No C 159/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
more particularly those implementing extensification, 
the special allowance paid to upland farmers, and set-
aside. 
3.1. The Committee asks the Commission to con­
sider the case for revising the document so as to make 
provision for insertion of the above-mentioned 
measures immediately, rather than waiting for future 
consolidation operations. 
4. The Committee stresses the importance of con­
solidated legislation in connection with the Corn-
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1991. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee supports the proposal's aim of 
guaranteeing all workers the right to know the name 
of their employer, and their place and terms of employ­
ment. 
Enshrinement of this right will make the labour market 
more transparent and secure. This will benefit freedom 
of movement and social mobility in general. munity's aim of establishing a single harmonized 
market in which regional inequalities are ironed out. 
By making the relevant Community legislation more 
accessible, the consolidation operation will help to 
further this aim. 
5. Lastly, the Committee draws the Commission's 
attention to the need to stabilize Community law on 
this subject, so that farmers can have a clear and precise 
picture of all the relevant provisions. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis STAEDELIN 
1.2. The proposal cites as its legal basis Article 100 
of the Treaty, relating to the approximation of Member 
States' legislation. 
The Committee accepts this legal basis. 
1.3. As already stated, the Committee supports rec­
ognition of the right to know the name of one's 
employer and one's place and terms of employment. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on a form of proof of an employment 
relationship (*) 
(91/C 159/12) 
On 23 January 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 April 1991. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Cavaleiro Brandao. 
At its 286th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority, with five abstentions. 
(') OJ No C 24, 31. 1. 1991, p. 3. Accordingly, the Committee defends recognition of 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/33 
a) the obligation of employers to provide all workers 
with written proof of their employment relation­
ship; 
b) the right of all workers to demand and receive a 
written document setting out their basic conditions 
of work and any other agreed terms. 
1.4. Prevailing European legal theory and practice 
holds that an employment relationship can be proved 
by any desired means. This must continue to be the 
case. 
Workers must be guaranteed the right of access to a 
contract or written document formalizing the main 
terms of their employment relationship. This document 
should be made available when the worker so requires, 
under the terms proposed in Point 2 below. 
If a written document were te be made obligatory to 
prove the existence of an employment contract, then 
the absence of such a document might be presumed by 
the courts to indicate that no employment relationship 
existed. In such cases, the position of the worker would 
be worsened and it would be more difficult to prove 
the existence of an employment relationship. 
1.5. Moreover, obligatory automatic issue of a writ­
ten document to all workers could generate a vast 
amount of red tape for companies, with a correspond­
ing—and largely needless—rise in costs, especially in 
smaller firms. 
1.6. In the light of the above, the Committee con­
siders that the proposal should be revised to take 
account of the following principles: 
— access to a formalized expression, in a written docu­
ment, of the main terms of their employment 
relationship should be enshrined as a right available 
to all workers, 
— 'the conditions of employment... shall be stipulated 
in laws, a collective agreement or a contract of 
employment, according to the arrangements apply­
ing in each country' (Article 9 of the Community 
charter of fundamental social rights for workers), 
— enshrinement of the right to a formalized written 
expression of the main features of an employment 
relationship must not conflict with the goals of 
mobility and flexibility which must be pursued with 
an eye to the 1992 single market. 2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
Under this Article, a written document is only to be 
required in the case of employment relationships involv­
ing more than an average of eight hours' work per 
week. The Commission does not provide a satisfactory 
justification of this. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. In the light of the general comments made 
above, the Committee feels that Article 2 should be 
reworded along the following lines: 
'1. The employer shall provide the employee with 
written proof of the employment relationship no 
later than one month after he or she has been 
recruited. 
2. The employee shall have the right to obtain from 
his employer, at the start of employment or at any 
later stage, a written document setting out the main 
terms of their employment relationship. 
3. The document mentioned in paragraph 2 shall 
specify the conditions agreed by the parties, and 
any other conditions, applicable by virtue of law or 
collective agreements, which either party wishes to 
be included. 
4. Independently of this, the employment relation­
ship and the conditions governing it may be proved 
by any suitable means.' 
2.2.2. In addition to the above comments and pro­
posed new wording for Article 2, the Committee would 
make the following comments on the Commission's 
draft of this Article. 
2.2.2.1. Article 2(2) lists the elements which in the 
Commission's view make up an employment relation­
ship and which must be included in the written declar­
ation. As its proposed alternative text shows, the Com­
mittee feels that a more general wording would be 
preferable. Each Member State could then adopt the 
formula best suited to its particular situation. It would 
also avoid the disadvantages inherent in a fixed list 
which might go too far in some respects and not far 
enough in others. 
The Committee has particular reservations about the 
required description of both the job and the category 
of employment. This seems excessive, and uses legal 
concepts with different meanings in different Member 
States. 
2.2.2.2. Article 2(3) states that any substantive 
change to the particulars contained in the written dec­
laration must be notified to the employee in writing. 
No C 159/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
However, it is not clear what constitutes a 'substantive' 
change. 
2.2.2.3. The Committee stresses the importance of 
cases where the employee is required to work abroad 
(and not only in third countries). Separate regulations 
might be warranted in such cases and the Committee 
would urge the Commission to clarify this aspect of its 
proposal. 
2.3. Article 3 
The written declaration is not required in cases where 
there is a written contract of employment or a letter of 
appointment or other document referring to a collective 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1991. 
1. Introduction 
The Committee welcomes the proposal submitted by 
the Commission as it constitutes a major contribution 
to the functioning of the Internal Market for consumers, 
who have a role to play in the economic integration 
process. It is in line with the principles accepted by agreement or to other regulations governing employ­
ment relationships. 
The legal principles and practical implications of this 
provision do not seem sufficiently clear. 
2.4. Article 5 
In view of the differing traditions in the Member States 
with regard to the content of written documents for­
malizing employment relationships, provision could be 
made for each Member State to decide for itself what 
basic conditions should be included in the document 
referred to in Article 2(2) of the proposal and Point 
2.2.1 above. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
the Council Resolutions devoted to the Community 
consumer policy (2), as well as with those expressed in 
the European Parliament's Resolution of 21 February 
1986 (3). Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts (*) 
(91/C 159/13) 
On 2 October 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
2 April 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr. Hilkens. 
At its 286th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote in favour and 4 votes against, with 6 
abstentions. 
(») OJ No C 243, 28. 9. 1990, p. 2. (2) OJ No C 92, 25. 4. 1975, p. 1, OJ No C 133, 3. 6. 1981, p. 1 
and OJ No C 167, 5. 7. 1986, p. 1. 
(3) OJ No C 68, 24. 3. 1986, p. 194.