Proposition 53K3101

Projet de loi complétant la loi du 4 août 1996 relative au bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail quant à la prévention des risques psychosociaux au travail dont, notamment, la violence et le harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 31, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work violence sexual violence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Jan. 30, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr. Vincent Sampaoli, refers to his written report.

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. However, this is a very important bill that is being submitted here. It represents a huge amount of work over a very long period of time. We are very pleased with the achievement of this bill because its first major innovation consists in the translation of a flagship measure that was encouraged by the Social Affairs Committee. After a long work of hearings, in July 2011, it advocated in its recommendations the central positioning of "psychosocial risks in enterprises". These are the terms that are used in the workplace well-being and well-being policy. And this, without diluting or banalizing the phenomena of violence and harassment in the whole problem.

Beyond the fact that workers often misinterpret their discomfort at work and use harassment prevention measures to obtain assistance, the establishment of a procedure for all issues related to psychosocial risks is necessary for two major reasons. On the one hand, because the figures alone demonstrate the cost for the community, for health insurance and compensation in particular, the consequences of stress and diseases related to a burn-out or other phenomena of occupational exhaustion. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the early address of the problems of living conditions at work is all beneficial for enterprises by the collective dimension that it most often involves.

For our group, this new tool made available to workers must be understood as an additional opportunity to improve social dialogue, to enable more efficient staff management and, consequently, to boost productivity in a more serene, more efficient and respectful working environment.

Of course, one can say that this project can be improved. But, in this area and given the complexity and sensitivity of the case, we believe that this perfectable side of the case will appear itself in the light of future assessments of the law.

A second part of this bill relates to protection against violence and moral or sexual harassment at work. I would like to address six key points of the reform.

First of all, there is the question of responsibility and obligations incurred by the employer and members of the hierarchical line within the company. Through the procedures it imposes, the current law could allow for confusion in the mind of the worker and even presented a danger of disresponsibility of the person who exercises authority within the company.

It is therefore very positive to explicitly recall that the procedures available to the worker who believes to suffer a harm resulting from a psychosocial risk do not prejudice the possibility of addressing directly to the employer or a member of the hierarchical line.

Article 20 of the Labor Contract Act of 1978 states: “The employer is obliged, as a good family father, to ensure that the work is performed in conditions appropriate from the point of view of the safety and health of the worker.”

The second element joins the question of the employer’s responsibility: the obligation to take conservative measures when, in the first analysis, the prevention adviser considers that acts of harassment are sufficiently serious.

Here, the Socialist Group insists on the fact that the draft text does not say that the employer must follow the counselor’s proposals from office, nor even that he must passively wait for them. The opposite would also be nonsense, because in some cases, of course, the employer is aware of the problem. He is aware of what is happening in the corridors, behind the scenes of his company. It is illusory to think, for example, that an informal attempt of conciliation-mediation between the parties does not de facto ensure some publicity within the company.

The third point relates to the deadlines within which the prevention counselor must give his opinion to the employer. It was imperative to reduce them drastically. In the current state of regulation, this period could be up to a maximum of twelve months. Needless to say, in such a period of time, the situation of the person who is actually the victim of acts of harassment becomes totally unthinkable. This is obviously too long. The human and medical costs of a situation involving the risk of becoming structural require an appropriate and faster response.

We therefore welcome that you followed the Parliament’s recommendation by determining that the opinion should be delivered within three months, a period which can be extended only once if conservative measures have been taken. This is ⁇ a significant advance.

Fourth, the issue of designating a trusted person who would or could be imposed is ⁇ the most delicate aspect in the prevention of psychosocial risks in the enterprise.

Our Group considers that in this regard, such obligation is inappropriate, or even counterproductive, as long as a full status of the trusted person is not developed. We are still too much in the blur. This statute refers to a multiplicity of problems that the 2011 evaluation report has also long and broadly mentioned on the basis of the opinions expressed by the different stakeholders.

These problems cannot be reduced to the desire expressed by many, including the Council for Equal Opportunities, to establish protection against the dismissal of the trusted person. It concerns, first and foremost, the need to ensure adequate training, including knowledge of legislation, the need to clearly define the respective tasks of the trust person and the prevention counselor, and finally, the need to ensure that there is no incompatibility between the functions of one and the other, or even a conflict of interests between the two parties.

Mrs. Minister, the bill proposed to us transposes several recommendations formulated by our Social Affairs Committee but, I repeat, it is only when the status of the trust person is sufficiently mature that one can consider an obligation of designation and, consequently, legal protection of that person who has a very important role in the resolution of interpersonal conflicts.

As I said in the committee, the possibility for workers’ representatives to activate the designation of a trusted person is fundamental but it must be kept in mind that if an absolute consensus is not reached on this designation, then it is better to abandon this track, this opportunity.

Fifth, the compensation of the victim also constitutes a significant advance in this bill. From now on, there will be no more compulsion to go through common law, proof of damage, unless obviously if one party wishes to.

With regard to protection against dismissal, our group considers that a filter, when the complaint is filed in the second line, is all the more necessary as it will allow to better publicly highlight the deficiencies in compliance with the legal obligations of the employer and/or the seriousness of actual acts of violence or harassment within the company.

My sixth and last point concerns the financing of external prevention services.

As you pointed out, the dossier should be reviewed in its entirety and not only from the perspective of the psychosocial burden in the enterprise. The problem is obviously complex and it is related to the harmonisation of the statute of worker and employee. In any case, our group will not be able to accept that external services continue to confuse a new pricing and a separate billing for complementary services. This practice is unlawful and consists in charging excessive amounts to employers while the regulation makes it very clear that benefits in the context of harassment costs are covered by the minimum flat-rate contributions due by companies.

The Socialist Group congratulates you on the achievement of this important bill, which is not a political compromise but is the realisation of a long-standing constructive dialogue between the members of Parliament – our Social Affairs Committee – under the light of the social partners, the SPF Employment and an impressive number of experts. Of course, a legal text will never exhaust a matter as delicate as that of psychosocial risks, but it has the great merit of bringing an undeniable added value in the prevention and/or treatment of a broad and multidimensional phenomenon that our society has every interest to take into account and that it simply cannot tolerate in the case of acts of violence and harassment.

It is therefore with great enthusiasm that the Socialist Group will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, it is indeed a good thing that this bill is put to the vote here today, nine years after the first legal framework against harassment at work. A lot of work has also been done, both in the Chamber, which resulted in the adoption of the resolution containing a number of recommendations, as well as in the National Labour Council and the FOD Employment.

The need for amendments to existing legislation was written in the stars. This is, after all, a very delicate matter which interferes very strongly in the sphere of personal life. The social consequences and the associated health costs for victims can hardly be overestimated.

My group will therefore approve this bill because we believe that the objectives included and the options chosen are going in the right direction.

First, it is good that a number of definitions and terminologies used are refined and aligned with reality.

As regards the more practical development of the procedures, a number of reasonable choices have been made based on the recommendations of the Chamber. The advice of the National Labour Council was not always followed. However, we can understand this. I mean, in particular, the role of the trust person, which is limited to the informal phase, in which the government has followed the advice of the Chamber. Thus, there is a better definition of the role and powers of the trust person and the prevention advisor psychosocial aspects. It is positive to avoid confusion as regards the division of powers in this rather complex matter.

Also with regard to the protection of dismissal, the arrangement established provides a balance in respect of the rights and interests of the different parties. Furthermore, the regulation prevents exaggeration which could lead to misuse of procedures and unlawful complaints solely with the intention of being protected against dismissal.

The new procedures also testify to a certain pragmatism. I believe that the options chosen in terms of, among other things, access to the statements, access to the labor auditor, the exchange of information and professional secrecy can contribute to a better enforcement of the legislation. It is important that practical, informal procedures have been sought in relation to this matter and that no formal, logged administrative procedures have been sought which do not necessarily always result in a better and more efficient handling of this problem.

Colleagues, we must above all avoid further jurisprudence, which usually only leaves losers at the end of the ride. Prevention is the code word in this matter, which is also reflected in the draft law. It is now important to implement these new legal provisions in the workplace as quickly as possible. Indeed, one can adopt as many laws as one wishes, but for laws on employment relations, first and foremost the will of the various partners is required to apply those laws.

We must admit that the application of the original legislation in the companies was not optimal. There is still work in the store. In this regard, the announced royal decree is of great importance. I do not know whether this has already been discussed in the High Council for Prevention and Protection at Work. If so, what is the outcome of these discussions? Can you give us information about this, Mr. Minister? The same applies to the tariff system. The Supreme Council would also shed its light on this. If possible, I will also get more information on this.

Finally, I urge the new provisions to be subject to a thorough review by all relevant partners after two years and to be updated if necessary. Per ⁇ this could be included in an amendment to the draft, as it was also included in the original legislation.

In any case, we hope that this draft law can counteract bullying in any form, so that the suffering that the victims must bear as a result of it is minimized and so that the perpetrators are addressed in an efficient way.

I know that you appreciate that the Flemish Interest Group approves this bill. Well, I can tell you that we will do that.