No C 178/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 7. 82 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on voluntary part-time work 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 62 of 12 March 1982, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 13 January 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Articles 100 and 198 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
197th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 April 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 1. General comments 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular Arti­
cles 100 and 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request for an opinion made 
by the Council of the European Communities on 
13 January 1982, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 14 December 1981, instructing the Section for 
Social Questions, in anticipation of the above refer­
ral, to draw up an opinion and a report on the mat­
ter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Social Questions at its meeting on 11 March 
1982, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Dassis, 
Having regard to its discussions during the 197th 
plenary session, held on 28 and 29 April 1982, 
Considering the comments made in its own-initia­
tive opinion of 1 June 1978 on part-time employ­
ment: its effects in the current state of the labour 
market (*), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION, 
by 80 votes to 40, with 12 abstentions: 
(») OJNoC269, 13. 11. 1978. 1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
aim, namely to ensure implementation of the princi­
ple of non-discrimination between part-time and 
full-time workers. 
1.2. It also agrees that a Directive is the appro­
priate legal instrument for achieving this aim. 
1.3. The Committee welcomes the fact that the 
proposed provisions reflect many of the principles 
and guidelines set out in the opinion delivered, on 
its own initiative, on 1 June 1978. 
1.4. Here it should be remembered that the ESC 
opinion made a particular point of emphasizing that 
part-time work must not be seen as a substitute for a 
policy of expanding employment (3.1) or be 
divorced from measures aiming at a fundamental 
improvement in the employment situation and 
working conditions. 
1.5. The Committee observes that the Commission 
proposal encompasses voluntary part-time work in 
all sectors. Further, the proposed provisions do not 
conflict with existing international laws governing 
casual, short-time and seasonal employment. On the 
subject of part-time farmers the Committee consi­
ders that the Commission is grappling with a large 
number of social problems to which it has already 
drawn attention in its 1978 opinion (1.1.1). 
15. 7. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 178/19 
1.6. The Committee is pleased that workers' repre­
sentatives are to be informed and consulted, in 
accordance with existing procedures in the Member 
States, in the event of recourse to part-time work. 
1.7. In addition, it disagrees with the usual attitude 
that part-time work is a mainly female prerogative. 
The proposed Directive should result in this type of 
employment being made available to both men and 
women on the same terms. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. Though the Committee appreciates that a 
full, precise definition of part-time work is far from 
easy to achieve, it would stress the need for such a 
definition in order to determine the scope of the 
Directive and ensure greater legal certainty. 
2.1.2. In its own-initiative opinion on part-time 
employment, the Committee laid particular empha­
sis on the criteria of regularity and free decision and 
made it clear that workers must opt for part-time 
work of their own free will, as opposed to having it 
forced on them by adverse economic circumstances. 
2.1.3. Subject to the above remarks, the Committee 
finds the proposed definition an acceptable com­
promise. 
2.1.4. However, it would seem preferable to split 
the definition 'full-time (part-time) worker' (fourth 
indent) into two separate indents. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. The Committee is in favour of stating the 
principle of non-discrimination between full-time 
and part-time workers and endorses the application 
of this principle to all aspects of working conditions 
and social rights. 
2.2.2. In accordance with the above principle, the 
Committee recommends that 'union rights' be 
Done at Brussels, 28 April 1982. added to the list of examples so as to cover all types 
of situations. 
2.3. Article 4 
The Committee endorses Article 4 (2), provided that 
this does not give rise to discrimination against 
full-time workers in connection, for instance, with 
the national provisions governing overtime pay. 
2.4. Article 7 
2.4.1. A logical consequence of non-discrimination 
is that the establishment's social and other obliga­
tions should be in principle determined by the total 
count of employees, regardless of the number of 
hours they work. The Committee therefore wishes 
the phrase 'at least in proportion to their work 
hours', to be deleted. 
2.4.2. In the Committee's view, this Directive must 
relate solely to social obligations. Economic, finan­
cial or tax matters connected with the determination 
of the total count of employees of an establishment 
or undertaking do not come within the Directive's 
scope. The word 'particularly' (third line of Article 7 
of the draft Directive) should therefore be deleted. 
2.4.3. With specific reference to the undertaking's 
social obligations, a distinction must be made 
between (a) matters concerning staff representation, 
collective dismissals and similar questions and (b) 
such social obligations as compulsory recruitment of 
disabled persons and trainees. 
In the first instance, the sole criterion must be the 
total workforce, regardless of the duration of work; 
in the latter, the proportionality principle as regards 
the number of hours worked could be taken into 
account. 
2.5. Article 8 
2.5.1. To avoid any controversy over the interpre­
tation of this provision, particularly in respect of the 
principle of non-discrimination, the Committee 
recommends the deletion of the phrase 'for full-time 
workers'. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomis ROSEINGRAVE 
No C 178/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 15.7.82 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
I. VOTE ON THE OPINION 
The following Members, present or represented, voted for the opinion: 
Mr Basnett, Mr Beretta, Mr Bernaert, Mr Berns, Mr Boddy, Mr Bonety, Mr Bornart, Mrs Bre-
dima, Mr Buckton, Mr Burnel, Mr Cavazzuti, Mr Chabrol, Mr Chappie, Mr Chronopoulos, Mrs 
Clark, Mr Colymvas, Mr Cremer, Mr Curlis, Mr Dassis, Mr Daul, Mr de Bruyn, Mr Debunne, Mr 
de Grave, Mr Delourme, Mr von der Decken, Mr Douros, Mr Drain, Mr Dunet, Mrs Engelen-
Kefer, Mr Etty, Mr Fredersdorf, Mr Friedrichs, Mr Georgiou, Mr Glesener, Mrs Gredal, Mr van 
Greunsven, Mr Hemmer, Mr Hennig, Mrs Heuser, Mr Hilkens, Mr Houthuys, Mr Jakobsen, Mr 
Jenkins, Mr Karakitsos, Mr Kirschen, Mr Laur, Mr Laval, Mr Loccufier, Mr Marvier, Mr Massa-
bieaux, Mr Masucci, Mr Meraviglia, Mr Militello, Mr Milne, Mr Muhr, Mr Murphy, Mr Neu­
mann, Mrs M. Nielsen, Mr Nierhaus, Mr Ognibene, Mr Papadopoulos, Mrs Patterson, Mr Pfeif-
fer, Mr Querini, Mr van Rens, Mr Rizos, Miss Roberts, Mr Rouzier, Mr Saitis, Mr Scalia, Mr 
Scharrenbroich, Mr Schneider, Mr Soulat, Mrs Strobel, Mr Theisen, Mr Vanni, Mr van der Veen, 
Mr Wagenmans, Mrs Weber, Mr Zoli. 
The following Members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Mr Blamoutsis, Mr Blasig, Mr Breitenstein, Mr Broicher, Mr Cammann, Mr van Campen, Mr du 
Closel, Mr Couture, Mr Davies, Mr de Bievre, Mr Doble, Mr Evain, Mr Gallacher, Mr Hall, Mr 
Hicks-Beach, Mr W. Jonker, Mr Law, Mr Leo, Mr Loebl, Mr Masprone, Mr Miller, Mr Mills, Mr 
B. Nielsen, Mr P. Nielsen, Mr Paggi, Mr Pearson, Mr de Precigout, Mr Renaud, Mr Romoli, Mr 
Savini, Mr Schnieders, Mr Seydaack, Mr Sorensen, Mr Staratzke, Mr Storm Hansen, Mr Wagner, 
Mr Wick, Mr Wylie, Mr Zinkin, Mr Zunkler. 
The following Members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr Arena, Mr Bagliano, Mr Benigni, Mr de Caffarelli, Mr de Tavernier, Mr Gingembre, Mr 
Goris, Mr Kolbenschlag, Mr Loughrey, Mr Margot, Mr Ramaekers, Mr Rollinger. 
II. MINORITY STATEMENT BY GROUP I 
The vote by Group I Members against the opinion should not be interpreted as hostility to part-
time work but as reflecting their belief that the proposed provisions would make part-time work 
virtually impracticable. 
Part-time work can help to some extent in alleviating unemployment. However, the Group I 
Members who voted against the opinion do not feel that the planned arrangements will be con­
ducive to improving the job situation. 
III. THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS WERE DEFEATED DURING THE 
DISCUSSION: 
Page 2 —Point 1.6 
to be reworded as follows: 
"The Section endorses the proposal that recourse to part-time work be subject to existing 
procedures for consultation with workers' representatives in the Member States, provided 
that this does not give rise to practical problems, especially in SMEs.' 
Voting: 
For: 44, against: 63, abstentions: 6. 
Page 3 —Point 2.1.2. 
In the third line, after the words 'made it clear that workers', add: 
'and entrepreneurs'. 
15..7.82 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 178/21 
Voting: 
For: 21, against: 64, abstentions: 14. 
Page 4 — after point 2.3. 
Insert the following new point: 
•2.3. (a) 
In implementing Article 6, care must be taken to avoid giving absolute priority to the 
undertaking's full-time staff at the expense of would-be part-timers or depriving the 
entrepreneur of any right to take decisions as to the nature of the work required. The prin­
ciple of voluntary recourse to part-time work would thereby be respected.' 
Reason 
In practice, such provisions would seriously hamper part-time arrangements. 
Voting: 
For: 24, against: 61, abstentions: 7. 
During the discussion the following passage of the Section's opinion was amended: 
'2.2.2. In accordance with the above principle, the Section recommends that "such as" 
be inserted after "... full-time workers" to cover any situation that may arise. "Union 
rights" should also be added to the list of examples'.