Are public sector workers deemed unworthy of EU minimum labour standards?

Abstract

FOCUS | UNION RIGHTS OF STATE ADMINISTRATION AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES WORKERS 21 26/1 | International Union Rights | According to EPSU, the European Federation of Public Service Unions, two recent developments are in sheer contradiction with an EU minimum social standard approach, which by definition must apply to all workers. The first concerns the 20 year-old right of trade unions and employers to co-design EU social legislation. In Spring 2015, the European Commission launched a consultation on reviewing the EU directives on the rights of workers’ representatives to information and consultation on restructuring, collective redundancies. Importantly, the Commission asked EU social partners whether these rights should apply to public administrations. This was welcomed by EPSU which had long argued that the directives should apply to both public and private sector workers. There is no reason why labour and tax inspectors, law-drafters, workers in social security, asylum officers, cleaners in a ministry, could not have a say on decisions affecting their workplace. As austerity measures became coordinated at EU level, it was all the more essential that EPSU members could at least benefit from EU labour standards. On-going digitalisation including the use of artificial intelligence in the state sector also makes the need for timely consultation rights of workers urgent. Together with 17 governments in their capacity as employers in the EU social dialogue committee, EPSU responded positively to the Commission. In December 2015, both sides reached an Agreement to provide workers and their trade union representatives with EU standards on information and consultation rights on matters of direct concern to them, such as restructuring, collective redundancies, health and safety and work/life balance. The Agreement closes an out-dated loophole in the EU legal framework on workers’ rights to information and consultation. As working conditions and employment relationships had become increasingly close to those of the private sector, both the employers and trade unions agreed that this loophole was oudated and deprived workers of EU legal protection enjoyed by others. To make the agreement legally binding on all central governments, both sides asked the Commission to transform the agreement into a directive for Council to decide upon, in line with the procedures provided for in TFEU Article 155.2. In March 2018, however, after years of delaying tactics and only a few months after the proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, which reaffirms the importance of equal treatment between workers and EU-level social dialogue, the Commission took the unprecedented decision to reject the request by EPSU and the employers. For EPSU, the Commission has acted in flagrant disregard for the autonomy of the social partners protected by the EU Treaties. In the face of this unprecedented, opaque and poorly argued decision, the leaders of EPSU affiliates decided to launch legal proceedings against the Commission at the European Court of Justice. EPSU wants the decision to be annulled. It is the first time a European labour organisation takes the EU’s executive arm to court. As of today the judgment is still pending. It is expected to clarify the rules of the EU social dialogue, the criteria against which the Commission can decide or not to give social partner agreements legal strength. It is central to the so-called EU social model underpinned by EU-level collective bargaining. Whether the Court vindicates EPSU’s claim or not, the political case for EU social standards on information and consultation rights in governments will still remain to be won. Following the EU parliamentary elections in May 2019, the new Commission must reverse the decision made by the Juncker Commission and table a legislative proposal. The second development concerns the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working conditions which was agreed last February by the EU institutions. It was introduced to update the Written Statement Directive of 1991 and improve rights for atypical workers, particularly those on low and/or unpredictable hours such as zero-hour contracts. It obliges employers to provide basic information about working conditions from day 1 of the employment and provides new rights. These new rights cover notice for shift changes; payment if work is cancelled; training paid by the employer, limits to probationary periods and...