6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/47 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on parental leave and leave for family 
reasons 
(84/C 206/15) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 12 December 1983 the Council, acting in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty 
setting up the European Economic Community, asked the Economic and Social Com­
mittee for an opinion on the abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 1984 in the light of the 
report by Mr Michael T. Fuller. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 24 May 1984, the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes to 53, with eight abstentions (vote 
recorded). 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The declared aim of the draft Directive is to 
establish minimum standards on parental leave and 
leave for family reasons throughout the European 
Community. The Committee accepts that some legal 
homogeneity as proposed by the Commission is 
desirable, more particularly in order to comply with 
existing Community law on equal treatment of men 
and women. It further believes in this connection 
that the Commission's proposals will provide 
increased equality of opportunity in employment 
and could, over time, lead to a greater sharing of 
family responsibilities. 
The Committee notes that the Commission propo­
sals also take into consideration ILO Convention 
No 156 and Recommendation No 165 of 1981, 
reached at international level on 'Equal opportuni­
ties and treatment for workers of both sexes: Work­
ers with family responsibilities', which awaits ratifi­
cation by most Member States. 
1.2. The draft Directive is consonant with the reso­
lution of the European Parliament on the 'Situation 
of women in the European Community' and with 
the Committee's opinion (') on the 'New Com­
munity action programme on the promotion of 
equal opportunities for women (1982 to 1985)'. 
1.3. In its opinion on the 'New Community action 
programme on the promotion of equal opportunities for women', the Committee broadly welcomed the 
Commission's communication to the Council recog­
nizing that the action programme proposed practical 
measures in the areas in which discrimination 
against women is most pronounced. In addition, in 
its opinion (2) on the Commission's communication 
to the Council concerning 'Equality of treatment of 
men and women in matters of employment', the 
Committee proposed a number of Community-level 
measures and called on the Commission to take 
account of the following factors, amongst others, in 
future proposals: 
— harmonization of the laws to protect working 
mothers, 
— statutory maternity/paternity leave, and 
— conditions making it easier for workers to fulfill 
their family responsibilities. 
1.4. Further, in its own-initiative opinion on the 
'Economic and social situation of women in the 
European Community' issued in 1976, the Com­
mittee stated, that 'women must be placed in a posi­
tion where they can freely choose between gainful 
employment and work in the home, or can combine 
the two if they wish, and where they can fully exer­
cise their economic, social and political responsibili­
ties (3). 
(') OJ No C 178, 15.7. 1982. (2) OJNoC286, 15. 12. 1975. 
(3) OJ No C 131, 12.6. 1976, p. 34. 
No C 206/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 6.8.84 
1.5. More recently, in its resolution on 'Family 
policy', the European Parliament has stated that 
priority should be given by the European Com­
munity to the development of parental leave. 
1.6. The Committee has a number of general and 
specific comments on the draft Directive. These are 
set out below. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee considers that it is desirable to 
establish minimum statutory provisions on parental 
leave and leave for family reasons as proposed by 
the Commission — these are regarded as basic rights 
and should extend to all employees whether or not 
covered by collective agreements. The Committee 
considers that these rights must be guaranteed by a 
Directive. 
2.2. The Committee notes that the Commission 
invokes Article 100 as providing the legal basis for 
its proposals. Differences between the Member 
States in provisions for parental leave or leave for 
family reasons 'risk hindering the establishment and 
disrupting the functioning of the common market'. 
2.3. The Committee subscribes to the view that, 
more particularly bearing in mind the increased 
number of women combining paid work with rais­
ing a family, and changed attitudes to the division 
of responsibilities for bringing up children at an 
early age, measures need to be taken to recognize 
some of the problems facing young parents. The re­
sponsibility of the work place which was previously 
largely the man's, and the responsibility for manag­
ing the home which used to devolve largely on the 
woman, have more recently become intermeshed, 
and it is therefore understandable that measures are 
being proposed to make arrangements for men and 
women to be able to discharge professional and 
domestic responsibilities in parallel and without 
conflicts of loyalty. The beneficial effects of such 
measures for society as a whole need to be taken 
into account. 
Whilst it is right to assist responsible parents to fulfil 
satisfactorily both their duties at work and their par­
ental obligations, the Committee would draw atten­
tion to changes inherent in the Commission's pro­
posals on job opportunities for young people of 
reproductive age, as long as the present economic 
constraints on labour costs persist. Such measures 
run the risk of leading employers to concentrate their recruitment in an unbalanced way on an older 
age group. 
Absence from work by people of reproductive age 
often coinciding with that period in their careers 
when they are beginning to shoulder increased re­
sponsibilities creates problems for employers. More­
over, while the Committee recognizes that payment 
for parental leave is left to be determined by the 
Member States, and if provided, ought to be an 
allowance paid from public funds, and not a charge 
on employers, nevertheless additional indirect costs 
are likely to be incurred by employers in terms of 
economic and administrative disruption and incon­
venience and possibly the need to, and difficulties 
of, recruiting and training temporary replacements 
for those on leave. These difficulties are likely to be 
exacerbated in the context of small undertakings or 
establishments, for which possible forms of com­
pensation ought to be looked into. 
Moreover, the Committee considers that there could 
be further indirect costs both for employers and 
employees, at least in some countries, given the 
Commission's proposal that periods of parental 
leave are to be credited in the same manner as 
periods of maternity leave for the purposes of social 
security insurance. But perhaps it should also be 
pointed out that if parental leave encourages par­
ents to enlarge their families it will go some way to 
ameliorate the present unfavourable demographic 
trends in most Member States, which if they turn out 
as currently predicted will place a severe burden on 
the financing of old-age pensions. 
It is possible that some of these indirect costs could 
be off-set by recruitment of trainees or other catego­
ries not requiring the same level of payment as the 
parent on leave. Parental leave could also be a more 
cost effective way of facilitating not only a return to 
work but also a return on training investment than is 
now often the case where previously employed 
women do not, or cannot, always return to work 
after motherhood. 
2.4. The Commission states that 'given the diffi­
culties in the present economic context, this propo­
sal takes due note of the problems raised by the high 
level of social costs in the Community and the 
necessity for the Member States to follow increas­
ingly strict budgetary practices'. Some employers 
may find it impracticable to replace parents on leave 
6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/49 
during their temporary absence in particular when 
specialist skills or expertise are needed. It must not 
therefore be assumed that allowances paid out of 
public funds will necessarily be fully balanced by 
savings in social security affairs. 
2.5. The Committee stresses that the provision of 
parental leave should not prejudice the develop­
ment of public child care facilities which in many 
Member States are regarded as providing practical 
assistance to working parents. The Committee 
emphasizes the importance of maintaining and 
promoting such public child care facilities in addi­
tion to developments in parental leave. Parental 
leave should complement, not undermine such facil­
ities. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 4 
It is not clear in Article 4.1 in what circumstances a 
parent would be regarded as having 'sole or princi­
pal charge' of his or her child. 
Article 4.4 is illogical. A minimum entitlement can 
always be extended. Article 4.5 should state that, in the case of an 
adopted child, parental leave is available during the 
first two years of adoption provided that the child is 
under five. 
3.2. Article 5 
Article 5.4 should be modified as follows: 
'Parental leave shall be suspended in the event 
of a disabling accident or illness of the parent on 
leave within the limits of Article 4.5.' 
The provision might otherwise be insufficient as 
well as open to abuse. 
As already noted, Article 5.6 might result in addi­
tional social insurance costs. 
3.3. Article 6 should read as follows: 
'During parental leave workers shall be granted 
a parental leave allowance.' 
3.4. Article 8 
Article 8.2 should be deleted. 
Done at Brussels, 24 May 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX 1 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the opinion: 
Messrs Amato, Beretta, Berger, Boddy, Bonety, Bordes-Pages, Bornard, Brassier, Briganti, Burnel, 
Carroll, Cavazzuti, Chalioris, Colle, Cremer, Curlis, Dassis, Dassoulas, De Bruyn, De Grave, 
d'Elia, Delia Croce, Delourme, Drago, Dunet, Eelsen, Emo Capodilista, Mrs Engelen-KefeT, 
No C 206/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
Messrs Etty, Flum, Glesener, Mrs Gredal, Messrs van Greunsven, Hammond, Hadjivassiliou, 
Mrs Heuser, Messrs Hilkens, Houthuys, Jarvis, Jaschick, Jenkins, Kirschen, Kitsios, Law, 
Lojewski, Masucci, Meraviglia, Milne, Mols Sorensen, Morselli, Mourgues, Muhr, Murphy, Niel­
sen B., Mrs Nielsen M., Messrs Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Ognibene, Mrs Patterson, Messrs Plank, 
Pronk, Querleux, Mrs Quigley, Messrs Raftopoulos, Rainero, Ramaekers, Mrs Rangoni-Machia-
velli, Messrs van Rens, Rouzier, Roycroft, Schneider, Schoepges, Smith A., Smith L., Soulat, Spa-
chos, Mrs Strobel, Messrs Spijkers, Tixier, Vanden Broucke, Vassilaras, Ventejol, Vercellino, Mrs 
Weber, Mrs Williams, Messrs Yverneau, Zoli. 
The following members, voting in person or through their replacements, were against the 
opinion: 
Messrs Antonsen, Arena, Bagliano, Bernasconi, Berns, Binnenbruck, Bos, Mrs Bredima, Messrs 
Breitenstein, Broicher, Cammann, Campbell, Cashman, De Bievre, De Tavernier, Dracos, For-
tuyn, Fuller, Goris, Hemmer, Hovgaard Jakobsen, Kelly, Kenna, Kiibler, Loughrey, Low, Mar-
got, Marvier, Masprone, Muller, Noordwal, de Normann, Paggi, Pearson, Poeton, Regaldo, Rom-
oli, Schnieders, Schwarz, Sir George Sharp, Messrs Stahlmann, Staratzske, Storie-Pugh, Storm 
Hansen, Strauss, Swift, Tamlin, Van der Mensbrugghe, Van Melckenbeke, Van der Veen, Wick, 
de Wit, Zinkin. 
The following members, voting in person or through their replacements, abstained: 
Messrs de Caffarelli, von der Decken, Kolble, Lauga, Laur, Monier, Roseingrave, Vasseur. 
APPENDIX 2 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments to the Section opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Proce­
dure, were rejected during the Committee's debate: 
Replace the Section opinion by the following text: 
'The Committee requests the Commission to withdraw the proposal for a Council Directive 
on parental leave and leave for family reasons, 
Reasons: 
In the present economic situation, in which social security systems in the Member States are 
under heavy pressure and attempts are being made everywhere to preserve the essence of these 
systems, parental leave must be regarded as an unwarranted luxury. Priority must be given to the 
creation of new — productive —jobs. 
The proposed arrangements mean an extra burden on public finances and will increase employ­
ers' costs. As a result, the position on the labour market and the chances of promotion of the 
persons in question may also be adversely affected. 
Statutory provisions do not accord with the character of parental leave. Parental leave is some­
thing that should be settled between employers and employees, preferably at the lowest level. 
Adaptatipn to individual circumstances is necessary in many cases. 
The Commission is wrong in invoking Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. What is involved here is 
not the harmonization of existing working conditions but the creation of new conditions. Since 
only a few countries have provisions in this area, there is no demonstrable need for harmoniza­
tion. 
The Commission is also wrong in invoking the 1976 Directive on equal treatment for men and 
women. As already indicated, it is a question of introducing new arrangements designed to 
improve living conditions and not working conditions. 
Some of an employer's costs will continue when a person takes leave (e.g. pensions, sickness 
insurance schemes). The taking-on of temporary staff also means extra costs for the employer and 
6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/51 
in the case of certain functions must even be regarded as impracticable. The uncertainty about 
the duration of employment of temporary staff is not compatible with a consistent personnel 
policy. 
Under the Commission proposal the burdens and costs of parenthood are passed on to the com­
munity at large and to employers. This proposal is categorically rejected. It is, after all, the per­
sonal choice of the parent(s) to combine parenthood with a career. New regulations and a further 
rise in the already high costs of employers do not accord with the policy aimed at. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 44, votes against: 75, abstentions: 5. 
Point 2.2 
Delete and substitute as follows: 
'The Section notes that the Commission invokes Article 100 as providing the legal basis for its 
proposals. However, the Section regards the Commission's assertion that differences between the 
Member States in provisions for parental leave and leave for family reasons "risk hindering the 
establishment and disrupting the functioning of the common market" as lacking credibility. The 
Section doubts whether disparities between Member States in arrangements for parental leave or 
leave for family reasons are of sufficient immediacy or magnitude to distort the operation of the 
common market or to undermine fair competition.' 
Reasons: 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 51, votes against: 62, abstentions: 9. 
The following text of the Section's opinion has been deleted following the acceptance of an 
amendment proposed during the debate: 
Point 3.2, Article 5 
Article 5.2 ought to indicate more clearly that it applies to parents who may not be willing or able 
to take the proposed statutory three months parental leave. They will be entitled to take a shorter 
period, i.e. a 'part' of leave, in which case the remaining 'part' thereafter will cease to apply. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 67, votes against: 42, abstentions: 14. 
The following text of the Section's opinion has been modified following the acceptance of an 
amendment proposed during the debate: 
But it must also be pointed out that if the present unfavourable demographic trends in most 
Member States continues the burden placed on future generations by the financing of old-age 
pensions could be come intolerable. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 78, votes against: 15, abstentions: 29. 
No C 206/52 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
APPENDIX 3 
Following the vote by roll-call on the opinion as a whole, various members (listed below) of the 
Employers' Group, who had voted against the opinion, issued the following statement: 
1. The members of Group I give their unqualified support to the principle of equal treat­
ment for men and women at work. They respect the individual freedom of decision of 
men and women, as parents, to share their family duties in accordance with their own 
wishes. 
2. The members of Group I do, however, consider that the Commission's draft Directive 
making mandatory the introduction of (a) parental leave of a minimum total duration of 
six months — minimum leave of three months for both the father and the mother, fol­
lowing maternity leave — and (b) leave for family reasons has to be rejected for legal, 
economic and social reasons. 
3. The draft Directive has no legal basis. It concerns mainly family policy issues. The sole 
objective is the care of the children, not the protection of the health of the parents, as 
employees, after the birth of their child. The Community does not, however, have the 
legal authority to lay down provisions relating to family law. 
4. The draft Directive encroaches upon the autonomy of the two sides of industry. 
This is particularly the case with regard to leave for family reasons, which is tradition­
ally dealt with in collective agreements in the Member States. Collective agreements 
provide a much better vehicle for taking account of differing traditions and the indivi­
dual wishes of employees. 
5. Given the fact there there are approximately 13 million persons registered as unem­
ployed in the Community, the draft Directive cannot be justified either on economic or 
social grounds. 
As there has hitherto been no legal provision for parental leave in the majority of the 
EC Member States, the mandatory introduction of parental leave of a minimum total 
duration of six months (three months minimum for each parent) together with the obli­
gatory charge on the social security system and the optional payment of a parental leave 
allowance would place an unacceptable burden on business and society as a whole. 
5.1. There would be harmful consequences for business as a result of both the additional 
direct and indirect costs and the administrative problems involved, especially in cases 
where both parents were employed by the same firm. The Directive would, for example, 
lead to increased labour costs and restrict flexibility as a result of administrative diffi­
culties. Small and medium-sized businesses would be hardest hit. The overall effect of 
the Directive would be to help reduce the international competitiveness of individual 
firms and the Community as a whole vis-a-vis non-EC countries, thereby putting exist­
ing jobs at risk. 
5.2. Additional financial burdens would be placed on national budgets and social security 
schemes at a time when financial restraint is necessary. The Commission's assumption 
that unemployed persons would be taken on to replace each and every parent on leave, 
thereby enabling 'a parental leave allowance to be financed with virtually no extra bur­
den to public funds' is wholly unrealistic. The same observation applies with regard to 
the burden placed on the social insurance system. Taxes and social insurance contribu­
tions would have to be increased in order to make it possible to finance the provisions 
of the Directive. That would mean a further increase in the financial burden on both 
employees and employers. 
5.3. The draft Directive contravenes the principle of solidarity between those in employment 
and the unemployed. 
Bearing in mind that there are approximately 13 million persons unemployed in the 
Community, top priority must be given to creating productive jobs, rather than to bring­
ing in costly improvements to the living conditions of those who already have the 
advantage of having a job. 
Messrs Antonsen, Arena, Bagliano, Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Messrs Breitenstein, Broicher, 
Cammann, Campbell, De Bievre, Dracos, Fortuyn, Fuller, Hemmer, Kenna, Loughrey, Low, 
Masprone, Noordwal, de Normann, Paggi, Pearson, Poeton, Regaldo, Romoli, Schnieders, Stahl-
mann, Staratzke, Storm Hansen, Swift, Tamlin, Van der Mensbrugghe, Van Melckenbeke, Wick, 
de Wit, Zinkin.