sou · GUB397 · 2007-01-01 00:00:00 — ning för val av arbetstagarledamöter till styrelsen eller annat före- tagsorgan. Ledamöterna till de platser i ett företagsorgan som har tilldelats arbetstagare i skall enligt förslaget utses i samma ordning som gäller enligt lagen om arbetstagarinflytande i europabolag, dvs. av de lokala arbetstagarorganisationerna i på samma sätt som när de utser ledamöter till förhandlingsdelegationen. Organi- sationerna kan dock enas om att överlåta detta till förhandlingsde- legationen. När arbetstagarnas medverkan består i en rätt att föreslå eller avvisa ledamöter till styrelsen, bestämmer förhandlingsdelegatio- nen vilka kandidater som skall föreslås eller avvisas. Arbetstagarrepresentanter i styrelsen skall ha samma rättigheter och skyldigheter som de ledamöter som företräder aktieägarna eller föreningsmedlemmarna. Det föreslås dock vissa jävsregler som är likalydande med dem som gäller enligt lagen om arbetstagarinfly- tande i europabolag. På samma sätt som gäller enligt lagen om arbetstagarinflytande i europabolag föreslår vi att förhandlingsdelegationen skall vara en juridisk person och att kostnaderna för dess verksamhet skall bäras av företagen. Vi föreslår också en bestämmelse om tystnadsplikt och en regel som innebär att delar av förtroendemannalagens bestämmelser blir tillämpliga på arbetstagarrepresentanter som är verksamma i och som utför uppgifter enligt den föreslagna lagen. Vid bildandet av ett europabolag upplöses i regel förhandlings- delegationen genom att ett arbetstagarråd inrättas. Så är alltså inte fallet enligt vårt direktiv. Vårt lagförslag innehåller därför en bestämmelse som säger att förhandlingsdelegationen upphör som juridisk person när den har utfört sina uppgifter enligt den före- slagna lagen. Med anledning av att förhandlingsdelegationen i vårt förslag även har fått de uppgifter som enligt SE-direktivet ligger på arbetstagar- rådet kan den komma att behövas även efter det att fusionspro- cessen har genomförts. Vi föreslår därför att förhandlingsdelegatio- nen skall kunna inrättas på nytt när nya arbetstagarrepresentanter skall väljas, utses, föreslås eller avvisas. Slutligen föreslår vi att påföljden för brott mot lagen skall vara skadestånd och att mål om tillämpningen av lagen skall handläggas enligt lagen om rättegången i arbetstvister med Arbetsdomstolen som första instans. Rätt till medverkan utöver vad direktivet kräver Utöver genomförandet av de båda artiklarna i direktivet har vi haft i uppdrag att utreda om svenska bestämmelser om styrelserepre- sentation mer generellt bör gälla vid svenska företags filialer utan- för . En sådan utvidgning skulle kunna genomföras på olika sätt. De möjligheter vi har övervägt har varit ‒att föreslå en ändring av lagen om styrelserepresentation så att den omfattar arbetstagare vid svenska företags filialer utanför , ‒att låta den föreslagna lagen om arbetstagares medverkan vid gränsöverskridande fusioner gälla generellt för svenska företag med verksamhet utomlands, samt ‒att föreslå en helt ny lag för att åstadkomma styrelserepresenta- tion för arbetstagare i svenska företag som bedriver verksamhet i utländska filialer. När det gäller lagen om styrelserepresentation har vi konstaterat att den har en uppbyggnad som är så förankrad i den svenska modellen för arbetstagarrepresentation att den svårligen låter sig anpassas till utländska förhållanden. Att utvidga den föreslagna lagen om arbetstagares medverkan vid gränsöverskridande fusioner till att gälla generellt för svenska före- tag med verksamhet utomlands har vi inte heller funnit lämpligt. Skälet till det har främst varit att de båda EU-direktiv som lagen bygger på, är skrivna för en situation då det har skett en genom- gripande förändring av företaget på europanivå. Det är en situation då det under alla förhållanden är mycket som måste avhandlas mellan företagsledningen, arbetstagarna och deras organisationer. För andra fall framstår regelsystemet i den föreslagna lagen som orimligt komplicerat. Vi tror därför att det skulle vara svårt att möta förståelse för ett sådant system för medverkan hos dem som skulle beröras av bestämmelserna. Vi har slutligen även avvisat alternativet att skapa en ny lag som skulle ge rätt till styrelserepresentation till arbetstagare i företag som bedriver verksamhet i filialer i utlandet. Skälet till det har varit att det då utöver lagen om styrelserepresentation och den före- slagna lagen skulle finnas ett tredje system för medverkan och att detta skulle sakna förankring både inom landet och vid de utländska filialer där det skulle komma att gälla. Vi har i våra slutsatser pekat på vissa svårigheter när det gäller en utvidgning av tillämpningsområdet. De beror åtminstone delvis på att bestämmelser om medverkan inte finns i alla länder och på att bestämmelsernas innehåll varierar mycket i de länder där lagstift- ning finns. Det skulle vara en fördel om man inom EU kunde enas om en modell för arbetstagares rätt till medverkan på samma sätt som har skett när det gäller t.ex. arbetstagares rätt till information och samråd. Det är svårt att på nationell nivå skapa en internatio- nellt tillämplig lag för arbetstagares rätt till medverkan och kanske ännu svårare att få den att fungera i praktiken. Vidare är det vårt intryck, efter kontakter med regeringstjänstemän i andra EES- stater, att genomförandet av direktivet om gränsöverskridande fusioner inte heller i andra länder kommer att föranleda en utvidg- ning av den nationella rätten utöver vad direktivet kräver. On 26 October 2005, the Directive of Parliament and of the Council Directive on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies was adopted. The Directive regulates mergers between companies registered in different European Member States and is to be transposed into Swedish law no later than . Our task has been to propose how the provisions on reporting information to employees in Article 7 of the Directive and on the participation rights of employees in Article 16 thereof are to be transposed into Swedish law. A project is ongoing within the Swedish and the Swedish aimed at drawing up proposals for how the other sections of the Directive are to be transposed into Swedish law. Representation (Private Sector Employees) Act (1987:1245) only applies to employees working in . In addition to the transposition of the Directive, we have also been tasked to investigate whether the provisions on board representa- tion should also apply to the foreign-based affiliates of Swedish enterprises. Article 7 of the Directive contains provisions obliging the man- agement or similar administrative organ of any company partici- pating in a merger to draw up a special report. This report shall explain both the legal and financial aspects that have been taken into consideration when determining the terms of the merger and the likely implications of the merger for members, creditors and employees. It shall be made available to the members or the repre- sentatives of the employees, or, where there are no such represen- tatives, to the employees themselves not less than a month before the general meeting that will decide on the terms of the merger. Under Article 16, the company resulting from the cross-border merger is subject to the rules in force concerning employee partici- pation, if any, in the where it has its registered office. One of the main points in the Directive is that employee rights shall be protected in the event of a merger. To ensure that this main principle does not lead to the loss of or reduction in par- ticipation rights, the Directive sets out certain exceptions to it. The rules in force concerning employee participation in the where the company has its registered office shall not apply: ‒if they provide for a lower level of participation than the high- est level in any of the companies concerned, ‒if they do not provide for the same participation rights for employees in affiliates in other Member States as for the employees in the where the company resulting from the merger has its registered office, or ‒if one of the participating companies is of a certain size (more than 500 employees) and is covered by the rules on participa- tion. In the event of the rules in the where the company resulting from the merger has its registered office not being appli- cable, the Directive specifies what shall apply instead. In this respect, the Directive often refers to the provisions in the Directive supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (the SE Directive). One difference is however that the Directive on cross-border mergers does not regulate employee involvement in the form of information and consultation but only as regards participation. The rules in the SE Directive, referred to in our directive, basi- cally imply the following: Employee participation rights shall be determined in negotia- tions between a negotiating body, consisting of representatives of the employees affected by the merger, and the companies partici- pating in the merger. The places on the negotiating body shall be allocated among the employees in the various Member States in proportion to the num- ber of employees in each state. Appointees to these places are to be regulated at the national level. The states shall however as far as possible ensure the inclusion of employee representatives from each participating company that has employees in the in question. Company managements and the negotiating body are therefore expected to negotiate an agreement, according to which the parties shall discuss certain points. In accordance with the main principle, the negotiation delegation takes decisions by absolute majority. A qualified majority is needed for certain deci- sions, however. Negotiations may continue for a maximum of six months unless the parties decide to extend the period for a further six months. If no agreement can be reached, the directive includes standard rules for participation, which stipulate what shall apply instead. Under the standard rules, employees have participation rights equal to the highest proportion of existing participation in any of the partici- pating companies. The Directive on cross-border mergers contains some provisions that deviate from the regulations laid down in the SE Directive. One such provision is that the authorised representatives of the participating companies may choose to forego negotiations and instead apply the standard rules for participation as they are worded in the national legislation of the country where the com- pany resulting from the cross-border merger is to have its regis- tered office. Another provision is that the negotiating body may decide not to open negotiations or terminate negotiations already open and instead follow the applicable participation rules in the country where the company has its registered office. A qualified majority is needed to take such a decision. Moreover, there is special protection to ensure that the provi- sions in the Directive are not circumvented. It must be ensured that the employees do not lose their participation rights in the event of a new domestic merger occurring within three years of the cross-border merger coming into force. Information to employees (Article 7) We propose that the employer's obligation to inform in Article 7 of the Directive be transposed through provisions in the various acts governing the right of association that are intended to regulate the content of the report mentioned in the Article. The proposals which the will put forward relating to the transposition of sections in the directive relating to the right of association are expected to cover new paragraphs in the Act and the Act pertaining to information to shareholders or members. Similar proposals for provisions are expected to be included in the pro- posal being drawn up by the concerning finan- cial companies. We propose that these provisions highlight the fact that the report referred to in the Directive must be drawn up as well as stipulate what it shall contain. We also propose that these provisions clarify the fact that the report must be made available to the representatives of the employees, or where there are no such representatives, the employees themselves, not less than one month before the date of the general meeting at which the merger plan shall be decided on. Employee participation (Article 16) As mentioned above, Article 16 mostly contains references to pro- visions laid down in the SE Directive, which has been transposed into Swedish law by means of the Act (2004:559) on the involve- ment of employees in European companies.1 A point of departure for our work has therefore been that if our directive prescribes provisions that directly correspond to those in the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies, the provisions in the legislation we are proposing shall, as far as possible, have the same wording. 1 This act has been attached to this memorandum as 4. A new act on employee participation in conjunction with cross-border mergers We propose that Article 16 shall be transposed into Swedish law by means of a new act regulating employee participation in conjunc- tion with cross-border mergers. This act shall apply to cross-border mergers if the employees in any of the companies participating in the merger are covered by the provisions on participation. It shall also apply if an acquiring com- pany participates in a merger with a Swedish company within three years of the cross-border merger taking place. To a great extent, this act follows the same structure as the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies. Employees' negotiation delegation Under our proposal, an employees' negotiation delegation shall always be established. Most of the provisions that we are proposing concerning the negotiation delegation correspond to provisions laid down in the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies. For a negotiation delegation to be established, the participating companies must take certain necessary measures as soon as possi- ble. They shall inter alia submit information to employee repre- sentatives on the names and number of employees in the partici- pating companies, concerned subsidiaries and affiliates. They shall also inform as to whether they intend to apply the standard rules for participation without prior negotiation. The negotiation delegation shall be established no later than ten weeks after the participating companies have fulfilled their obliga- tions. The delegation's main task is to represent the employees concerned in participation agreement negotiations. The provisions in the proposal relating to the allocation of places on the negotiation delegation, its representative capacity and how the members in the Swedish are to be appointed, correspond directly to provisions in the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies. The employees in each EEA state shall be allocated a permanent place on the negotiation delegation for each whole tenth or part thereof they make up of the entire workforce in the participating companies, concerned subsidiaries and affiliates in all EEA states. Moreover, the employees in the various Member States shall also be allocated extra places on the negotiation delegation if necessary so that at least one employee representative is appointed in each participating company put forward for closure as part of the cross- border merger. If the number of employees significantly changes or other alterations are made to the company's structure that affect how the places on the negotiation delegation are allocated among the employees in the various Member States, these places must be reallocated. The permanent places on the negotiation delegation allocated to employees in firstly be allocated among the employ- ees in the participating companies in on a sliding scale according to the number of employees in the companies with one place per company and thereafter, should there be places left, among the employees in concerned subsidiaries and affiliates according to the same principle. places still remaining shall be allocated jointly among the employees in participating companies and concerned subsidiaries and affiliates, again on a sliding scale depending on the number of employees. If the local employee organisations that are to appoint members from are in agreement on a different allocation of the per- manent places, this allocation shall apply instead. In such a case, the companies shall, in their agreement ensure that, as far as possible, the employees at each participating company are allocated a place. The extra places on the negotiation delegation that may be allo- cated to employees in are, under the proposal, to be allo- cated among employees in Swedish companies that have been put forward for closure as part of the merger. This shall also be done on a sliding scale depending on the number of employees in the companies. The places are only to be allocated among employees in companies that have not received permanent places. Members from on the negotiation delegation shall pri- marily be appointed by the local employee organisation/s in that are bound by collective agreements in relation to the participating companies, concerned subsidiaries or affiliates in . If there are several local employee organisations bound by collective agreements, the rules governing the election of employee representatives as laid down in Representation Act apply. If there is no organisation bound by a collective agree- ment, the members shall be appointed by the local employee organisation that represents the largest number of employees in the companies and affiliates in . All this applies in the event of the local employee organisations failing to agree on a different arrangement. If there are no union-affiliated members, the mem- bers on the negotiation delegation are appointed by the employees in the companies and affiliates in . According to our proposal, negotiations on a participation agree- ment in the acquiring company shall be opened as soon as the negotiation delegation has been established. The negotiating period is supposed to be six months but the parties may jointly extend it to up to one year. If the deadline of ten weeks for the establish- ment of a negotiation delegation is exceeded as a result of reasons assignable to the employees, the negotiating period will begin when the deadline has been exceeded. The negotiation delegation may appoint experts to assist it in its work. These experts may attend the negotiations when appropriate in order to promote uniformity and consistency at level. Under the Directive, negotiations don't always have to be held. The proposal therefore also contains a provision that provides scope for the participating companies to decide not to negotiate on a participation agreement but instead directly apply the standard rules on participation. Moreover, the negotiation delegation may decide not to open negotiations on a participation agreement in the acquiring com- pany. It may also decide to terminate negotiations already opened. If the negotiation delegation takes a decision of this nature, the Board Representation Act shall instead be applied in the acquiring company. In accordance with the directive, rules governing the form and content of a participation agreement are laid down in the legislative proposal. The agreement shall be in writing and shall deal with certain specified points. There is, however, no requirement for the parties to agree on all the points. Similar to the wording of the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies, we propose that the opinion supported by an absolute majority of the negotiation delegation's members shall constitute the delegation's decision on condition that the members also represent an absolute majority of the employees. Approval of a draft agreement, which constitutes a reduction in the proportion of members in the acquiring company's board in relation to what has previously been the case for the employees in the participating companies with the highest degree of participa- tion, requires in some cases a qualified majority. A qualified major- ity is also required for a decision to forego negotiations on a par- ticipation agreement. When are the standard rules to apply? Under our proposal, the standard rules shall apply: ‒if the parties agree to apply them, ‒if an agreement that fulfils the formal legislative requirements has not been reached upon expiry of the negotiating period and the negotiation delegation has not foregone negotiations on such an agreement, or ‒if the participating companies choose to apply the standard rules directly without prior negotiation. According to the directive, participation can take two main forms. The first gives the employees the right to select or appoint mem- bers to any body in the company. The second gives the employees the right to recommend candidates or oppose existing candidates. If different forms of participation exist in the bodies of the par- ticipating companies, we propose, similar to the rules governing European companies, that the negotiation delegation shall be allowed to decide which form of participation is to be introduced in the acquiring company. If the negotiation delegation does not take such a decision, the participating companies may instead decide which form of participation is to be introduced in the acquiring company. Under our proposal, the employees' right to elect, appoint, rec- ommend or oppose the appointment of a number of members in the acquiring company, in accordance with the main principle, shall be equal to the highest proportion of employee participation in force in any of the participating companies before registration. Here, however, we have chosen to use the scope for limitation given in the directive. If the standard rules are to be applied subse- quent to prior negotiations, employees shall not have the right to more members on the board than is equal to one third of the num- ber of members on the board. The standard rules for participation in the SE Directive presup- pose that there is a special body responsible for implementing the participation provisions in practice. In the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies, this body is called the employees' council. The fact that the directive on cross-border mergers does not contain provisions on the of such a body has been a problem for our inquiry. Our proposal is that the negotiation delegation, in addition to its tasks in accordance with the directive, shall also take care of participation issues which, under the Act on the involvement of employees in European com- panies, shall be handled by the employees' council. The most important task for the negotiation delegation in this context is to decide how the places for employee representatives on the board of the acquiring company are to be allocated among members who represent employees from different states. Places shall be allocated in proportion to the number of employees in the acquiring company, its subsidiaries and affiliates employed in each EEA state. If the employees in all states are not represented, one place shall be excluded and allocated in a certain way. Moreover, the negotiation delegation shall appoint members to the places on the board, that have been allocated among the employees in differ- ent states, in the event of an EEA state not having national regula- tions governing the selection of employee members to the board or other company body. According to the proposal, the members that will occupy the places on a company body allocated to employees in be appointed using the same procedure provided for under the Act on the involvement of employees in European companies, i.e.