Proposition 53K3144

Projet de loi concernant l'introduction d'un statut unique entre ouvriers et employés en ce qui concerne les délais de préavis et le jour de carence ainsi que de mesures d'accompagnement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 21, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work blue-collar worker social security white-collar worker

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Dec. 12, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present draft law came into being after a long period of negotiation thanks to the minister’s continued work. I am very pleased to be able to report on this.

The Minister stressed in the committee that the present draft is the transposition into legislative texts of an agreement reached between the government, the trade unions and the employers. All components are part of the delicate balance that was achieved. It provides a solution for the elimination of discrimination between workers and servants in terms of dismissal compensation and carnival.

A first leak includes the new regulation on the cancellation deadlines. The solution achieved includes an equal dismissal regime for all employees. The resignation is gradually constructed. The trial period is abolished. The fixed-term employment contract provides for the possibility of termination. In case of dismissal by the employee, the termination period is halved by a thirteen-week ceiling.

It will not be possible to derogate from the statutory termination periods through a sectoral collective agreement. Individual deviations or deviations at the enterprise level, on the other hand, remain possible.

It also provides for a transitional arrangement for employment contracts concluded and initiated before 1 January 2014. From then on, the calculation of the cancellation periods will be carried out in two steps. Compensation is provided for workers, which eliminates the historical discrimination against workers in terms of termination periods within a five-year period. The RVA will adjust the net difference between the old rights and the new rights through a dismissal compensation fee.

The third loop in the design includes the outplacement. The right of withdrawal is being modernized and has a more activating character. The right to outplacement is substantially extended to all workers who are dismissed and are entitled to a termination period of at least 30 weeks.

The sectors will be encouraged to develop employability measures, which include one-third of the dismissal package. This will give employees the opportunity to develop more general and thus wider employable competencies.

The next section still has exceptions. The exceptional measures cover 150 000 to 200 000 workers. On the one hand, there is a temporary exception for those sectors that currently have a notice period falling under cao no. 75 to 75. For them, the cancellation periods, determined by cao, will apply retroactively. By the end of 2017, these sectors will fully transition to the new scheme. This is a temporary exception. The gradual transition is based on the difficult economic situation in which these sectors are currently in. In addition, a structural exemption is also provided for workers active in temporary and mobile workshops. They will also be subject to the different cancellation deadlines of cao no. 75 followed by. This exception is not limited in time.

There is also compensation for employers. To compensate for the rising costs for companies with many former workers, the following measures are provided. First, the budget for the current dismissal fees of the RVA; second, the modulation of employer contributions to the external services for prevention and protection at work; third, an additional contribution to the dismissal fees of employees with higher wages.

The carnival day is abolished. Every employee will be entitled to pay from the first day of illness. In compensation, however, control possibilities are provided, which are more clearly stipulated in the law.

Finally, the other domains. The Government has asked the National Labour Council to develop solutions for the other areas where harmonisation is necessary and to develop a system for the justification of the dismissal.

At the meeting, a member from each group participated. The N-VA group stated that the bill ⁇ ins the distinction between workers and servants. First and foremost, there are still specific, ⁇ detrimental arrangements for certain categories of workers, such as workers in mobile workshops. Secondly, because, according to the N-VA group, the draft only covers two aspects of the extensive dossier on the difference between the status of workers and employees, namely, the notice period and the carnival day.

The N-VA would have preferred a comprehensive solution. The party fears that the abolition of the trial period will impair the recruitment. She also had questions about the total cost of the measures and found the activation part to be insufficient. The click system for the equalization of workers is then, according to this party, too complex.

He was pleased with the compromise reached. However, the group expressed concern about the costs that the unified status would incur for companies and the abolition of the trial period. The MR fears that entrepreneurs will in the future more often rely on temporary employment and on fixed-term contracts at the expense of indefinite employment contracts.

The CD&V Group stated that the compromise reached demonstrates that the social consultation can still lead to results. The framework agreement reached is balanced and provides for the necessary transitional measures and compensation mechanisms. The Group called for a regular review of the structural derogation with a view to overall harmonisation. CD&V also insisted that the minister assume responsibility for overseeing the social consultation so that the remaining matters can also be settled.

The CDU welcomed the agreement. The group referred to the observations of the Council of State on the exceptions for the construction sector and to the fact that the regulation gives the social partners the power to implement the law on certain points.

Ecolo-Groen welcomed the long-awaited draft, but the group regretted that the text was not clear and referred to the State Council’s critical opinion. She fears that there will be a lot of uncertainty among employers and workers, which will lead to frequent legal disputes. The speakers questioned the relevance of the anticipated derogation for the construction sector. That derogation should be limited at least over time. Ecolo-Groen also rejected the obligation to be at home for a medical check for four consecutive hours in case of disability.

Open Vld colleagues were pleased with the progress that the bill brings. The group pointed out the good federal consultation dynamics in the field of employment. This dynamic of negotiations is rather absent in Flanders.

The group hopes that the obligation to justify dismissals will not create too much administrative burden for companies.

The Flemish Belang stated that there would be no real unity status, at the very least some rot in the margin. According to the group, labour law will become even more complex and opaque than it was and discrimination will increase. They fear a legal chaos.

According to the PS, the file has dragged too long, but they are satisfied with the harmonisation of the statute of workers and employees. They said that the excessive structural deviation in construction cannot be ⁇ ined if it is appealed to the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the PS regrets that employers are allocating the costs of the harmonisation to social security through a mechanism of compensation and reduction of contributions.

The company says the compromise will ensure that all employees will be treated equally after 1 January. Compensation mechanisms are established for transitional situations. The party regrets the derogation for the construction sector but understands the particular situation of the sector. The SP also calls for a proper formulation of the reasons for the resignation. Employees have the right to know why they are fired.

In her response, the minister stressed that it is inherent to a compromise that no party is fully satisfied. She acknowledged that the social partners would still have to discuss a number of sensitive issues, but said that the central agreement reached in 2011 could serve as a source of inspiration. Among other things, for the precise arrangement of the reasons for dismissal, the social partners should be granted extensive freedom of movement in order to develop a viable motivation obligation.

The Minister also said that the medical check during absence due to illness is a compensation for the abolition of carnival and that the concrete conditions still have to be drawn up by the social partners.

The derogation in the construction sector is currently not limited in time, but the Minister will ensure that a sound monitoring takes place so that the scheme can be updated if necessary.

The Minister pointed out that the abolition of the trial period would be offset by a shorter notice period for employees. In addition, employers may also resort to temporary employment or to fixed-term employment contracts. The Minister admitted that the long-term consequences of this measure are difficult to predict. The fee for the government should remain limited to 80 million euros, which is allocated to compensate for the tsar's day.

Following this discussion, the draft resolution was adopted by 9 votes in favour and 2 against. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, the report.

Subsequently, I would like to briefly formulate a few concerns for my group.

We in this Parliament have followed the dossier very closely in the last months and have often asked questions, here and in the committee, about the state of affairs of the social consultation, about how far we were still away from a solution.

The present compromise will never receive a beauty prize, but that is inherent in a compromise that must regulate very complex measures.

I would like to share three reflections from our group.

First, the persistent belief in the consultation of the social partners, facilitated by the minister and by the government, has nevertheless resulted. Consequently, this unit status has a very broad support area. Things are compensated and solidarized, acquired rights are respected.

Unlike some of the parties that had long written down the social consultation, which have labeled the Group of Ten as a piece of incompetent, we, with the majority, have nevertheless always retained the confidence in the consultation.

The path of dialogue and negotiation has ultimately led to something that is ahead, to the regret of those who envy it.

I have heard colleagues in the committee very often, even during the last committee meeting on this draft, give a lot of criticism, but I never heard a proposal for improvement. The result will not be so bad.

It is also thanks to the belief in the sense of responsibility of the social partners and the social consultation that this result has come.

We hope that this will also give a signal for a renewed dynamic of social consultation, because we need it. There are still many challenges ahead of us, including in terms of employment, removing the disability of wage costs.

I come to a second consideration. The structural exception for construction remains a difficult point, but it is part of the compromise.

The explanation states that this exception can be evaluated. There is no “must.” Nor is it stated by whom.

Our group advocates that we evaluate regularly. If no one takes the initiative, then the government or Parliament would best take the initiative to evaluate this scheme.

Indeed, it must be our ambition to ⁇ a harmonisation of the statutes of workers and servants also in construction. The best way to do so is by ensuring that the sector regains its health, that unfair competition is eliminated, so that the exception becomes superfluous and harmonisation can also come.

A third consideration: this design is a basis. The work is not finished. A number of other elements, such as annual holidays, a guaranteed salary, temporary unemployment and a second pillar of pension, must be regulated.

The social partners have also committed to promptly put forward a proposal on the obligation to give reasons.

We rely on them to do this too and that there will be a strict timeline to get the other affairs arranged too. Mrs. Minister, maybe you can say more about this.

Finally, I would like to give you a suggestion that I have already made in the committee. Some things are not easier in the first phase. I suggest that the RVA website provide a tool that allows people to make a calculation of their own situation. That should fit into a wider plan that gives people an overview of their own careers, so that they can estimate the consequences of certain things.

In any case, I congratulate you on the compromise reached. Our group will fully support this draft.

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. We discussed it in the committee last week and I was surprised at how short that discussion actually took about a bill that would have a big impact on our companies and our employees.

In the majority parties, I only heard a whore vote in the committee meeting. On Sunday, colleague Vercamer also congratulated you on the historic agreement. However, I do not know whether we should be happy with that agreement, or whether we should fear that the Constitutional Court will issue a new judgment on this subject.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to say that our group is convinced that the distinction between workers and servants has been overlooked and that there must be a unity status. However, that statute should not only cover the right of resignation and carnival, but also address other areas, such as temporary unemployment or the parity committees. The State Council shares this concern in its opinion.

With this bill I also get a déjà vu, because I wonder how many times the unity status in our country has been resolved in the meantime. By the IPA Act of 2011, then Prime Minister Leterme and Minister Milquet have already called the prostitute. Leterme then said that he was pleased that years of discrimination between workers and servants had been eliminated and that the unity statute would make our labour market work better.

The IPA Act also referred only to the right of resignation. The criticism from the experts was also very strong. The IPA Act was complex and contained only an incentive to resolve one of the many differences between workers and servants. The IPA law did not last long, only six months. In fact, the Constitutional Court had issued a judgment placing the government for an accomplished fact. By 8 July 2013, discrimination between workers and servants had to be eliminated.

The Constitutional Court was clear. I wonder, therefore, why there is still a Constitutional Court in this country, since no one complies with the judgments of that Court. This government needed a judgment with a clear deadline to get into work effectively and do something.

If we look at the judgment of the Constitutional Court, it shows that, according to the Court, since the judgment of 1993, the legislature has been able to have a sufficiently long period to complete the harmonisation. In 2011, the Constitutional Court went even further, stating that it would not be coherent to consider only the distinction in terms of the duration of the termination, without taking into account its implications in other areas of labour law and social security.

The draft law, which is put to the vote here today, does not provide any solution to the other differences, but limits itself to the most necessary, in particular the carnival day and the right to resign. The deadline has not been met. By July 8, 2013, there had to be a unity statute. This was not there that day. This bill is limited to two sub-regions, but it will come into force from 1 January 2014. What about the interim period? I find nothing about this in the draft law and the State Council also made this comment. Does it fall under the old rule during this period? However, that old rule is contrary to the principle of equality. Or are you still planning to do something?

You can also ask the following question. The aim is to eliminate discrimination between workers and servants. If we look only at the right of dismissal, the question arises whether discrimination has also been eliminated, or whether there is still a distinction between workers and servants.

We all agree that discrimination remains. Mr Vercamer later referred to the construction sector. The State Council also literally states in its opinion that discrimination continues. Moreover, the State Council rightly notes in this regard that even a new discrimination is being introduced.

Therefore, you will maintain structural discrimination against construction workers. The reason is what it is, namely, the cost of wages. However, the current government refuses to take measures to reduce wage costs. So what do you do? You provide for a structural exemption for the construction workers. They would still fall under the old regime.

Do you see no problems in this regard? Is this provision not discriminatory? What will happen if a construction worker who is dismissed after 1 January 2014 goes to the labour court and claims that he has a right to more according to the Constitutional Court’s judgment?

You refer to the memory of explanation. However, you also know, like everyone, that the memory of explanation has no legal force.

Specifically, with the conscious article, there is a problem for the electricians-installers. They do not fall under the exception. Will this have an impact on the employment of electrical installers? After all, they work, like the construction workers, in a temporary mobile workshop.

Also in this area, for example, the argumentation of the complaint can be invoked, which is the argumentation you use for the construction workers. Also for the sector in question, it will be a hectic occupation. Moreover, there will be a shift. All or very many electricians-installers will be recruited within the construction sector parity committee.

Therefore, discrimination still exists, structurally even for a part of the workers.

Also with regard to the click regime, the Council of State has concerns. What worries me most, however, is the complexity of the click control. What does the draft law determine? The click regime comes into effect from 1 January 2014. From then on, everything is set to zero for the determination of the suspension.

The rights from before 2014 can still be combined. Freely translated, it means that in twenty years there will still be differences between workers and servants, based on the years of service for 2014. However, I think above all that the click regime becomes complex, making it unclear for both companies and workers, who ultimately have the right to know how their right to resign suddenly becomes.

The other grounds of discrimination remain. There is no comprehensive solution, which is also a concern of the State Council. You have referred a lot of matters to the social partners. There is the timeline; I thought it should be there by the end of December. It is almost the end of December. Can you tell us more about, among other things, temporary unemployment and parity committees?

What about the activation of the dismissed employee? With a new right of dismissal, this should be taken into account. After all, if an employee is dismissed, the first question should be how to ensure that the dismissed employee returns to work as soon as possible. In my opinion – I repeat what I said in the committee – the time limitation of the unemployment benefit is the best activation method. However, you did not include activation measures in the text, but refer to the social partners. They have five years to think about it.

This also applies to the reasons for the dismissal. However, it was not difficult to develop a scheme for this, without you having to resort to complex procedures. However, it is essential that an employee who is dismissed knows the reason for his dismissal. You have also referred this point to the social partners.

In that regard, the Council of State, in my opinion, rightly asks whether that conduct is in conformity with the Constitution. You outsource your powers to the social partners. Why is the Constitution here? Article 33 of the Constitution states that all power comes from the nation and is exercised in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You have the authority to enforce the law, but what do you do? You forward the activation measures and the rules related to the reasoning of the dismissal to the social partners and they must then resolve it. The State Council is very clear on this subject: that is not in accordance with the Constitution.

Of course, the social partners can exercise their advisory powers, but they cannot replace the responsible minister.

The next point concerns the abolition of the trial period. I don’t understand your motivation well. Test time is a flexibility mechanism. For companies, it is a good mechanism. Even for employees who do not yet know their job or task, it is good that such a thing already exists a trial period. If two parties are not satisfied with each other, they can say goodbye to each other in a very short time and without large costs.

The trial period also exists in other European countries, but you find that the trial period no longer belongs to the new right of resignation. Together with labour market experts, I think that will put a brake on the recruitment.

I also wonder what the cost is. The proposed measures in the draft law were not calculated, even though the cost of draft laws with a socio-economic impact must be calculated. Until today, no one knows, neither you nor the companies, how much the new right of resignation will cost.

In addition, you are going beyond your competence with your arrangements relating to outplacement, which is a regional competence within the framework of the employment agency. I would like to repeat what the State Council has already ruled.

Finally, we will vote against the bill because discrimination continues and, worse, because new discriminations are introduced. The cost is not clear at all and the legislation is not becoming simpler, clearer and more transparent, but more and more complex.

I am disappointed that you have failed to push forward a clear right of resignation with the emphasis on recruitment, though that is only part of the solution.

As we have repeatedly stated here and in the committee, the search for a solution for a single employee status is rooted in our country’s social history.

As a reminder, our labour law was entirely based on a distinction between workers, leading to differentiated treatment, and therefore discrimination. While this is of course legal and economic, it also has a particular emotional dimension. Indeed, the thousands of workers who are confined to the status of workers feel that their work is not considered at its proper value and, at least, not in the same way as that performed by others.

The jurisprudence and the doctrine aimed at determining whether the nature of a work should be qualified as manual or intellectual have become impracticable over time. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is important to note that our economy has gradually shifted toward services, the development of technological advances, the appearance of new functions. In addition, it requires qualification, training and responsibility in the work. In this context, the "mainly manual" or "mainly intellectual" qualification of these functions has become obsolete.

Furthermore, and this is fundamental, we do not see how the intellectual form of an activity would give it more value than its manual form, nor how it would be worth to the one who gives it more merit and protection.

With this bill, which concretizes the compromise reached between the social partners, a decisive and irreversible step towards ending this discrimination will be taken from 1 January 2014. Of course, the text that is submitted to us meets only partially our expectations, as it contains a few shadow areas. Improved, it constitutes a momentum towards a single status, but our group hopes there will be no longer a prolonged halt in its construction.

Several aspects of labour law, and not the least, will indeed need to be harmonised. I think, for example, of the way in which vacation allowances are calculated, the assumption of guaranteed wages, the economic unemployment of employees, the patterns related to old age, the question of undue redundancy or the second pillar pensions, which at present are clearly discriminatory to those who are called workers.

Furthermore, the new model of notice time, i.e. a smoother model instead of being on the stairs, follows a principle that is more equitable and compromising. It is in this context that the removal of the trial clause must be understood.

As I stated in the committee, it was the employees who, out of solidarity with the workers, made it possible to reach this compromise. This solidarity is not limited to time-limits for notice, but is also reflected in the abolition of a tax advantage for the cost of recovery granted to workers dismissed by 2017.

Unfortunately, this solidarity was not gained in advance. This is why we would like to pay a special tribute to them. This led to an end to a thirty-year-old conflict.

For we cannot say that the employing world has shown the same momentum of solidarity, since, once again, it is the money of social security that is being sought. In particular, I think of several compensation mechanisms, including an imputation of additional costs to subsistence insurance benefits.

Furthermore, I will not go back to the various points raised, among others, by the State Council, which attach the bill. They have been sufficiently addressed in the committee and we have expressed all our concern and concern about the future of certain provisions that leave us somewhat doubtful.

Nevertheless, I find it important to say a word about the structural derogation granted to the some 150,000 workers in the construction sector. Our group is well aware that the companies concerned are suffering from a shortage, on the one hand, and above all, on the other, of unfair competition that reaches a truly worrying proportion in our country. We have long debated social dumping and the "Department Directive" on the occasion of the review of your general policy note and that of your colleague in charge of Social and Tax Fraud, Mr. by Crombez.

That said, safeguarding the interests of workers and employers in a sector facing serious difficulties must necessarily be a transitional measure. Otherwise, the solidarity effort of the employees would be partly annihilated by a legislative anchorage according to which there would now be less equal workers than others in Belgium. The Council of State does not say anything else, but, to our great regret, the government has preferred to overlook this objection of fundamental scope.

In conclusion, our group will support this project.

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend all the work of the Social Affairs Committee on this text, being held by the work of the Finance Committee. Together with my colleague Zoé Genot, who will speak a little later, we are ⁇ concerned about the continued discrimination against construction workers. Mr. Sampaoli, you stressed this, but you will nevertheless vote for this text that will structurally maintain discrimination against these workers. What guarantees do you have to say that these unacceptable discriminations will be only temporary? What is the strength of a legal mechanism that perpetuates the discriminations for which the Constitutional Court has compelled the government, the social partners and, today, this parliament to legislate? What makes it possible for you to vote in a few hours for a law that ⁇ ins discrimination that we find unacceptable?

This is the conclusion of my speech. Our group will effectively support this bill, but it looks forward from now on because things will obviously not stop on January 1, 2014. We are convinced that in the light of the trade union and social secretariat questions regarding the enforcement of the law, abundant jurisprudence will not fail to develop and that many adaptations and modifications will not only be necessary but mandatory a posteriori. In this context, the problem of the construction sector will be settled.

I have listened carefully to Mr. Sampaoli, who did not answer my question but who continued the applied reading of his notes, which is quite legitimate.

The majority, including Mr. Sampaoli is a party, will vote on a text that ⁇ ins a regime of significant discrimination against some workers and accepts the legal uncertainty that will continue to plunge on the issue of workers and employees statutes. I think this will bring us new remedies that will mostly make the fortune of lawyers who specialize in social matters. Nothing has been completely resolved, and we regret it.

Mr. Gilkinet, I know you always think you’re right. I have known you long enough.

We well know that appeals will be brought, but this is a big step forward. This is not perfect; it is improbable. However, this is a substantial advance compared to what existed before.

Last week, the Social Affairs Committee adopted the bill concerning the introduction of a single statute between workers and employees with regard to the notice period and the absence day.

This compromise developed by the social partners was highly anticipated and was ⁇ difficult to ⁇ . I must congratulate you, Mrs. Minister, for having been able to carry out such a file that ends a long-standing discrimination. In addition, the text modernizes regulation and strengthens measures for reclassification and “employability” of workers.

I must also congratulate you for the special attention that has been paid to certain sectors, in particular the construction sector, which faces special conditions, which had to be taken into account, which has been done. This is a good thing!

However – it is always so – in a compromise, the positive sides are highlighted and the less positive aspects, the beams, cannot be silenced.

The first problem, as far as I am concerned, lies in the costs that this agreement may generate for companies. In fact, for those who employed workers, longer notice periods will result in more expensive.

I am concerned – which seems to be confirmed by a recent survey conducted by the Union of the Middle Class – that 82% of companies are considering changing their way of recruiting and using more temporary contracts and that, in the near future, recruitment policy will not be more focused on temporary work or fixed-term contracts. I fear a form of precariation of jobs in Belgium.

It will also be necessary to take the time to explain to companies the new arrangements concerning this unique status, especially in the stage of implementation of the new statutory, and not to punish too brutally entrepreneurs who, in good faith, would come to make mistakes. As we know, this measure will constitute a big clutter in the sectors concerned. The worker will be paid from the first day of illness, but in return, he will have to undergo a stricter control.

For employers, this measure will have a considerable cost, which will, of course, be partially offset by cost reductions, but it is not known, today, whether these reductions will fully offset the cost increases generated by the elimination of the day of lack.

The third problem is the abolition of the trial period. According to the explanations given in the commission, the removal of the trial period should be compensated by the reduction of the notice period at the start of the contract.

Dear colleagues, I have said and repeat, the removal of the trial period is, in my opinion, regrettable because this disappearance will deprive the employer of the opportunity to test the skills and know-how of his worker. I am afraid that this will lead, again, to a precariation of employment contracts.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this is a compromise reached by the social partners. It has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. However, we should welcome the successful outcome of this case. I would like to congratulate you, Mrs. Minister, for having been able to remove this text under the circumstances we know.

Mrs. Speaker, dear colleagues, three weeks ago ABVV Metal organized its second statutory congress at Winterslag’s old mine site, a few kilometers from Ford. At that congress, a pamphlet was distributed with the 1976 report. I quote: “Agende point requirement program: the statute of workers-servants. Here the consideration is first and foremost the differences to work away at the enterprise level. The legal differences, such as partial unemployment, advance cancellation benefits, will also be discussed. This is primarily an inter-professional issue.”

Colleagues, this anecdote is just to show how historic the bill we are discussing here today is. In 1900, it was actually quite easy to distinguish between workers and servants. Because of the socio-economic and technological context of that time, a hundred years ago it was quite easy to divide workers into workers and servants. Over the years, however, this disparity in the workplace has greatly diminished. More and more training is also required from workers. Employees and workers also work more often in the same workplace.

The law of 3 July 1978 has progressively evolved. Nevertheless, the law of 1978 has ⁇ ined the historical distinction based on the manual or intellectual nature of labour with a great difference especially in the notice periods and the tsarist day. This was also the view of the Constitutional Court, which delivered a judgment in 1993 in which it decided very clearly that the difference in treatment was simply no longer justifiable and that it was a discrimination. The law of 1978 was not declared unconstitutional, but it was called for progressive amendments.

A lot of initiatives have already been taken in the years that followed. For example, our group has submitted legislative proposals on this since 1997. Social partners have also discussed this issue several times. Since 1999, the inter-professional agreements refer to the efforts that the social partners intend to make to identify the difference between workers and employees, and the commitment of the IPA after the IPA to reach a solution as soon as possible.

We are here today, 38 years after the first pamphlet and 20 years after the first judgment of the Constitutional Court.

Therefore, it is difficult to doubt that we are discussing a historical law here today. The importance of the law derives not only from history, but of course also from the substance of the case, from the great injustice and discrimination for which it offers a solution.

The Belgian workers today are among the worst protected workers and are the cheapest to dismiss, not only in relation to the servants in our country, but also in relation to the European colleagues.

In recent months, we have heard many statements that the wage costs in our country are putting jobs at risk. But I have no doubt: if Ford decides to close a factory in Europe, then we can still work as hard as we want, then we can deliver as much as we want, if we remain the cheapest to dismiss, then it all makes no sense and we are the pineut. That has happened. This is the harsh reality to this day.

From January 1, this will finally disappear. From then on, the termination periods of workers and servants will be constructed in the same way. This does not only mean removing inequal treatment altogether. It is also a considerable simplification, both for employees and employers.

During the first five years, progressively build up. From the fifth to the nineteenth year, there is an increase of three weeks per year. The twentieth year is a hunting year, allowing employees to build up two weeks. From the twenty-first year, the term is increased by one week per year of old age.

A transitional measure has also been chosen, but it is also very clear: no one loses accumulated rights. All accumulated rights are acquired and clicked. However, to prevent workers from having to wait too long for equal rights, a gradual compensation rule has been developed.

The second major discrimination, the carnival day, is also completely eliminated.

Colleagues, our group is very pleased that the government has taken advantage of this reform to also make an important step in the modernization of the right of resignation. The agreement includes an important decision on outplacement. Today only workers in collective dismissal and workers over 45 years of age are entitled to outplacement. In the future, this right will be generalized by law. That is very important. After all, it has already been sufficiently proven that outplacement makes it easier to find a new job. That additional guidance is ⁇ a great help for people who after several years in the same job have no longer actively looked around the labour market and whose experience may have become somewhat unilateral. The generalized right to outplacement makes the protection against dismissal more active and marks a new important step in the transition from job security to career security.

On July 5th, you surprised your friend and enemy. At a time when no one thought it was possible, at a time when the deadline of the Constitutional Court came intimidatingly close, at a time when everyone began to fear legal uncertainty and great chaos, you have nevertheless managed to reach an agreement. The lack of clarity regarding the dismissal rules would have affected the attitude of domestic and foreign employers, as well as potential investors. Employees would not have been clear about the correctness of their notice periods. The absence of a scheme would have been a major threat to the investment climate and could even have stopped recruitment. All this has been avoided by the compromise reached with the social partners on 5 July.

A compromise remains a compromise, but this compromise has hit a necessary brake in the Berlin Wall between workers and servants. The work is not yet finished. It has been agreed that by 1 January, the social partners will find a solution to other differences between workers and employees, such as holiday pay and the like. There is not much time left, but now that there is a breakthrough in the two main domains, I am confident that a solution will be found for the remaining problems.

Mrs. Minister, as a trade union woman, as a worker, as a politician, I am extremely satisfied and also very proud that I can press the green button today to give the approval to this bill. There is no stronger signal to express our appreciation than a red rose.

(Mrs. Kitir handed over a red rose to Minister De Coninck.)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, the fact that we are dealing here today with the draft law concerning the statute of unity shows that this government, and in particular you, have managed to find a solution to an extremely important dossier, a dossier on which many predecessors have broken their teeth. You have offered a solution to the “BHV of the social consultation”. In this file, social consultation seemed to have ended up on a dead track, but none of it: both the government and the social partners have taken their responsibilities.

This cannot be said of everyone, Mr. President. I already said it in the committee: your dynamics are in sharp contrast with the dynamics of our Flemish Minister of Work. You already have some things on your palmares. The only thing on the palmares of Mr. Muyters is a tax increase of 600 euros per family in Flanders. Of course, everyone is palmares in these.

In fact, as the colleagues have said, what appears, Mr. Minister, is a compromise, a balanced compromise that takes into account the ruling of the Constitutional Court and in which the right to resign is indeed renewed and modernized. My group welcomes this evolution. Here we have also taken a step towards re-training and reactivation, a step to activate people, to keep them working. It is a step towards the Scandinavian working model. We do indeed make the shift here, unfortunately to those who envy it, Mrs. Demir, from a passive compensation to an activating model.

It is also important that the right of resignation be reformed.

Colleague De Clercq, I would like to hear you talk about the activation measures, but can you tell me which activation measure — I’m not talking about outplacement — is currently in the bill? For me, however, there is the same bill. I read that specifically the activation is outsourced to the social partners and that they have five years to think about it. We all know how it is in this country. If the social partners have five years to consider possible activation measures, they will follow the facts and reality.

They are against everything, but they don’t come up with any constructive proposal.

Mr Jambon, you sit here with a lot of toupet a minister who does something to play the lesson. You’d better urge your party partner, the minister of activation in Flanders, to activate a little. What are you doing in the Flemish government, Mr Jambon? You have the tools and leverages in hand to enter, for example, the Flemish employment bonus, but you do nothing, zero, nothing. Your spaghetti becomes clear. You become a little nervous.

by [...]

Let me speak, Mr Jambon. You are always talking about competitiveness and the activation of people. Well, the bill is full of activating measures. Today also shows that, in relation to neighboring countries, competitiveness in this country has increased. These are objective figures. This, of course, makes a little pain. Now you come here to start with joking questions like “where are the activating measures”? Who reformed the index mechanism? Who determined the degressivity of the benefits? not you . You criticize, but you don’t bring solutions. That is the problem of your party and that is why you will never make a step forward in this hemisphere and for the Flaming in this country.

Mr. Jambon, if you know anything about the state reform, then you know that the activation and all the measures associated with it, including outplacement, belong to the competence of the states. One-third of the pre-order is for outplacement and activation. We could register the principle, because it belongs to the right of resignation, but its concrete fulfillment belongs to the competence of the counties.

It is still silent at the N-VA. There is no initiative. Let Mr. Muyters start shooting; the only thing he has on his palmares is an increase in taxes. I would not blow too high from the tower.

Colleagues, as the Minister said, the luke outplacement is very important. The emancipation! People give opportunities, people accompany. In the past, this was limited to people over the age of 45, but now it applies to everyone. This is a step forward. That is progressive policy to give people new opportunities, not to leave them in the cold.

Some here do not know that; they only tolerate the chill. By the way, I have heard that Mr. De Clerck wants to merge CD&V and the N-VA again. The heat of CD&V and the sharpness of the N-VA. That sharpness has long been strange to me, but the fact that he talks about the heat of CD&V shows that it has become very cool with you, right? This on the side. Read carefully the article in which his son makes a call.

Mr. Jambon is now calling, because he no longer knows what to answer. He does not even listen. This is the N-VA! This is respect for the citizens! Well, in terms of the matter. I dare not insist anymore. Maybe he’s wondering what this means, or maybe he’s calling Minister Muyters to urge him to finally start shooting.

I will conclude my brief speech.

We have been talking about this issue for weeks, months, in the committee. I would like to express my appreciation for the work done. It is of course a compromise. Some parties want to go even further. My party wants it, and there are still opportunities. Indeed, we choose to make powerful achievements, step by step. We are moving in the right direction and we take responsibility.

Mrs. Minister, I have no rose for you, and by the way there are no blue roses, but our appreciation is given to you. Congratulations, keep going like this!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, when we heard that there was finally an agreement on the harmonisation of the workers/employed status, we welcomed this historic agreement that we have been waiting for for a very long time. We even congratulated the social partners and the government.

The drafting of this fundamental text had encountered enormous difficulties. We can be especially grateful to employees who have agreed to reduce a number of their acquisitions to enable this agreement to be reached.

On the other hand, when the final text, the bill, arrived on our banks, we must admit that we were less delighted. The aim was to remove a severe inequality that existed for years between workers and employees and that clearly dates back to another era but the aim was also to end the controversies before the courts and the ongoing uncertainty. Unfortunately, the proposed text will not allow us to ⁇ this latter goal.

We were hoping for a clear and legally unattainable bill. The terms of the agreement heavily discussed during the summer by the social partners were to allow workers and employees to be subject to a harmonised regime. The result presented by the government is disappointing, mediocre. It opens the door to a long judicial saga before the Constitutional Court and before the labour courts.

Far from being resolved, the issue of harmonization between employees and workers is likely to remain at the heart of the debate for a long time. Indeed, as the State Council emphasizes heavily and abundantly – I have read many excerpts in committee, I will not start again here –, many basic legal principles have been gladly forgotten by the government when drafting its text. Excess of competence, non-compliance with the principle of equality established by Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, non-compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution enshrining the standstill effect, non-compliance with the European Social Charter, the basic principles enshrining respect for privacy. The State Council is ⁇ explicit.

This legal uncertainty and the lack of clarity surrounding many provisions of the text will have detrimental consequences for both workers and employers who will have to apply these new cloudy provisions for a whole series of intermediate cases.

The legal uncertainty is such that workers will eventually be unable to clearly establish their rights and employers will no longer know what provisions to apply, with all the risks that this entails. As we all know, legal uncertainty is indeed a ⁇ underestimated element among entrepreneurs. On the other hand, there are those who will appreciate it: they are lawyers and consulting firms, who still have good days ahead of them.

Finally, many aspects of the dossier still need to be realised in order to see the prospect of a genuine common status as of 1 January 2014. Among other things, the unification of wage regulations, the unification of temporary unemployment regulations, the employee vacation breach... So the work has begun but not ended.

This outcome of the matter is regrettable, since it was necessary to implement a comprehensive agreement. As the State Council specifies, the scope of this bill is limited and leaves in the broad sense of legislation and in social security several objectively unjustified discriminations between workers and employees.

I will come back more specifically on three points. We have submitted amendments on two of them, because there are ways to do it differently.

The first is that the legislation creates a new significant discrimination between workers. This is a new discrimination, not an old one.

By derogation from the harmonised notice period and the method of calculation of notice periods, the text provides for shorter notice periods, without time limit, for construction workers working on temporary and mobile construction sites. This unlimited time arrangement creates a new form of discriminatory treatment between workers.

On the same construction site, two workers may be affected by different notice according to whether or not one or the other is considered to be – and the definition will be ⁇ difficult to apply – “workers who do not have a fixed place of work and usually perform in temporary or mobile workplaces one or more activities of repair, demolition, maintenance, etc.” A lot of construction workers are involved, and there will be a lot of discussion.

The advanced criteria for implementing this derogatory scheme are not applicable in practice. In addition, the notice periods for this derogatory scheme are very low, as anyone who would have worked for ten years under this new status will be entitled to 56 days of notice. This cannot be regarded as consistent with the European Social Charter that Belgium has committed itself to respect.

A second element that we find ⁇ regrettable is the serious breach of privacy. The bill provides that the employer will now be able to ask the sick worker to be present at home for four consecutive hours a day for a possible visit of the control doctor, if a collective agreement or the work regulations allow it.

This provision constitutes a disproportionate infringement on privacy, as the State Council stresses. The regulation does not provide for any time limitation and may apply for the entire period of the disease.

However, in many cases, this heavy pressure for the worker can be assimilated as a psychological pressure, especially in the case of burn-out, depression and others – doctors then tend to advise to move, to be active, to change ideas – or as a disproportionate infringement on his privacy. The worker in detox treatment or staying in a psychiatric hospital will not necessarily want his employer to be informed.

The third aspect is the issue of public service contracts. The text repeatedly entrusts the enforcement of the law through collective labour agreements. Contractual workers in the public sector are not subject to these collective agreements. Therefore, they will be forgotten for a series of elements.

A great effort was made and a good negotiation took place. However, the final text still presents a lot of uncertainties that will bring us before the courts. Therefore, we will have to meet again quickly enough to bring the work back to the profession.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, everyone still remembers the moment when Prime Minister Di Rupo stood shining on the side of three women, being yourself and two cabinet heads, because in extremis an agreement was reached around the introduction of a so-called unity statute. The praiseful words were diligently spread around and the flowers flew as if in the circle. Twenty years after the first destructive ruling of the then Arbitration Court, there was finally a breakthrough.

The first flowers have been wiped in the meantime, but I have understood that you have just got new ones. The fog that was initially raised around the agreement on the status of unity gradually disappeared. The horror sentiment, which was true in the beginning, also quickly disappeared when the rightful criticisms from employers and certain trade union centers came to the fore. Therefore, you will not blame me for not having a gift for you today, Mrs. Minister, because there is little reason for this.

The compromise reached on Friday 5 July did not come because this government finally wanted to resolve the backward distinction, after the trade unions had blocked the file for years and the various ministers of Labour did not go beyond some faint intentions and threats in their various policy letters. No, the compromise reached on only two aspects of a comprehensive package, namely a solution to the distinction in terms of cancellation deadlines and for the day of Cars, came only after the Constitutional Court reluctantly ignored the 2011 IPA Act, which, even if it was supposed to make us believe that a unity statute was already realized, and set a clear deadline. The outcome is not a comprehensive agreement, but the outcome of what was politically feasible, but not of what is legally and above all economically necessary.

The result is, in our opinion, disappointing. There will be no full and comprehensive harmonisation of the two statutes, on the contrary. The government has also not taken into account the justified criticism of the State Council. That criticism was not taken seriously and the bill was not updated, because – you have confirmed this again during the discussions in the committee – it is a public secret that the conditional compromise does not need much to question the total package at the slightest amendment and make the card box collapse.

However, I fear that this postponement means execution. However, in its opinion, the Council of State has expressed several fundamental objections to the current draft, including the additional discrimination that is created, such as the inequality of treatment between workers as a result of exceptional measures, the regime for mobile and temporary construction works, the criticism of privacy in disease control and so on. With this, I would mention only the objective discrimination, where already, by anyone who is a little familiar with the problem, it is predicted that ignoring the opinions of the Council of State will give rise to procedures before the Constitutional Court, which is known to be very consistent when it comes to discrimination.

In addition to the State Council, there are also objections and criticisms, and then even from the social partners themselves. Certain power plants have already announced that they will challenge these measures before the Constitutional Court, naturally reinforced by the same criticism from the State Council.

The employers’ organisations are equally reluctant, as they believe the anticipated notice periods and the costs associated with the disappearance of the carnival day will further increase the wage cost disability. This global cost increase puts great pressure on the competitiveness of companies and discourages investment and employment.

In the same context, the sector associations of the surveillance and cleaning companies have reacted recently. They fear that wage costs will rise sharply, which will lead to job loss. According to them, the rough estimate may be about four thousand jobs.

In addition, they see many uncertainties in the government proposal, which will still require a lot of social consultation.

Indeed, there is still no clarity on many points. Normally, this should be an integral part of a fundamental unity statute. Consider, among other things, the difference in wage structure between workers and employees, the lack of uncertainty regarding the guaranteed wage, temporary unemployment, the differences in the source and method of calculation of the holiday fee, the timing of payment of the wage, the unequal personal social security contributions or the reform of the paritary committees for workers and employees.

How far the approach to these issues stands, we have heard in the committee. Social partners are working on this. There is a reference to the social consultation that is underway on this subject. I have no confidence in this, Mrs. Minister, when I look at the path that the social partners have taken in this dossier over the past twenty years.

The soap around the unitary status is therefore far from over and will continue, with all its consequences for our labour market. We are indeed threatening to slide down into legal chaos and it is not, Mrs. Minister, because you hope that everyone will use their mind before starting judicial proceedings, that this will also be the case.

This is about fundamental rights and duties. This is about the salary of employees. This is about the competitiveness of our companies. They shall use all means necessary to safeguard their rights.

For us, therefore, it is a missed opportunity to finally fundamentally resolve a case that has been raging for twenty years. Especially in times of crisis and uncertainty, it is high time for companies and workers in this country to come to clarity. The business leaders fight for their competitive position and the employees, workers and servants are concerned about their jobs.

Mrs. Minister, I decide to point out that there will be no real status of unity. It will not come in the coming months either. I do not believe in that. I do not believe in the outcome that the social partners will offer.

As a result, our labour law will become even more complex and even more opaque than it was before. Discrimination will increase. The legal uncertainty has never been so great.

So it is written in the stars that we will soon again stand here for the vote of all sorts of reparation laws as a result of the numerous legal procedures, which undoubtedly fall upon us.

Our group will therefore vote against with great conviction.

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 has been said and repeated many times in recent discussions in the committee but also in recent years, especially on topical issues. But this equation was obviously not impossible. The evidence is that a deal was finally reached.

This agreement is not banal. Everyone will be able to recognize it. This is even a historic agreement. This issue was one of the most important workshops of this government during this legislature. I would like to extend my congratulations to the Government and to you, especially, Mrs. Minister, since this point is now clogged.

That said, this harmonization is not fully resolved. Indeed, it is essential to reach agreement on the differences that still need to be addressed: annual holidays, guaranteed salary, temporary unemployment, payment of salary, collective labour relations, complementary pension. If these points are not resolved, you risk exposing yourself to appeals before the Constitutional Court, and therefore to a form of legal uncertainty. Those points are, however, especially crucial.

This is also a compromise text. And, by definition, as is the case with any compromise text, some will see advantages and disadvantages, others will also see advantages and disadvantages.

It must be noted that this matter has not necessarily been the subject of the most "beautiful" negotiations and consultations between social partners, including in the last straight line. We hope that in the future, in terms of consultation between social partners, we can return to a more positive approach.

Mrs. Minister, you allow me to insist on two requests that I would like to reiterate with force on behalf of my party.

My first request concerns the necessary consideration of the realities of schools. In fact, this harmonisation will lead to a reform of the contributions of external prevention services that could put schools on the brink of bankruptcy.

I therefore reiterate our request, Madam the Minister, and I insist, because it is important to us.

My second request concerns employers of social workshops employing people not subject to the obligation to actively seek employment, i.e. mainly people with disabilities.

If the particularities of this sector are not taken into account, there is a high risk, on the one hand, of not bringing added value, of valuation to those people with disabilities, and, on the other hand, of putting their employers in a very difficult situation. In my view, it is essential to take into account this reality.

In conclusion, Mrs. Minister, everything is not resolved, but this bill is a big step forward. The distinction between blue collars and white collars was quite obsolete. I hope that in the future, this distinction will be completely erased for the benefit of effective everyday harmonization; indeed, it is this aspect that will appear as a victory for all working people.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, not so long ago I stood here on the floor on behalf of my group to persistently oppose the think-tank-Vande Lanotte to postpone provisions on the status of unity through the Constitution and to temporarily anchor discrimination through the Constitution. I am genuinely satisfied, as a socially committed politician but also simply as a citizen of this country, that it has not come so far and that there is an agreement on the table today.

You know our group is very ambitious and very volunteer, we want to keep the matter together. An agreement is not necessarily a good agreement and this applies to all themes. But the importance of an agreement should not be underestimated in a topic like this. In the end, the absence of an agreement would have caused complete chaos in every workplace in the country. Let us remember this in the discussion of this legislation.

By the way, our group was the only one who had the courage to develop a proposal on the unity statute itself, before an agreement was reached with the social partners. This is not obvious. There have, of course, been reactions, but that seems to me a logical attitude in such files, also of an opposition party that has the ambition to influence the policy. Also in the committee, in free tribunes and in press reactions you have seen a nuanced response from us.

I said it before, I want to sincerely thank you for the fact that there is an agreement. You have played a role in this, together with the social partners. Those who do not like social consultation, however, should note that these partners can sometimes deliver important, relevant and substantial agreements and are also willing to defend and explain them at sometimes difficult meetings, with entrepreneurs and with members of the trade unions. If there is some additional reform urge in the coming years and also the ecological dimension of the socio-economic reforms is addressed, we may still be able to do tough things in our country. Congratulations to you and the negotiating parties.

I have no roses for you. It is peculiar to roses that they have thorns and there are also some thorns to the accord. You are drawing the Federal Chamber List, so we are competitors; so it would be a little crazy to stand here with too much praise swinging, let alone I end up with flowers.

However, there are genuine reasons for our group, not just for electoral or strategic reasons, to worry us and not simply to bluntly scream about the agreement in question.

First, Ms. Genot has already referred to the fact that a substantial exception is incorporated in the bill, which is regrettable. It is a pity for the employees who will be subject to the exception. However, it is also genuinely regrettable for legal certainty. I refer to the State Council’s comment on the matter, which raises serious doubts about the exception.

I found your attitude in the committee to the State Council’s comment somewhat laconic. You stated that you would see whether the exception would last or not.

Mrs. Minister, do not excuse me, but such an argument is not immediately the most conclusive defense.

Furthermore, it is my sincere conviction that the exception would not have been necessary if the current government had shifted the burden on labour to the burden on asset gains and had chosen environmental taxation.

I understand that a number of sectors are concerned about their impact power and competitiveness. However, if the fiscal shift is absent and if the fiscal reform is a matter for parliamentary committees rather than for governments, then a climate is created in which such exceptions are obviously requested by certain sectors.

So I have comments on the design, which is a pity for the employees in question. I refer to the criticism of the State Council. The exceptions are not even temporary. You could have limited them at least formally in time, which was also a question of our group. The most fundamental criticism is, above all, that the exception was avoidable. If the government had implemented a tax reform, the exception in question would have been avoidable. Some sectors could have worked on their competitiveness in a different way.

Second, there will still be much to be gathered in our country about the differences that still exist between workers and servants. I have already mentioned in the committee that I would like to encourage you and the social partners to keep the rhythm and to take the moment, which is now, to work out the other differences, whatever they may be.

I hope that you, as Social Democratic Minister of Labour, will be ⁇ attentive to the balance that must be between the different components. I am not just talking about balancing in the previous part. There will also be a balance in the second part. The average employers and their representatives are quite assertive. I hope that if their assertivity turns into arrogance in the coming months, you will point out the social agenda, which should also be respected for the second part.

The third point of criticism or the third thorn on the scalp is that it is a relatively classical approach to the labour market and to the protection of dismissal.

The relationship between protection and antiquity is somewhat narrowed, but it is still very strong. New employees or employees in a new relationship are still much less protected than employees who have been working for some time. I think the need for modernization in this area could have been greater.

Fourth, our party, in total opposition to perception, is sincerely committed to simplification. It is also not the easiest or most readable agreement. The complexity, which colleague Vercamer also pointed out, is the fourth thorn at the rose of the agreement that prevails here today. I take note of the suggestion of colleague Vercamer on a simulator and transparency for employees. That is a good suggestion, but it would have been even better if one had made maximum work of a simple agreement.

The conclusion is that our group will abstain at the vote. That is the most logical attitude, because this is also an important step forward for a lot of workers in our country. However, important critical remarks must be made, which deserve a response in a relatively short term. Therefore, voting in favour would not be substantially justified.

Finally, I believe that above all the upward protection of workers and the social consequences thereof are important. This is true not only in the workplace, but in fact also in every class of our country, where one must honestly say to young people that they are no longer B citizens if they are good with their hands. Every employee is equal. Let us spread this message over the coming months and years as political leaders, each at our level. This is a very important social message, which must transcend the party boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, the FDF parliamentarians took note with satisfaction, recognizing the quality of the work you have done, of the compromise that the social partners have been able to find in order to create a single status for employees and workers.

After more than 20 years of discussions and following the salutary warning of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 11 July 2011, a major modernization of our social legislation can finally be achieved. This judgment of the Constitutional Court is also very interesting from a legal point of view; I will return to it.

The FDF has long wanted to see this distinction fall from another era of social relations in our country. It no longer justified itself legally, but it justified itself even less socially.

As early as 1993, the Court had ruled that, although the difference in treatment was no longer legitimate, this element was insufficient to lead to pure and simple harmonisation. The maintenance of the existing rules was therefore decided by the pursuit of a goal of gradual deletion due to the social as well as economic impact of the necessary reforms.

And various approximation measures have been adopted since this first judgment of the Arbitration Court at the time, the Constitutional Court today: royal decrees have been adopted on the basis of Article 61 of the Law of 3 July 1978 on Labour Contracts; a collective agreement No. 75 of the National Labour Council having the same object; the law of 12 April 2011, which testifies to an already existing political will to harmonize the two statutes.

Certainly, what is submitted to the vote of our Assembly today constitutes a compromise, but it concerns essential aspects that have been recalled, namely the duration of notice, the day of deficiency and compensation.

It is interesting to note, when reading the 2011 judgment of the Constitutional Court, that your Council of Ministers, Madame, had ⁇ these legislative developments or parity negotiations to justify the maintenance of the difference in treatment. Therefore, what is now observed with satisfaction may not have been the starting point of your government when, before the Constitutional Court, it defended a point of view aimed at ⁇ ining differences in treatment.

I am pleased that your government has made legal changes following the ruling of the Constitutional Court. This judgment is important because it has changed the legal effects of a preliminary ruling, in particular as regards the scope in the time given by the Constitutional Court to a declaratory ruling, to cite the technical term concerning the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. This decision had given a strict deadline of 8 July 2013, a date that was not respected either by the social partners or by the government. As the State Council pointed out in its opinion, we are therefore still currently in a transitional period of great legal uncertainty on the subject, and this until the entry into force of the law we are discussing today.

I would like to hear you on this subject to know what you consider to be today the legal certainty in relation to this transitional period. I am afraid that it will trigger heavy court debates with consequences for both employers and staff members.

I also draw attention to the fact – and I have heard some arguments – that the bill unfortunately ⁇ ins a number of discriminatory regimes. It is true that a careful reading of the 2011 Constitutional Court judgment could ⁇ justify them, but I am very cautious, by a consideration that says this, I quote: “Given the extensive discretion that the legislator has to define his policy in socio-economic matters, the principle of equality and non-discrimination does not prevent a gradual reduction of the differences in treatment found. When a reform aimed at restoring equality has important and serious implications, the legislator cannot be blamed for elaborating that reform in a thoughtful manner and in successive stages.”

The question that arises is what will be the next steps and in what timeframe. The derogatory schemes you establish cannot be admitted permanently without knowing their expiry date. I ask you, Mr. Minister, to clarify your intentions in this regard.

Given the extent of the work carried out by the social partners in an even more difficult economic context, we consider that this law, despite its gaps and shortcomings, deserves to be supported as it represents one of the major advances in the evolution of social law, a development that will lead to others, in particular in the field of social security where so many discriminatory regimes still exist according to the categories of employees in the private sector.

Thank you for the intellectually honest and sometimes intellectually less honest comments.

In the committee, we have discussed the opinion of the Council of State for a long time. I have answered all the questions. I would ⁇ like to address the concerns of some people. We do indeed have some work on the shelves with the social partners in the coming months, but since the two major gaps have now been solved, I hope that the partners will work with the other elements listed in a positive atmosphere.