat-rate compensation equivalent to six months of salary when the facts are established, by analogy with anti-discrimination laws. We must facilitate access to damages and interests.

Finally, a point on which there was no consensus within the commission and which concerns the extension of the limitation periods, in particular by the inclusion of aggravating circumstances in the Criminal Code with a limitation period extended to ten years. Not all political groups are convinced by this extension of the prescription deadlines. For my part, I continue and will continue to advocate for him, not to complicate things or make them impossible in the end, but because it is fundamental to strengthen the protection of victims who are in a position of particular vulnerability. Workers are vulnerable either because of the existence of an authority relationship or because victims are afraid to file a complaint or talk about it for fear of losing their jobs or being the subject of retaliation. Giving time to these victims so that they dare to free themselves from this lead cap, this silence cap is important so that victims can assert their rights.

This is just a first step. I call for these recommendations to be translated and adopted. A few weeks ago, I had already submitted with my colleague CD&V Nahima Lanjri bills and resolutions that translate many of these recommendations into legislative texts. I hope that we will be able to work now on these bills and resolutions. Other political groups also submitted it. I hope that we will be able to bring these recommendations into practice as soon as possible.

Two main issues emerge from the whole. This is primarily about preventing and improving well-being at work in a more general way. This is then for the benefit of all, not only workers but also employers. The second is to strengthen the protection of victims of harassment through a struggle at every moment, at all levels, in terms of political responsibilities but also in terms of the responsibilities of workers and employers directly within companies. This is how we can make the fight against workplace harassment a complete success.

First of all, I would like to thank the courageous colleagues who remain present.

As regards the discussion of the proposal for recommendations on work-related harassment, I agreed with Ms. Kitir, as we are both more than interested in the evaluation of the work, and this for two reasons. Ms. Kitir knows the workplace and the trade union media better than anyone, and I myself am one of the initiators of the original law. So we both were very interested and we are also pleased that this evaluation took place.

It’s always a bit of a pity that something must happen after a dramatic event coming into the media, but images say so much more than words. Then all kinds of things can be evaluated and revised.

However, one must not forget that the example of MACtac, which has kept so many people awake and to which almost everyone had to react in a negative way, unfortunately is only the tip of the iceberg.

Although I do not believe at all that a law will ever change the bad character traits of the perpetrators, of the plagues, or that it will ever eradicate the bad aspects of some people, so many years ago I was still among the proposers of the bill on bullying in the Senate, the so-called anti-bullying law. I still remember the taboo on this topic. At the very first press conference, we had the impression that we exaggerated and that everything was not so bad. If there is a merit to the many months of work – some colleagues here were also present at that time – then it is that the taboo has disappeared. This is one of the great advantages of this legislation.

Remember, this is about people who still trust no one. How can they too? They are destroyed by colleagues. Additionally, imagine that as an adult one has to tell at home that one is being bullied.

Bullying usually occurs in kindergartens, one thinks. Well, many adults do not exceed the kindergarten level on that level and just continue. The problem is that one has been able to conduct a very good policy in schools, but that one has had a lot more effort in the workplace to convince everyone. In order to reduce bullying, the cooperation of the companies, and therefore of the bosses, the trade union representatives, the employees, the team bosses, is necessary. Everyone should work together to label such facts as unacceptable, criminal and completely misplaced.

The taboo has disappeared, so there is more talk about it. Many companies have already done a lot. This review and the very good committee meetings with hearings clearly showed that more needs to be done and that there are still companies where people think that if they look away, it will not be their fault. The opposite is true; who does not ensure a good working environment, who notices that there are bullying heads and does nothing against it, is responsible, sometimes even for the death of a worker. This is just how painful it can be.

One of the conclusions of the evaluation and the hearings is that it is of the utmost importance that people who are bullied and that do not get over the lips, out of shame or not to make it worse, know the way to be helped; companies must disclose a phone number or a trusted person. In this context, I would like to thank the colleague of the N-VA, who stressed that we attach particular importance to trusted persons. We wanted to go beyond what is now stated in the recommendations. We continue to believe that from twenty employees – and not from three or four, as mentioned here – someone in the company, though after training, should take on the task of gaining the trust of those who become victims of bullying behavior.

It is true that the law is very complex. However, I do not think things will be made easier by amending or updating the law in the light of our discussions. Such a law cannot be simplified, merely because third parties are needed to compile the file and because the emphasis must be placed on the unacceptable nature of bullying and on the related sanctions.

An important element was a common problem of independence from trusted persons or from external and even internal prevention advisors. If a victim tells something in confidence to a person who is not independent of a trade union or an employer, then there is a problem. The bosses who have to pay invoices from external prevention services will not be happy when on that invoice it is stated that an extra benefit was provided for a pest case. This is not the pure independence that we all would want, and there must also be work on it.

A third element that is often forgotten – even in the original legislation by the way – is the aftercare, not only for the victim itself, but also for his or her surroundings. Disrupted people are disrupted people and the environment must be able to accommodate them. The word “must” here is very dangerous, for who has experience in capturing adult people in such a case? It is very important that we keep an eye on the necessary framework and on the mandatory aftercare.

Indeed, we put some pressure on the companies, but who else can be responsible for ensuring that their production runs well thanks to a good working environment? One should not constantly interpret this as bullying companies by chasing them at cost. It’s about being convinced that if bullying no longer occurs in a company, production and efficiency will be much higher. We do not want to cost the companies, but we want everyone to work together to eradicate the bullying behavior.

I am convinced that thanks to these recommendations we can make some improvements and some positive steps in the fight against bullying behavior. I have already said that I do not believe that one will be able to reject all rotten apples from all companies. Moreover, it is possible to ensure that victims receive the care they need, know the path they need, and above all that they know that the perpetrators will be addressed and sanctioned.

I heard Mrs. De Block say that this was the only thing that one could do, due to the situation of ongoing matters. Well, I don’t have a glass ball, but if I see what was all approved during ongoing affairs, then I’m convinced that at the next committee meetings one will be able to immediately ensure that there will be less bullying victims every day. For me, there may be a lot more, but even one victim per day is the trouble of crowding us full and unanimously behind proposals on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This work was not translated into a law reform, but rather into a willingness to work with small touches.

Thus it was decided that there would be two periods: one period dedicated to the management of the relationship, a second period dedicated to the management of the complaint. A better definition of terms will help to better establish these periods.

In addition, small recommendations for training, follow-up, etc. are made. They will not need legislative reform. However, they could have significant effects on the ground if they were actually followed.

There is a real issue at stake. When one begins to be interested in this question, a number of stories are collected. These are sometimes ⁇ painful stories and the most affected people do not engage in the process in question because they are not in a position to do so.

Nevertheless, it is important to continue to work on this problem, in particular on the aspect of prevention, which is why I will focus, on the occasion of my intervention, on the need, for the inspection, to be able to dispose of sufficient resources. This aspect is mentioned several times in the recommendation. During the hearings, it was often heard that it would be important that the inspection could do this or that. But, in fact, it turns out that it is impossible for the latter to answer questions, etc. She is already overloaded with work. This aspect is therefore ⁇ important.

The problem of the lack of personnel within the General Directorate Control of Welfare is the source of many malfunctions found, unfortunately, over many years, as evidenced by parliamentary questions that have already been raised by members of various groups.

The annual report of the Directorate-General Control of Welfare 2009 states that “Globally, in 2009, the staff staff remained status quo compared to 2008, but this status quo cannot divert our attention from the staff shortage to the division of regional control within which, for a few years already, the famous wave of retirement pensions for which substitutions can only be foreseen at drop. This wave of retirement pensions is still strong for a few years. Furthermore, great efforts will also need to be made in order to be able to maintain administrative personnel in the regional directions. Therefore, we strongly insist on continuing to provide for replacement. Otherwise, certain tasks will no longer be able to be properly undertaken and the quality of services will be increasingly threatened.”

According to the audit of the Health Control Inspection Inspection conducted by an international team, the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee (SLIC), the number of workers is clearly a problem. In fact, the number of workers per inspector ranges from 14,000 to 47,000, for example in Brussels. The average is therefore 23,000 workers per inspector, while in the other countries inspected by the SLIC, it is one inspector per 10,000 workers, or twice the number of inspectors.

This worrying finding was also highlighted by the National Labour Council, which insisted on the minister "that the necessary measures are taken, in order to solve the problems of staff and means of the inspection services". It also considers that “the current level of staff does not meet the commitments contained in ILO Convention 81 on Labour Inspection.” Thus, the issue of the number of inspectors is vital so that these recommendations do not become dead letter.

There is a need for both qualitative and quantitative strengthening of the inspection teams. The objective to be set is to reach the ratio reached in other countries as soon as possible, i.e. one inspector per 10,000 workers. In any case, this will be for me one of the points that I will follow with great care, so that these recommendations do not find themselves, once again, relegated into a drawer and serve nothing.

First of all, I would like to reassure everyone. Vercamer and Clarinval also spoke, so I am not the only man who is interested in this issue within the Social Affairs Committee.

The topic of harassment at work is sensitive and complex. As my colleagues have said, the hearings of many stakeholders involved in this problem will remind us that the correct application of the law depends above all on the dynamism that companies demonstrate in their policy of prevention and treatment of certain facts. These facts are unacceptable from the point of view of human dignity, but also, more broadly, from the point of view of the social cost that such behaviors engender.

It was alluded to current events, companies were cited and some of their representatives were received in commission. This was precisely what had to be done, since these companies had been put in the forefront of the news: therefore it was useful and interesting that Parliament looked at these events, without interfering with the ongoing judicial proceedings in either case we mentioned.

We have generally found that, very often, complaints are the translation of suffering caused by structural or organizational problems of the order of work, of definitions of functions insufficiently clear, of gaps in communication, of conflicting relationships, etc., poorly experienced by the worker rather than to a real intention of harm on the part of the person concerned.

The 2006 law had already developed a more comprehensive approach by integrating violence and harassment into what was agreed to be called the psychosocial burden caused by work. Our committee considers that an additional step should be taken, on the one hand, by defining what is meant by psychosocial burden in enterprises and, on the other hand, by introducing procedures for the treatment of relationship or organizational problems that cannot be considered as violence or harassment at work. In other words, allow to avoid or limit the damage caused by this psychosocial load.

But it is also understood that there is no question of banalizing the phenomena of violence and harassment by diluting them into this notion of psychosocial burden. The informal handling of complaints for harassment is of particular importance, as once the formal procedure has been initiated, the dialogue will mostly be broken and positions will be radicalized. This is what we learn from the analyses carried out by experts.

If the designation of a trusted person brings unquestionable added value to the policy of prevention of violence, harassment, it is important that that person is able to properly perform its functions. In this regard, adequate and mandatory training is an essential element for the recognition of the social function of that person within the enterprise.

This is why the committee has chosen a detailed recommendation on this training requirement that must meet uniform quality criteria, both in terms of its content and its organization.

The Commission also wishes and rightly wishes that no longer a complaint is spoken when the informal procedure is initiated. Indeed, the legal concept of complaint causes often wrong expectations and induces a defensive behavior that is detrimental to conciliation, the mediation that we want to highlight. The scope of this recommendation therefore goes beyond simple semantics.

Another point on which I will allow myself to insist is that of the responsibility and obligations of the employer and members of the hierarchical line within the company. This is one of the essential elements for me. One can obviously consider that the responsibility of the employer will be the pass-over-all that will allow to solve all the problems of the company, without knowing whether the employer still has adequate means to exercise it, but I think that by empowering the employer, giving him the faculty to intervene when he has knowledge of a conflict, a number of things could be settled. However, the law of 2002 on protection against violence and harassment at work can confuse the actors it defines, the procedures it establishes, and it can induce in the worker who considers himself a victim of harassment the idea that there is a mandatory filter, a kind of mandatory passage before he can address the employer or a member of the hierarchical line. This fact must be changed by entrusting more responsibilities to the employer and the hierarchical line. This is an important part of our committee’s recommendations.

Indeed, at the stage of the informal procedure, the field is largely open to conciliation. Too often, the search for a solution to which the employer can participate can be dismissed from the office, even though its involvement could prove very useful in the resolution of conflicts.

It is obviously illusory to think that, because an approach to a trusted person or a prevention counselor is informal, it will remain unknown to the management. In some cases, the arrangement of a mediation between the parties de facto ensures a publicity that will be reinforced by corridor noises and rumors. This partial and lacunar knowledge of facts can have negative repercussions on the management of the company; relationship conflicts or actual cases of moral harassment can disrupt the entire organization of work. Therefore, it is in the interest of the employer to act consciously, and quickly.

If we understand well that the legislator wanted to avoid as much as possible, in 2006, that the employer can anticipate the instruction and take hasty and inappropriate measures, it is, on the other hand, unhealthy that he can not intervene for a period sometimes very long – up to twelve months, if we refer to the maximum time limit for reasoned treatments. In any case, and this is one of the recommendations made by the committee, the time for handling a reasoned complaint should be drastically shortened, and the employer should have the possibility to take conservative measures if the three-month period cannot be respected, given the seriousness or complexity of the situation.

This recommendation is ⁇ important because it aims to combat some form of bureaucracy in the handling of complaints. There must be a double responsibility: on the one hand, that of the prevention counselor who must assess whether there are genuine signs of harassment so that the immediate intervention of the employer is justified and, on the other hand, that of the latter who must be informed of worrying situations and who must be able to exercise his authority in the interest of the alleged victim, and without hindering the final examination of the complaint.

The current deadline for the communication of the report of the prevention counselor, but also the cost of handling the complaint – here we mean the problem of billing by external prevention services – often result in making the position of the complainant unable if he is actually a victim of harassment. In this case, protection against dismissal is ineffective, and the person concerned has no choice. Inability to work is frequently found, with the risk of not being recognized as medically unfit or of having to leave the company, but then without compensation and with the risk of being sanctioned with unemployment for abandoning employment. Therefore, it seemed important for the commission to provide a decent and fair exit for the worker victim of harassment who no longer wants or can stay in the company. He must be able to benefit from an outplacement at the expense of the employer. We want to prioritize employment.

But in some cases that remain to be defined, the worker must have the possibility to terminate his employment contract without having to make his notice, with a starting allowance at the key and with the right to register for unemployment. This is an important change that we propose in relation to the traditional labour legislation but we believe that it is a measure to avoid the perverse use of other legislation, including that on disability to work or the use of fake C4, fake reasons for dismissal that ultimately arrange everyone but that still exposes employer and employee to the employment of documents not in accordance with what is really happening in the company.

Opening this possibility to the employee who can no longer, who is a victim of harassment, who has done all the steps and who asks to leave the company but being compensated for the years performed in the company and without being subject to sanction regarding his right to unemployment in particular seems to us an advance both intelligent and just in terms of what is experienced in some companies, even if this solution is in breach with the tradition of our Labour Code.

Finally, we find it essential that awareness-raising campaigns be conducted, not only for the general public and workers, but also for the various actors involved in the issue. In particular, as psychosocial risks are intrinsically linked to the organization and operation of the enterprise, employers and managers should be aware of the economic benefits that a good prevention of such psychosocial risks can offer to an enterprise.

Our group believes that workers should also be informed individually of their rights and obligations by means of other means of communication than the sole work regulations.

Finally, in conclusion, I will say that the recommendations made by the Social Affairs Committee are in line with the desire to ensure a much more integrated policy of prevention of psychosocial burden and the phenomena of harassment in enterprises. Being interested in what is happening in companies is also essential for our Parliament. Finally, it is debated little, it is debated through interprofessional agreements, social agreements that are treated externally and are translated here; we make ourselves the notaries of these agreements between social partners and it is logical, this is the way we operate in this country, this is the principle of social dialogue.

But here, what is happening in the companies can also interest the Parliament, can also encourage us to act, to change the legislation and that is what we wanted to do through this committee, these works that lead to recommendations that must then be the subject of new laws and adjustments of the law, which we will take on as soon as we return, I hope.

Finally, I would like to thank the Federal Employment Administration, the Cabinet of the Minister, the departments of the House who, for six months, have worked hard on this issue and, of course, all the members of the commission, in particular the two rapporteurs, Ms. Van Eetvelde and De Bue, who collaborated, through a constructive mindset, so that we could reach unanimous recommendations on this sensitive matter.

Following the World Day for Safety and Health at Work on 28 April 2011, I published a review of the legislation on harassment at work. The evaluation of the legislation aimed at mitigating violence, harassment and unwanted sexual behavior at work was made at my request by ISW Limits and the FOD Work, Labour and Social Consultation. On that occasion, I proposed to the MPs the strengths of necessary, future improvements and new policies in the fight against stress and harassment at work.

I thank the committee for the hearings it has set up together with the experts of my administration and my cabinet and with external experts. I also congratulate the committee on the recommendations it puts to the vote here. Since the recommendations largely correspond to the analysis I made on 28 April 2011, I can only fully support them.

The work produced with professionalism, rigour and intensity by the members of the committee embodies an advancement of intelligent parliamentary work, with a real collaboration between minister and committee (and therefore Parliament), a real collaboration with the academic world whose evaluation has allowed us to provide the elements of improvement, a beautiful collaboration with the administration that has done excellent work before and during the committee sessions.

I will add that, in the troubled times we live in, to reach a consensual view within a committee, on a topic as sensitive in both socio-economic and political terms, seems to me very positive. I therefore highlight the compromise work reached by the Commission, and I welcome it.

As far as I am concerned, with the vote of these intelligent, interesting and indispensable recommendations in a fundamental problem of society, we will work to propose a draft text at the beginning, which we will discuss together, but which will implement point by point the recommendations of the committee.