# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0728 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0728

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Towards a Quality Framework on Traineeships Second-stage consultation of the social partners at European level under Article 154 TFEU /* COM/2012/0728 final */**

			*

			*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Towards a Quality Framework on
Traineeships

Second-stage consultation of the
social partners at European level
under Article 154 TFEU

1.           Introduction

The aim of this
Communication is to seek the views of the social partners at EU level, in
accordance with Article 154(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU), on the content of a Commission proposal for a European Quality
Framework for Traineeships, and to ask whether they wish to enter into
negotiation as provided by Article 154(4) TFEU.

In the
communication Towards a job rich recovery[1] of 18
April 2012 (Employment Package), the Commission announced that it would present
a Council Recommendation on a quality framework for traineeships by the end of
2012. In parallel, a public consultation was launched[2] to seek
the views of different stakeholders about the need for such an initiative, its
scope, form and possible content. The
public consultation received over 250 responses, of which 29 came from national
and regional governments (ministries and agencies), 8 from trade unions, 40
from employer organisations and business representatives, 14 from youth
(umbrella) organisations, 33 from education institutions, 11 from other
organisations and 117 from private individuals. There was broad agreement on
the important role of traineeships in smoothing the transition from education
to work and on the need for high-quality traineeships. Trade unions, the NGO
community, most educational institutions, private individuals and several
national governments expressed their support for a quality framework for
traineeships.

In their replies
to the public consultation, the European social partners asked to be formally
consulted on the possible direction of action under the procedure provided for
in Articles 154 and 155 TFEU. According to these articles, the Commission must
consult the social partners before submitting proposals in the social policy
field.

The Commission accepted
the request of social partners, stressing that they can play a key role in
establishing and implementing a quality framework on traineeships. On
11 September 2012, the European social partners were invited to give their
views on the possible direction of EU action in a first-stage consultation. Following
the responses received, the Commission is now launching a second-stage
consultation on the content of the proposal[3].

This Communication
brings together the main results of this first-stage consultation as well as recent
evidence about quality problems related to traineeships. It goes on to set out options
for EU-level action. To help the social partners prepare their replies to this
consultation, this Communication is accompanied by an analytical document giving
background information and analysis (e.g. giving a definition of traineeships' types,
their benefits and costs, reporting stakeholders views, problem definition and policy
objectives)[4].

Traineeships
are understood as a limited period of work practice spent at a business, public
body or non-profit institution by students or young people having recently
completed their education, in order to gain valuable hands-on work experience
ahead of taking up regular employment. There are five main, – partly
overlapping - types of traineeships: traineeships during education; traineeships
forming part of mandatory professional training (e.g. law, medicine, teaching,
architecture, accounting, etc.); traineeships as part of active labour market
policies; traineeships on the open market; transnational traineeships.

Regarding the scope of the initiative, while the
decision is left to social partners, open-market traineeships could be a target,
given that they represent the most problematic segment. But there are
alternatives: the scope of the measures could be either widened or restricted
to apply to cross-border traineeships only, or to traineeships above a certain
duration. Another issue is whether sectoral specificities would warrant
tailoring or limiting the measures to certain industries.

2.           The
first-stage consultation of the social partners

There is broad
consensus among EU social partners that traineeships have an important role in smoothing
the transition between education and work, particularly in the context of the
crisis. In 2010, the cross-sectoral social partners had agreed to ‘promote
more and better apprenticeship and traineeship contracts’ as a key action
under their Framework Agreement on Inclusive Labour Markets. All respondents
agree on the important role of social partners in supporting the provision of
traineeships and urge the
Commission to provide financial support to increase the number of traineeships,
including by launching large scale EU-level programmes. However, the first-stage consultation shows diverging views
regarding the need for an EU initiative, its scope, the form such an initiative
should take and the main quality elements that the initiative could cover.

Trade
unions consider EU action on
traineeships ‘absolutely necessary’. ETUC[5]
is very concerned about the large number of young people who linger in
traineeship positions, sometimes for several years. All too often, these young
people have neither a clear status nor any entitlement to social protection and
earn far less than the minimum wage. In other words, they provide a service
equivalent to that of an employee but without any comparable benefit. Therefore
ETUC insists that, to address these issues, a quality framework should
be laid down in legislation or in a collective agreement. ETUC agrees
with the Commission’s analysis/definition of the quality elements laid down in
the consultation document (traineeship contract, clear objectives and content,
limited duration, adequate social security/remuneration etc.) and underlines
that social partners must be actively involved in this process at every stage
and at every level. ETUC also highlights the need to monitor compliance
with a future quality framework.

Employer
organisations adopt a more
sceptical stance and underline the need to clearly distinguish traineeships
from apprenticeships. BusinessEurope questions whether the need for an EU
initiative is justified. Employer organisations accept that there may be
quality concerns regarding some traineeships, but in their view, such concerns should
be addressed at national or regional level. They argue that the EU does not
have sufficient competence, particularly on the issue of remuneration.

BusinessEurope
argues that remuneration and social protection issues may not fall under EU
competence and, in any case, small businesses would have problems applying
them. Although it is acknowledged that traineeships offer significant
advantages for SMEs (in particular the possibility of screening potential
future employees, recruiting and retaining high-skilled workers and enhancing their
corporate image at relatively low cost), UEAPME[6]
underlines that small businesses face particular difficulties when offering
traineeship placements due to relatively higher levels of costs. CEEP[7] favours an EU-level
quality framework in the form of a set of overarching principles.

BusinessEurope
and UEAMPE cite the need to keep the framework sufficiently flexible to accommodate
the diversity of national systems and practices. Concerns are raised about
traineeship schemes becoming overburdened with too many legal or administrative
procedures that could discourage companies from taking on trainees, thus
depriving young people of valuable work experience opportunities.

There is
a broad agreement that most reported problems concern open-market traineeships
and several organisations (including many, but not all, employer organisations)
suggest limiting the framework to open-market traineeships.

At the Social
Dialogue Committee meeting of 23 October 2012, BusinessEurope, CEEP
and UEAPME expressed the readiness of EU employers to start discussions
on traineeships as part of the EU social partner autonomous negotiations on a
Framework of Action on Youth Employment. ETUC explained that, while it
is fully committed to participate in the EU social partners negotiations on the
Framework of Action and it welcomed the Commission’s initiative to work towards
a quality framework for traineeships, it considered that the discussions under
the Framework of Action are not, at this stage, the appropriate place for
negotiations on traineeships under Article 154 TFEU. Both sides highlighted
that the positions they expressed at the stage of the first consultation do not
prejudge their positions at the stage of a (possible) second consultation.

3.           Problems
related to traineeships

Despite the fact that traineeships have a number
of benefits not only for trainees, but also for employers, and society as a
whole, all the EU institutions have voiced concerns about the effectiveness,
availability and quality of traineeships. In 2010, the European Parliament
adopted a resolution calling specifically for better and secured traineeships
and for a European quality charter setting out minimum standards for
traineeships to ensure their educational value and avoid exploitation[8]. In April 2012, the
European Commission announced in the Employment Package[9] a proposal for a quality
framework on traineeships by the end of 2012. In June 2012, the European
Council concluded that ‘it is crucial to address youth unemployment, in
particular through the Commission’s initiatives on youth guarantees and the
quality framework for traineeships’[10].

The high level of political attention is due to the fact that a substantial
share of traineeships suffer from problems such as an insufficient learning
content, no or low compensation, unsatisfactory terms and conditions on arrangements
other than remuneration/compensation, (such as substandard working conditions).
There are also problems related to the low level of intra-EU mobility for
trainees[11].

In all Member States, youth unemployment rates are much higher than
for the rest of the working age population —– on average twice as high. This is
due to a number of reasons, in particular the lack of work experience of new
entrants in the labour market. This emphasises the importance of traineeships in
smoothing the transition from education to work and, ultimately, in helping to bring
down youth unemployment. An effective quality framework should provide
guidelines to help employers set up more traineeships that both benefit their
business and give trainees a good stepping stone into the labour market.

On the other hand, low-quality traineeships that do not boost the
trainee’s employability, that do not offer a minimum level of protection and
that are used as a low-cost replacement for existing jobs can discourage young
people from investing in traineeships and can distort the labour market. In a
number of Member States, it is not compulsory to have a traineeship contract
specifying the rights and obligations of the parties, meaning that some
trainees (as much as 25 % according to a 2011 survey by the European Youth
Forum) have no written contractual links to their host organisation.

Regarding
compensation and remuneration, the provision of high-quality training
represents a cost for the employer. Nevertheless, remuneration constitutes an
important quality element. Lack of compensation in a large share of
traineeships raises concerns about equity of access, as those from a less
privileged background may be effectively excluded from them.

A further problem
is the expansion of successive traineeships, whereby a young person sometimes has
to take up several traineeships before entering the labour market. According to
the EYF survey, 37 % of respondents completed three or more traineeships. Low
or no pay combined with the extension of successive traineeships also raises concerns
about employers using traineeships as a form of unpaid employment.

Currently, relatively
few young people complete a traineeship in another country. A 2011
Eurobarometer survey showed that 53 % of young people in Europe are
willing or keen to work in another EU Member State.[12]

The main barriers
identified to organising cross-border mobility are linked to the lack of
transparent and easily accessible information on the legal and administrative
conditions and the difficulty of finding host organisations where a good match
can be found between the trainee’s profile and the needs of the organisation. The
lack of information about the quality of traineeships is indeed more acute for cross-border
traineeships. The Traineeship study identified large differences in labour
market and traineeship regulation across Member States. The lack of foreign
trainees’ awareness of local conditions makes understanding and enforcing their
rights more of a challenge.

The interest shown
by young people in working abroad, and the concurrent low share of
international traineeships suggest that uncertainties about working conditions
abroad may be playing an important (negative) role. If a young person does not
know what he or she can expect in terms of conditions, learning, social
protection, remuneration etc. in a foreign placement, his/her willingness to
participate will be limited. This means a lost opportunity for the trainee (and
later worker) both in terms of new skills and experience. and constitutes an
obstacle to mobility within the EU.

4.           Need
for EU action on Traineeships

Given the situation
of young people in the EU labour market and the problems described above, there
is an urgent need to improve the quality of traineeships by mobilising social
partners and by providing guidance to Member States. It is necessary to address
high levels of youth unemployment and to reduce mismatches in the European
labour market by facilitating education-to-work transition and lifting
obstacles to mobility. This Communication is adopted as
part of the Youth Employment Package that includes initiatives on a youth
guarantee, mobility and apprenticeships[13].

In the 2012
European Semester, 22 Member States received country-specific recommendations
specifically aimed at improving the situation of young people in the labour
market[14].
High-quality traineeships help boost the employability of young people and are
important stepping stones in the progression to regular employment.

EU
action will support Member States in implementing Europe 2020 employment
guideline nr 8, in particular 'enacting schemes to help recent graduates find
initial employment or further education and training opportunities'. Furthermore,
the definition of internationally accepted quality standards can be faster if
supranational institutions adopt a coordinating and supporting role. The EU is
best placed for this, as there seems to be little or no movement towards
spontaneous development of international quality standards. An EU-wide solution
would also have clear benefits in terms of intra-EU mobility of trainees and
would contribute to achieving a more integrated EU labour market. The promotion of trainees' geographic mobility within the EU will help
drive down structural unemployment, given that there are marked skill and
demand/supply mismatches in the European labour market. Developing cross-border
traineeships is a key tool to achieve this. Young people who consider training
in another EU Member State should have a clear reference point to enable them
to check quality criteria and avoid them getting discouraged by uncertainty
about administrative formalities, legal concerns or contractual obligations. An EU-level approach is also a pre-condition,
operationally, for extending EURES to apprenticeships and traineeships, as
requested by the European Council of June 2012[15].

5.           Avenues
for EU action

The
Commission has identified possible avenues for EU action, on which it would
like to seek the views of social partners, including with regard to the
possible initiation of negotiations between them. All avenues for EU action –
which can be combined – are detailed in the accompanying analytical document.

Currently,
the opinions expressed by EU social partners during the
first-stage consultation differ on the content and the form of such an
initiative.

5.1.        Quality
Framework for Traineeships

The
Commission announced in the Employment Package of April 2012[16] a proposal for a quality framework for traineeships.
Regarding the choice of the quality elements to be adopted, the Commission has
identified a number of principles that characterise good quality traineeships,
on the basis of the traineeship study and the replies to the open consultation
and to the first stage consultation. Although these principles seem to have
general validity, they could be adapted to the type of occupation/sector and reflect
the size of the host organisation. The compliance burden
for SMEs should be taken into account, as small and particularly micro-enterprises may
face greater difficulty in providing trainees with the same level of mentoring (or
other support) as larger organisations. Furthermore, the level of protection offered to trainees should not be
greater than that for employees.

The
following elements should be considered for inclusion in the framework:

–
Traineeship agreement: The starting point for the quality framework is the conclusion of a
traineeship agreement. A good-quality traineeship should be based on a written
agreement between the trainee and the host organisation (and possibly with the
training organisation) that covers aspects such as the professional and learning
objectives, the duration, the daily/weekly working time and, where applicable,
social security and remuneration/compensation.

–
Transparency of information: Rights and obligations of the trainee, the employer and, where
applicable, the educational institution. Up-to-date information on legal and
other provisions applicable at European and national level should be easily
available in a comparable format to all parties involved in organising and
taking up traineeships. The difficulty of accessing reliable and complete
information on these provisions across all Member States is one of the major
obstacles to organising cross-border traineeships.

–
Objectives and content: Traineeships should enable the trainee to acquire skills in the
workplace complementary to his or her theoretical studies. The main purpose of
traineeships is to increase the employability of young people and their career
development. To increase the employability of the trainee, it is important to
have well-defined objectives and a high quality learning content..

–
Guidance and recognition: Educational content should be ensured by assigning a personal
supervisor or mentor at the host organisation to each trainee. A supervisor
should guide the trainee through the assigned tasks, monitor progress, and
explain general work processes and techniques. The supervisor should evaluate
the trainee’s performance at the end of his/her traineeship, which may take the
form of a letter of reference. A final evaluation containing aspects such as the
duration, the educational content, the tasks performed, the knowledge, skills
and competences acquired and a performance assessment, should ensure the proper
recognition of the traineeship.

–
Duration:
Open-market traineeships should typically not be longer than a specified
period, for example six months, to ensure that traineeships are not replacing
regular jobs. Mandatory post-graduation professional training (e.g. for
doctors, lawyers, teachers) should be exempted as these traineeships tend to be
highly regulated. A similar category is the in-company ‘traineeship programmes’
for recruitment at higher levels of management in order to prepare trainees for
a high-level career in the enterprise.

–
Successive traineeships: The limitation of successive traineeships with the same employer
should be addressed, e.g. by restricting the possibility of a new traineeship
agreement between the same parties within a certain period (e.g. 12 months)
following the expiry of the previous agreement.

–
Social security provisions: Social protection coverage should be clarified between the trainee
and the host organisation. This includes health insurance and insurance against
accidents at the workplace. If the trainee is not a student[17], the host organisation and the trainee need to fulfil insurance obligations
as stipulated by labour law in that country. Alternatively, the contractual
arrangement could provide for insurance schemes to be paid by the host
organisation or the trainee.

–
Remuneration/cost compensation: If there is a mutual benefit for both the host organisation and
the trainee in terms of knowledge transfer and learning, an unpaid traineeship
may be appropriate. Therefore, a guideline on remuneration/compensation should
stipulate that the written traineeship agreement specifies clearly what, if any,
compensation or remuneration is offered, noting the role that remuneration /
cost compensation can play in ensuring access to quality traineeships, and ultimately
to certain professions, to (young) people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

–
Partnership approach: In order to increase the number of high-quality traineeships,
employers and host organisations should step up cooperation with public employment
services (including through the EURES network), other public authorities,
educational and training institutions and other employers to better exploit
synergies, reduce costs, share best practices, improve the matching with
potential trainees and so forth.

Such a quality
framework could be limited to open-market traineeships and take the form of a recommendation
(based on Articles 292, 153 TFEU) as announced in the Employment Package.

5.2.        Quality label for
traineeships

Another option would be to issue a quality label
to host organisations, educational institutions, employment services and/or
other relevant actors that comply with the quality framework or with a more
limited set of quality principles. A quality label for specific sectors could
also be considered.

Various solutions are possible. To achieve
minimal compliance costs, the quality label could be awarded to organisations
committing to the quality principles without requiring advance inspection or
screening, on the understanding that duly justified complaints could lead to
the withdrawal of the label. This would allow the label to be managed by a
small external office or a stakeholder organisation. A quality label would be a
non-regulatory solution to quality issues. However, the risk of this approach is
that only a few organisations may apply for the label, particularly as at current
demand for traineeships outstrips supply. Furthermore, many of those that apply
are likely to be those that already offer high-quality traineeships, therefore it
would not address the problem fully.

5.3.        Creation of an information
website

A further option is to set up a website with a
traineeship panorama (containing regularly updated information on traineeship
conditions and the legal framework in each Member State – possibly in the
context of the EURES portal). A properly designed, user-friendly website would
allow easier access to information on national legislation of traineeships and
on the availability of different types of traineeships in Member States. This
would reduce search costs for trainees, could improve matching and could also
have a positive effect on increasing the availability of candidates for cross-border
traineeships. On the other hand, it could have a
limited impact on traineeship quality. The website would address the problem of the lack of general
information on standards, but it would not be able to systematically provide
information on the quality of specific traineeship positions on offer, it would
be dependent on a module where trainees or ex-trainees could leave subjective
feedback about specific traineeship positions.

5.4.        Impact of options

All avenues for EU action will have an impact,
as indicated in the accompanying analytical document. The Commission would
appreciate the social partners’ views on the impact of the proposed options.

6.           Next steps

A quality framework
could be instrumental in improving the quality of traineeships in the EU. It
would encourage host organisations to offer more traineeships providing a high
quality learning content, decent working conditions and representing real
stepping stones to enter the labour market.

The Commission
will take into account the results of this consultation in its further work to
improve the quality of traineeships. In particular, it may suspend such work if
the social partners decide to negotiate between themselves on matters with a
sufficiently wide scope. Otherwise, it will proceed to adopt an EU initiative on
a quality framework for traineeships, supported by an impact assessment.

7.           QUESTIONS TO THE SOCIAL
PARTNERS

The Commission therefore seeks the views of
the social partners on the following questions, and on their assessment of the
impact of the preferred option:

1.           Do you consider that the
option set out in section 5.1

–
could provide an acceptable framework for
addressing the concerns expressed in your replies to the first stage consultation?

–
should be limited to open-market traineeships,
or should it cover all types of traineeships?

2.           What are your views on the
other options set out in sections 5.2 and 5.3?

3.           Are the EU social
partners, at cross-industry or sectoral level, willing to enter into
negotiations on the basis of the elements set out in section 5.1 of this
communication with a view to concluding an agreement on a quality framework for
traineeships under Article 155 TFEU?

[1]               COM(2012) 173 final.

[2]               SWD(2012) 99 final.

[3]               The possible outcomes of this procedure are the
following: social partners can enter into negotiations, and may reach an
autonomous agreement or they may ask the Commission to make a legislative
proposal based on their agreement. If social partners fail to agree or decide
not to negotiate, the Commission has to assess the situation and decide whether
to present its own proposal.

[4]               SWD(2012) 407 of 5 December 2012.

[5]               European Trade Union Confederation.

[6]               European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises.

[7]               European Centre of Employers and Enterprises
providing Public services.

[8]               EP 2009/2221(INI), 14.6.2010.

[9]               COM(2012) 173, 18.4.2012.

[10]             EUCO 76/12, 28-29 June 2012 .

[11]             European Commission (2012): Study on a comprehensive
overview on traineeship arrangements in Member States (henceforth ‘the
Traineeships study’).

[12]             The experience acquired in the Erasmus and Leonardo da
Vinci programmes demonstrates that many students are keen to take up a
traineeship abroad as the demand from potential trainees by far exceeds the
available budget.

[13]             COM(2012) 727 of 5 December 2012

[14]             A detailed overview of youth-specific recommendations
can be found in Annex II of SWD(2012) 406 of 5 December 2012.

[15]             EUCO
76/12, 28-29 June 2012.

[16]             COM(2012) 173, 18.4.2012.

[17]             In most Member States, students are provided with
social protection by the state or their educational institution, i.e. they are
insured against health risks and accidents while undertaking traineeships
during their studies.