No C 60/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning certain aspects of the organization 
of working time 
(91/C 60/09) 
On 5 October 1990 the Council of the European Communities, acting in pursuance of 
Article 118A of the EEC Treaty, asked the Economic and Social Committee for an Opinion 
on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee's work on the matter was prepared by its Section for Social, Family, 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, which adopted its Opinion on 13 December 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mrs Engelen-Kefer. 
The Committee adopted the following Opinion by 91 votes to 42, with 20 abstentions, at its 
282nd plenary session (meeting of 18 December 1990). 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal, subject 
to the following comments. 
1.2. The draft Directive does not restrict flexibility 
in working time and operating hours. Nor does it 
address the question of reducing overall working time. 
It does not seek to harmonize shift and night work 
throughout the Community. 
— As regards the dissociation of working time patterns 
and plant operating hours, the Commission indeed 
points out that such methods can help to increase 
flexible, continual and more intensive utilization of 
equipment, which in turn helps to reduce pro­
duction costs and keep firms competitive. 
— As regards the proposal as such, the Commission 
seeks to establish basic health and safety measures 
to accompany such working methods, and where 
possible to prevent of reduce accidents at work 
or occupational illnesses. This is in the light of 
numerous surveys indicating that excessive recourse 
to long working hours without rest, and intensive 
night and shift work without break periods can be 
detrimental to the health of workers concerned and 
a cause of industrial illnesses and a deterioration in 
health. It is also in view of the fact that most, 
though not quite all, Member States have been 
prompted by such health and safety considerations 
to lay down certain rules for rest periods, maximum 
working hours per day and basic conditions con­
cerning night work. International Labour Organiza­
tion (ILO) research into this issue has also served 
as a basis for the Commission proposal. 
1.3. In the Committee's view there is a need in the 
organization of working time to strike a balance 
between the interests and requirements of the enterprise 
and those of the employees. In additional to the need for profitability, enterprises must therefore also enable 
their employees to organize their working time in 
accordance with their personal, social and cultural 
needs. 
1.4. In view of the fact that the draft Directive covers 
only some aspects of the organization of working time, 
the Committee would draw attention to the measures 
announced by the Commission in the action programme 
for the implementation of the EC Charter including the 
restriction of night work especially for women (with 
regard to the relevant ILO standards). The Committee 
notes sympathetically the Commission's concern for 
EC-level minimum provisions on other aspects of the 
organization of working time. 
1.5. The Committee would reaffirm its view that 
'the use of Article 118 A be further clarified in line with 
the Madrid European Council Conclusions' and that 
the intergovernmental conference should tackle this 
question in its revision of the Treaty (*). The Committee 
points out that the draft Directive is necessary in the 
light of Article 118 A of the EEC Treaty and that it is 
a logical follow-up to the framework Directives on the 
improvement of safety and health protection at the 
workplace (89/391/EEC). 
— The Committee has normally achieved a positive 
consensus on health and safety matters at the work 
place. It has consistently taken the view that preven­
tive measures and basic minimum standards of pro­
tection throughout the Community are both socially 
necessary and economically viable (by way of exam­
ple, occupational illnesses and accidents at work 
are often an unnecessary and avoidable expense 
both in human and financial terms). The run-up to 
1992 has naturally intensified EC proposals in this 
field. 
(*) ESC Opinion on Social Developments in the European Com­
munity of 5 July 1990 adopted unanimously with 
4 abstentions; OJ No C 225,10. 9.1990. 
8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/27 
— Likewise, the Committee has stressed, in the context 
of 'functional adaptability', that 'the complex and 
potentially divisive question of organization of 
working time arises. It can only be solved by a spirit 
of give and take and with goodwill on both sides.' 
This in turn necessitates 'progress by agreement 
and consensus', based on 'collective negotiations 
between the social partners at all agreed levels ... 
complemented by national and European legal 
frameworks.' (*) 
1.6. The draft Directive places considerable empha­
sis on the role of the social partners and on the responsi­
bilities of Member States for ensuring at least minimum 
health and safety requirements within a basic EC legal 
framework providing incentives for more collective 
agreements on organization of working time at 
national, local and sectoral levels. The Commission 
acknowledges the independence of employers and 
employees by providing, in line with the principle of 
subsidiarity, for the draft Directive to be implemented 
via collective agreements. The extensive derogations 
provide additional scope for such action. In view of 
the spread of international enterprises the Committee 
considers that contractual agreements at European level 
(Article 118 B) are desirable. 
1.7. An extension of operating hours can undoubt­
edly bring cost benefits. There may however, be con­
siderable variations in the impact of new operating 
hours on costs and employment at plant level and the 
level of the national economy. The effects of differing 
social costs at national economic level ought to be taken 
into account. 
The introduction of EC-wide minimum standards for 
the organization of working time should positively con­
tribute towards improving living and working con­
ditions. The approach adopted here should focus more 
attention on workers' health and enable them to rec­
oncile their working time and leisure time more satisfac­
torily. 
1.8. The Commission itself states that long periods 
of nightwork and changing shift patterns can damage 
workers' health and compromise occupational safety. 
It is also acknowledged however that this is a potential 
danger. The explanatory memorandum also correctly 
cites the World health Organization's definition of 
health. In the light of this definition the draft Directive 
should set out all aspects of the organization of working 
time which have^a bearing on workers' health and lay 
down concrete minimum requirements. The health 
(!) OJ No C 201, 7. 8. 1989, p. 20. problems referred to in connection with night and shift 
work, such as higher accident rates, can also be caused 
by excessive working hours in the context of overtime. 
It also seems logical to lay down minimum provisions 
for breaks—and not just with respect to night and shift 
work. The same applies to overtime. 
1.9. The demarcation of the working week is also 
inextricably bound up with the protection of workers' 
health. We fail to understand why the Commission has 
not put forward health provisions in respect of week­
end working, contrary to the announcements contained 
in the action programme. The weekly rest period is an 
important component of workers' health protection. In 
most EC States Sunday is a rest day as a matter of 
principle although exemptions are permitted for specific 
reasons in all States. In the light of developments on 
collective agreements, the weekly rest period should be 
longer than 24 hours. The Committee draws attention 
to ILO recommendation No 103 calling for a weekly 
rest period of 36 hours. 
1.10. Fundamental international standards with 
regard to organization of working time have recently 
been repealed or called into question even in EC Mem­
ber States. There has also recently been a clear tendency 
to re-authorize night working for women and to grant 
general authorization for Sunday working on purely 
economic grounds. 
1.11. Regrettably, the Commission has not taken 
sufficient account either of the Council of Europe's 
Social Charter or of the ILO standards in drafting 
the draft Directive. ILO Conventions 14 and 106, for 
example, stipulate that the period of rest shall, wherever 
possible, be granted simultaneously to the entire staff 
of each undertaking. It shall, wherever possible, 'be 
fixed so as to coincide with the days already established 
by the traditions or customs of the country or district' 
(Convention No 14), or 'wherever possible, coincide 
with the day of the week established as a day of rest 
by the traditions or customs of the country or district' 
(Convention No 106). This broadly coincides with the 
European Social Charter. In countries with Christian 
traditions the day of rest has to be Sunday. 
1.12. The Commission also fails to set a reference 
figure for regular weekly working hours and paid annu­
al leave. The Committee therefore draws attention to 
the 1974 Council recommendation on the 40-hour week 
and the Council Resolution on the adjustment of work­
ing hours as regards, inter alia, overtime and total 
annual working hours. 
— Consideration should be given to the introduction 
of special arrangements covering on-call periods, 
particularly where such periods regularly include 
substantial periods of working time. A formula 
should be introduced to ensure that such workers 
also have adequate rest periods. 
No C 60/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
1.13. The Committee calls for an EC-wide ban on 
night working by young people. 
1.14. Much greater attention must be paid to ILO 
standards for working conditions. EC laws must in no 
way fall short of these international standards which 
purport to be implemented on a world-wide basis. 
1.15. The Committee calls for specific provisions on 
home-workers, with adequate account being taken of 
monitoring problems peculiar to this category of wor­
kers. Collective agreements in respect of maritime ship­
ping should be allowed to derogate from the draft 
Directive. The relevant ILO standards must, however, 
be observed. 
1.16. In order to secure a better insight into the 
health and social hazards of, in particular, night and 
shift work, the Committee recommends that research 
in this field at EC level be stepped up and that statistics 
on non-standard working time be improved. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. First recital 
For the legal basis, see point 1.5 above. 
2.2. Second recital 
The Committee has consistently called for adequate 
occupational health and safety measures. A basic EC 
legal framework on health and safety measures for shift 
and night work, inducing closer cooperation between 
the social partners in the organization of working time, 
would also provide a useful reference standard for small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SME) for drawing up 
their own working time plans, in the knowledge that 
there could be no undercutting beneath a certain mini­
mum standard. Moreover, the savings both in human 
and financial terms which such a preventive occu­
pational health and safety strategy would involve, con­
cern SME as well as major undertakings. 
2.3. Fourth recital 
It would be preferable to state the self-evident case that 
'laying down minimum requirements with regard to 
individual periods of rest and of work would help encourage improvements, especially in the working 
environment, as regards the health and safety of wor­
kers referred to in Article 118A.' This would avoid 
sterile arguments as to the terms of reference provided 
under Article 118A. 
2.4. Fifth and sixth recitals 
The Commission rightly refers to the Community Char­
ter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. 
2.5. Seventh recital 
In addition to quoting the relevant European Parliament 
Resolution, the proposal should also refer to the Econ­
omic and Social Committee Opinion on 'Basic Com­
munity Social Rights', particularly point III B which 
stresses 'the right to annual leave' and 'the right to a 
weekly rest period' (1). 
2.6. Fourteenth recital 
'Seasonal' work or 'certain activities' obviously need 
careful consideration when the Directive is applied. 
2.7. Article 1 
2.7.1. The draft Directive deals purely with aspects 
of daily and weekly minimum rest periods and certain 
aspects of night and shift work. The Committee would 
urge that other health-related matters be included. 
2.7.2. It should be noted that, in addition to the 
derogations possible under Article 12, the reference 
made in Article 1.2 to the 'specific provisions' in the 
framework Directive would also allow for adequate 
flexibility in applying the current proposal to specific 
occupational groups. 
2.8. Article 2 
2.8.1. The definition of 'night work' is unsatisfactory 
and not adequately justified. The extension of the per­
iod to 9 a.m. is out of step with reality as is the proposal 
that the period should commence at 8 p.m. 'Night 
Work' should rather be defined as 'work carried out 
between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.' Where possible the number 
of consecutive hours in question should be determined 
by collective agreements. 
2.9. Article 3 
The proposed minimum daily rest period of eleven 
consecutive hours per period of 24 hours would seem 
(J) OJ No C 126, 23. 5. 1989. 
8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/29 
to imply that the maximum duration of daily working 
time could be as much as thirteen hours, that is three 
of five hours more than existing statutory ceilings. Some 
revision of this Article would appear necessary. We 
recommend that the minimum daily rest period be 
extended to 12 hours. 
2.10. Article 4 
The Committee would strongly reiterate its view that 
basic Community social rights, should include the 'right 
to a weekly rest period'. This rest period should be 
more than 24 hours per week. Account should be taken 
of the fact that the weekly rest period in most Member 
States normally comprises 2 consecutive days. The rest 
period should be determined on a weekly basis, not on 
the basis of the proposed 14-day period. Additional 
calculations should be left to the social partners. The 
Article should as a minimum requirement, be expanded 
to incorporate ILO Conventions 14 and 106. 
2.11. Article 5 
This Article is definitely too vague. The EC Council 
recommendation of 1974 called for a minimum EC 
standard of 4 weeks paid leave per year. 
2.12. Article 6 
Overtime is to be permitted provided it does not 
encroach on the minimum rest periods stipulated in 
Articles 3 and 4. This sweeping overtime provision 
needs to be reviewed. 
2.13. Article 7 
A reference period of fourteen days, for calculating an 
average of eight hours night work in 24, would seem 
too long. The word 'normal' should be deleted. 
Article 7.2 is endorsed. 
No ceiling is set on night work. Nor is it stated when 
in general night time work is permissible. Without some 
specific ruling, the reporting requirement under Article 
9 will almost certainly be largely ineffectual. 
The Committee calls for the introduction of EC pro­
visions incorporating the ILO provision that 'the nor­
mal hours of work of night workers should generally 
be less on average than... those of workers performing 
the same work to the same requirements by day...' (ILO 
recommendation No 178 of June 1990). The ILO night work standards of June 1990 should be 
taken into consideration to a much far greater extent. 
The question of combined work and family responsi­
bilities should be covered and reflected in working 
time arrangements. In keeping with the principle of 
subsidiarity, Member States must retain the option of 
maintaining existing restrictions on night work. This 
applies in particular to night work by women 
employees. 
2.14. Article 8 
The Committee calls for this Article to be clarified. 
— Paragraph 1 should stipulate that employees shall, 
within the framework of employers' or statutory 
health-protection rules, be entitled to free medical 
examinations in respect of industrial illness. Confi­
dentiality must be guaranteed as regards the results 
of such examinations. 
— Article 8(2) should constitute a right for workers. 
The words 'as soon as possible' should be replaced 
by the following 'unless such a transfer cannot 
reasonably be carried out by the employer'. 
2.15. Article 9 
In the Committee's view it is essential that information 
on night work is not only communicated to the com­
petent health and safety authorities; it should also be 
included in the procedures for informing and consulting 
workers' representatives, as laid down in the ILO Con­
vention adopted in June 1990. 
The Committee would urge that such procedures avoid 
the imposition of unnecessary bureaucratic methods. 
2.16. Article 10 
The work 'accessible' requires further clarification. 
Steps must at all events be taken to ensure that night 
workers enjoy at least the same level of protection 
against dangers at the workplace as day workers (the 
level of protection concerned could, for example, be 
defined in terms of the protection of individual wor­
kers). 
2.17. Article 11 
This provision must not only apply to changes to pat­
terns of work but to the establishment of all patterns 
of work. 
No C 60/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
altered unilaterally by the employer. It is essential to 
ensure that the derogation in Article 12(3) does not 
provide a loophole for the unilateral introduction or 
continuation of unacceptable working hours. 
2.19. Article 14 
The discussion of working time policy is hampered 
by a lack of recent and regularly updated statistics, 
particularly on night and shift work. The Member 
States should therefore be required to carry out regular 
surveys of the frequency and structure of night and 
shift work. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
APPENDIX I 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course 
of the discussions: 
Point 1.6 
Delete the last sentence. 
Reason 
The sole fact that an increasing number of enterprises operate across frontiers does not, in itself, warrant 
arguing that contractual agreements at European level are necessary or desirable. 
Voting 
For: 56, against: 86, abstentions: 5. 
Page 4, point 1.8 
Delete the last two sentences 'In the light of this definition ... context of overtime'. 
Reason 
The framework of Community regulations proposed in the draft Directive should not be extended to embrace 
more detailed aspects which are more appropriately settled at local level. 2.18. Article 12 
Derogations are sometimes necessary, for example in 
the case of seasonal work in agriculture, but they must 
remain the exception rather than the rule. This Article 
should therefore be made more restrictive. At the same 
time, Article 12, point 3, should allow for freely nego­
tiated collective agreements. Member States—in coop­
eration with representatives of workers and employers 
—must be entitled to adopt special provisions for mari­
time transport. Such measures are also provided for 
under the ILO standards. In the case of some public 
sector employees their 'collective agreements' may be 
Done at Brussels, 18 December 1990. 
8. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 60/31 
Voting 
For: 65, against: 98, abstention: 1. 
Amend point 1.13 to read: 
'The Committee thinks it necessary for the conditions of night working by young people to be regulated on 
an EC-wide basis.' 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 56, against: 89, abstentions: 4. 
Page 8, point 2.9 
Replace the text by: 
'Article 3 should be adapted to the text of the ILO Convention according to which the 11 hour rest period 
should be granted 'as far as possible'.' 
Reason 
The Section Opinion frequently advocates the adoption of ILO standards and these should apply in this 
particular instance. 
Voting 
For: 57, against: 91, abstentions: 3. 
Page 8, point 2.10 
Delete the sentence 'The rest period ... 14-day period.' 
Reason 
Even the Commission proposal of a 14-day period is rather short to accommodate the flexibility required in 
certain working patterns. Therefore further shortening is not appropriate. 
Voting 
For: 53, against: 81, abstentions: —. 
Page 9, point 2.13 
Replace the words '... would seem too long. The word 'normal' should be deleted.' by 'is too short, the 
Commission should review Article 7.1 accordingly.' 
Reason 
As above (point 2.10). 
Voting 
For: 52, against: 82, abstentions: 3. 
Page 10, point 2.17 
Reformulate the second sentence to read: 
'This Article should therefore not be abused.' 
No C 60/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 3. 91 
Reason 
Self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 50, against: 78, abstentions: 8. 
APPENDIX U 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Abejon Resa, Amato, Ataide ferreira, Barbagli, Bleser, Bonvicini, Bordes-Pages, Bottazzi, 
Burnel, Vasco Cal, Carroll, Cassina, Ceballo Herrero, Chevalier, Colombo, von der Decken, d'Elia, D'Hondt, 
Diapoulis, van Dijk, Douvis, Draijer, Drilleaud, Dunkel, Elstner, Engelen-Kefer, Etty, Eulen, Flum, Forgas i 
Cabrera, Frandi, Freeman, Geuenich, Giatras, Gomez Martinez, Groben, Hagen, Hilkens, Horsken, Hovgaard 
Jakobsen, Jaschick, Jenkins, Kanellopoulos, de Knegt, Korfiatis, Laca Martin, Lappas, Larsen, Laur, Liverani, 
Luchetti, Maddocks, Mantovani, Margalef Masia, Masucci, Mayayo Bello, Mercier, Molina Vallejo, Morris, 
Mufiiz Guardado, Murphy, Nielsen, B., Nielsen, P., Nierhaus, Ovide Etienne, Pavlopoulos, Pe, Pellarini, 
Pelletier, Ch., Pompen, Quevedo Rojo, Rangoni Machiavelli, Roseingrave, Saitis, Salmon, Santillan Cabeza, 
Santos, Schmidt, Schmitz, Sequeira, Silva, Spyroudis, Staedelin, Theonas, Tiemann, Vandermeeren, Velasco 
Mancebo, Verboven, Wagenmans, Waldack, Zufiaur Narvaiza. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs: Andrade, Aparicio Bravo, Bagliano, Beale, Bell, Cavaleiro Brandao, Connellan, Cunha, van Dam, 
Donck, Frerichs, Gafo Fernandez, Gardner, Ghigonis, Giacomelli, Giesecke, Guillaume, Kaaris, Kafka, Little, 
Low, Machado Von Tschusi, Masprone, McGarry, Merce Juste, Meyer-Horn, Mobbs, Moreland, Noordwal, 
Panero Florez, Pearson, Pelletier, R., Perrin-Pelletier, Petersen, Petropoulos, Robinson, Sauwens, Schleyer, 
Schnieders, Tukker, Whitworth, Wick. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr/Mrs: Arena, Aspinall, Beltrami, Berns, Bredima-Savopoulou, Ceyrac, Dawson, Delorozoy, De Tavernier, 
Green, Kazazis, Lustenhouwer, Marvier, Muller, E., Pardon, Proumens, Rebuffel, Schade-Poulsen, Solari, 
Thys.