ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure):

1. Point 2.8

Amend as follows:

The EESC welcomes the fact that, in this communication, the Commission has taken the initiative to open the debate and explain how a shift to also launched the discussion on extending decision-making by qualified majority in the area of social policy could look without precipitous propos als., as is the case particularly in the area of taxation policy (1). The qualified majority procedure is based on a culture of compromise. It presupposes a debate and enables pragmatic results to be achieved that take account of the interests of the EU as a whole. The prospect of qualified majority voting acts as a catalyst for finding a solution that is acceptable to all parties, by involving all stakeholders in pursuit of a compromise.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 36 Against : 74 Abstentions : 2

2. New point after 2.8

Add a new point after 2.8:

On the other hand, the rationale of unanimity in the decision-making is based on the need to preserve national control of relevant provisions of social policy in the EU Treaty and prevent intrusion into core elements of national social systems for which the Member States together with social partners are responsible in the first instance.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 31 Against : 82 Abstentions : 3

3. Point 3.1

Amend as follows:

The EESC notes that, within a given policy area, decisions are currently subject to unanimity or qualified majority voting. The EESC finds that the apportionment between qualified majority voting and unanimity laid down in the social chapter of the EU Treaty is still relevant as it reflects the diversity and heterogeneity of the national social systems of the Member States e.g. in social protection, regarding the role of social partners and regarding the role of labour law and collective agreements. This leads to inequality in the development of social standards and to gaps in social protection.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 32 Against : 74 Abstentions : 3

4. Point 3.2

Amend as follows:

The EESC points out that there is extensive EU legislation implementing the principle of equality between men and women and equal treatment on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, among other things. This is a major success story of the EU, which is also an international standard setter in this area. However, EU law only ensures equal treatment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the context of employment and occupation. These directives were adopted unanimously. A directive comprehensively prohibiting discrimination in the EU would be extremely complex, which explains the long procedure and slow progress and therefore unlikely to be achievable through unanimity voting. However, the EU has made a commitment to this end under the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. This objective has been bolstered by the new Strategic Agenda 2019-2024. The EESC supports a full transition to qualified majority voting for legislation on non-discrimination.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 31 Against : 78 Abstentions : 2

5. Point 3.4

Delete as follows:

The EESC recognises that protecting workers in the event of dismissal has always been a key feature of national labour law. However, the EESC also recognises that the EU has now developed measures to protect vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and part-time workers. This calls for at least a minimum set of procedural and protection rights to be guaranteed at European level in order to ensure that these safeguards do not prove ineffective. The European Pillar of Social Rights provides for rights to information for workers who have been made redundant, and for access to effective and impartial dispute settlements, remedies and compensation where applicable. This calls for a transition to qualified majority voting to enable such a directive to be implemented.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 35 Against : 77 Abstentions : 2

6. Point 3.5

Delete as follows:

The EESC stresses that it is crucial to have a sound legal framework for the representation and collective management of employer and employee interests for the cohesion of society, the creation of high-quality jobs and the competitiveness of EU businesses. Businesses in the single market are working more and more closely together at cross-border level. The Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council, which was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, applies to undertakings and groups of undertakings in the EU. In contrast, unanimity continues to apply in other areas of EU law on employee participation. Here, too, the EU must, as far as is objectively necessary, examine to what extent qualified majority voting opens up new opportunities for a future-oriented social partnership.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 34 Against : 84 Abstentions : 2

7. Point 3.6

Delete as follows:

The EESC recommends moving to qualified majority voting for the employment conditions of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU. The employment conditions of EU and non-EU nationals must be consistent if social cohesion is not to be compromised.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 30 Against : 85 Abstentions : 1

8. Point 1.7

Amend as follows:

The EESC notes that, within a given policy area, decisions are currently subject to either unanimity or qualified majority voting. This leads to inequality in the development of social standards and to gaps in social protection. The EESC therefore supports a full transition to qualified majority voting for legislation in the area of non-discrimination and for recommendations on social security and protection of workers. The EESC finds that the apportionment between qualified majority voting and unanimity laid down in the social chapter of the EU Treaty is still relevant as it reflects the diversity and heterogeneity of the national social systems of the Member States e.g. in social protection, regarding the role of social partners and regarding the role of labour law and collective agreements.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 32 Against : 74 Abstentions : 3

9. Point 1.8

Delete as follows:

The EESC also points out that the EU has developed measures to protect vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and part-time workers, when employment has terminated. This calls for a minimum set of procedural and protection rights to be guaranteed at European level and for a transition to qualified majority voting.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 36 Against : 81 Abstentions : 1

10. Point 1.10

Delete as follows:

The EESC recommends moving to qualified majority voting for the employment conditions of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU, to avoid unequal treatment and to bolster social cohesion.

Outcome of the vote

In favour : 30 Against : 85 Abstentions : 1

(1) See footnote 1.