EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.12.2017 SWD(2017) 478 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union {COM(2017) 797 final}

{SWD(2017) 479 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction: Political and legal context 2.Problem definition 2.1What are the problems? 2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.2.1. Some workers do not receive a written statement of their working conditions 2.2.2. The information included in the written statements may sometimes be not sufficient and/or provided too late 2.2.3. Enforcement mechanisms do not guarantee effective implementation of the legal provisions 2.2.4. An increased instability and lack of predictability in some working relationships 2.2.5. Decreased transparency in the labour market 2.3Why is it a problem? 2.3.1. Workers 2.3.2. Business 2.3.3. Member States 2.4How will the problem evolve? 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis

3.2Results of the social partner consultations 3.3Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action and added value of EU action 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 5.What are the considered policy measures? 5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 5.2Measures discarded at an early stage 5.3Considered policy measures 6.What are the Policy options and their impacts? 6.1Options: Four policy packages 6.2Impacts of the options 7.How do the Policy options compare? 8.Preferred option 8.1Overall impacts 8.2REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 8.3 Subsidiarity and proportionality 9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? 9.1. Monitoring 9.2. Evaluation Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation

1.Results of the first phase Social Partners consultation 2.Results of the Second phase Social Partners consultation 3.Results of the public consultation on the European Pillar of Social Rights 4.Results of the public consultation for the REFIT evaluation of the Written Statement Directive Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 1.Practical implications of the initiative 2.Summary of costs and benefits 3.The SME Test – Summary of results 4.Comparison of administrative costs to employers: SME v large firms 5.SMEs analysis: employer survey results Annex 4: Analytical methods 1.Research stages 2.Approaches used to estimate numbers of non-standard workers 3.Impact assessment methods 4.Some specific methodological assumptions 5.Multi-criteria analysis Annex 5: Glossary Annex 6: Further information on relevant new and non-standard forms of work Annex 7: Summary of EU social acquis

Annex 8: Further information on considered policy measures 1. A scope of application encompassing all EU workers, in particular the most precarious 2. A right to information on the applicable working conditions 3. Shortening the two-month deadline for issuing a written statement 4. New minimum rights for all workers 5. Enforcement 6. Overview of legal changes required per Member State 7. Mapping of relevant collective agreements Annex 9: Further information on impacts of policy packages B, C and D 1. Impacts of policy package B 2. Impacts of policy package C 3. Impacts of policy package D 4. Impacts of extending the coverage of the Directive to domestic workers Annex 10: Coherence 1. Coherence with EU labour law 2. Coherence with Principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights 1.Introduction: Political and legal context Protecting workers' rights and improving working conditions has been at the heart of the European project since its beginning. The social dimension has developed alongside the deepening of the single market, to ensure a level playing field for business and to promote concrete improvements for millions of workers across all Member States.

In recent years the EU labour market has undergone deep transformations. The financial and economic crisis has exposed weaknesses in social protection systems, whereas globalisation has affected production models and unprecedented technological development has brought new opportunities and demands for skills and for flexible working arrangements. There is a growing diversity of forms of work, which has created new jobs, but has also led to a growing precariousness and gaps in protection. While economic and financial recovery was the immediate priority at the height of the crisis, this Commission has put social dimension once again in the very centre of its political agenda. As President Juncker has declared, 'Building a more inclusive and fairer Union is a key priority for this European Commission.' In the same vein, the Commission underlined in its reflection paper on "Harnessing Globalisation" the importance of addressing the impact of globalisation through strong social policies at EU and national levels to reinforce the resilience of citizens and workers. In this context, through the initiative the European Pillar of Social Rights ('the Pillar'), the Commission launched a debate whether the EU social policy framework is still sufficient to maintain the EU's high social standards. The extensive public consultation on the Pillar in 2016 showed that while the EU acquis is indeed comprehensive, there are gaps linked to developments on the labour market that need to be addressed in order for the acquis to retain its relevance. This was also emphasised in the European Parliament's Resolution of January 2017 on the Pillar, and more recently in its Resolution of July 2017 on working conditions and precarious employment. The Parliament called to extend existing minimum standards to new kinds of employment relationships, improve enforcement of EU law, increase legal certainty across the single market, and prevent discrimination by complementing existing EU law to ensure for every worker a core set of enforceable rights, regardless of the type of contract or employment relationship. On 17 November 2017 the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights, setting out a number of key principles and rights to support fair and well-functioning labour markets and welfare systems. The Principles of the Pillar explicitly address the challenges related to new forms of employment and adequate working conditions in atypical forms of employment, notably ‘Secure and flexible employment’ (Principle 5) and ‘Information about employment conditions and protection in case of dismissals’ (Principle 7). The possible revision of Directive 91/533/EEC on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship ('Written Statement Directive'), is one of the concrete initiatives announced by the Commission in April 2017 when presenting the Pillar. Other initiatives, closely related to and complementary to this one, include a legislative proposal on work-life balance of parents and carers, a social partners' consultation on access to social protection, and an interpretative communication on working time. The Written Statement Directive, adopted on 14 October 1991, gives employees the right to be notified in writing of the essential aspects of their employment relationship when it starts or within a limited time thereafter (two months maximum). Revising the Directive could contribute to the Pillar principles by improving workers' and employers' clarity on their contractual relationship and by ensuring this protection is extended to all workers, irrespective of the type of employment relationship, including those in new and non-standard forms of work. The Directive's effectiveness could be enhanced by following up on the conclusions of its recent evaluation conducted in the framework of the European Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme (REFIT). , Furthermore, by defining a set of minimum rights reflecting the challenges of the new labour market reality, such a revision could support upward convergence towards equal access to a number of new rights for all workers, in particular those in precarious employment relationships. These objectives should be addressed without obstructing the development of new forms of work. Labour market innovation is a powerful engine of job creation and these new forms of work can offer opportunities for flexible working arrangements and for the integration in the labour market of people who might have otherwise been excluded. If a set of minimum fair working conditions were ensured across the EU and across all forms of contracts, this would set a framework within which new forms of work could further develop. This framework could offer fairer protection to workers, a clearer reference framework for national legislators and courts, and a better level playing field for business within the internal market, limiting incentives for regulatory arbitrage. To achieve this goal, between 26 April and 23 June 2017 the Commission conducted a first phase consultation of the European social partners on the possible direction of Union action , in accordance with Article 154 TFEU, followed by a second phase between 21 September and 3 November 2017. The social partners decided not to launch the negotiation foreseen in Article 155 TFEU with a view to reaching an agreement on the matter. It now falls to the Commission to make a proposal. This Impact Assessment therefore presents different policy measures that the Commission is considering in order to improve the effectiveness of the Written Statement Directive and enhance the protection of workers, notably those in new and non-standard forms of employment. It analyses possible legal, social and economic impacts of considered policy options and compares them in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence in line with the Commission's Better Regulation framework. 2.Problem definition 2.1 What are the problems? While flexibility on the labour market is necessary, there exists a risk of insufficient protection of workers, including those in new and non-standard forms of employment.

The world of work evolved significantly since the time of the adoption of Directive 91/533/EEC. The last 25 years brought about a growing flexibilisation of the labour market. Demographic changes resulted in a greater diversity of the working population and digitalisation facilitated the creation of new forms of work. The recent evaluation of the Written Statement Directive has shown that while the Directive remains fundamentally relevant, the labour market changes have exposed some gaps in its protection mechanisms. The following issues have been identified: ·some workers do not receive a written statement of their working conditions at all; ·the information included in the written statements may sometimes be not sufficient and/or sometimes provided too late; ·enforcement mechanisms do not guarantee effective implementation of the legal provisions.

At the same time, as shown in the Pillar consultation, the current EU social acquis does not sufficiently address some of the new phenomena in the labour market. Labour market innovation is a positive phenomenon, flexibility and new and non-standard forms of work contribute to job creation and widen professional opportunities. However, lack of reasonable advance notice in case of on-demand workers, unjustified exclusivity or incompatibility clauses and long probation periods are measures which may put workers in overly precarious situations. These contribute, at least to some extent, to another element of the problem covered in this initiative, namely: ·instability and an increased lack of predictability in some working relationships, affecting especially workers in most precarious jobs. Furthermore, access to training is needed to ensure a skilled workforce. Information about available training and cost-free access to at least training which employers are required to provide related to basic skillsets necessary for the job is essential from the point of view of the worker and has many advantages for employers in terms of quality of outputs and sustainability of workforce. Yet, another problem observed is: ·insufficient access of workers to mandatory training. Both with regard to the gaps in the provisions of the current Written Statement Directive and the question of broader gaps in the basic rights for workers an additional element of the problem is: ·diversity of protection among Member States and decreased transparency in the labour market. Member States adopt different derogations from the Written Statement Directive, and have different approaches to regulating new and non-standard forms of work. The fact that the EU intervenes in this area with minimum requirements allows for differences between Member States but the question arises whether the existing minimum standards are still sufficient to ensure level playing field and effective worker protection across the single market. The following figure visualises the problem, its drivers and consequences. 2.2 What are the problem drivers? The problem to be addressed results from an interaction of labour market developments, different approaches in national legislation and practice, and gaps in EU social legislation. This section presents how those factors interact. 2.1.1.Some workers do not receive a written statement of their working conditions

The Written Statement Directive gives employees the right to be notified in writing of the essential aspects of their employment relationship. Having written information about their rights is, indeed, a prerequisite for workers to invoke their rights. Transparency is also useful for employers and public authorities. The REFIT evaluation indicated however that the scope of the Directive is problematic. While there exists a core group of protected persons (typically working under standard open-ended or long-term contracts), many workers are not sufficiently aware of or do not possess a confirmation of some of their basic rights. This is a result of (1) diverse application of the exemptions envisaged in the Directive, and (2) the fact that Member States have the possibility to define whom they consider as ‘a paid employee’. As for the first point, some two thirds of Member States use at least one of the three derogations in their national legislation. Regarding the second point, most EU Directives on working conditions, including the Written Statement Directive, refer to national definitions of 'employees' or 'employment relationship' for defining to whom they apply. The Court of Justice of the EU has limited the discretion of Member States to define in national law the personal scope of certain EU social law instruments, thereby limiting the possibility to exclude individuals who do not fall within the definition of worker under national law. According to the Court's case law on the Working Time Directive as regards the application of Directive 2003/88 "the concept of worker has an autonomous meaning specific to EU law". It is settled case-law as regards Article 45 TFEU and other legal acts that make no reference to the definition of the term “worker” under national legislation that the essential feature of an employment relationship is that, for a certain period of time, a person performs services for and under the direction of another person, in return for which he or she receives remuneration, the legal characterisation under national law and the form of that relationship, as well as the nature of the legal relationship between those two persons, not being decisive in that regard. These criteria for determining the existence of an employment relationship, and so the status of "worker", were originally developed by the Court in a 1986 judgment on the application of Article 45 TFEU and (the predecessor of) Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement of workers, and have since been widely used by the Court to interpret references to the notion of worker in EU secondary legislation. These criteria should therefore represent the general elements, directly deriving from the Treaty, for the identification of an employment relationship. In the specific context of free movement of workers, activities carried out on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, do not qualify a "worker" within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU . Most recently, with the Ruhrlandklinik judgment the Court has given greater importance to the autonomous EU definition of worker also in the case where a directive specifically refers to national law, to prevent any definitions under national law from depriving the directive of its effectiveness. Nevertheless, the reference to the Member States' definition of employment relationship leads to the Directive being applied in the Member States in a different way to the same categories of workers. Furthermore, it leads to inconsistencies in coverage for the growing category of non-standard forms of employment.

While the situation differs across the Member States, some categories of workers may be (partially) excluded from the provision of written statements based on the national exemptions or differences in the national definitions of covered workers, as shown in the following table. Table 1 – Coverage by the Written Statement Directive – Personal scope Current coverage by the WSD Yes Partially No Domestic workers AT, BE, CY, FI, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, PT, RO, ES, UK BG, HR, CZ, DK, EE, IE, PL, SK, SL HU, NL, SE Platform workers BE, CY, FI, DE, ES BG, HR, CZ, DE, EE, EL, IE, IT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK AT, FR, HU, LT, LV, LU, PL, SL, SE, UK Voucher-based workers BE, HR, FI, FR, NL, ES RO AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, PL, PT, SK, SL, SE, UK Paid trainees BE, CY, DK, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SL, ES AT, BG, HR, EE, IE, RO, SK, SE, UK CZ, FI, HU Workers employed for less than 1 month BE, BG, HR, EE, FR, HU, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SL SE AT, CY, CZ, DK, FI, DE, EL, IE, LT, MT, SK, ES, UK. People working less than 8h/week AT, BE, BG, HR, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PO, PT, RO, SK, SL, ES, UK. - CY, DK, MT, SE Casual workers: 1) Zero-hours contracts BE, FI, FR, EL, NL, ES, SE BG, HR. CY. CZ, DK, IE, IT, PL, RO, SK, UK AT, HU, LV, LT, SL (illegal) EE, DE, LU, MT, PT (do not exist either in law or practice) Casual workers 2) On-demand workers BE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, NL, ES, SE BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, IE, IT, PL, RO, SK, SL, UK AT, LV (illegal) EE, LU, MT, PT (do not exist either in law or practice) Casual workers 3) Intermittent workers BE, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, LV, LT, NL, PT, RO, ES, SE AT, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, HU, IE, IT, PL, SK, SL, UK LU, MT (do not exist either in law or practice) Temporary Agency workers BE, HR, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, ES, SE BG, CZ, EL, ML, SL AT, UK The situation is also unclear with regard to the "bogus self-employed". While the Written Statement Directive applies only to workers, and the self-employed are in principle outside its scope, the boundary between the two categories is in fact becoming more difficult to draw. Such blurring of status jeopardises the effectiveness of labour law which is dependent on the status of employment. To the extent that workers are wrongly categorised as self-employed, they are removed from the protection of the EU acquis to which they should in fact be subject. Table 1 in Annex 6 summarises available data concerning the categories of workers mentioned above. Further information on those forms of work is available in the Analytical Document accompanying the second stage consultation of the Social Partners. Overall, while relevant data are scarce and difficult to compare, and there are overlaps between the different forms of employment, an estimated number of 2-3 million workers in those specific forms of work in the EU are excluded from the right to receive written confirmation of their working conditions. The high diversity of national approaches constitutes an obstacle to the full effectiveness of the Directive. Among those who are at least partially excluded from protection of the Written Statement Directive is a relatively high proportion of vulnerable workers. Available data indicate for example that non-standard jobs - and particularly fixed-term jobs - are disproportionately held by younger, less-educated and lower-skilled workers. There is also a gender bias, with women over-represented among non-standard workers. Moreover, while in the original Directive the possible exemptions from scope were envisaged for marginal situations, available data show that those forms of work have been growing in the last decades. For example, the number of workers working eight hours or less per week increased from 3.4 million in 2005 to 3.8 million in 2016. The number of employees on contracts lasting less than one month has grown from 373,000 in 2002 to almost 1.3 million in 2016, indicating that this extremely short duration of work contracts will continue to be a feature of the EU labour market in years to come. People active on platforms currently represent 0.5-2% of the workforce according to different studies but their numbers have been increasing significantly over the last 5 years and thus their share in the workforce might also further increase. An increasing number of workers are not protected by the Directive, and therefore at risk of not being (fully) aware of their employment conditions or their rights. While many Member States have extended their national legal framework to cover these workers; the legal analysis performed at Member-State level for the REFIT evaluation revealed high levels of variation across countries and uncertainty over whether the new and non-standard forms of employment fall within the scope of the Directive.

2.1.2.The information included in the written statements may sometimes be not sufficient and/or provided too late Article 2 of the Directive creates the obligation for employers to notify employees of the essential aspects of their employment relationship and defines a non-exhaustive list of these essential elements which, in practice, however, generally constitutes the standard package of information provided. The Directive stipulates also that the written statement must be provided to the employee not later than two months after the commencement of employment. Modifications to any of the elements in Article 2 must be notified within one month. According to the REFIT evaluation, while the information package was assessed by most stakeholders as being sufficient as a minimum standard, the two-month deadline to provide a written statement creates transparency problems and increases the potential for undeclared work or abuse of employee rights. Receiving a written statement earlier is also especially important for the growing number of workers whose contracts are of very short duration. The REFIT evaluation has shown that a vast majority of the Member States surveyed have introduced more stringent deadlines for the employer to comply with the information obligation. Of these, eight Member States have set the obligation at the beginning of the employment relationship. According to the national laws transposing the Directive in these eight countries, the employee is to receive the information required before the employment starts. This issue of the right to be informed is taken up in Principle 7a of the Social Pillar: "Workers have the right to be informed in writing at the start of employment about their rights and obligations resulting from the employment relationship, including on probation period". Currently, every year some 8-16 million EU workers starting a new job receive a written statement later than on the first day. In the light of the Social Pillar principle, and in the light of the very modest costs of providing a written statement, and of the changes to the types and diversity of employment practices since the Directive was adopted in 1991, an adaptation of the list contained in Article 2(2) could be appropriate. As indicated by national experts consulted for the purpose of the external study, in the age of intensive labour migration between the EU Member States, the standard package of information prescribed by the Directive is no longer sufficient. Most migrant or low skilled workers lack information about the social security system to which the employer is contributing. This leads to poor social protection of such workers. Finally, the most pressing issue, as indicated by the national experts, is the lack of information about working time, particularly where the work schedule is variable. The consultation process leading to the REFIT evaluation gave some indications of elements that could be added, namely information on hours the worker is expected to work, especially when the work schedule is variable; information about overtime regulations or non-competition clauses; the right to sickness, maternity and paternity leave and pension rights; the levels of collective bargaining applicable. Worker organisations responding to the second phase consultation proposed further additions, as summarised in Annex 2. 2.1.3.Enforcement mechanisms do not guarantee effective implementation of the legal provisions Rights are only meaningful when they are implemented and taken up by those they protect. The 2016 Commission Communication EU Law: better results through better application highlights the importance of accessible and appropriate redress mechanisms for citizens whose rights under EU law have been breached. The public consultation on the European Pillar of Social Rights underlined that workers are often deprived of their rights by weak enforcement provisions. In the context of EU labour law, unlike in other areas, there are very few provisions directly concerned with enforcement of rights. Evidence collected through the REFIT evaluation indicated that there is medium to high observance among employers of the Directive as transposed into national law. The main issues surrounding observance are associated with the ‘grey’ area between self-employment and subordinate employer-employee arrangements and new and non-standard forms of employment. At the same time, there is a medium to high level of understanding among employers of their information obligations towards employees. The level of awareness seems to greatly vary across Member States and there are also significant variations relative to the size of the undertakings: larger enterprises appear to be more familiar with the national requirements related to the Directive, as compared to micro enterprises. The evaluation further highlighted that the enforcement of workers' rights could be improved by reviewing means of redress and sanctions in case of non-compliance. The Directive, in its Article 8, establishes the right for employees who consider themselves wronged by an employer’s failure to comply with its obligations arising from its provisions to pursue their claims by judicial process. Member States may also establish two steps that would precede judicial proceedings: (i) recourse to a competent authority such as a labour inspectorate or an administrative body; (ii) a formal notice given to the employer calling on it to issue the written statement within 15 days. The REFIT evaluation has confirmed that all Member States provide for access to the relevant national court which is in general the Labour Court. As regards sanctions imposed on employers who fail to comply, the REFIT evaluation distinguishes between: (i) a majority of Member States where financial compensation can be granted only to employees who prove that they have suffered damage; and (ii) a minority of Member States where sanctions such as lump sum penalties or loss of permits can be imposed in addition on the employer for failure to issue the written statement. The REFIT evaluation concluded that redress systems based only on claims for damages are less effective than systems that also provide for sanctions such as lump sum penalties. The limited extent of case law indicates that workers whose rights under the Directive have been infringed are reluctant to pursue litigation while in employment. Generally any litigation is related to the working conditions themselves not to the absence of information about them. To achieve the goal of the Directive its enforcement must be ensured through adequate recourse via enforcement authorities and appropriate and dissuasive sanctions. Greater clarity on legal obligations and raising awareness of employers concerning their obligations resulting from national transpositions of the Directive could also contribute to a better implementation of the Directive. 2.2.4. An increased instability and lack of predictability in some working relationships

The European Union has built over the years a strong core of individual rights for workers, encompassing information to each worker about his/her working conditions; health and safety protection, including limits on working time; combating discrimination and abuse of non-standard employment types; equal treatment at the workplace; conditions for workers posted to another Member State and third country nationals coming to work in the EU. A further set of Directives provide for minimum standards in relation to collective rights: for representation via European Works Councils; for information and consultation in relation to structural changes in companies; in relation to collective redundancies; and for transfers of undertakings. These labour market developments have however created gaps and/or deficiencies in EU and national legal frameworks. As a result, the existing EU labour law acquis, including but not limited to the Written Statement Directive, does not apply today uniformly to all workers, creating disparities and leading to inequalities in terms of working conditions and social protection in general.

While a full-time permanent labour contract is still the predominant contractual employment relationship, non-standard work has increased over the last 20 years. In 1995, less than 21% of the EU-15 workforce had non-standard contracts. This proportion had increased to over 25% in the EU-28 by 2016. In the last ten years more than half of all new jobs were non-standard.

As the public consultation on the European Pillar of Social Rights clearly revealed, there is a growing challenge to define and apply appropriate rights for many workers in new and non-standard forms of employment relationships across the EU. Such forms of work create opportunities for people to enter or remain in the labour market and the flexibility they offer can be a matter of personal choice. However, inadequate regulation may lead many of them being stuck in legal loopholes that make them subject to unclear or unfair practices and make it difficult to enforce their rights. Moreover, for many workers non-standard employment is not a voluntary choice. It is estimated, for example, that over two thirds of employees who work on temporary contracts do so involuntarily. This is especially true of prime-age and older workers. In 2016, 76.7 % of prime-age and older temporary employees and 68.5 % of younger temporary employees were working on a temporary contract because they could not find a permanent one. Additionally, in the new world of work, working lives are expected to be longer and less linear: they will likely be marked by numerous transitions between jobs and professions, as well as by changing needs in demand, or life-cycle and work-cycle pressures requiring career interruptions or breaks for caring responsibilities, or for seeking access to re-skilling opportunities. Job tenure is changing at a rapid pace. Nowadays only 2 in 5 Europeans work for the same employer for more than 10 years. It was 3 in 5 only 10 years ago. Overall, labour market developments have led to an increase in various mechanisms which affect working conditions of many workers in the EU, including some in the new and non-standard forms of work. The challenge is how to ensure that the current dynamics, while allowing for job creation and labour market innovation, are framed in a way that allow for upward convergence in social standards across the EU. ·Very variable work schedules

Flexibility is a key charateristic of new forms of work and flexible hours can be positive for workers, as it generates new jobs and can allow them an entry into the labour market (e.g. 18% of workers on zero hours contract in the UK are in full-time education), but workers in lower-level occupations are less likely to have the bargaining power to negotiate their working schedules, or more likely to have no autonomy or control over their schedules. The consequences of precariousness are often severe for workers who need stable work schedules and income levels. Lack of reference hours and short or no advance notice before an assignment are features of working relationships especially affecting casual workers (on-demand and intermittent). There are some 4-6 million such workers in the EU (including but not limited to workers on zero-hours contracts). The interval between being requested to work and the actual start of work varies in these types of jobs in line with company practice and the incidence of HR needs. Among the case studies set out in the Eurofound report, there are examples of employers summoning casual workers only one hour before the shift starts and others doing so as long as four weeks in advance. A UK survey showed that one-third of undertakings using zero-hours contracts have a set policy for the notice period required for staff asked to work, 40% had no policy, and the remainder did not know if they had one. Almost half of zero-hours workers said they have no notice; workers might even discover at the start of a shift that their work has been cancelled. On receiving a job offer, a casual worker may decline, in which case, the next candidate is contacted. However, in several case studies, respondents said that repeated refusal makes it less likely that a worker will be asked to come to work. In a UK survey, 17% of zero-hours workers said that they are sometimes penalised if they refuse a call-in, and 3% said they were always penalised. ·Exclusivity and incompatibility clauses

Exclusivity clauses prevent workers from taking on any other work at all. Incompatibility clauses impede them from taking on work with other specific employers ('work providers'). Exclusivity and incompatibility clauses can put a disproportionate burden on the worker, particularly if not employed full-time, who has limited possibilities for ensuring not only income security and stability, but also to seek further work to reduce the risk of poverty. In economic terms, exclusivity and incompatibility clauses can exacerbate situations of underemployment. In the EU some Member States limit or even ban the use of exclusivity and incompatibility clauses, while in others such clauses are permitted. It is estimated that among workers who are most negatively affected by such clauses (casual and voucher-based) an estimated 0.5-1.5 million are subject to them. ·Limited opportunities to transit to another (more permanent) form of employment

New and non-standard forms of employment may offer good opportunities to enter labour market for people who would otherwise have difficulties to do so. However, lack of possibilities to move on to more permanent positions for those who would like to contributes to labour market segmentation and underemployment. Indeed, the rate of transitions from temporary to permanent jobs is only some 23%, with a great variation across the EU (from 10% in France to 59% in the UK). Also among part-time workers there is a growing proportion of people who work part-time involuntarily and would like to work more hours. Self-reported involuntary part-time work increased from 22.4% of all part-time work to 27.7% between 2007 and 2016. Women, younger workers, less educated workers and – especially – workers new to their current job (tenure < 1 year), those on temporary contracts and in low-paid professions are more likely to be involuntary part-time workers. According to the ECB, 3% of the working age population is currently underemployed (i.e. working fewer hours than they would like). Currently there are around seven million underemployed part-time workers across the euro area – an increase of around one million since the start of the crisis. Moreover, the number has declined only very modestly over the past two years, despite robust employment growth.

·Unjustifiably long probation periods

Probation periods offer the worker the opportunity to be supported and developed to meet the requirements of the job, and the employer to test the suitability of the worker for that job. During probation periods, the conditions attaching to the termination of the employment contract are often light and some protective measures that normally apply in case of dismissal are absent (e.g. notice period and severance pay). Therefore, overly long probation periods, in which employment rights are inferior to standard employment, may limit worker protection. ·Insufficient access to basic training

Across the EU, 43% of adult employees have seen the technologies they use change in the past five years and 47% have seen changes in working methods or practices. Yet, only 40% of workers in the EU receive training at work. While 40% of workers who do not receive training state that this is because they do not need it, there is a proportion of workers who are deprived of training opportunities because of lack of employer's support (4%), too high costs (7.5%) or lack of suitable offer (4%). Access to training is also more limited among workers in non-standard employment. Evidence based on the OECD Adult Skills Survey shows that on average being on temporary contracts reduces the probability of receiving employer-sponsored training by 14%. 2.2.5. Decreased transparency in the labour market Apart from improving the protection of workers, the Written Statement Directive aimed to increase transparency in the labour market and improve the operation of the EU internal market. Indeed, by setting minimum requirements for the information to be provided individually to employees, the Directive aimed to reduce differences between Member States' legislation. The minimum requirements set in the Directive corresponded to the labour market reality 25 years ago. However, as described earlier, labour markets have since undergone deep transformations. As the EU level legislation remained stable, some Member States put in place some new regulations and certain national social partners developed new collective agreements, leading to an increasingly diverse picture across the EU. Just as there are significant differences across the Member States with regard to the personal scope of national transpositions of the Written Statement Directive (see section 2.2.1), the situation also differs in relation to the protection of workers in the most precarious situations. Most of the new and non-standard forms of work referred to above do not have a specific legal or collectively agreed basis in most Member States. This is probably due to their newness and their recent emergence through individual company practice rather than a strategically planned labour market development. They are regulated (or not) in very different ways across the EU, and the legal frameworks are in constant change to address these new phenomena. The diversity of regulation is also related to the fact that in each Member State there is a different mix of the new forms of employment. This diversity of national provisions on new and non-standard work as they currently exist is a further regulatory driver. Some forms of work are not consistently covered by labour market regulation across the EU, and this diversity hampers equal treatment between workers in the same situation, who are protected in very different ways in different EU Member States. 2.3 Why is it a problem? 2.3.1. Workers The problems described above have an impact on all workers in the EU, in particular those who find themselves in the most precarious forms of employment. Those on standard contracts are still relatively well protected: they generally receive written statements and some of the labour market measures which cause precariousness, such as lack of reference hours or lack of notice before assignements, do not affect them. However, also for those workers written statements may be delivered too late, the information provided may not be sufficient, enforcement mechanisms may not be strong enough to guarantee protection. Also, some workers on standard contracts can be subject to overly long probation periods and some 55% do not receive training at work. Lack of written statements, delayed or incomplete information provided to some workers, as well as the broader issue of insufficient predictability of working conditions have an even more significant impact on workers in non-standard employment, in particular those in the most precarious employment situations. Some workers suffer negative consequences due to a combination of all the described problems: not only do they lack the basic protection of receiving a written statement but also have extremely variable working schedules, limited access to more permanent positions, limited possibilities to earn additional income due to exclusivity or incompatibility clauses or unpredictable work patterns. Non-standard jobs are disproportionately held by women, by young workers, and by less-educated, lower-skilled workers and by migrant workers, generally not on a voluntary basis. A combination of many such factors means that workers in new and non-standard forms of employment are more likely to suffer from job insecurity. Non-standard jobs tend to offer lower hourly pay than permanent full-time jobs and as a result pose the highest poverty risk among those in employment. Non-standard employment goes together with a higher risk of unemployment and inactivity. At the same time non-standard workers tend to have shorter and lower records of social security contributions and this negatively affects their eligibility for social security benefits, as well as the amount and duration of those benefits. Some categories of workers in new and non-standard forms of employment are less protected from occupational safety and health risks and are more likely to suffer from stress at work. Such negative health impacts are confirmed even among young people. Workers in the new forms of employment also tend to have more limited access to representation and collective bargaining. Low transition rates from temporary to permanent jobs suggest that inequalities tend to persist over time. Evidence for EU Member States shows that less than 50% of the workers who were on temporary contracts in a given year were employed with full time permanent contracts three years later. Inequalities in the access to rights, collective bargaining and enforcement deepen gaps in job security, income and access to social protection, and limit access to training and professional development.

2.3.2. Business As described above, the direct consequence of diversity of national implementation of the Written Statement Directive as well as lack of EU minimum requirements for some of the most flexible employment practices in new and non-standard forms of employment, is a decreased effectiveness of the EU internal market. For companies this means a greater exposure to unfair competition, and for those operating across borders the need to adjust business models to 28 different legislative frameworks. Some non-standard or atypical forms of employment can offer flexibility both to the employer and the employee. Employers can benefit from the opportunity to expand or to respond flexibly to fluctuations in demand without having the risks associated with taking on staff permanently. They can also retain the skills of workers who wish to work only casually or intermittently (e.g. semi-retired workers, workers with family responsibilities). Some employees do not wish to commit to regular working hours, such as students, semi-retired workers, workers with family responsibilities. In some cases, workers may accept a second job with flexible working hours because they want to enjoy occasional opportunities for additional income rather than committing to regularly working additional hours with a second employer. However, employers who rely to a large extent on non-standard work are exposed to some longer-term disadvantages associated with such a business model. A frequent issue is that relying on non-standard employment arrangements can have a negative impact on the commitment of hired-in workers and that the insufficient protection of working conditions of certain employees leads to a decrease in commitment. A literature review from the ILO indicates that the weaker attachment is likely to be manifested in a reduced attempt to assimilate socially, lower performance, lower motivation and effort as compared to regular workers, including higher absenteeism, lower job satisfaction, or lower commitment to the organization. Innovation may be negatively affected by insecurity in employment relationships leading to a lack of trust and risk-averse behaviour. The increasingly widespread use of temporary work risks harming productivity growth (ESDE 2017)., There is evidence that a high proportion of temporary work, even when controlling for sectoral differences and for firm size, harms total factor productivity growth in various ways, with the impact being more damaging in skilled sectors. Data from the European Union Structure of Earnings Survey (SES) reveals that in 2014, only some 4% of firms used non-standard forms of work intensively (more than 50 % of their workers were either fixed-term or temporary agency workers). 52% of the firms make no use of temporary employees, while for some 44% the share of temporary workers ranges between 0-50%. In the same vein, 2016 data from the UK shows that only some 7% of enterprises make some use of contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours and use of such contracts is significantly more widespread among the biggest enterprises in comparison with SMEs. This implies that the relatively large number of companies in Europe providing workers with protection related to standard employment status risk being in a disadvantaged position in relation to companies which compete on the basis of reduced labour costs. 66% of EU companies provide some vocational training. However, in general, the greater the proportion of non-standard workers in an organization, the less the organization will invest in training and development. Underinvestment in training, both for temporary and permanent employees, reduces incentives to invest in productivity-enhancing technology and patenting, and slows down innovation. An over-reliance on temporary workers, especially if they are low skilled, may end up deskilling the organization as a whole and have a detrimental effect on the working environment for all workers. 2.3.3. Member States Lack of written statements for a growing number of workers, written statements which are delivered too late or do not contain all the relevant information, as well as weaknesses in enforcement mechanisms can have direct negative consequences for Member States in terms of the capacity to prevent undeclared work and prevent abuse of workers' rights. With regard to the broader question of regulation of new and non-stardard forms of work, Eurofound points out that these can have positive effects: creating new jobs, allowing for a professional activation of a greater number of people (including vulnerable workers) and reconciliation between private and professional lives. However, lack of job predictability, exacerbated by measures such as extremely variable work schedules, exclusivity clauses, lack of training opportunities or opportunities to move towards standard forms of employment, contribute to labour market segmentation and impact most the most vulnerable groups of workers, leading to underemployment, higher poverty risk and strain on social protection systems. As noted above, non-standard jobs tend to be performed by women, young, migrant, and less educated workers, so increasing labour market segmentation and the risk of social exclusion for these groups. Indirectly, there can be negative consequences for the sustainability of public finance, as well as for demography and social cohesion. Underemployment caused e.g. by exclusivity clauses and unpredictable work shifts preventing a worker taking on more work has costs in reduced tax contributions, higher social spending or reduced consumption. The growing precariousness of the labour market is affecting household decisions across generations. The increase in non-standard jobs for younger generations has started to cause discontinuity and variation in income levels. As a consequence it has become more common for their parents to make financial transfers to assist them with rent expenses or mortgage costs/deposits, and for those without access to such resources to be excluded from the housing market or pushed to its margins. Such processes increase the risk of socio political exclusion. The widespread increase in non-standard work is likely to be one of the causes of delayed parenthood. The mean age at which women become mothers is highly correlated to the proportion of non-standard workers among younger people in the country and is increasing, so exacerbating demographic imbalances. 2.4 How will the problem evolve? In the absence of EU action the insufficient protection of workers, including those in new and non-standard forms of employment, and the resulting negative consequences for businesses, Member States and the internal market will most likely increase.

Firstly, economic, social and technological developments may continue to increase different forms of non-standard work as well as to further diversify new forms of employment, thus potentially leading to a further increase in the number of workers not covered by the provisions of the Directive and/or exposed to some of the measures increasing insecurity of employment. The future of work will be marked by a growing need for flexibility, fast pace, adaptability and autonomy, which will increase incentives for companies to use on-demand work, short-term contracts, or outsourcing. Across the EU, as discussed in section 2.2.1., the volume of non-standard work has increased over the last two decades. This steady increase indicates that the trend is likely to be of a structural, rather than a cyclical, nature. Some of the new and non-standard forms of work addressed by this initiative have been expanding particularly strongly over recent years and have potential for further significant growth in the future. This is the case e.g. for platform work, temporary agency work, domestic and/or voucher-based work. A growing trend has also been observed in individual Member States. Assuming that the average year-on-year growth rates between 1995 and 2016 for each type of non-standard work continue into the future, non-standard work would go from being a fourth of all employment contracts in 2016, to representing more than 35% of all employment in 2050 (see Chart 1). In addition, these data only partially capture casual work. Chart 1 – Evolution of non-standard work (1995-2016) and projection for the future (2017-2080) by type of contract, EU-15 (1995-2001) and EU-28 (2002-2080) Note: For the evolution by type of contract from 2016 onwards, average year-on-year growth rates by type of contract share between 1995 and 2016 were used. Source: Own calculations based on EU-LFS. Moreover, it is likely that the extent and direction of national regulatory responses to the new and non-standard forms of work will continue to be diverse, leading to diverging levels of protection of workers across the EU and consequently different conditions for business as regards labour law conditions. Indeed, across the EU the legal frameworks are in constant change to try to regulate these new phenomena. Regulation of on-demand work

An example of developments in Member States' legislation on non-standard work ·No regulation (e.g. PL, BE, FI, CY, HR, GR, SL). Either casual work is not a common practice, or exists without being regulated. For instance in CZ, agreement on working activities is allowed within a certain number of hours/year but is not subject to regulation so leads to very limited access to standard worker rights. ·On-demand work and zero hours contracts are considered illegal (e.g. AT, FR, BG, LU, and LV). For instance in AT, every legally valid employment contract must include the number of hours the employee is expected to work. ·Regulation of zero hours contracts and some types of casual work (e.g. UK, HU, IT, DE, NL, ES, RO, IT, PT, IE). For instance in DE, an on-demand work contract must specify the number of daily and weekly working hours; by default the amount of daily working hours is deemed to be three. In ES, RO and PT casual work is allowed in the agricultural sector or for seasonal activities. In the NL zero hours clauses can only be concluded for the first 6 months of employment with the same employer. 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis The initiative will support Union's aims recognised in Article 3 TEU: to promote the well-being of its peoples, the sustainable development of Europe aiming at full employment and social progress, but also the aim to promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men and solidarity between generations. In the current Treaty framework, the appropriate legal basis would be Article 153 TFEU: 153(1)(b)" With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 151, the Union shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields: (b) working conditions"; 153 (2) (b) "to this end, the European Parliament and the Council may adopt (…) by means of directives minimum requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States. Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. Indeed, Article 151 TFEU provides that the Union and the Member States aim at the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion. 3.2Results of the social partner consultations Consultation of representative social partner organisations in two phases in accordance with Article 154 TFEU took place previous to the presentation of the proposal.

The views of the social partners were mixed on the need for legislative action to revise Directive 91/533/EEC. In both phases trade unions were in favour of clarifying and broadening the personal scope of the Directive, in particular through removing exclusions from personal scope and including criteria to assist with identifying the existence of an employment relationship. In addition, they argued for the inclusion of self-employed in the scope of application. With regard to the information package, trade unions agreed with the list suggested in the consultation document and argued for further additions to the package. They called for written statements to be provided prior to the start of the work or immediately on signing the contract. The need to improve access to sanctions and means of redress was acknowledged, including by calling for the introduction of a presumption of employment in case the employer fails to provide a written statement. Finally, they were strongly in favour of new minimum rights aimed at improving transparency and predictabiltiy of working conditions. They however requested more rights than those presented in the second consutlation document including a complete ban on forms of contractual arrangements not guaranting workers a minimum of paid hours and a right to adequate remuneration. In both phases employers’ organisations opposed the extension of the scope of application of the Directive and the insertion of a definition of worker, based on concerns related to flexibility for business and job creation potential as well as to subsidiarity. A majority did not support amending the information package nor reducing the 2 months' deadline. No organisation supported changes at EU level to the system of redress and sanctions. With very limited exceptions, employer organisations were opposed to the inclusion of new minimum rights in a revised Directive. For that reason, they preferred not to express views on specific minimum rights set out in the consultation document, arguing that such issues were a matter of national competence and that it was not necessary, or even contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, for the EU to act in these fields. The social partners did not reach an agreement to launch the negotiation process provided for under Article 155 TFEU. It is however important to improve protection in this area by modernising and adapting the current legal framework, while taking into account the diverging views expressed by the social partners. 3.3Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action and added value of EU action The social dimension of the internal market – promoting fairness and social standards The described multiplication of forms of work requires an assessment of the need for additional common standards for working conditions to support equal treatment of workers, a level playing field across the EU, and upward convergence in employment and social outcomes. An increasing number of workers not protected by the Directive, uncertainty over whether new or non-standard forms of employment fall within its scope and divergencies in (timely) notification of essential elements of an employment relationship may lead to precarious employment relationships or employment conditions, additional risks to the health and safety of workers, and harmful social competition within and across Member States. While collective agreements are an effective tool to complement and extend protection established in national legislation, these are also diverse and workers in the most casual forms of work are currently often excluded from collective bargaining. There is therefore a need to explore the opportunity for improved common action at EU level. Furthermore, there is a risk of race to the bottom in standards applying to new forms of work where the regulatory framework is weaker and more patchy across Member States, and their efforts to ensure minimum protection of workers is likely to lead to increasingly divergent and even contradictory national solutions, creating regulatory loopholes when viewed from an EU perspective, and leading to inequality in the protection of workers and their living conditions. Eventually it could affect the quality of the workforce, the relative competitiveness of employers, companies and Member States, and the functioning of the EU internal market. By acting at EU level there is a possibility to build on good practices developed in some Member States, and to create a momentum for Member States to advance together towards better outcomes, supporting upwards convergence. While the EU is working to increase fair labour mobility in Europe by removing barriers, the potential of labour mobility is not yet exploited in full. The EU could further contribute to improving internal market mobility for (some categories of) workers and for businesses operating in different Member States. Moreover, as highlighted in the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union, in a single currency area, there is a need to build up the shock absorption capacity and labour market adjustment mechanisms of Member States. Enhancing convergence towards robust labour market institutions and social infrastructure can facilitate resilience, social cohesion and macro-economic adjustment within the euro area and beyond. The European Parliament, in its Resolution of January 2017, calls on the social partners and the Commission to present a proposal for a framework directive on decent working conditions in all forms of employment, extending existing minimum standards to new kinds of employment relationships, in order to improve enforcement of EU law, increase legal certainty across the single market and prevent discrimination by complementing existing EU law and ensuring for every worker a core set of enforceable rights, regardless of the type of contract or employment relationship. Its request is for an instrument that guarantees workers' rights across a wide range of fields including equal treatment, health and safety protection, protection during maternity leave, provisions on working time and rest time, work-life balance, access to training, in-work support for people with disabilities, adequate information, consultation and participation rights, freedom of association and representation, collective bargaining and collective action. The Parliament's request represents a highly ambitious approach to addressing the challenges set out in the problem definition section of this Impact Assessment. Indeed, it implies a revolutionary overhaul of the entire EU social acquis, bringing together into a single legal instrument the widest possible personal and material scope of rights, which would supersede the existing corpus of EU law. While the Commission shares much of the Parliament's diagnosis of the challenges and recognises the need for new material rights for workers in the most precarious and vulnerable situations, who are often currently left outside the scope of protection of the current acquis, it takes the view that this does not require overhauling the entire acquis, and that a more proportionate approach lies in a more modest and targeted instrument, namely a revision and possible expansion of the Written Statement Directive. The obligation to provide written confirmation of the essential elements of an employment relationship is seen as a basic right that applies "regardless of the type of contract or employment relationship", to use the wording of the Parliament's Resolution. Ensuring the removal of gaps in coverage of workers in marginal or currently excluded employment relationships is one of the key objectives of this proposed revision, along with an update in the contents of the information package. The creation of new material rights particularly for workers in precarious situations with little or no predictability of work schedules, addresses the essential element of the challenge highlighted by the Parliament, but by means of a complement to, rather than replacement, of the existing EU social acquis. In its Opinion on the Commission's proposal for a European Pillar of Social Rights, the European Economic and Social Committee draws attention to the increasing diversity of types of employment and calls for the framework conditions in labour markets to support new and more diverse career paths, including through providing a suitable employment protection legislation environment to provide a framework for fair working conditions and to stimulate recruitment under all employment contracts. In its Opinion, the Committee of the Regions states that the emergence of non-standard forms of work leads to new risks of "grey zones" in terms of labour rights and access to welfare and calls on the Commission to properly define flexibility in working conditions, so as to strike a balance between flexibility and security. The Commission's analysis of the problem to be addressed by the proposed Directive is aligned with that of both institutions and the measures considered in this Impact Analysis and the preferred option follow the lines set out in their recommendations for action.

The Written Statement Directive Since the entry into force of the Directive in 1991 and more recently as a result of the economic and financial crisis, diverging and/or precarious working conditions and insufficient protection of workers have been observed across the EU. Currently, the Directive is not fully adequate and/or incomplete with respect to its scope, implementation or enforcement as not every worker can access the same basic rights everywhere, employers face unfair competition, and there is room for better prevention of undeclared work. A change to the Directive can only be made at EU level. EU action to revise the directive can work as a catalyst for a wider-scale improvement of the employment relationship: - for workers, alleviating the 'burden of uncertainty' by providing enhanced workers' protection (access to information, enforcement mechanisms), less precariousness (security, predictability) or market segmentation (training and transition opportunities) and better mobility conditions; - for businesses, creating a level playing field; better coherence and transparency across the labour market; Member States and the society at large would gain from greater certainty and transparency in labour market functioning and enhanced social convergence. Achieving our common goals by facing our common challenges: an initiative on the information and better protection of EU workers Member States, the social partners and the EU institutions aim to use the European Pillar of Social Rights as a guide towards efficient employment and social outcomes in the context of current and future challenges, in order to fulfil people's essential needs, and ensure better enactment and implementation of social rights. Making the Social Pillar a reality for citizens is a joint responsibility. It is in this framework of common agreement on the need to find common solutions to common challenges that this initiative is developed. It is one of the concrete tools that the Commission is putting forward to contribute to the delivery on the Pillar. 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved? A revised Written Statement Directive would contribute to the Treaty-based goals of promoting employment and improved living and working conditions (Article 151 TFEU). It would also address the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to workers' right to information (Article 27) and their right to fair and just working conditions (Article 31). The general objective of the revised Directive would be to promote more secure and predictable employment while ensuring labour market adaptability and improving living and working conditions. It is appropriate to reflect both elements from Article 151 TFEU, as the goal of the revision is to secure improvements in working conditions, and thereby also the living conditions of workers and their families, while taking account of the need to promote employment and job creation and avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.65 These aspects are reflected in the specific objectives through which the general objective would be addressed: (1) to improve workers' access to information concerning their working conditions; (2) to improve working conditions for all workers, notably those in new and non-standard employment, while preserving scope for adaptability and for labour market innovation (3) to improve compliance with working conditions standards through enhanced enforcement; and

(4) to improve transparency of the labour market while avoiding the imposition of excessive burdens on undertakings of all sizes. 5.What are the considered policy measures? 5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed? Under the baseline scenario the Written Statement Directive continues to apply without any changes to its personal scope, to the content of the written statement, or to the deadline for providing the document to workers. No new basic rights for workers are introduced and the enforcement mechanisms remain unchanged. Concerning the scope, the gaps in the coverage identified through the REFIT evaluation and in the context of the Social Pillar consultation, persist, leaving some groups of workers in some Member States without any written confirmation of their employment conditions and thus making them more vulnerable to abuse. In some cases, other initiatives or improved enforcement arrangements could partially address the gaps. For example, the European Quality Framework for Traineeships, recently complemented with a new proposal for a Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships, could increase the proportion of paid trainees who receive a written statement. Overall, however, the number of workers not covered by the provisions of the Written Statement Directive is likely to grow in the next 20-30 years, as the extent of new and non-standard forms of work is expected to increase (see section 2). As for the content and the deadline for the written statements, the effectiveness of the Directive would continue to be negatively affected in case of no revision. While a relatively high number of Member States have adopted a range of shorter deadlines than the maximum set out in the Directive, lack of legislative action at the EU level will make it difficult to fulfil the Social Pillar principle that workers across the EU get a written statement at the start of their employment. Without the proposed revision of the Written Statement Directive, a high level of insecurity in some jobs, notably some new and non-standard jobs, would remain problematic across the EU. Insufficient access to cost-free mandatory training or opportunities to move on to more permanent jobs would persist. While new legislation and collective bargaining in some Member States could gradually improve conditions for some groups of workers, the lack of EU minimum requirements would sustain and probably deepen divergences across the EU. Those would have a negative impact on equality of treatment for workers and potentially lead to distorted competition within the single market. Finally, concerning the enforcement, under the baseline scenario the issues identified through the REFIT evaluation on obstacles to redress would persist, leading to insufficient protection of workers and undermined effectiveness of the Directive. Under the baseline scenario it can be expected divergence between working conditions across the EU, if not divergence towards lower standards with long-term risks for the Union as a whole. As pointed in the European Parliament briefing of March 2017, the use of cheaper and more vulnerable temporary workers can be one of the sources of social dumping across and within Member States. 5.2 Measures discarded at an early stage Guidance, recommendations, benchmarks The economic governance through the European Semester process is well suited to set out EU employment policy guidance in the area of labour market segmentation, but is not a process that can guarantee labour and social rights at the individual level in the Member States. Stricter enforcement could improve the effectiveness of the existing Written Statement Directive as well as other elements of EU's social acquis. However, as shown in the REFIT evaluation, enforcement shortcomings are related to the lack of adequate mechanisms in the Directive. Also, enforcement would not address gaps in the social acquis e.g. with regard to predictability of work schedules. Greater clarity on legal obligations and raising awareness of employers could also contribute to a better implementation of the Directive. To some extent, interpretative guidance (e.g. on the issue of blurred lines between employment and self-employment) could increase the clarity for employers and those tasked with enforcement such as inspectorates or labour courts. Such guidance could however not amend the personal scope of the Directive, would not address the existing exclusions from its scope, and also would not be an effective tool to introduce any new rights for workers. The growth of new and non-standard forms of employment has resulted in groups of workers finding themselves excluded from the benefits of transparency on working conditions, and more generally from the scope of EU labour law, as it has up to now been largely framed around the concept of the standard employment contract or relationship. Therefore, legislative changes appear to be the more adequate response to this fundamental challenge, particularly in respect of a transparency objective on working conditions that should apply to the widest concept of worker. Discarded legislative options As explained in the Section 3, the Commission took note of the Parliament's call for establishing a new framework directive on decent working conditions in all forms of employment but considered that at this stage a more proportionate approach lies in a more targeted instrument. Indeed some of the actions proposed by the Parliament would have improved the protection of workers more, and more decisively challenged some of the issues raised in the problem description, specifically for workers in new and non-standard forms of employment. Nonetheless they would not have answered to the policy aim of reducing the risk of insufficient protection of workers while at the same time balancing necessary flexibility on the labour market.

Furthermore, the option of proceeding with a proposal centred on one type of employment relationship (for instance a directive on on-call or casual work) has been discarded. Indeed, the problem that this proposal aims to address relates to the multiplication of forms of employment relationships, some of which lack basic levels of protection of working conditions. The aim is to ensure a common minimum level of universal protection across existing and future contractual forms for which the provision of universal rights via a revised Written Statement Directive would be a more effective entry point than a dedicated legislative instrument targeted at a form of employment that may become superseded by the rapid pace of change on the labour market. This approach, in line with the universality of the Principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, aims at ensuring that the provisions are future-proof, apply broadly and remain relevant also in case of future innovation in contractual forms. The reasons for discarding other options are twofold. The first is the need to ensure that the cumulative effect of the different provisions does not create excessive burdens for employers or excessive rigidity on the labour market at this stage of its development. The importance of this consideration takes into account the diverging views of the social partners and the obligation in Article 153(2) TFEU to avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. The second reason relates to the Treaty basis, and the need to ensure that proposals not only respect EU competence, proportionality and subsidiarity, but also that they are consistent with the scope of Article 153(1)(b) on working conditions. Taking into account these aspects, the Commission discarded some of the avenues of action reflected upon in its first stage social partners consultation document: a right to a reasonable notice period in case of dismissal/early termination of contract, to receive the reason for the dismissal and to adequate redress in case of unfair dismissal or unlawful termination of contract; and a right to guaranteed hours after a certain seniority with the same employer set at the average level of previous worked hours. The rights relating to dismissal could indeed create an excessive burden if introduced together with other information and material rights. Additionally, they relate to another legal basis (Art 153(1)(d) requiring unanimity voting in Council. The avoidance of cumulative burden was the reason to exclude also the right to guaranteed hours. Regarding training, the Commission initially considered introducing an obligation for employers to provide free of charge training necessary to enable workers to carry out the work for which they are employed. This was however considered as a disproportionate measure from the point of view of costs (which could amount to 1-4 billion EUR per year and be especially burdensome for SMEs) and lack of clarity on what constitutes training necessary for the job, which could lead to problems of transposition and implementation. Additionally, for the same two types of reason, the Commission did not pursue certain proposals put forward during the consultation by the trade unions. In exercising these considerations, the Commission addresses the need to balance essential protection for workers with the scope for job creation and labour market innovation. Repeal of the Directive A complete repeal of the Directive without replacement would leave it entirely to the Member States to determine what information a worker should receive about his or her employment relationship and to establish any new material rights. This scenario has been discarded at the outset as it could result in a wider divergence of worker protection across the EU as well as deterioration in existing rights to information and material protection, in complete contrast with the aim of supporting upwards convergence. 5.3 Considered policy measures Given the drawbacks in the protection through the Written Statement Directive identified by the REFIT evaluation as well as the challenges related to labour market developments, the Commission is considering a range of legislative measures. Those measures will be combined into options presented as policy packages in Section 6). They are all aimed at promoting more secure and predictable employment while ensuring labour market adaptability and improving living and working conditions, to support upward convergence in working conditions across the Union. Indeed, these measures aim at limiting unfair competition based on employment conditions, inside and across Member States. Building measures that allow common minimum social standards across both traditional and new business models seems central to set a level playing-field. This can support technological and organisational innovation within a common regulatory framework, and limit competition on the basis of social standards. Only the first is a sustainable long-term strategy to support a more productive economy and fairer Union. Measure one relates to ensuring a scope of application encompassing all EU workers, in particular the most precarious. The proposed measure aims to extend the scope of the Directive by removing the exclusions now allowed under the Written Statement Directive (sub-measures 1 to 3) and codifying criteria derived from CJEU case-law for establishing who a worker is for the purpose of the Directive (sub-measure 4). This is in line with the suggestions of the REFIT evaluation, and with requests of the European Parliament. Indeed, the Parliament called for a proposal for decent working conditions in all forms of employment, extending existing minimum standards to new kinds of employment relationships, that increases legal certainty and ensuring for every worker a core set of enforceable rights, regardless of the type of contract or employment relationship, that should apply to employees and all workers in non-standard forms of employment. The Parliament called as well for broadening the Written Statement Directive to cover all forms of employment and employment relationships. Additionally, it pointed to the need to support, for the purpose of EU law and without prejudice to national law, clarification to distinguish between those genuinely self-employed and those in an employment relationship. Introducing a set of common criteria to assess who is a worker for the scope of the directive would ensure equal treatment of workers in the EU and combat the exclusion from basic protection of people undertaking economic activities that might not be recognised as work at national level (as in some cases casual workers including zero-hour contract workers). This will support the goal of increasing legal certainty and ensuring for every worker a core set of enforceable rights, regardless of the type of contract or employment relationship. Indeed, the measure would facilitate identification of bogus self-employed people and their inclusion under the scope of the Directive in the sense that it would clarify which criteria should be applied to establish worker status. Strengthened enforcement provisions under measure 5 would provide an avenue for those potentially falsely labelled self-employed to establish their correct status and the protection that comes with it.

To facilitate the implementation of the Directive, the proposal permits Member States to provide that very short relationships fall outside scope of the Directive by including a threshold of up to 8h per month (sub-measure 1.5.). This aims at bringing within scope of the obligations established by this Directive employment relationships that are of extremely marginal nature and where the protections set out in the Directive could be disproportionate. It will be for Member States to determine, in the light of national circumstances and traditions, whether to introduce such an exclusion from personal scope. Nonetheless, due to the unpredictability of on-demand work including zero-hour contracts, the derogation of 8 hours per month cannot be used where no guaranteed amount of paid work is determined before the start of the employment relationship. This would ensure that workers on zero-hours contracts effectively gain the right to information about essential elements of their working relationship as well as the other rights established in the Directive.

Measure two relates to ensuring a right to information on the applicable working conditions. This measure updates Article 2 of the Written Statement Directive, taking into account the deficiencies identified by the REFIT evaluation and the inputs from Social Partners during the first and second phase consultations by introducing new elements relating to duration and conditions of probation (sub-measure 1), training entitlements (sub-measure 2), better information on procedures for the termination of contracts (sub-measure 3), arrangements for overtime and its remuneration (sub-measure 4), key information about the determination of variable working schedules, to take account of the increasing prevalance of such types of work organisation such as casual or zero-hours contracts (sub-measure 5 to 7), information about the social security institutions receiving the social contributions and and any social security protection provided by the employer (sub-measure 8), and updating some information relating to expatriate and posted workers (sub-measure 10). The REFIT evaluation drew attention to the practice in several Member States of providing a template to employers in order to reduce the burden of producing the written statement, and suggested that such a template could be produced at EU level. While the Commission does not consider it appropriate to produce a single template intended to apply in all Member State jurisdictions, given the diversity of systems and approaches for which it would have to provide, it considers it would be helpful both to employers and to workers, not only as a way of reducing the burden of compliance for employers but also of improving the quality and consistency of information provided to workers. The provision of such templates by Member States would be mandatory (sub-measure 9). Member States would also be obliged to ensure ease of access for employers to the information provided for in laws, regulations, statutory provisions or collective agreements which they must communicate in the written statement. All of the above would increase transparency and reduce the information disparity between an employer and a worker. Measure three relates to shortening of the two-month deadline for providing the written information to at the latest on the first day of the employment relationship This measure replaces the current maximum timeframe of 2 months for provision of a written statement set out in Article 3 of Directive 91/533/EEC with the first day of the employment relationship, in line with Principle 7 of the European Pillar of Social Rights and in coherence with the REFIT finding that the previous timeframe was excessive. Measure four provides for new minimum rights for all workers. As shown in the problem definition, while labour market flexibility is an important driver for job creation and growth, extreme flexibility of individual work arrangements without protection of basic standards for workers has created situations which can jeopardise working and living conditions, equal treatment, fair competition between employers across the EU and overall social cohesion and equity. Indeed, as the Parliament called for, it is necessary to complement existing EU law and ensure a core set of enforceable rights for every worker, regardless of the type of contract or employment relationship. While it was already explained why it is not considered appropriate to put forward all the rights suggested by the Parliament in a single piece of new legislation, some elements suggested seem to be of central importance to address the problems described in Section 2; this includes provisions to combat the risk of workers being trapped in insecure contracts without a tangible prospect of transitions to more permanent jobs, and provisions to support access to training and to introduce limits regarding on-demand work. Additionally, some proposals aim at supporting predictability in line with the call from the Parliament to support equal treatment, working time and rest time, health and safety protection and work-life balance. A minimum common level of predictability (sub-measure 1) can prove extremely important for living and working conditions, work-life balance and health of workers without a fixed schedule, including on-demand work and zero-hour contract workers. As presented in the problem definition, workers in lower-level occupations are in particular less likely to have the bargaining power to negotiate their working schedules, or more likely to have no autonomy or control over their schedules. This new right could include two elements: - Right to reference days and hours within which work can take place: This measure provides that the employers must notify workers of the periods of hours and days within which they may be requested to work –e.g. Monday to Friday between 0800 and 1300. That would enable workers to make arrangements to use the time not covered by such reference hours/days, for instance in other employment or to fulfil care obligations. Workers may agree to work outside the reference hours and days, but could not be obliged to do so, and must not be subject to detriment if they refuse. - Right to a reasonable advance notice before a new work assignment: This measure provides that workers cannot be required to take up a work assignment if they do not receive reasonable advance notice from their employer. They may agree to do so but must not be subject to detriment if they refuse. This right to predictability is relevant for workers whose work schedule is mainly variable and mainly determined by their employer and is therefore limited in scope to such situations, to avoid restricting workers' autonomy to determine their work schedule, where this is possible within their employment relationship. In addition, for all workers, it is important to ensure that they can seek employment in line with their wishes, ambitions and availability. Indeed, the practice of including in contracts exclusivity clauses (which prevent workers from taking on other work at all, no matter what the type of employer), or incompatibility clauses (which impede workers from taking on work with certain other employers), can put a disproportionate burden on workers and restrict their freedom to increase their work intensity. Particularly if not employed full-time, workers are put in a situation where they cannot freely seek greater income security and stability, or even avoid poverty. In economic terms, exclusivity and incompatibility clauses exacerbate situations of underemployment. Sub-measure 2 therefore provides for a prohibition of exclusivity clauses and a restriction on incompatibility clauses to when they are justified by legitimate reasons.

Sub-measures 1 and 2 respond to the Parliament's request to limit on-demand work; sub-measure 3 responds to its call to combat the danger of people being trapped in insecure contracts without a tangible prospect of transition to more permanent forms of employment. Indeed, sub-measure 3 would provide for a possibility to request a more predictable and secure form of employment, where available, after achieving a certain degree of seniority with their employer, and to receive a reply in writing. This could ease the transition from extremely flexible forms of non-standard work to other forms of work (e.g. full time work). Sub-measure 4 responds to the need for security and predictability in the framework of the increased number of transitions between jobs and professions. While longer probationary periods have often been used in the perspective of entering very long and stable employment relationship, this approach becomes less appropriate in view of a life-time of changes of jobs. Workers risk spending considerable amounts of time during their career in a situation of unpredictability in terms of job security. It is proposed therefore to limit probation, where it exists, to 6 months maximum, unless a longer duration is justified by the nature of the employment, such as managerial positions, or where this is in the worker's interest, such as when he or she has been prevented by illness from fulfilling the original probationary period fully and would otherwise face dismissal. Finally, sub-measure 5 responds to the need of ensuring equal access to training. According to this provision Member States shall ensure that employers provide cost-free training recognised as being necessary in EU legislation, national legislation and in relevant collective agreements to enable workers to carry out the work for which they are employed. Finally, measure five provides for revised enforcement provisions. Rights are only meaningful when they are taken up by right-holders. Both the REFIT evaluation of the Written Statement Directive, and the public consultation on the European Pillar of Social Rights, have underlined the importance of enforcement mechanisms to ensure workers’ rights are respected and EU law is effective. This has also been underlined by the recent Commission Communication on better application of EU law. Sub-measures 1 to 3 follow from the findings of REFIT and apply to incompliance with the obligation to provide information on the employment relationship. The REFIT evaluation of the Written Statement Directive indicated that enforcement of workers' rights under the Directive could be improved by rethinking means of redress and sanctions for non-compliance. It also concluded that redress systems based only on claims for damages are less effective than systems that also provide for sanctions such as lump sum penalties. The limited extent of case law indicates that workers whose rights under the Directive have been infringed are reluctant to pursue litigation while in employment. Generally any litigation is related to the working conditions themselves, and not to the absence of information about them. Indeed under under sub-measure 1, Member States are to make sure that a 'competent authority' can find or impose a solution in case a worker does not receive a written statement. This could combine with sub-measure 2 to set up an injunction system, backed up with the possiblity to issue penalties. In almost a third of the Member States the only available means for redress in case of lack of written statement is litigation before civil or labour courts, which was considered under REFIT particularly ineffective as means of enforcement when the only available remedy is the award of damages. Alternatively, under sub-measure 3 Member States may establish favourable presumptions for the employees as regards their working conditions in case of (unlawful) absence of written statements (proportionate to the missing elements). This is to include for instance presumption of permanent employment relationship. Employers would have the possibility to rebut the presumption. It is suggested that Member States consider sub-measures 1+2, and 3, as alternative. In relation to the new basic rights, sub-measure 4 aims at ensuring their enforcement. Indeed, one of the conclusions of the public consultation on the European Pillar of Social Rights was that, very often, citizens are deprived of their rights due to a lack of implementation and enforcement. In the context of EU labour law, unlike in other areas, there are very few EU rules directly concerned with enforcement of rights. Experts highlighted various ways to close the enforcement gap. It was proposed to ensure that legislation in the field of labour law contains procedural provisions for enforcement, such as provisions improving access to justice, supporting persons whose rights have been denied to initiate litigation, protecting against victimisation and providing for basic rules on remedies and dissemination of information. It was pointed out that inspiration could be drawn from existing instruments e.g. in the field on non-discrimination or free movement, where a range of enforcement tools have been adopted in recent years. Others asked for more and better labour inspections. Sub-measure 4 would enlarge the enforcement provisions of the revised Directive based on enforcement provisions already in place under EU anti-discrimination and gender equality law, and included in the new proposal for a Directive on Work-Life Balance. Indeed, following the evolution of the EU acquis and case-law in the field of gender equality and antidiscrimination in the last 30 years, now all Member States have put in place enforcement provisions that apply to the interaction between worker and employer. This includes provisions on defense of rights, burden of proof, compensation or reparation, protection against adverse treatment or victimisation, penalties, compliance and dissemination of information. This corpus of enforcement provisions has developed via legislative action and case-law to ensure the effectiveness of social acquis relating to equal treatment. Workers, employers, public authorities, social partners, labour courts have experience in applying these procedural elements – in all Member States in equal treatment, and in many cases in other areas of labour law beyond equal treatment. This acquis offers an extensive system that can be used to ensure the effectiveness of the rights provided for also in this Directive. In particular, providing a shared burden of proof in case of dismissal due to the exercise of rights provided for under the proposed Directive would help counter unbalanced access to information between worker and employer that is one of the factors addressed by the proposed Directive. The first proposal for a Directive on burden of proof was already adopted in 1988, with key CJEU judgments on the matter since 1989, and the first Directive agreed upon in 1997 with the assessment that "plaintiffs could be deprived of any effective means of enforcing the principle (of equal treatment) before the national courts if the effect of introducing evidence (of an apparent discrimination) were not to impose upon the respondent the burden of proving that his practice is not in fact discriminatory" . This reasoning is transposable to the need for effective means of enforcing the rights provided for in the proposed Directive, in a comparable situation where information on the reasons for employers' actions rests solely with the employers. This is already in place, beyond equal treatment, at least partially in 21 Member States. Furthermore, it is important to provide that workers are protected against adverse treatment by the employer as a reaction to a complaint or to any legal proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with the Directive. This principle has been present in the equal treatment acquis since 2000 as "effective legal protection must include protection against retaliation. Victims may be deterred from exercising their rights due to the risk of retaliation. Since fear of dismissal, for example, is generally one of the major obstacles to individual action, it is necessary to protect individuals against dismissal or other adverse treatment (for instance down-grading or any other coercive measures due to such action)" The reasoning is transposable to the need for protection against retaliation for requesting e.g. another form of work, or the respect of reference hours and notice periods. It seems particularly important to ensure protection against detriment in particular for on-demand work, where the standard protections against unfair dismissal often are difficult to apply. This principle is already at least partially in place, beyond the sphere of equal treatment, in 23 Member States either for all matters concerning with labour law, or for specific provisions generally including dismissal. The table below presents more detailed information on the formulation of the considered measures, as well as populations and Member States potentially affected by their possible introduction. Annex 8 provides further information, including examples of Member State approaches which provided a basis for the new minimum rights and the enforcement measures. To be noted that the impact of the considered measures could also vary depending on the extent that some of the rights are already established through collective agreements or practice. The provisions of major relevant collective agreements have been taken into account in the analysis (see section 7 of Annex 8). Table 2. Overview of policy measures under consideration

Description of measure Population affected Number of Member States where legal changes would be required 1. A scope of application encompassing all EU workers, in particular the most precarious Removing the possibilities under the existing Directive to exclude: 1.1: people working less than 8h/week 1.2: people whose employment relationship will last less than 1 month 1.3: people having a contract or employment relationship of a casual or specific nature provided that its non-application is justified by objective considerations Confirming/ensuring that the Directive covers any ‘natural person who for a certain period of time performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for remuneration’. The Directive would apply to e.g. domestic workers, on-demand, intermittent, voucher-based and platform workers, as long as they fulfil the criteria. A threshold of a work relationship of up to 8h working hours