No C 176/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
2.11. Annex 1 be simplified further. If possible, there should be 
simplified further. If possible, there should be one 
2.11.1. The notification and consignment docu- single document for both operations, 
ments for the shipment of hazardous waste should 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Amendments or changes made to the text during discussion 
The following passage in the section opinion was deleted following the adoption of an amend­
ment during the discussions 
Page 2, point 1.3, first sentence 
'1.3. The Section thinks in this respect that hazardous waste should normally be dis­
posed of in its country of origin in compliance with the Directives referred to in 
Article 2; it should be shipped abroad to be disposed of only in exceptional cases, when 
it cannot be disposed of properly in the country of origin.' 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning temporary work 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 128 of 19 May 1983, page 2. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 18 May 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 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 
207th plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 April 1983. 
4.7.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 176/9 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 18 May 1982 for 
an opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 
concerning temporary work, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Com­
mittee Bureau on 25 May 1982, instructing the Sec­
tion for Social Questions to draw up an opinion on 
the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Social Questions at its meeting on 14 April 
1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Muhr, 
Having regard to the discussions on 27 April 1983 
during the 207th plenary session held on 27 and 
28 April 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 65 votes to 44, with 11 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee endorses the draft Directive's 
aims of bringing about appropriate control of the 
supply of temporary workers by temporary employ­
ment businesses and of ensuring better protection 
for the workers concerned, through the introduction 
of common rules. It notes that many firms consider 
it desirable to be able to have recourse to temporary 
workers in the interests of flexible business and staff 
planning. On the other hand it cannot be denied 
that the supply of temporary workers by temporary 
employment businesses raises a number of prob­
lems. There are many cases of abuses in this area. 
1.2. Temporary workers frequently do not have the 
same working conditions or the same social security 
protection as permanent staff. Particularly unsatis­
factory is the impact of the differences in national rules on the supervision of the activities of tempor­
ary employment businesses. In some countries there 
is even no supervision at all. This results in distor­
tion of the terms of competition. Moreover, tempor­
ary employment businesses are engaging increas­
ingly in cross-frontier operations. This further com­
plicates controls — based solely on national law — 
with a view to eliminating abuses. A Community 
Directive therefore seems necessary. 
1.3. The Committee considers the unrestricted and 
unsupervised supply of temporary workers by tem­
porary employment businesses to be questionable 
for the countries that have ratified ILO Convention 
No 96, in view of the principle laid down therein 
that placement should be carried out by non­
profit-seeking neutral agencies. 
1.4. The Committee inclines to the view that the 
provisions governing normal fixed-duration con­
tracts of employment should not be included in this 
proposal for a Directive but embodied in a special 
Directive, if it is considered necessary to regulate 
this sphere. 
2. Specific comments 
Article 1 
2.1. The Committee observes that in the list of def­
initions in Article 1 reference is made at various 
points to 'contract of employment or employment 
relationship' as if these were alternative legal con­
cepts. In actual fact the 'contract of employment' is 
merely the legal basis for the factual 'employment 
relationship'. It would therefore be sufficient merely 
to use the term 'employment relationship'. 
2.2. With regard to subparagraph (b), the Com­
mittee has considered whether it is admissible to 
equate subcontracting with the supply of temporary 
workers. The Committee notes, however, that 
according to the wording of this provision only an 
'arbitrary' subcontracting relationship is to be cov­
ered. Where the text mentions 'delegation of 
authority' it is obviously referring to those cases 
where in reality it is the client and not the subcon­
tractor which exercises the authority of employer. 
The Committee thinks that such cases can indeed be 
equated with the supply of temporary workers. 
2.3. With regard to subparagraph (i), the Com­
mittee observes that the use of the term 'assignment' 
No C 176/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
cannot be confined to temporary workers supplied 
by temporary employment businesses, if the provi­
sions concerning straightforward fixed-duration 
contracts are to be retained in the Directive. 
Article 2 
2.4. The Committee has considered whether, once 
the Directive has come into force, a Member State 
which has hitherto placed more extensive restric­
tions on the operations of temporary employment 
businesses or even banned such operations would 
then be obliged to permit them. The Committee 
thinks that if this is not the case it must be made 
clear that no such goal is being pursued and that the 
Commission is merely seeking to introduce a com­
mon minimum degree of control of temporary 
employment businesses and protection for the work­
ers concerned. More wide-reaching national provi­
sions should not be affected by the Directive. 
2.5. The Committee regards as necessary and just 
the rule in paragraph 3 that in cases where tempor­
ary workers have been supplied unlawfully, the user 
undertaking is to bear secondary liability in respect 
of social security contributions, remuneration and 
other benefits due to the temporary workers which 
have not been paid by the temporary employment 
business. Provision is already made for the co-liabil­
ity of user undertakings in some Member States (for 
example, France, Germany, Belgium and the 
Netherlands). Co-liability has already proved its 
worth in those countries and provides the temporary 
workers concerned with appropriate protection. 
There are numerous cases of illegal operations and 
abuses by temporary employment businesses. An 
employer who nonetheless employs temporary 
workers supplied by such businesses because he 
regards this as advantageous for his business must 
realize that there are certain risks involved. At all 
events, it is not right that these risks should be borne 
solely by the workers themselves, i.e. those in the 
weakest social position. Fundamentally there is 
even justification for stipulating in the draft Direc­
tive that temporary workers who have been supplied 
unlawfully are to be regarded as employees of the 
user undertaking. Such a provision already exists, 
for example, in Germany. Under German law user 
undertakings in principle bear co-liability also in 
cases where a temporary employment business is 
unable to meet its payment obligations to temporary 
workers who have been supplied legally. Article 3 
2.6. The Committee points out that, under para­
graph 1 (a), the use of temporary workers is to be 
permitted in the case of a 'temporary reduction in 
the workforce'. That wording is very vague and 
unclear. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the 
absence of permanent employees on leave is given 
as an example of such a reduction in the workforce. 
That is not, however, an appropriate example, as a 
worker is still employed by his company while on 
leave. In the Committee's view, paragraph 1 (a) 
must therefore be made more precise. The time limit 
for a temporary employment relationship specified 
in the first sentence of paragraph 2 should not be 
confined to the cases referred to in paragraph 1 (b). 
The same restriction should apply also to the situa­
tion referred to in paragraph 1 (a). There are no 
objective grounds for differentiating in this respect 
between the two types of circumstances set out in 
paragraph 1. The Committee also thinks that the 
second sentence of paragraph 2 should be deleted. 
The provision in question is not justified and is also 
not logical. Paragraph 1 already stipulates that 
exceptional circumstances have to exist before the 
use of temporary workers can be permitted. Accord­
ing to the first sentence of paragraph 2, temporary 
employment relationships are to have a maximum 
duration (including one extension) of six months. 
One cannot then lay down (the second sentence of 
paragraph 2) that in 'exceptional circumstances', i.e. 
basically if the same conditions apply, the duration 
of the temporary work may be extended for a quite 
indefinite period. The supply of temporary workers 
should always involve merely the placement for a 
limited period of workers who themselves only want 
to be engaged as temporary staff. There is no need 
for firms to have recourse to temporary workers sup­
plied by temporary employment businesses in cases 
where they wish to engage workers, such as special­
ists or other qualified staff, for a considerable 
period. In such cases it is always possible to con­
clude a normal long-term, fixed-duration contract. 
2.7. The Committee considers that paragraph 4 
should be deleted. The provisions of that paragraph 
are illogical and incomprehensible. They cancel out 
all the restrictions in the previous paragraphs con­
cerning the permissibility and the duration of tem­
porary employment relationships. It is true that the 
provisions are only to apply in cases where tempo­
rary workers have the same working conditions as 
the permanent employees of the user undertaking. 
But this ignores the fact that temporary workers con­
clude their employment contracts not with the user 
undertaking but with the temporary employment 
business, which is therefore their employer. 
4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 176/11 
Article 7 
2.8. The Committee observes that the aim pursued 
in this Article deserves support in principle. How­
ever, no account is taken of a number of particular 
cases which should be dealt with in the same way. 
The Committee considers that, for example, a tem­
porary worker should also be entitled to full com­
pensation under paragraph 1 if he himself prema­
turely terminates the temporary employment con­
tract on justifiable grounds for which the temporary 
employment business is responsible. On the other 
hand, the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 
should cover cases in which, even if there has been 
no serious misconduct on the part of the temporary 
worker, the business is entitled to terminate the 
employment relationship prematurely on grounds 
for which the temporary worker is responsible. 
Article 8 
2.9. The Committee suggests that the title of this 
Article be deleted, since none of the other Articles 
has a title. 
2.10. With regard to the Article's content, the Com­
mittee considers that the informing of employee 
representatives is dealt with in too much detail. 
Some of the information listed might be of no 
interest whatsoever to employee representatives or, 
at the most, only of interest in some cases. An exces­
sive burden would be placed on small firms in parti­
cular if they had to observe all the requirements, 
especially as the entire information has to be pro­
vided in writing. 
2.11. The Committee thinks that the Article should 
be couched in general terms. It considers, however, 
that the employee representatives must also be enti­
tled to an adequate answer to questions relating to 
the hiring of temporary workers which are not 
expressly mentioned in the draft Directive. The obli­
gation to supply information should also not be 
confined to cases where temporary workers are to be 
hired on the basis of Article 3 (1) (b) but must also 
cover cases coming under Article 3 (1) (a). Compul­
sory observance of special formal requirements 
could be dispensed with, if only out of considera­
tion for small and medium-sized enterprises. 
2.12. Accordingly, the Committee proposes that 
Article 8 be replaced by the following text: 'The user undertaking shall be required to 
inform the representatives of its employees in 
good time about the use of temporary workers 
and, in particular, to indicate the reasons for 
having recourse to temporary workers, their 
number, and the duration, nature and place of 
the assignments. At the request of the employee 
representatives, the user undertaking must sup­
ply other pertinent information about matters 
relating to the use of temporary workers'. 
Article 9 
2.13. The Committee considers the list contained 
in Article 9 (2) to be too detailed and liable to lead 
to unnecessary confusion. It thinks that a simpler 
general wording ought to be sought, and proposes 
the following: 
'2. Working conditions shall embrace all the 
provisions relating to health and the protection 
of workers, including working hours'. 
2.14. The Committee requests the Commission to 
check whether the term 'Arbeitsausfiihrungsbedin-
gungen' has been correctly translated, particularly in 
the English version ('working conditions'). 
2.15. The Committee notes that under Article 9 (3) 
temporary workers are to be legally entitled to 
access to communal social facilities, even though 
the permanent workforce might not have unres­
tricted access. This does not seem to be justified. 
The Committee therefore proposes the addition of 
'in accordance with the rules applicable to staff at 
the end of the paragraph. 
Article 11 
2.16. The Committee endorses the principle that 
temporary workers should not be used to break 
strikes. 
2.17. The Committee has considered whether the 
text makes adequate allowance for the fact that in 
some Member States the law makes a distinction 
between legal and illegal strikes and has special 
provisions concerning, for example, the perform­
ance of emergency services. The Committee has 
concluded, however, that the present text should be 
retained. If the wording were diluted, recognized 
NoC 176/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
trade union rights might be undermined by under­
takings resorting to the use of temporary workers. 
Furthermore trade unions in the Community would 
then be bound to regard the supply of temporary 
workers by temporary employment businesses as a 
weapon aimed directly against them and their rights. 
A distinction between legal and illegal strikes is also 
unacceptable, since no such differentiation is made 
in the laws of some Member States, and the prob­
lems involved cannot be resolved by a Community 
instrument. 
Articles 12 to 14 
2.18. The Committee approves the cross-frontier 
checks on the supply of temporary workers provided 
for in these Articles and the proposed cross-frontier 
cooperation between the relevant bodies in the 
Member States. For the rest, it should be left to the 
Member States to determine which measures are 
needed to ensure that these objectives areattained. 
Articles 15 to 21 
2.19. The Committee wonders whether these provi­
sions regulating normal fixed-duration contracts 
should be retained in the draft Directive. If the 
Commission considers this to be the case, the Com­
mittee would refer to the comments in the report, 
the gist of which is as follows: 
2.20. The Committee is unable to find any con­
vincing argument or any legal basis for seeking to 
introduce restrictive Community rules on normal 
fixed-duration contracts of employment, in addition 
to the limitation and supervision of temporary work. 
These are two intrinsically different areas of con­
trasting importance and they must not be lumped 
together. Fixed-duration contracts are dealt with 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1983. extensively in national legislation, even if some of 
the provisions are not entirely satisfactory. Making 
it unduly difficult for an employer to hire staff on 
normal fixed-duration contracts would at best give 
him a greater incentive to have recourse to tempor­
ary workers supplied by temporary employment 
businesses. This would increase the danger of 
abuses, which is particularly great in the sphere of 
temporary work. If it were made more difficult to 
conclude fixed-duration contracts, young people 
seeking their first job might be particularly hard hit. 
Special thought should be given to this point in 
view of the problem of youth unemployment. 
2.21. Account was taken of the view that there are 
on the other hand good grounds for including rules 
on fixed-duration contracts of employment in the 
Directive. Like temporary employment contracts, 
fixed-duration contracts mean that workers are 
employed only for a short period. This prevents per­
manent employment relationships. Many firms even 
used fixed-duration contracts to reduce their perma­
nent staff to a minimum. Use is also frequently 
made of fixed-duration contracts in an attempt to 
get round the provisions protecting employees 
against wrongful dismissal. 
2.22. If the Commission leaves the provisions on 
normal fixed-duration contracts in the Directive, it 
will be necessary to review the text. This is too 
detailed and even contradictory in part. In view of 
the differences between the national legal systems 
there would also be considerable difficulties in 
defining the legal concepts used. The provisions 
could be made considerably shorter. For example, in 
Article 15(1) it would suffice to mention the cases 
referred to in (b). Everything else could be deleted. 
In Article 15 (3) only the employer should be 
debarred from invoking the contract's fixed dura­
tion. In Article 15 (4) the restrictions imposed in the 
previous paragraphs with regard to a fixed-duration 
contract's permissibility are largely nullified. That 
paragraph should therefore be deleted. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 176/13 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
I. Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, present or repre­
sented, voted for the opinion: 
Mr Amato, Mr Beretta, Mr Bernasconi, Mr Bonety, Mr Brassier, Mr Burnel, Mr Carroll, Mr Cava-
zutti, Mr Chalioris, Mr Colle, Mr Cremer, Mr Curlis, Mr Dassis, Mr Dassoulas, Mr Debunne, Mr 
von der Decken, Mr De Grave, Mr Delia Croce, Mr Delourme, Mr Drago, Mr Drain, Mr Dunet, 
Mr d'Elia, Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Mr Etty, Mr Friedrichs, Mr Glesener, Mr van Greunsven, Mr Hat-
zivassiliou, Mr Hilkens, Mr Houthuys, Mr Jaschick, Mr Jenkins, Mr Kirschen, Mr Kitsios, Mr 
Laur, Mr Lojewski, Mr Marvier, Mr Meraviglia, Mr Milne, Mr Morselli, Mr Mourgues, Mr Muhr, 
Mr Nielsen B., Mr Nielsen P., Mrs Patterson, Mr Pfeiffer, Mr Pronk, Mr Raftopoulos, Mr Ran-
goni-Machiavelli, Mrs van Rens, Mr Rouzier, Mr Schneider, Mr Schoepges, Mr Smith A. R., Mr 
Smith L. J., Mr Soulat, Mr Spachos, Mr Strobel, Mr Tixier, Mr Vassilaras, Mr Ventejol, Mr Ver-
cellino, Mrs Weber, Mr Zoli. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Arena, Mr Binnenbruck, Mr Bos, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr Broicher, 
Mr Cammann, Mr De Bievre, Mr De Normann, Mr De Wit, Mr Dracos, Mr Eelsen, Mr Elkan, 
Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Hemmer, Mrs Heuser, Mr Kenna, Mr Rubier, Mr Low, Mr Loughrey, 
Mr Miller, Mr Noordwal, Mr Pearson, Mr Poeton, Mr Pelletier, Mr Querleux, Mr Quigely, Mr 
Rainero, Mr Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Roseingrave, Mr Schnieders, Mr Schwarz, Mr Sharp, Mr 
Stahlmann, Mr Staratzke, Mr Storie-Pugh, Mr Storm-Hansen, Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Van 
Melckenbeke, Mr Wagner, Mr Zinkin. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr de Caffarelli, Mr Cashman, Mr De Bruyn, Mr De Tavernier, Mr Germozzi, Mr Goris, Mr 
Law, Mr Margot, Mr Muller, Mr Plank, Mr Strauss. 
II. Defeated amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected by 
the Committee during plenary session discussions: 
— Page 2, paragraph 1.1: 
In the last sentence, delete the word 'many'. 
Reason: 
The proposed Directive fails to identify 'the many cases of abuses' — nor was it possible, in 
spite of repeated requests, to obtain explicit information in the Study Group. 
Voting: 
For: 41. Against: 60. Abstentions: 11. 
— Page 2: 
Delete paragraph 1.3. 
Reason: 
It is not relevant to the fact that we are asked to give an opinion on the proposed Directive 
to refer to the ILO and the question of State monopoly. On the contrary it is recognized 
(paragraph 1.1) that employment businesses meet a need. It is therefore outside our terms of 
reference to discuss State monopoly. 
No C 176/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
Voting: 
For: 49. Against: 64. Abstentions: 6. 
— Page 4/5, paragraph 2.5: 
Delete the last two sentences: 'Fundamentally there is ... supplied legally.' 
Reason: 
While the law in some countries may be clear, the suggestion would be impossible to operate 
in others, where the transfer of employment to the user undertaking could well deprive the 
temporary worker of social benefits based on service. 
Voting: 
For: 28. Against: 69. Abstentions: 20. 
— Pages 5 and 6: 
Delete paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 and substitute the following: 
'Article 3 
The Committee considered this article imprecise, unclear, and in certain parts, self-contra­
dictory. In some respects it is too restrictive. In compiling any list — as in paragraph 1 — it 
is likely that something that could not have been foreseen at the time would be left out. 
Moreover the suggestions in paragraph 2 as well as being unnecessarily restrictive could 
involve an insupportable administrative machinery to monitor, and restricts the freedom of 
the temporary worker. In view of the above, and since one of the purposes of the draft Direc­
tive is to ensure that temporary workers enjoy the same statutory social benefits as perma­
nent workers, it is suggested that the whole of Article 3 should be deleted and replaced by: 
"Member States shall ensure that, by virtue of labour law, collective agreements, or custom­
ary industrial practice, social benefits shall be enjoyed by temporary workers employed 
under labour supply contracts onthe same terms as other workers occupying similar posts in 
the user undertaking." ' 
Reason: 
The amendment is self-explanatory. 
Voting: 
For: 40. Against: 69. Abstentions: 11. 
— Page 6: 
Insert a new paragraph after 2.7 as follows: 
Article 5 
The Committee recommends that the second paragraph of clause 4 be deleted.' 
Reason: 
It is reasonable that a user undertaking should be liable to pay compensation to an employ­
ment agency should it take on the temporary employee on its permanent work force. The 
proposed clause would prohibit any form of negotiated payment being made in respect of 
the expenses already incurred by the agency. 
4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 176/15 
Voting: 
For: 35. Against: 71. Abstentions: 12. 
As a result of the adoption of proposals for amendments submitted during the discussions, the 
following passages in the Section's opinion were changed: 
— Page 1, point 1.1: 
'The Section endorses the draft Directive's aims of bringing about stricter control of the sup­
ply of temporary workers by temporary employment businesses and of ensuring better pro­
tection for the workers concerned, through the introduction of common rules.' 
Result of the vote on the proposal for an amendment: 
Votes for: majority 
— Page 8, point 2.12: 
(Concerns only the Dutch version.) 
Result of the vote on the proposal for an amendment: 
Votes for: majority. 
III. Minority statement 
Following the vote by roll call, a statement was issued by members of the Employers' Group 
(Group I) who had voted against. It read as follows: 
The rapporteur has endeavoured with the utmost sincerity to reflect the views of mem­
bers as expressed during discussion in the Study Group but it is our opinion that a 
Directive of the kind suggested by the Commission is unacceptable and unnecessary. 
It is noted that temporary work provides a flexible element in the requirements of indus­
try and commerce and that it fulfils a social need in that it provides opportunities for 
work that might not otherwise be available and also provides opportunities for work for 
those people who for various reasons are either unable to, or who do not wish to take up 
permanent work. 
It is accepted that employment businesses need to be regulated and supervised and it is 
noted that where Member States permit the operation of employment businesses they 
are so controlled and supervised by appropriate national laws. 
The proposed Directive as drafted would introduce a rigidity in the labour market which 
would lead to industrial and commercial inefficiency which would eventually harm the 
prospects for permanent workers. At the same time, the opportunities for temporary 
work would be reduced without any guarantee that opportunities for permanent work 
would be enhanced. 
Every opportunity should be created to make it easier for people to get work. The pro­
posed Directive as drafted would lead to further increases in unemployment. 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Arena, Mr Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr Broicher, Mr Cam-
mann, Mr De Bievre, Mr Dracos, Mr Eelsen, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Hemmer, Mr Kenna, Mr 
Law, Mr Low, Mr Loughrey, Mr Miller, Mr Noordwal, Mr de Normann, Mr Pearson, Mr Pelle-
tier, Mr Poeton, Mr Querleux, Mr Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Schnieders, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Star-
atzke, Mr Storm Hansen, Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Van Melckenbeke, Mr de Wit, Mr 
Wagner, Mr Zinkin.