Proposition 53K2740

Projet de loi modifiant, en ce qui concerne le contrat de travail intérimaire, la loi du 24 juillet 1987 sur le travail temporaire, le travail intérimaire et la mise de travailleurs à la disposition d'utilisateurs.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 8, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

recruitment work work contract collective agreement electronic document integration into employment social dialogue temporary employment temporary employment agency

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 ¶

June 6, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Social Affairs Committee discussed the bill amending, as regards the temporary employment contract, the Act of 24 July 1987 on temporary work, temporary work and the making of workers available to users. We worked on this on May 21, 2013.

This bill implements the opinion of the CNT 1807. The project must be accompanied by collective agreements.

The project has four parts.

First component: an adaptation of information and control, as the board of directors must have a better vision of the interim in the company.

Second part: a framework for day-to-day temporary employment contracts. Successive day-to-day contracts are permitted only to the extent that the user can demonstrate the need for flexibility in order to avoid abuse.

Third part: the phase-out of the 48-hour rule for the establishment of temporary employment contracts. This section will come into force when the technical means for determining the beginning of the mission are made available.

Part Four: Introduction and Framework of an Insertion Motive. Temporary work becomes permitted in a fourth case, which is the motive for insertion; the purpose is to inform the user about the skills of the worker and to allow the worker to get acquainted with the company.

A majority amendment was also introduced to postpone the entry into force of the draft to 1 September 2013. This amendment was welcomed favorably except by the Ecolo-Groen group who voted against.

On the bill, all the parliamentary groups were delighted to see it succeed, as it is an agreement of the social partners, an agreement debated for many years and after long discussions by the partners themselves. The proposal was unanimously voted in the committee.

This is the conclusion of my brief report. I have no doubt that one and the other will bring, if necessary, their own point of view.

If you allow me, I will immediately proceed with my personal intervention.

The CDH welcomes the conclusion of the social consultation on temporary work. Yes, social consultation can work out! However, the case was neither simple nor easy a priori.

The main challenge was to find a balance, on the one hand, between the flexibility of companies and, on the other hand, the opportunity for workers to get a stable job. Indeed, interim is a form of trampoline as long as it does not trap the worker in an interim employment, therefore more precarious, for a too long period.

Through this text, this balance has been achieved. So much better! My group will, of course, fully support this text.

Furthermore, Mr. Minister, I find it appropriate to suggest you to carry out an evaluation in the coming years. Indeed, it is not impossible that in one way or another, both this project and the collective labour agreements associated with it – and which, I hope, will be implemented very soon – are adapted in order to refine, or even improve, its text.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our party, along with many other parties, has long insisted on the modernization and regulation of the temporary work and broadcasting sector. Everyone, including our party, had submitted legislative proposals on the subject. It was only after we increased pressure in 2012 and set a deadline for social partners to reach an agreement that they finally reached an agreement. The agreement is presented today in the form of a draft law.

It also took longer than agreed. Normally, we had agreed that the present draft would have been approved before the holiday of 2012. The most important thing, however, is that the draft is there, that there is an agreement and that the agreement contains a good balance.

We no longer need to underestimate the importance of the broadcasting sector. Five hundred thousand workers are employed in one way or another through the broadcasting sector. The sector is no longer to be thought out of our labour market. However, the broadcasting sector needs good regulation. In the sector, a number of things have grown up.

It is important in any case that what had already become a practice, in particular that many workers were initiated or moved to fixed employment through temporary employment, although there were still many abuses, today is well arranged in a delimited framework with good agreements. Thus, the fourth motive to engage in outsourcing work will be well regulated through the present bill.

What is also of great importance, and actually was the biggest pain point of the entire broadcasting sector, is that we address the successive day contracts through the current bill.

For the abolition of the 48-hour rule to sign the contract, a technical working group was established. We hope that you will continue to watch that progress is made at this point and that there is no reference to the Greek calendar. The abolition of the conscious rule is, after all, the closing point of the whole problem of day contracts.

You have also promised, following the discussion of the draft law in the committee, that you will continue to follow up on the problem of occupational accidents. The problem is more common in that sector than in other sectors, because people need to be deployed very quickly and often lack the necessary training or preparation. We urge you to do so too.

We find this a good and balanced design and are pleased that this is finally settled.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our group supports this bill.

There are a lot of positive elements. The four adjustments are good. I will not list them here again, because the previous speakers have already done so.

However, we can hardly call the agreement a modernization of outsourcing work. To do this, we should have eliminated more obstacles.

In addition, a European directive from 2008 obliges our country to allow outsourced work in the public sector. Until now, there is no such thing. The Government is engaged in this process, under the auspices of the competent State Secretary Bogaert, who has shown himself in favour of interim work with the government. He has repeatedly stated in favour of the transposition of that Directive.

Until now, it is still waiting for that transposition into Belgian legislation. This is a missed opportunity for us. Therefore, I call on the Government to implement this European Directive during this legislature, if it can before the end of the year. Or do we continue to remain in the selected society of countries that do not allow overseas work with the government, such as Italy and Greece?

First of all, I would like to thank the Rapporteur on this project, Ms. Fonck, for the quality of his work, which is a very good summary.

I thought that, in the end, this bill was well worth an oral report in plenary session, beyond the written report which is obviously very complete. Indeed, I have the impression that we are living in a historical moment, because debating a project on temporary work, in addition, based on an agreement between the social partners, is not unnecessary. We must welcome the honorable compromise that has been reached between them. During many legislatures, there have been enormous discussions on the social, but also political level, as evidenced by the bills that have been discussed here. The two orientations were not fundamentally irreconcilable, although honesty commands us to acknowledge that the discussions have sometimes been quite tense. Ultimately, it is pragmatism that has won over dogmatism, and we must rejoice.

Over the years, temporary work companies have become indispensable and have taken their place in the job market. Whether in terms of recruitment or for the execution of a temporary job – for example, with student jobs – interim is a well-present economic and social reality. There are no less than 400,000 workers transiting through this sector, not counting the 170,000 job students.

The debate for or against the organization of this sector as it exists today has led us to recognize that temporary work is indeed a stepway toward fixed employment. This is the goal we must always keep in mind. Only a permanent working relationship can guarantee social inclusion and cohesion.

For the socialist group, and for many years, the temporary work had to be reformed – and this, for two major reasons. On the one hand, on the demand side, we find that interim has increasingly become a management tool given the flexibility of companies. It therefore required a stricter framework, in order to prevent deviations that are always possible, for example by recourse to a workforce supposed to be immediately mobilisable or separable according to conjunctual needs.

On the other hand, on the supply side, temporary work can be, I said, a step towards a fixed job. This form of work can also provide field experience for candidates, workers, who have not had the chance to get this opportunity through traditional recruitment or selection procedures. Thus, these two principles have guided the social partners in the pursuit of the ultimately reached consensus.

The exercise was long and difficult, but I think in any case it shows that social consultation still works in our country, no matter what we say and what we said a while ago. This proves that social partners can reach agreements and work for the long term.

It should be welcomed that this agreement between the social partners satisfies the concerns of colleagues who had submitted legislative proposals for several years. This has been discussed regularly in the Social Affairs Committee.

This is the economic and social reality. On the one hand, it is true that there are a series of allegations of abuse of the approximately six million daily contracts concluded in 2011 in the interim area. Similarly, it must be recognised that the interim is no longer a mere troubleshooting service for ⁇ , but has become a full-fledged player in the labour market.

Let’s not be afraid to say, too, that companies that use successive day-to-day contracts are very often in breach of law and collective agreements that require the period of provision to be directly linked to the period of validity of the reason invoked by the user.

More generally, the repeated and often alternating use of daily and weekly contracts, sometimes over very long periods, leads to permanent instability for the worker with short periods of work intermitted by more or less long periods of inactivity – in short, a lasting uncertainty that prevents the worker from investing in a long-term life project.

Specifically, I think that this bill addresses these concerns, as it introduces the principle of the ban on day-to-day contracts.

However, this principle must be accompanied by possible exceptions depending on the need for flexibility for the use of such contracts. This need for flexibility must be duly demonstrated by the employer in precise arrangements and with control exercised by the workers' representatives.

I would also like to note that the two-phase abolition of the 48-hour rule, which was an exceptional rule, also meets the demands of our group, because it is not only anachronic in view of the range of current technological possibilities, but it too often results, especially in the case of day-to-day contracts, in contracts concluded after-shoot so as not to have to pay, for example, days of sickness.

Finally, another element of the debate is the reason for inclusion. This is the introduction of the fourth plea, which had to be seriously labelled, in order to prevent it from being a convenient alibi covered by the law to further increase the poor flexibility in the labour market. For us, there can be no question of an insertion motive that would have an insertion only the name. It is known that in fact, these motives already existed, sometimes on a large scale. Companies sometimes tend to instrumentalize the motives permitted by the current law to make them selection tools for the possible recruitment of new workers.

In such a context, it was of the utmost importance to provide for a mechanism aimed at preventing carousel effects, just as it was of the utmost importance to limit the duration of occupation under this new motif.

Our concern remains, however, Mrs. Minister, the control of this system, especially when the employer requests several interim agencies. Thus, when the user communicates to the interim agency inaccurate information on the number of interim workers who have been put to the test for the vacant position, the penalty will be uncalled and immediate, since the user and the employee will be considered to be bound by an indefinite contract.

This measure is positive but remains very theoretical over time on the durability of such a contract. We would have preferred a general measure that would automatically transform a temporary employment contract into an indefinite contract when a worker has been employed for a long period with the same user.

In conclusion, the Socialist Group will support this bill but we ask for an evaluation of the law and the collective labour agreement that the social partners are now working to finalize.

Similarly, while the gradual abolition of the 48-hour period for the establishment of employment contracts is a technically complicated measure to implement – we are aware of this possible difficulty – this measure cannot remain the same and must progress rapidly.

We count on your vigilance and proactivity, and on those of your colleagues and relevant departments, so that it will be so. The Socialist Party will pay particular attention to this.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that we welcome this text from the social consultation on a topic that concerns an increasing number of people.

We all welcome the work carried out through the social consultation. However, this Parliament has allowed itself to put its grain of salt in this text, as in the following. Parliament has decided to postpone the entry into force of the text at the end of the holidays. You will say that it’s normal, that we’re already in June, but no! It is not normal. There was a way to do otherwise. Furthermore, this is detrimental to students who, during the period July-August, will be more than 120,000 in temporary employment and will not benefit from this new text. For us, this is a missed opportunity. The agreement was signed in July 2012. It’s good and the government itself says that “it shouldn’t disturb the delicate balance that the social partners have managed to find.”

This agreement was reached by the Council of Ministers on 30 November 2012. We may regret that time, but let’s go. It was submitted to the State Council, which gave its opinion in January 2013. It was subsequently sent to the CNT. In mid-February, a unanimous proposal was made by the social partners, who adjusted the date of entry into force to 1 July 2013.

All data is known. Interim agencies have been aware of the content of the text since July 2012. Together they reaffirmed that it was possible to start next July 1st. However, in the committee, an amendment was submitted by the MR in the person of Mr. Clarinval that relays the request of the lobby of the interim sector to postpone the decision to 1 September.

If this was only an isolated case, we could not worry too much about it. But when one finds that the same phenomenon has repeated itself on the occasion of the following case, one can think that social concertation is clearly endangered. Some social partners may think that they do not need to participate because they will have the opportunity to make their arguments later and the Parliament will relay their claims. This situation is problematic to the extent that the current balances are broken and future agreements are mortgaged. This is why we disagree with the submitted amendment. On the other hand, the overall balance of the text seems to us to be moving in the right direction for a growing sector.

Mr. Speaker, our group also had a draft law ready to improve the interim work. Sp.a is, of course, pleased that this bill is finally on the agenda and that it can be voted on.

Interim work has existed for more than half a century. Originally, this was intended to solve a temporary problem within a company. Eventually, it has become one of the most important players in the labour market. In the committee we have repeatedly called for a solution within the NAR. After long negotiations, the NAR has succeeded in reaching a compromise between employer and employee organisations. Per ⁇ this is an example for those who have lost the belief that social partners would be able to make agreements over difficult files.

I am very pleased with the introduction of the motif “infrom”. The system was used daily, but had no legal framework. This system is a tool that allows anyone to be hired by a user or company. This means that the temporary employee no longer works with a temporary character, but with the intention to go to a fixed contract. Thus, it actually provides for a better protected character of the interim status.

Furthermore, there are other forms of protection built-in for someone who would like to change jobs. If one leaves a fixed contract for a temporary contract to take on a new challenge, but one can only go through an interim office to get employed with that user, there is still a one-month work guarantee. If it does not succeed, it does not cause the person in question difficulties.

It is the logic itself that the antiquity counts for the calculation of the conditions of wage and the antiquity in the company itself.

With regard to day contracts, it was finally time to stop those successive day contracts. It is very important that we now demonstrate the importance of flexibility before using day contracts.

I am satisfied with this bill, but as I said in the committee, the work is not yet finished. This is a step in the right direction.

Several colleagues have already cited that the numbers of occupational accidents among the interim workers are extremely high. We have also prepared a bill in which we ask that the responsibility for sharing the protective working clothes be placed on the user himself rather than on the interim offices. After all, we find that interim offices ask for money for those working clothes, which should absolutely not be, or dare to give them, which makes the number of work accidents among interim workers very high.

We also propose the system of meter and petership. Someone who enters a company with an interim contract often does not know the procedure and is often left to his fate.

Finally, I would like to say that I am pleased that all parties agree that the system of interim work as it existed provided legal uncertainty for the worker himself and is not a good thing. However, I am surprised that a particular party one day approves the improvement of the statute and another time calls for the introduction of mini-jobs. After all, if mini-jobs become a reality, we will be far from home. I had to confirm this with surprise and hope that we will not be involved in that story.

Mr. Speaker, in my turn, I thank the rapporteur for his work and my colleagues for their interventions.

The MR group welcomes the adoption today of this text for very long months and which we all were waiting for. We can only rejoice in the successful outcome of this case.

As far as we are concerned, we had filed a text aimed at the interim of insertion and we are pleased to see that this arrangement has been taken over by the government. Therefore, the temporary arrangement will be used even more in the future as a way of recruiting for workers. This is an additional trust mark for social partners.

Therefore, I can only be surprised by the remarks of Mrs. Genot. It seems to blame us for bringing greater legal certainty to the arrangement; however, it is indeed an increase in legal certainty of this text that we aimed at by postponing its ongoing adoption in September.

I do not see where it can conceive a breakdown of balance, nor where a bank of social partners would have won a battle over another bank. In my opinion, I find there a balance from the beginning and I do not see how Mrs. Genot can distinguish a favoritism towards one or the other.

The President welcomes the adoption of this text today. It will be voted in favour, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the positive feeling of many speakers about the proposed decisions.

The discussion on this subject has been ongoing for years. Together with the social partners and the National Labour Council, we have moved a stone in the river.

I share the concern of some speakers about the 48-hour day contracts. A working group is working on the technical modalities. The system should remain as simple as possible and be put into operation quickly, otherwise the balance between the commitments of the various parties will de facto be broken.

The date of entry into force of 1 September 2013 is necessary because certain persons must be present to negotiate the Cohes and the regulation. We discuss the text quite late, in the month of June 2013. Then it needs to be published. We talked about it with all partners. We will have to get ready by September 2013.