No C 23/54 . Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
chances of achieving the internal balance which is 
vital to the Community's future. 
7. The Committee therefore calls upon the relevant 
Community authorities, and particularly the Euro­pean Council to be held in Athens in December 
1983, to shoulder their respective responsibilities 
and take the decisions necessary for the rapid imple­
mentation of this initiative to help the least-
favoured regions of the Community. 
Done at Brussels, 24 November 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the draft Council recommendation on the reduction and reorganization of 
working time 
(84/C 23/19) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 290 of 26 October 1983, page 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 6 October 1983 the Council, acting under the optional consultation clause of the 
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community decided to ask the Economic 
and Social Committee for an opinion on the abovementioned matter. 
The Section for Social Questions was instructed to prepare the opinion, and Mr Ber-
etta was appointed as rapporteur. 
The Section opinion was adopted by 24 votes to 16, with six abstentions, at the meet­
ing of 10 November 1983. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The opinion of the Economic and Social Committee was adopted by 76 votes to 53, 
with 11 abstentions, during the discussions at its plenary session held on 23 and 
24 November 1983 (recorded vote). 
The full text of the opinion is as follows. 
1. The Committee considers that, by calling on the 
Council to issue a recommendation to the Member 
States, the Commission is making an important, 
however partial, contribution towards reducing and 
reorganizing working time. The Committee supports 
the draft recommendation, for the following rea­
sons. 2. The draft recommendation is consonant with a 
series of opinions issued by the Economic and 
Social Committee and the European Parliament, 
which has called for a significant reduction, capable 
of having a marked impact on the employment mar­
ket, in (i) daily, weekly and/or yearly working time 
and (ii) the total length of working careers. 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/55 
3.1. In its opinions on the economic and social 
situation in the Community (l), adopted almost 
unanimously in July, the Economic and Social 
Committee said that, if any successes were to be 
won in the fight against unemployment, what was 
needed was 'not only a policy to promote invest­
ment and growth, but also specific measures to 
boost employment, including shorter working hours' 
as an integral part of the 'policy-mix' on growth and 
employment. 
3.2. The Economic and Social Committee pointed 
out that an increase in leisure time would generate 
new needs which would in turn have to be met. 
Measures to reduce working hours could thus be 
part and parcel of policy on growth. 
3.3. The Economic and Social Committee 
observed that, over the last hundred years, the 
reduction and reorganization of working time had 
become 'major instruments of social policy' and that 
such measures could be used 'in a long period of 
low growth to improve the employment ratio'. It 
stressed the need 'to find economically and socially 
acceptable ways of distributing the cost (of a reduc­
tion in working hours) between the parties con­
cerned in the light of production and profitability 
conditions'. For the Committee, this meant that 
'reductions in working time must not be allowed to 
damage the competitiveness of Community indus­
try'. 
3.4. As regards practical implementation the 
Economic and Social Committee maintained that, 
given the inappropriateness of blanket measures, 
'the employers and unions should be primarily res­
ponsible for deciding how working time should be 
reduced and organized in a manner consistent with 
economic and social aims', taking adequate account 
of the 'differences between production conditions, 
especially in sectors where there (was) a high pro­
portion of small firms'. The Committee recognized 
that shorter working time had a Community-wide 
dimension, and noted 'the Commission's efforts to 
determine whether and to what extent the Com­
munity, by adopting an outline legal instrument, 
(') OJNoC286, 24. 10. 1983. (could) help to reconcile the views of employers and 
workers on reduction and reorganization of working 
time'. 
3.5. In its opinion in Youth Employment (2), 
adopted virtually unanimously in June, the Com­
mittee maintained that, generally speaking, 'working 
time should be reduced and work reorganized in 
various ways, in order to share out work better', in 
particular in order to help young people to find 
jobs. 
3.6. The Committee notes that the draft Council 
recommendation on the reduction and reorganiza­
tion of working time goes hand in hand with other 
Community initiatives, including the Council 
recommendation on flexible retirement and the 
draft Directive on voluntary part-time work, which 
has been endorsed by the Economic and Social 
Committee (3). 
4.1. The opinions on new information technolo­
gies and vocational training, and on vocational 
training in the Community, are also relevant 
here (4). The Committee is convinced that reduction 
and reorganization of working time, combined with 
a campaign to inform and involve workers and 
unions, could facilitate both the introduction of new 
technologies and the training and retraining which 
they would entail. 
4.2. The reorganization and reduction of working 
time can thus play a positive role in facilitating the 
radical structural changes which must necessarily 
precede a resurgence of the economy. The Com­
mittee therefore feels that reorganization and reduc­
tion of working time can further both social and 
economic aims. Measures to improve the employ­
ment situation and measures to foster economic 
growth supplement each other. 
5. The Committee expresses satisfaction at the fact 
that the Commission gives due weight both to the 
track record of measures set up by collective-bar­
gaining agreements and to previous statements by 
the European Parliament and the Economic and 
Social Committee on the reorganization/reduction 
of working time. 
O OJNoC211,8. 8. 1983. 
(3) OJ No C 178, 15.7. 1982. 
(4) OJ No C 77, 21. 3. 1984 and OJ No C 124, 9. 5. 1983. 
No C 23/56 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
6.1. The Committee notes the development of the 
working-time reduction/reorganization schemes set 
up by collective-bargaining negotiations at the var­
ious levels. The measures in question are concerned 
inter alia, either directly or indirectly, with the more 
efficient utilization of equipment, overtime arrange­
ments, improved productivity, the adjustment of 
labour market conditions. Flexible arrangements are 
laid down for small firms. 
6.2. The Committee would further point out that 
delays in significantly reducing working time can be 
attributed in part to the difficulty of taking the 
broader employment measures (fiscal and credit-
policy, incentives, industrial conversion, etc.) 
needed to expand the scope for creating jobs and 
better safeguard corporate competitiveness and 
workers' purchasing power. 
General comments 
7. The Committee, which welcomes the Commis­
sion's realistic approach to the introduction of a 
European policy on the reduction and reorganiza­
tion of working time, would make the following 
comments. 
8.1. The Commission, taking due account of the 
development of schemes set up by collective-bar­
gaining agreements, feels that the draft recommen­
dation can be linked to measures to stimulate prod­
uctivity and investment and restructure industry, 
and generally to safeguard competitiveness and 
increase employment. The Committee maintains 
that moves to reduce and reorganize working time 
should be accompanied by progress towards con­
vergence of the conditions governing the use of the 
labour force within the various sectors of the Com­
munity's productive economy. 
8.2. Measures in this direction would make the 
reduction and reorganization of working-time more 
compatible with the maintenance of competitive­
ness, and thus enable such reduction and reorgani­
zation to play a larger role in employment policy. 8.3. If the ways in which production is organized 
differed less, individual firms would be in a better 
position to contend with competition on the domes­
tic market and it would be easier to pursue a Com­
munity industrial strategy designed to promote their 
competitiveness on foreign markets. 
9.1. The Committee hopes that the talks at Com­
munity level between representatives of employers 
and workers will produce a series of constructive 
agreements which will further the swift development 
of an active employment policy. 
9.2. The Committee consequently believes that the 
invitation, to Member States to adopt a common 
approach to the reduction and reorganization of 
working time should also call for progressive con­
vergence of labour utilization within the individual 
economic sectors of the various Community 
countries. 
9.3. The aim of convergence with respect to work­
ing time must not, however, preclude the possibility 
of negotiating more radical solutions where local 
production circumstances allow. 
Specific comments 
10. The Committee supports the objectives 
described in sections 2 and 3 of the Commission 
recommendation, but would stress the need to 
achieve them without a deterioration in working 
conditions. 
11. Section 7 should outline the objective of 
shorter working time more clearly and should give a 
time schedule for its achievement. 
12. Section 8 should contain a more exact defini­
tion of unit production costs. It should be specified 
that it is not enough to calculate the industrial com­
ponents of cost: social components must also be 
taken into account. These are linked to the level of 
unemployment in the area and sector in which the 
firm concerned operates. 
13. Section 11 could be interpreted in such a way 
as to undermine social-security protection and 
recruitment rules, with the risk of institutionalizing 
temporary employment; the section should be 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/57 
assessment of the results of steps taken and the 
prospects for an active employment policy. 
15. The Committee has drawn up the present Opi­
nion, within the urgent deadline laid down by the 
Council, in the conviction that it is imperative for 
the Community to set to work immediately on over­
coming the obstacles to a common policy on 
employment. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX 1 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion a,s a whole. The following members, present or repre­
sented, voted for the opinion: 
Mr Amato, Mr Bazianas, Mr Beretta, Mr Berger, Mr Boddy, Mr Bonety, Mr Bordes-Pages, Mr 
Bornard, Mr Brassier, Mr Briganti, Mr Burnel, Mr Carroll, Mr Cavazzuti, Mr Chappie, Mr Colle, 
Mr Cremer, Mr Curlis, Mr Dassis, Mr Dassoulas, Mr De Grave, Mr d'Elia, Mr Delia Croce, Mr 
Delourme, Mr Drago, Mr Drain, Mr Dunet, Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Mr Etty, Mr Flum, Mr Glesener, 
Mr van Greunsven, Mr Hadjivazziliou, Mrs Heuser, Mr Hilkens, Mr Houthuys, Mr Jaschick, Mr 
Jenkins, Mr Kamizolas, Mr Kelly, Mr Kirschen, Mr Kitsios, Mr Kolble, Mr Lojewski, Mr 
Masucci, Mr Meraviglia, Mr Milne, Mr Mols Sorensen, Mr Morselli, Mr Mourgues, Mr Muhr, Mr 
Murphy, Mr B. Nielsen, Mr P. Nielsen, Mr Nierhaus, Mrs Patterson, Mr Pfeiffer, Mr Pronk, Mr 
Raftopoulos, Mr Rainero, Mr van Rens, Mr Roseingrave, Mr Rouzier, Mr Schneider, Mr 
Schoepges, Mr A. Smith, Mr L. Smith, Mr Soulat, Mr Spachos, Mrs Strobel, Mr Tixier, Mr 
Vanden Broucke, Mr Vassilaras, Mr Vercellino, Mr Wagenmans, Mrs Weber, Mr Zoli. 
The following members, voting in person or through their replacements, were against the opi­
nion: 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Bernasconi, Mr Berns, Mr Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr 
Broicher, Mr de Caffarelli, Mr Cammann, Mr De Bievre, Mr De Tavernier, Mr Dracos, Mr Emo 
Capodilista, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Germozzi, Mr Goris, Mr Hovgaard Jakobsen, Mr Kenna, 
Mr Kubler, Mr Lauga, Mr Laur, Mr Law, Mr Loughrey, Mr Low, Mr Marvier, Mr Masprone, Mr 
Noordwal, Mr De Normann, Mr Paggi, Mr Pearson, Mr Pelletier, Mr Poeton, Mr Querleux, Mr 
Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Schnieders, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Staratzke, Mr Storie-Pugh, Mr Storm 
Hansen, Mr Strauss, Mr Swift, Mr Tamlin, Mr van der Mensbrugghe, Mr van Melckenbeke, Mr 
Vasseur, Mr van der Veen, Mr Wagner, Mr Wick, Mr De Wit, Mr Yverneau, Mr Zinkin. 
The following members, voting in person or through their replacements, abstained: 
Mr Arena, Mr Bagliano, Mr De Bruyn, Mr von der Decken, Mr Eelsen, Mr Hemmer, Mr Margot, 
Mr Muller, Mr Plank, Mr Roycroft, Sir George Sharp. deleted or simply state that the law may be adjusted 
in the light of collective agreements. 
14. The Committee agrees that the Member States 
should submit annual reports on the progress made 
in attempts to redefine working time, and would 
request the Commission to pass on such informa­
tion to the Economic and Social Committee, ena­
bling it to make a comprehensive and prompt 
Done at Brussels, 24 November 1983. 
No C 23/58 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
APPENDIX 2 
Minority statement 
Following the vote by roll-call on the opinion as a whole, the following members, of the employ­
ers' group, who had voted against the opinion, issued the following statement: 
'The members of group I are aware of the major problems which the alarming level of unem­
ployment in all countries of the Community have caused and may continue to cause. How­
ever, they are unable to agree with major aspects of the Commission's recommendations and 
the Committee's opinion thereon. In particular, they consider that general reductions in 
working time, be it the working week, working year or working life, cannot contribute much 
to the fight against unemployment. 
The number of jobs available is not a fixed variable; it is heavily dependent on costs, prices 
and corporate profits. Group I's members think that if we are to have a realistic chance of 
reducing unemployment it will be necessary to re-establish balanced economic growth. The 
chance of this happening will be determined in the main by industrial costs and productivity 
in the Community. 
General reductions in working time, regardless of the form they take, add to corporate costs 
and are bound to further undermine the ability of Community manufacturers to compete 
with their rivals on the world market. 
The problems facing us at the moment will not be solved by reducing working time as a 
means of countering the shortage of jobs. Even more jobs could be put in jeopardy if firms 
are forced to rationalize more by the increase in costs resulting from the rise in the price of 
labour. Where the scope for rationalizing has already been exhausted, the reduction of work­
ing time is bound to result in a cut in production. 
Community manufacturers consider that measures which give manufacturers the chance to 
adopt a more flexible approach to working time are one possible solution. The main mea­
sures which they have in mind are part-time work, job-sharing and the more flexible organ­
ization of work. Large sections of the unemployed and the working population would ben­
efit from such measures, which have the advantage vis-a-vis general reductions in working 
time that they can be introduced at firm level and adapted to the requirements of staff. 
The curb on overtime proposed by the Commission runs counter to these considerations and 
is therefore firmly rejected. 
In the summer, a majority of group I's members came out in favour of flexible solutions to 
work organization. However, they also stated just as clearly that general reductions in work­
ing time — especially at Community level — were not the solution. Instead the parties to 
collective agreements in particular could find an answer in the individual sectors of Com­
munity industry or at firm level. 
The Commission did not take these considerations into account, and its proposal is therefore 
rejected. 
Having expressed this view, group I is nevertheless convinced that a dialogue between both 
sides of industry must continue in order to find ways and means to reduce unemployment 
which is of utmost importance to the welfare of Europe.' 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr Broicher, Mr Cammann, Mr 
De Bievre, Mr Dracos, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Kenna, Mr Law, Mr Loughrey, Mr Low, Mr 
Masprone, Mr Noordwal, Mr de Normann, Mr Paggi, Mr Pearson, Mr Pelletier, Mr Poeton, Mr 
Querleux, Mr Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Schnieders, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Staratzke, Mr Storm Han­
sen, Mr Swift, Mr Tamlin, Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Van Melckenbeke, Mr Wagner, Mr 
Wick, Mr de Wit, Mr Zinkin.