EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2178 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Report on the implementation of  the European social partners' 
Framework Agreement on Telework 
{COM(2008) 412 final} 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Report on the implementation of  the European social partners' 
Framework Agreement on Telework 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
1.1. Background to the Framework Agreement on Telework............................................. 4 1.2. The implementation process ........................................................................................ 7 2. Implementation in the EU Member  States, Iceland and Norway................................. 9 
3. Key issues concerning the implementation process................................................... 33 4. Analysis of the implementation process and outcomes ............................................. 48 4.1. The choice of instruments .......................................................................................... 48 4.2. The level of protection ............................................................................................... 50 4.3. A dynamic implementation process........................................................................... 51 4.4. Added value and impact............................................................................................. 53 5. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 5 4 
6. Annex ....................................................................................................................... .. 56 
EN 3   EN 1. I NTRODUCTION  
The Framework Agreement on Telework is the first autonomous  agreement negotiated by the 
European social partners and as such it repres ents a landmark in EU industrial relations. For 
the first time, the European social partners a nd their member organisa tions at national level 
directly addressed the emerging challenge po sed by new forms of work organisation by 
defining a set of principles and rules and by undertaking to ensure their timely 
implementation across the Member States of th e European Union and the countries of the 
European Economic Area (EEA). The Agreemen t set an important precedent, which has 
subsequently been followed in three other cases1. 
This Report assesses the extent to which the implementation of the European Social Partners' 
Framework Agreement on Telework has contribu ted to achieving the Community's objectives 
and whether there is scope for improvement. Re specting the principle of autonomy of the 
social partners and giving priority to monito ring undertaken by them, it examines in detail the 
implementing measures taken by the social partne rs and public authorities in all EU Member 
States and the EEA countries w hose social partners  participate in the European social 
dialogue, i.e. Iceland and Norway. It takes acco unt of the views expressed by the European 
social partners. 
While there is scope for improvement in several Member States in terms of the 
implementation process, the following-up of implementing measures and/or the content of instruments, the implementation of the Framew ork Agreement may be considered a success. 
It has achieved the specific  objectives set by the Commission (and shared by the social 
partners) and has clearly contri buted to the Lisbon goals of modernising labour markets and 
achieving a more dynamic knowledge-based economy, to the i2010 Strategy, which 
emphasises information and communication technol ogies as a driver of inclusion and quality 
of life, and to the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy. 
The information contained in this Report is based on the following sources: 
– the European social partners' joint imple mentation report of October 2006 and the 
joint reports by national social partners; 
– the replies from the Member States' au thorities to a questionnaire sent by the 
Commission in March 2007; 
– information from the European Indus trial Relations Observatory (EIRO)
2; 
– a report prepared for the Comm ission by an independent expert3; 
– information publicly available on the Internet, e.g. on social partners' websites. 
                                                 
1 Framework Agreements on Work-Related Stress (2 004) and Harassment and Violence at Work (2007), 
both negotiated by the social partners at EU cross-industry level, and the Agreement on Workers’ Health Protection through the Good Handling and Use of Crystalline Silica and Products containing it 
(2006), the first multi-sector agreement negotiated by the social partners. 
2 Based at the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin; 
website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/   
3 Prof. Jelle Visser, Amsterdam Institute for Ad vanced Labour Studies (AIAS), University of 
Amsterdam. 
EN 4   EN This Report is part of the package of initia tives adopted together with the Commission's 
Communication A Renewed Social Agenda: Opportuni ties, access and solidarity in 21st 
century Europe4. It is an illustration of th e important role of the European Social Dialogue in 
EU policy-making and of its cap acity to provide responses to new social realities. 
1.1. Background to the Framework Agreement on Telework 
1.1.1. Summary of history and content of the Framework Agreement On 16 July 2002 the European cross-industry social partners concluded a Framework 
Agreement on Telework. It was signed by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), 
also representing the EUROCADRES/CEC Li aison Committee, the Confederation of 
European Business (BUSINESSEUROPE, then called UNICE), the European Centre of 
Enterprises with Public Participation and of  Enterprises of General Economic Interest 
(CEEP), and the European Association of Cr aft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
(UEAPME).  
Telework is recognised by both sides of industry as a means of  modernising work 
organisation by introducing flexible work arrangements and greater autonomy and of 
achieving better reconciliation of work, private an d family life. Regular telework also reduces 
carbon emissions from commuting to work a nd therefore has a positive impact on the 
environment. The Framework Agreement was de signed by the social partners as a key 
contribution to achieving the ob jectives of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs, and in 
particular to the modernisation of labour ma rkets and the development of the information 
society in a knowledge-based economy.  
The Framework Agreement establishes a general fr amework of rules on telework. It aims to 
promote the development of this new form of work while safeguarding the protection of workers and the interests of employers. The so cial partners wanted to ensure that no new 
employment status would result from telework ’s expansion. While the Agreement stresses 
that teleworkers enjoy the same legal protection as employees working permanently at the 
employer's premises, it also identifies the as pects that are specific to distance working and 
which call for adaptation or spec ial attention, such as employme nt conditions, data protection, 
privacy, equipment, health and safety, organi sation of work, training and collective rights. 
The negotiation process followed a two-stage consultation of the social partners on 
modernising and improving industrial relations  initiated by the Comm ission under Article 138 
of the EC Treaty. The co nsultation document proposed a numbe r of key criteria and principles 
which should constitute the basis of any pr ovisions on telework at Community level.  
Contrary to previous framework agreements between the social partners, and in particular 
those on parental leave, part -time work and fixed-term work (implemented through Council 
directives), the social partners decided to implement this Agreement through the members of the signatory parties in accordance with the pro cedures and practices specific to management 
and labour and the Member States, as provided for in Article 139(2) of the EC Treaty. An 
implementation period of three years from the date  of signature was set. After four years, the 
European Social Partners adopted a joint re port on the implementation of the Agreement, 
which was published on 11 October 2006. 
                                                
 
4 COM(2008) 412 
EN 5   EN 1.1.2. Commission consultation 
On 20 June 2000 the Commission launched a first-stag e consultation of the social partners on 
modernising and improving employment relations5. In accordance with Article 138(2) of the 
EC Treaty, the social partners were asked to give their opinion on the possible direction of 
Community action in this field and in particul ar to express their vi ews on four points: the 
development of a set of principl es to modernise employment re lations; the establishment of a 
review mechanism for existing legislative a nd contractual rules; the establishment of 
framework provisions on telework; and the es tablishment of fram ework provisions on 
economically dependent workers. 
In view of the response from the social partners, the Commissi on decided to focus the second-
stage consultation6, launched on 16 March 2001, on telewor k. Since telework had increased 
considerably as a direct result of new info rmation and communication technologies and in 
particular the developmen t of the Internet, the Commission considered that it was necessary to 
formalise the practice of telework wi thout hindering its development.  
Telework was recognised as a form of work organisation offering nume rous advantages to 
both workers (better reconciliation of work and family life, working time flexibility and greater autonomy) and employers (more flexib le work organisation, modern results-based 
management, and higher job satisfaction increasing workers' sense of responsibility and productivity). Nevertheless, ensuring that th e development of telework did not adversely 
affect worker protection or reconciliation of  work, family and private life was deemed 
necessary. 
The Commission therefore made it an objective to  establish general framework provisions at 
Community level on telework, whic h would facilitate the further expansion of this new form 
of work organisation in a way that was be neficial to both enterprises and workers. 
Recognising that the most innovative idea s for adapting the employment framework to 
telework, in particular in the form of bran ch and firm-specific agreements and codes of 
practice, trade union guidelines  and individual employment contracts, have come from 
collective bargaining, the Commission considered it desirable to approximate such practices 
by establishing a Community framework. 
To that end the Commission proposed: (a) defining the concept of telework to cover a variety 
of new forms of work; and (b) laying down a num ber of general principles to be observed by 
employers and workers performing telework. These principles would need to cover: 
– the voluntary nature of telework and the right to return; 
– a guarantee of maintenance of employee status; 
– guarantees of equal treatment; 
– information to be provided to the teleworker; 
– coverage of costs by the employer; 
                                                
 
5 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc ial_dialogue/docs/modernisation1_fr.pdf   
6 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/docs/modernisation_II_en.pdf   
EN 6   EN – a guarantee of specific training; 
– protection in the field of health and safety; 
– working time; 
– protection of privacy and pr otection of personal data; 
– keeping in contact with the firm; 
– collective rights of teleworkers; 
– access to telework. 
The consultation document called on the European  social partners to forward an opinion or 
recommendation to the Commission on the conten t of the proposal unde r consideration in 
accordance with Article 138(3) of  the EC Treaty, or to inform it of their wish to start 
negotiations in accordance with Artic les 138(4) and 139 of the EC Treaty. 
1.1.3. Negotiation by the social partners 
On 20 September 2001, ETUC (and the EUROCADRES/CEC Liaison Committee), 
UNICE7/UEAPME and CEEP announced their intenti on of starting negotiations with a view 
to reaching an autonomous agre ement to be implemented by th e members of the signatory 
parties in the EU Member Stat es and the EEA countries. The ne gotiations lasted eight months 
and led the conclusion of a draft agreement, wh ich was then approved by the signatory parties' 
internal decision-making bodies. The Fram ework Agreement on Telework, the first 
autonomous agreement of the European social partners, was officially signed on 16 July 2002. 
The social partners' aim was to establish a ge neral framework on telework at European level 
which would "encourage this new form of work organisa tion in such a way that flexibility and 
security go together and the quality of jobs is  enhanced, and that the chances of disabled 
people on the labour market are increased."  Telework is seen by the social partners as a way 
of modernising work organisation for compan ies and public service organisations and of 
reconciling work, private and family life for work ers and of giving them greater autonomy in 
accomplishing their tasks. The Framework Ag reement therefore aims to promote the 
development of telework in Europe while providing teleworkers and employers with the 
necessary protection and safeguards. 
The Agreement stipulates that teleworkers are to benefit from the same legal protection as 
employees working at the employer's premis es and lays down a general framework for 
telework in a way that corresponds to employers' and workers' needs. Telework is defined as:  
"a form of organising and/or performing wo rk, using informati on technology, in the 
context of an employment contract/relati onship, where work, which could also be 
performed at the employer's premises, is carried out away from those premises on a 
regular basis." 
                                                 
7 Now called BUSINESSEUROPE. 
EN 7   EN The Framework Agreement makes it clear that telework must be voluntary for both parties 
and concentrates on the aspects which are sp ecific to working at a distance from the 
traditional workplace. It identifies the key areas  requiring adaptation or specific attention, 
such as employment conditions, data protecti on, privacy, equipment, health and safety, 
organisation of work, training and collective rights. The full text is  set out in the Annex to this 
Report. 
1.2. The implementation process 
1.2.1. Responsibility for implementation Clause 12 of the Framework Agreement lays down the process for implementing the 
autonomous Agreement and defines the respons ibilities for implementa tion and reporting:  
"In the context of article 139 of the Treaty , this European framework agreement shall 
be implemented by the members of UNICE/UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC (and the 
liaison committee EUROCADRES/CEC) in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour in the Member States. 
This implementation will be carried out within three years after the date of signature 
of this agreement. 
Member organisations will report on the im plementation of this agreement to an ad 
hoc group set up by the signatory parties, under the responsibil ity of the social 
dialogue committee. This ad hoc group will prepare a joint report on the actions of 
implementation taken. This report  will be prepared within four years after the date of 
signature of this agreement."  
By this formula and the direct  reference to the implementati on method covered by the first 
alternative in Article 139(2) of the EC Treaty, the autonomous  Agreement confers the main 
responsibility for implementation on the signato ry parties' member organisations at both 
national and sectoral levels with in the different industrial relati ons systems. By virtue of the 
Agreement's approval by the European organisa tions' internal decision-making bodies, the 
member organisations have accepted this responsibility. 
The Agreement was concluded in 2002 when th e European Union consisted of just 15 
Member States and only the social partners from those countries participated fully in 
European social dialogue. However, the social partners from the form er candidate countries 
were already involved to some extent in th e negotiation process and the signatory parties 
invited "their member organisations in candidate countries to implement this agreement"  
(Clause 1). All of these former candidate c ountries except Turkey are now all EU Member 
States. Furthermore, as stated above, the member organisations in the EEA countries 
participating in European social dialogue (Icel and and Norway) also committed themselves to 
implementing the Framework Agreement.  
There was agreement among the social partners that the implementation process should be 
adapted to the procedures and instruments a pplicable under the nationa l industrial relations 
systems. Traditional approaches to employer-wor ker relations and collective bargaining at all 
levels and to the role of legi slation and contractual arrangement s in each country had to be 
respected when implementing the Framework Ag reement. Implementation of the Agreement 
was therefore expected to vary from country to country. 
EN 8   EN 1.2.2. Action taken by the social partners at European level 
Cross-industry social partners 
The signatories to the Framework Agreement, i.e.  the European cross-industry social partners, 
have assisted and advised their member organi sations throughout the im plementation process. 
The Framework Agreement has been disseminate d, presented and explained by the European 
organisations to their members on various occas ions, in particular under their integrated 
programme for technical assistance in the new Member States and candidate countries, which 
involved national seminars aimed at improving t hose members' participation in the European 
social dialogue. The ETUC drafted an interpre tation guide to make the Agreement easier to 
understand and help members in the implementation process. 
The European social partners also facilitated reporting. In March 2006 th ey sent a request to 
their members to report on implementation measur es taken at national level. The ad hoc group 
met on 16 May 2006 to discuss the national joint reports received and the structure and content of the joint implemen tation report that was due for July 2006. The European social 
partners’ report on the implementation of the Framework Agreement on Telework was 
adopted, subject to minor amendments, by the Social Dialogue Comm ittee on 28 June 2006. 
A final version
8 was presented to the press a nd the wider public on 11 October 2006. 
The social partners' implemen tation report is based on joint national reports from member 
organisations in 21 EU Member States, Iceland and Norway. Final joint reports had not been 
received from Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania an d Slovakia. The implementation process had not 
yet started in Bulgaria and Romania because the social partners in those two countries joined 
the European social dialogue only in 2007. 
The social partners' EU-level implementation report considers that implementation had been 
achieved or was in the process of being finalised in all the countries cove red. It looks at action 
taken to translate the agreement into the na tional languages and to disseminate it amongst 
members. It also analyses the choice of instru ments adopted in each country to implement the 
text. Lastly, it examines the way in which th e provisions of the Framework Agreement have 
been implemented, looking at each individual clau se. This part does not contain a systematic 
analysis of implementation in each country, but gives examples of certain details agreed by 
national social partners that go beyo nd the requirements of the EU text. 
The report's conclusions stress the wide range of implementa tion activities. Th ey point out 
that this is the first instance where an au tonomous agreement is implemented by national 
social partners and stress the capacity of the member organisations to follow up their commitments at European level. The question of  what will be done in  those countries or 
sectors where implementation has been lacking or insufficient (or not reported yet) is not 
addressed. 
While both sides of industry e xpressed their satisfaction with  the report, the ETUC has 
repeatedly stated that, while the current re port covers the process of implementation, the 
actual impact of the Framework Agreement still needs to be assessed.  
Sectoral social partners 
                                                
 
8 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/docs/telework_report_en.pdf   
EN 9   EN As follow-up to the Framework Agreement on Telework, the social partners in the electricity 
sector (Eurelectric, EPSU and EMCEF) adopt ed a joint declaration in November 2002 in 
which they welcomed the cross-industry agreemen t as relevant to their sector and called on 
their member organisations to implement the agreement in accordance with their national procedures and practice. Alt hough the text provides for mon itoring, the sectoral social 
dialogue committee has not carried  out any evaluation to date. 
Prior to the Framework Agreement, the social partners in the telecommunications (ETNO and 
UNI-Europa) and commerce (Eurocommerce and UNI-Europa Commerce) sectors had 
adopted joint guidelines for telework (on 7 February and 26 April 2001 respectively). Both 
texts are very similar in content to the cross-in dustry agreement as they address most of the 
same aspects (voluntary basis, equal treatment,  equal access to training, health and safety, 
provision of equipment, data protection, preventi on of isolation, collectiv e rights, etc.). No 
follow-up activities have been reported so far. 
2. I
MPLEMENTATION IN THE EU MEMBER STATES , ICELAND AND NORWAY  
This chapter analyses the implementation meas ures taken by the nati onal social partners 
and/or public authorities in the 27 EU Member  States and the EEA countries, Iceland and 
Norway, whose social partners partic ipate in European social dialogue. 
2.1. Austria 
With a view to implementing the Framework Agreement on Telework, the Austrian social 
partners wanted to draft a joint recommendati on which could be implemented at enterprise 
level. However, according to the Austrian government, the disc ussions on a common national 
procedure for implementation, which took place between the Austrian Trade Union Confederation (ÖGB) on the one hand, and th e Austrian Economic Chamber (WKÖ), the 
Federation of Austrian Industry (IV) and the Austrian Association for Public and Social 
Economy (VÖWG) on the other hand, did not succeed. 
The three Austrian employers' organisatio ns (WKÖ, IV and VÖW G) had unilaterally 
published guidelines ( Leitfaden ) previously (15 July 2005) on implementing the Framework 
Agreement in Austria. The guidelines, which ar e addressed to employers and workers and are 
non-binding, contain a German version of the European Agreement and refer to existing 
Austrian legislation on various aspects of telework. Their aim is to give enterprises guidance 
on how to introduce telework at the workplace. The document has been published on the organisations’ websites. However, it is difficult to evaluate to what extent they were taken 
into account when company or individual agreements on telework were concluded. 
The Austrian labour contract law does not contain any speci fic regulation of telework. 
However, according to the Austrian govern ment, general labour legislation and both 
collective ( Kollektivverträge ) and company agreements ( Betriebsvereinbarungen ) apply in 
full to teleworkers. The voluntar y character of telework and equal rights for teleworkers as 
regards employment conditions are guaranteed. Pr ovisions on health and sa fety, in particular 
as regards work with visual di splay units, are applicable as l ong as they are no t linked to the 
workplace as such. However, access to the tele worker's home by labour inspectors, healh and 
safety services and the employer is only allowed at the request  of the teleworker. 
A large number of sectoral collective agreements , most of which were concluded prior to the 
Framework Agreement, contain provisions on telework. Some are rather general, and only 
EN 10   EN stipulate the voluntary character and the need for a written agreement, leaving the details to be 
regulated by company agreements. Others cont ain more detailed provisions on working time, 
equipment and costs, prevention of isolation, information and tr aining, rights of the works 
council, reversibility an d data protection. According to th e Austrian government, even though 
all issues are not regu lated in a comprehensive manner, none of the collective agreements 
seems to contradict the Framework Agreement. It is not clear whether there are any specific 
provisions for the public sector. 
2.2. Belgium 
In order to implement the Framework Agreemen t on Telework, the Belgian social partners 
adopted a cross-industry collective labour agreement ( convention collective de 
travail /collectieve arbeidsovereenkomst ) within the National Labour Council ( Conseil 
National du Travail/Nationale Arbeidsraad ). Collective Labour Agreement No 85 on 
telework was signed on 9 Nove mber 2005 by the members of th e National Labour Council, 
i.e. the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB-VBO), the "middle classes" (i.e. SME) 
organisations (UCM and UNIZO), the fe derations of agriculture (FWA and Boerenbond ) on 
the employers' side, and the Belgian Confederat ion of Christian Trade Unions (CSC-ACV), 
the Belgian General Federation of Labour (F GTB-ABVV) and the Belgian Federation of 
Liberal Trade Unions (CGSLB-ACLVB) on the workers' side.  
The stated purpose of the collec tive agreement is to establish the principles governing 
telework. The way it is to be applied can be dete rmined by collective agreements at sectoral or 
company level to take account of the particularit ies of branches or enterprises. The Belgian 
text follows the structure and wording of most  provisions in the Framework Agreement very 
closely (definition, voluntary character, empl oyment conditions, organisation of work, 
equipment, data protection, health and safet y, training and career development, collective 
rights). As regards workers' privacy, it refers to  the relevant Belgian collective agreement on 
the subject. It leaves out a few passages regard ing Belgian labour law that seem self-evident, 
such as the responsibilit y of the employer for the teleworker 's occupational health and safety 
and the inclusion of teleworker s in the calculation of the thre shold for worker representation 
bodies.  
On some aspects the Belgian agreement goes be yond the requirements of th e European text. It 
requires a prior written agreement between the employer and the teleworker or an addendum 
to the work contract on the prac tical details of telework covering at least the following: the 
frequency (days and hours) of telework, the periods and the means by which the teleworker 
can be contacted, access to technical support, rules on costs and conditions for returning to 
work on the employer's premises. While it recogn ises that telework can be performed from 
the teleworker's home or any other place chosen  by him/her, the Belgian agreement explicitly 
excludes mobile telework and work in the employe r's satellite offices from its scope. It also 
specifies in greater detail the method for calcu lating the costs linked to the equipment and the 
consequences of equipment breakdown. 
Collective Labour Agreement No 85 was extend ed by the Royal Decree of 13 June 2006. In 
accordance with Belgian law, collective agreements concluded by the National Labour Council and extended by the Government are binding on all workers and employers in the 
private sector. Employers disregarding a collect ive labour agreement are liable to penalties 
under criminal law. 
EN 11   EN Alongside the collective agreement, the Nati onal Labour Council also adopted Opinion 
(avis/advies ) No 1528 of 9 November 2005, in which th e social partners commented on the 
main points in the new agreement. It also a ddressed proposals to the Government on issues 
requiring the adaptation of several Belgian laws and regulations to bring them into line with 
the Framework Agreement and the national agreement. The requested amendments to the Belgian labour law were introdu ced by the Act of 20 July 2006. 
Prior to the Framework Agreement, specific provisions on homeworki ng already existed in 
Belgian labour law (Title VI of the Act of  3 July 1978 on work contracts), and had been 
introduced in 1996 to cover both traditional homeworking and newer forms such as telework. At the request of the social partners, the la w was amended so that it no longer applied to 
teleworkers working from home, thereby bri nging all telework carried out at home or 
elsewhere within the scope of National Labou r Agreement No 85. As regards matters not 
regulated by the collective agreement, the ge neral Belgian labour law continues to apply to 
teleworkers. 
It is not clear to what extent the Framework Agreement has been implemented to cover the 
public sector. A sectoral collective agreement for the Flemish civil service covering 2005-07 
and concluded on 6 July 2006 contains some provi sions regulating telework which seem to be 
in line with the European Agreement, in partic ular as regards its voluntary character and the 
provision of equipment and the cove rage of costs by the employer. 
2.3. Bulgaria 
The Bulgarian social partners which joined th e European social dial ogue at the beginning of 
2007, i.e. the Confederation of Independent Tr ade Unions in Bulgaria (KNSB/CITUB), the 
Confederation of Labour Podkrepa, the Bulgar ian Industrial Associat ion (BSK/BIA) and the 
Union for Private Economic Enterprise (SSI/U PEE), have not yet started to implement the 
Framework Agreement on Telework. However, it seems that informal discussions are 
currently taking place between the Government and the social partners concerning the 
adoption of an agreement on telework. 
Telework is currently not regulated by the Bulgarian Labour  Code, and the Government sees 
no need for an overhaul of the existing legal framework. In its view the Framework 
Agreement needs to be implemented through colle ctive bargaining at sect oral or undertaking 
levels and there are no lega l obstacles to its implementa tion. No collective agreements 
governing telework are known so far.  
Teleworkers are, however, protected by the Labour  Code, the Health and Safety Act and other 
employment regulations. Equal treatment of teleworkers compared with other employees 
seems to be guaranteed in terms of working co nditions, health and safety, access to training, 
collective rights and the voluntar y character of telework. Gene ral regulations on privacy and 
data protection are also applicable. 
2.4. Cyprus 
The Cypriot social partners affiliated to the European social partners, i.e. the Cyprus 
Employers and Industrialists Federation (OEB ), the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry (CCCI), the Cyprus Workers’ Conf ederation (SEK) and the Democratic Labour 
Federation of Cyprus (DEOK), have not reported any action to implement the European 
Framework Agreement on Telework. However, th e OEB and the SEK seem to be currently 
conducting negotiations with a view to adop ting measures to implement the European 
EN 12   EN Agreement. The intention of bot h organisations is to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement 
at national level and then promote its implem entation at sectoral and enterprise level. 
Specific regulation of telework does not exist in Cyprus. According to the Cypriot 
Government, however, existing labour legislati on and in particular all provisions governing 
health and safety at work are applicable to teleworkers. Therefore the Government is not 
aware of any conflict between national legi slation and the Framework Agreement. The 
Cypriot Government has not taken any initiati ve of its own to promote the Agreement. 
2.5. Czech Republic 
The Czech social partners, the Confederat ion of Industry of the Czech Republic (SP ČR) and 
the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions ( ČMKOS), welcomed the Framework 
Agreement on Telework. A Czech translation was di stributed as a jointly agreed text to all 
their member organisations and published in internal bulletins. After several rounds of 
negotiations, they decided that  the Framework Agreement should be implemented through the 
new Labour Code being prepared. 
With a view to modernising the country's labour law, in  May 2006 the Czech Parliament 
approved an overhaul of the La bour Code, which dates back to 1965. The new Labour Code 
(Zákoník práce , Act No 262/2006 Coll.), which entered into force on 1 January 2007, made it 
possible to agree on a workplace outside the employer's premises, thus making telework 
possible. The extent to which the Czech social pa rtners influenced this change was not clear.  
The new Article 317 stipulates that the Labour C ode also covers the employment relationship 
of an employee who does not work at the empl oyer's premises, but carries out work for the 
employer on agreed conditions while organising  his/her own working time. Teleworkers (who 
are covered by this definition) therefore enjoy the same rights and duties as employees working on the employer's premises, with certain exceptions. These derogations from the general regulations are listed in Article 317 a nd stipulate that arrang ements on working time 
scheduling and delays or breaks caused by advers e weather conditions ar e not applicable, and 
that the employee is entitled neither to comp ensation for loss of wages in the event of 
significant personal obstacles to work, nor to wages or compensatory leave for overtime and 
work on public holidays. These rules are lega lly binding and subject to monitoring by labour 
inspectorates. 
Compared to the previous version of the Labour  Code, the new labour legislation allows more 
contractual freedom between employers and wo rkers. Collective and individual agreements 
can therefore arrange the conditions and specificities of tele work. It is not clear whether any 
collective agreements have ma de use of this possibility. 
The Czech legislation does not deal specifically with telework as its definition does not cover 
the use of information technology or the fact th at the work can also be performed at the 
employer's premises. It makes no provision for a lternating telework whereby working time is 
divided between the employer's premises and the teleworker's own chosen workplace. Most of 
the provisions of the Framework Agreement are not addressed in this legislation (voluntary 
character, reversib ility, data protection, priv acy, equipment, health and safety, training and 
collective rights). The Czech Government ne vertheless considers that the Framework 
Agreement has been fully implemented in C zech law, as the new legislation provides 
sufficient scope for the social partners to apply the rules set out in the European agreement.  
EN 13   EN 2.6. Denmark 
The Danish social partners implemented the Framework Agreement on Telework through 
collective agreements ( overenkomster/aftaler ) at sectoral level, thereby respecting the 
structure of their industrial relations system . Telework in Denmark, unlike many European 
countries, was regulated prior to 2002 by ma ny specific collective agreements. These 
agreements have been revised or updated in several cases to take account of the European text and are often accompanied by guidelines ( vejledning ). They generally allow for more specific 
agreements at local/company level or individual agreements. 
In the private sector, two main agreements were  struck in the manufact uring industry and the 
commercial services branches. The Confederati on of Danish Industry (DI) and the bargaining 
cartel of industry trade unions (CO-industri) conc luded an agreement ( protokollat ) on 
telework, distance work and homework whic h entered into force on 16 July 2005 and was 
also annexed to the three-year collectiv e framework agreement for the industry ( Industriens 
overenkomst 2007-2010 , Annex No 20). This replaces an ea rlier agreement on telework from 
1998, which was updated in the light of the Eur opean text, while guidelines drawn up by the 
same social partners in January  2002 are still appli cable. The industry's agreement follows the 
provisions of the Framework Agreement very cl osely in all areas, bu t introduces slightly 
different rules on equipment and is more sp ecific on issues such as working time.  
Another private-sector agreement ( rammeaftale ) was concluded in April 2006 by the social 
partners in the commerce and services sector , the Danish Commerce and Service (DHS, now 
the Danish Chamber of Commerce) and the Un ion of Commercial and Clerical Employees 
(HK). It also replaces an earlier agreemen t of 1998 and is accompanied by comprehensive 
guidelines and a model agreement. The agre ement itself, however, touches only on a few 
aspects of the Framework Agreement, i.e. equa l rights and obligations for the teleworker, the 
employer's responsibility for equipment and the protection of privacy. 
While those two agreements cover large sect ions of the private sector, the Framework 
Agreement has not been implemented in other branches. In order to broaden coverage, the 
cross-industry social partners, the Danish C onfederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the 
Confederation of Danish Employers (DA), conc luded a supplementary agreement on telework 
on 27 October 2006, which entered into force on 1 January 2007 and is annexed to the 
organisations' general Cooperation Agreement ( Samarbejdsaftalen 2006 ) together with a 
Danish translation of the Eur opean text. According to this agreement, the principles for 
carrying out telework are to be discussed lo cally by each company works council, taking the 
various aspects of the Framework Agreement into consideration. 
In the public sector, two major agreements we re concluded or renewed with a view to 
implementing the European Agreement. The Fina nce Ministry acting in its capacity as the 
State Employer's authority for the central government sector, a nd the trade union  cartel for the 
State sector (CFU) concluded an agreement ( rammeaftale ) on telework on 6 July 2005 
covering civil servants and public employees, which renewed an agreement signed in 2002. 
Although the agreement states th at both parties consider th at it thus implements the 
Framework Agreement, it contains only two of  its main principles, i.e. equality of 
employment conditions for teleworkers and the employer's responsibility for providing 
equipment. To supplement the agreement, in  March 2006 the signat ories issued joint 
guidelines on telework which cover most of the other issues (vol untary character, 
reversibility, work organisati on, equipment, health and safet y, privacy and data protection). 
EN 14   EN For the local and regional government sector, the trade union negotiating body for local 
government employees (KTO), Local Governme nt Denmark (KL) and the Danish Regions 
agreed in a protocol of 30 November 2005 to in troduce an article into the earlier framework 
agreement on telework and homework of 30 Apr il 1997. The article states  that the European 
agreement is to be considered  as implemented by the 1997 ag reement, which however, like 
the other early agreements, covers some pr ovisions only (voluntary character, equal 
employment conditions and employer's respons ibility for equipment). Again, comprehensive 
joint guidelines also touch on more as pects and indicate re levant legislation. 
In both the private and the public  sectors, coverage of telewo rk by the Danish sectoral 
agreements seems to be quite extensive, althou gh research suggests that  not all branches of 
the private labour market have actually implemented the Framework Agreement. The subsidiary agreement by LO and DA, which cove rs those sectors only, seems to relegate 
responsibility for local agreements on telework  to works councils. Apart from the agreement 
for the manufacturing industry, neither existing nor  new telework agreements take account of 
all the main provisions of the European text , although the accompanying  guidelines are often 
more comprehensive. 
The Danish social partners consider that the Framework Agreement has been successfully 
implemented in Denmark, but that its effect s are limited as a result of many pre-existing 
collective agreements. No specific legislation on telework exists in Denmark, as labour market regulation is largely left to the soci al partners without a ny interference by the 
Government or Parliament. 
2.7. Estonia 
The Estonian social partners, the Association of  Estonian Trade Unions (EAKL), the Estonian 
Employees' Unions' Association (TALO) a nd the Estonian Employers' Confederation 
(ETTK), have not reported any steps to implement the Framework Agreement on Telework. 
So far, no specific regulatory framework for telework has been developed in Estonia. 
However, according to the Estonian Government , no provisions of the legislation in force 
prevent telework. General labour regulations seem  to apply to teleworkers and equal treatment 
of teleworkers in terms of employment cond itions and the voluntary ch aracter of telework 
seem to be ensured. 
In the current review of the Employment Contra cts Act, the Government intends to analyse 
the applicability of the Framew ork Agreement on Telework in th e Estonian legal system and 
the need to transpose it into  national law. The employers ha ve announced their intention of 
translating and publishing the Framework Agreement. 
2.8. Finland 
On 23 May 2005 the Finnish social partners co ncluded an "Agreement on implementation of 
the Framework Agreement on Telework" ( Sopimus Etätyötä Koskevan Puitesopimuksen 
Täytäntöönpanosta ). This text was signed by those or ganisations regularly involved in 
collective bargaining in Finland and which are representative of both the private and public 
sector, i.e. the Confederation of Finnish  Industries (EK), the Commission for State 
Employers, the Commission for Local Authority  Employers and the Church of Finland 
Negotiating Commission for the employers, and the Central Or ganisation of Finnish Trade 
Unions (SAK), the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees (STTK) and the 
Confederation of Unions for Academic Pr ofessionals (AKAVA) for the trade unions. 
EN 15   EN The text states that the signatory parties unde rtake to implement the Framework Agreement in 
Finland and recommend that its principles should form the basis for any telework 
arrangements both in collective agreements and in individual employment  contracts. At all 
events the terms and conditions of telework should be agreed in writing. In accordance with the agreement, the principles of the Framew ork Agreement should be  applicable to all 
personnel groups and also to public-law employmen t relationships. Lastly, the Finnish social 
partners commit themselves to promoting awareness and providing information on these 
principles, urge their member associations to pa y attention to questions relating to telework in 
collective bargaining and draw up a list of issues to be taken into account when telework is agreed at collective or individual level.  
These guidelines, which are annexed to the agreem ent, contain most of the provisions of the 
Framework Agreement, but also refer to the re levant Finnish labour le gislation, for instance 
on occupational health and safety and collective rights. The guidelines' definition of telework 
quotes examples of some types of telework and explicitly excludes other forms of work from 
its scope (traditional home work and work in call centres). The guidelines are more specific 
on issues that need to be agreed before telewo rk is started and on the applicable legislation 
with regard to employment conditions. They al so address some issues not covered by the 
Framework Agreement, in particular travel costs, taxation and insurance coverage. The 
guidelines are sometimes less precise than the Framework Agreement and do not address 
certain issues, e.g. liability for equi pment. Their aim is to help local actors to draft agreements 
on telework.  
The Finnish social partners’ agreement does not have the legal st atus of a collective 
agreement, i.e. its provisions are not legally bi nding. However, the Finni sh industrial relations 
system is strongly structured and the general co verage level of collectiv e bargaining is high 
(up to 90%), so that relatively good take-up of the recommendations can be expected. All 
Finnish social partner organisa tions have informed their member associations as well as 
employers and employees of the European and Finnish agreements through newsletters, the 
Internet and training activities. The effect of  the agreement and the guidelines cannot yet be 
measured. At sectoral level, no changes ba sed on the Framework Agre ement have yet been 
reported, in particular owing to the fact that most sectoral co llective agreements were valid 
until the end of September 2007 (i.e. after the in formation was collected). The Finnish social 
partners expected that telework could be on the agenda in subseque nt sectoral bargaining 
rounds, since sectoral agreements are important  instruments for setting employment terms and 
conditions. 
Both the Finnish social partners and the Governme nt consider that the legislation in force and 
the Finnish agreement cover all aspects of the Framework Agr eement. No conflicts between 
the Framework Agreement and Finnish legisl ation are reported. Before starting their 
negotiations, the Finnish social partners conduc ted a thorough analysis of the national labour 
legislation and collective agreements and conc luded that no legislative amendments were 
necessary. On the contrary, many of the princi ples of the Framework Agreement are already 
enshrined in Finnish labour le gislation. Few specific telework -related provision s existed in 
Finnish collective agreements at sectoral level prior to the Framework Agreement.  
2.9. France 
The French social partners negotiated and concluded a cross-industry national agreement 
(accord national interprofessionnel ) on telework on 19 July 2005. The agreement was signed 
by the main employers' organisations (MEDEF , CGPME and UPA) and the main trade union 
EN 16   EN confederations (CFDT, CFE-CGT,  CFTC, CGT-FO and CGT). At the request of the signatory 
parties, the agreement was extended to all empl oyers and workers by a Government Decree of 
30 May 2006, published in the French official jo urnal on 9 June 2006. This procedure is used 
regularly in France to ensure complete  coverage by collective agreements.  
The French agreement incorporates all provisions of the European Framework Agreement, 
though it is specific and goes be yond its requirements in certain aspects. The French 
definition explicitly includes mobile teleworkers (" télétravailleurs  nomades "). In the case of a 
switch to telework an addendum to the work contra ct is required: in addi tion to an "adaptation 
period", it must specify the conditions for a m ove to work at the employer's premises by 
employees recruited as teleworkers. The French text stipulates the need to draw up a schedule 
of times when the employer can contact the tele worker; it is more demanding in terms of the 
employer's responsibility to provide equipment and bear communication costs. It highlights 
the obligation to respect legal requirements on maximum working time and rest periods.  
As a result of the decree extending its covera ge, the national agreement is legally binding on 
all employers and workers within its profes sional and territorial scope. Sector-wide and 
company-specific collective agreements can supplement and adapt the rules for applying the cross-industry agreement to take account of the sp ecificities and needs of  certain branches and 
undertakings. However, most of its articl es are mandatory and permit no derogations 
(definition, voluntary character, principle of reversibility, employment conditions, privacy, 
health and safety, work organi sation, training and collective rights). Collective agreements at 
lower levels can be more specific about issues regarding equipment, ru les on reversibility, and 
data protection. A first sect oral agreement was conclude d on 6 October 2006 in the 
telecommunications industry, and a request has b een made for its extens ion by decree. Several 
companies have also made use of the possibil ity of adapting the cross-industry agreement to 
their needs. 
The French social partners’ decision to implement the Framework Agreement through 
collective bargaining has the backing of the au thorities. The French Government considers 
that the national agreement addresses the main  issues involving telewo rk and that further 
legislation is unnecessary for the time being. Prior to the Framework Agreement, no specific 
regulations existed on telework and it was felt  that the existing legislation on traditional 
homework did not adequately cover this new fo rm of work. Case law already established the 
voluntary character and reversibility of home work and the employer’s responsibility for 
bearing the material costs. Relatively few sectoral (banking and telecommunications) or 
company agreements referred to tele work prior to the European text. 
2.10. Germany 
To implement the Framework Agreement on Telework, the Confederation of German 
Employers' Associations (BDA) and the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) adopted 
a joint declaration on 16 July 2002 (day of si gning). The declaration welcomed the European 
text and encouraged the social partners at s ectoral and company level to devise rules for 
introducing the Framework Agreement into na tional practice. The German cross-industry 
social partner organisations, including the Germ an Confederation of Skilled Crafts (ZDH) and 
the Confederation of Local Public Employe rs (VKA), informed their members of the 
Framework Agreement via newsletters, circulars and information material and the associated 
advisory services. DGB and BDA also organised a transnational conference in 2003 to 
disseminate the Agreement and exchange views on company teleworking practice. 
EN 17   EN The direct role of the German cross-industr y social partners in labour regulation and 
collective bargaining is rather limited and they have therefore confined themselves to providing information and dissemination. The soci al partners' involveme nt at sectoral and 
regional level, where most collective bargaining  occurs, also seems to be limited, except in 
some cases, including a recommendation by the so cial partners in the chemical industry, 
which seems to be in line w ith the Framework Agreement. The implementation by sectoral 
social partners might improve over time w ith the renegotiation of  medium-term master 
collective agreements ( Manteltarifverträge ), which determine labour standards and working 
conditions outside wage issues. 
Typically, the issue of telework is regulated through company agreements 
(Betriebsvereinbarungen, Firmentarifverträge ) in Germany. Several ag reements dealing with 
telework are known, some of which were concluded prior to the Framework Agreement, while others have been prompted by it. Thes e texts generally abide by the provisions of the 
European text, but are often more specific and go beyond its protective standards while 
adapting to the needs of the individual comp any. Various trade unions and the local public 
employer organisation VKA have drawn up mode l agreements which are being used as a 
basis when the employer and worker repr esentatives launch negotiations. Company 
agreements are legally binding on the signatory parties. 
The social partners consider that the highly d ecentralised approach to regulating telework in 
Germany is the best way to deal with problems ar ising in this context. Neither the legislator 
nor the social partners seem to envisage  changing this situation. This method of 
implementation may be appropriate, given its  low cost of adaptation and the rather 
uncontroversial nature of telework, but the incomplete coverage does not ensure that there is sufficient protection in the most important sectors and professions. 
On the other hand, both the German social partne rs and the Federal Government consider that 
teleworkers are covered by the ge neral protective mechanisms of  German labour law. Worker 
protection provisions on work ing conditions, working time a nd health and safety apply. 
Privacy and data protection ar e guaranteed through general laws. Co-determination within 
companies is applicable to teleworkers. It is not clear whether the provisions of the Framework Agreement on the volunta ry nature of telework, its reversibility and on equipment 
are in line with general German labour law. The social partners state that they are not aware 
of any obstacles to implem entation and the Government does not intend to propose any 
specific legislation. 
2.11. Greece 
The Greek cross-industry social partners  implemented the Framework Agreement on 
Telework via the National General Collective Labour Agreement ( Εθνική  Γενική  Συλλογική  
Σύµβαση  Εργασίας ) for 2006-07, which was signed on 12 April 2006 by the Greek General 
Confederation of Labour (GSEE) for the trade unions, and the Hellenic Federation of 
Enterprises (SEV), the National Confederat ion of Hellenic Commerce (ESEE) and the 
Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Cr aftsmen and Merchants (GSEVEE) for the 
employers. Article 4 of the national agreement states the signatory parties' intention of implementing the Framework Agreement and refers to Annex B, which contains the jointly agreed Greek translation of the European text. In addition, the relevant  sectoral employer and 
trade union organisations in the wholesale an d retail trade sector signed a new two-year 
national collective agreement on 7 September 2006 undertaking inter  alia to implement the 
European agreement. 
EN 18   EN Since Annex B to the Greek na tional agreement is an almost literal translation of the 
European text, all aspects of the Framewor k Agreement are covered by the implementing 
measure. In accordance with Greek law, the Na tional General Collectiv e Labour Agreement is 
binding on all workers and employers  in Greece. It is not clear, however, to what extent it 
applies to the public sector too. 
Prior to the Framework Agreement, Greek labou r law did not specifically regulate telework. 
The only existing legal instrument is Article  1 of Act 2639/1998, which includes telework in 
the statutory framework for the protection of certain forms of work (together with piecework 
and homework) but does not address its part icularities. The Greek Government does not, 
however, rule out the modernisation of Greek labour  law to bring it into line with the needs of 
the economy and the labour market, including telework. 
2.12. Hungary 
In Hungary, the Framework Agreement on Tele work was implemented through legislation. 
Act XXVIII of 2004 amended the Labour Code ( a Munka Törvénykönyve,  Act XXII of 1992, 
Chapter X/A) as well as the Occupational Sa fety Act (Act XCIII of 1993, Chapter VII/A), 
thereby introducing provisions on telework in to the Hungarian labour law. Penalties for non-
observance of those regulations were included in the law on labour in spection (Act LXXXV, 
Article 1). The labour law regu lations on telework also cove r civil servants and public 
employees. The new rules entered into force on 1 May 2004.  
The justifications for the amendments make it  clear that the legislator took the goals and 
content of the Framework Agreement into c onsideration. The Hungarian Government gave 
two reasons for proposing le gislation in this field:  first, with the take- up of telework since the 
late 1990s, more detailed legi slation was already on the agenda ; second, given the lack of a 
strong tradition of collective ba rgaining and low representativene ss of the social partners in 
the Hungarian industrial relations system, it considered that any implementation of the 
Framework Agreement through a collective or other bipartite agreem ent by the Hungarian 
social partners at cross-industr y or sectoral level could not ensure sufficient coverage and 
binding force. 
Although it was initiated by the Government, th is method of implementation was accepted by 
the social partners. Their involve ment in the regulatory process was similar to their role in 
preparing other employment-related laws, i.e. th rough consultations in th e tripartite National 
Interest Reconciliation Council (OÉT) on a Govern ment proposal before the bill is adopted by 
Parliament. The debate in the latter body wa s based on a Hungarian translation of the 
Framework Agreement and lasted  about three months, focusing on the definition of telework, 
coverage of costs, compensation and working time. According to the Hungarian Government, 
the amendment submitted to Parliament had the agreement and support of the social partners. 
The regulation of telework in the new Chap ter X/A of the Labour Code (Articles 192/C-
193/A) and other laws seems to be in accordance  with the aims and content of the European 
Agreement on most issues, although there are so me discrepancies. Teleworkers essentially 
have the same rights and respons ibilities as other wo rkers and the provisions of general labour 
law apply to them in full. However, owing to th e particular nature of telework, some general 
employment regulations were adapted. The ne w chapter on telework sets out those points 
where derogations apply to teleworkers. 
EN 19   EN The Hungarian definition of "teleworker" differs from that in the European text, since it seems 
to be geared solely to permanent telework and therefore excludes alternating telework. Moreover, it does not state that the work involve d could also be performed at the employer's 
premises. The voluntary character of telework is guaranteed by the requirement for a written agreement to start telework. The reversibility of the decision to enga ge in telework is 
contained in a "soft-law" rule, according to which the employee has the right to ask to 
continue or cease working as a teleworker and the employer is obliged to give due consideration to such requests.  The employer's obligation to pr ovide written information is 
stipulated in detail.  
The Hungarian law seems to respect the main  provisions of the Framework Agreement on 
data protection, equipment, health and safety  and work organisation, but does not cover all 
aspects. On privacy, the employer's right of acc ess to the private workplace subject to prior 
notification is regulated in detail, as is his/he r access to data on the IT  equipment. However, 
the use of monitoring systems is not addresse d. While the Hungarian law stipulates that, 
unless otherwise agreed, the equipment is pr ovided by the employer, it seems to be less 
favourable to the teleworker than the European te xt on issues of costs an d liability. In contrast 
to the Framework Agreement, the Labour Code st ates that coverage of or compensation for 
costs is subject to an agreement between the pa rties and it increases the teleworker's liability 
for damage to the equipment. While general heal th and safety regulations  apply to teleworkers 
and some specific rules are laid down (e.g. th e employer's duty to inspect equipment before 
telework is started), there is no specific men tion of work with visual display units (although 
Hungary has implemented the relevant EU Dir ective). The legislator took the view that 
existing rules on training and collective rights were sufficient and saw no need for specific 
provisions with regard to telework. The Hungarian law does, however, stipulate the 
employer's duty to inform the works council and trade unions of the number and positions of 
teleworkers employed. Some rules go further than  the Framework Agreement, such as those 
on the employer's rights and duties to give instructions and carry out monitoring, the 
definition, scheduling and reco rding of working time and the method of communication. 
The Hungarian labour law ther efore incorporates the main  points in the Framework 
Agreement, although it is more detailed in certain as pects, is less explic it than or diverges 
slightly from the European text in others. As is the case of all legi slation, full coverage and 
binding legal force are guaranteed. The new legi slation does not limit the scope of collective 
bargaining on telework at sectoral or compa ny level. Prior to the Framework Agreement, 
Hungary had no specific comprehensive regulation of telework. 
2.13. Iceland 
The Framework Agreement on Telework was implemented in Iceland by a collective 
agreement between the Icelandic Confederatio n of Labour (ASI) and the Confederation of 
Icelandic Employers (SA) signed on 5 May 20 06. Under the applicable Icelandic law, the 
agreement sets out minimum rights and obligations  for all employees within the area covered 
by the signatory parties and serv es as "binding guidelines" when  telework is introduced in 
work contracts.  
The agreement covers all provisions of the Eur opean text. Furthermore, provision is made for 
a joint committee to deal with issues that may arise from the agreement. No information is 
available on the extent to which the agreement has been applied in companies. 
EN 20   EN 2.14. Ireland 
To implement the Framework Agreement, the Iri sh social partners agreed to update their 
Code of Practice on "e-working", published in 2000 with the support of the Irish Government. 
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU ) and the Irish Business and Employers 
Confederation (IBEC) came to an agreemen t on 15 December 2004 on an updated Code of 
Practice applicable to the private sector. Howe ver, this text was ne ver signed, published or 
disseminated. ICTU considered that public-sec tor workers should be covered by the Irish 
Code, since CEEP was a party to the Europ ean agreement. Owing to the difficulty in 
establishing who represented the public servic e employers and in securing their agreement, 
this issue has not yet been resolved. The Irish social partners and the Government therefore 
consider that the Framework Agreement has s till not been formally implemented in Ireland. 
The 2000 Code of Practice, which contains pr actical advice on introducing telework, suitable 
jobs, the home office, communication policies,  training, security, terms and conditions for 
employees as well as monitoring and review, is a very comprehensive tool for companies and 
workers who intend to begin teleworking. It in cludes a model agreement for telework (in the 
form of a checklist of issues to consider) as well as advice for self-employed teleworkers. It 
also gives a broad overview of the applicable  Irish legislation on general and specific 
employee rights and obligations (e.g. written information on terms of employment, data 
protection, working time and holidays, dismissals , health and safety), employment agencies 
and self-employed workers. Lastly, the Code  provides useful reference documents and 
contacts. 
The 2004 revised version of the Code of Prac tice (which was never formally adopted or 
disseminated) contains new point s drawn from the Framework Agreement. It now follows the 
structure of the European text and incorporat es all its provisions, including the definition, and 
adapts them to Irish conditions and legisla tion. The existing practical advice has been 
included in a new chapter ("practical consider ations"), while the model agreement and the 
overview of legislation are maintained. Informa tion for self-employed workers has been taken 
out, in line with the Framework Agreement.  
It is difficult to assess to what extent the C ode of Practice has influe nced company practice or 
collective and individual agreements. There seem  to be only a few comp any-level agreements 
incorporating telework issues, but a number of trade unions ha ve produced guidelines for use 
in negotiating telework arrangements with employers. 
2.15. Italy 
The Italian social partners implemented th e Framework Agreement on Telework through an 
"interconfederal agreement" ( accordo interconfederale ) concluded on 9 June 2004 by the 
national employers' organisatio ns (Confindustria, Confartigia nato, Confesercenti, CNA, 
Confapi, Confservizi, Abi, Agci, Ania, Ap la, Casartigiani, Cia, Claai, Coldiretti, 
Confagricoltura, Confcooperative, Confcommer cio, Confinterim, Legacoop and Unci) and the 
most representative trade union confed erations (CGIL, CISL and UIL).  
The "Interconfederal Agreement on the transpos ition of the European Framework Agreement 
on Telework concluded on 16 July 2002 by UNICE /UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC" contains all 
the provisions of the European text (defin ition and scope, voluntary character, employment 
conditions, data protection, right to privacy, work equipment, he alth and safety, organisation 
of work, training and collective ri ghts) in an almost literal tran slation. Some adjustments were 
EN 21   EN made to allow for better inte rpretation and to bri ng the terminology into  line with general 
practice in Italy. In addition, the Agreement esta blishes the teleworker's obligation to inform 
the employer in the event of equipment breakdown or malfunction.  
The Agreement makes provision for the social partners at lower levels to enter into 
agreements adapting and/or supplementing the pr inciples and criteria laid down in the cross-
industry agreement in order to take account of thei r specific needs. It al so stipulates that pre-
existing collective agreements are not affected  and that individual agreements can lay down 
supplementary rules. Conflicts involving interpretation are to be  brought before the signatory 
parties and the member organisations are to  notify collective agreements dealing with 
telework. 
In accordance with the Italian legal order, interconfederal agreements are based on common 
law and are therefore not enforceable erga omnes . However, they are binding on the 
employers and workers belonging to the signato ry associations. They are also binding on 
other workers and employers who explicitly sign the agreement or implicitly take it on board by incorporating its content into  individual employment contract s. Both the Italian social 
partners and the Government therefore consider that the telework agreement covers almost all 
private companies. 
A collective agreement for the textile sector was concluded on 28 May 2004, i.e. prior to the 
cross-industry text; however, Article 44 (telework) of this agreement follows the provisions of 
the European Agreement very closely. Accordi ng to the Italian Government, most sectoral 
collective agreements ( contratti collettivi nazionali di lavoro ) concluded af ter the cross-
industry agreement follow its provisions entirely, sometimes incorporating its articles into the 
body of the agreement or in an annex (e.g. agreement for retail and services sector concluded 
on 6 July 2004).  
Prior to the Framework Agreement, no specific le gislation or regulation had been issued for 
the private sector in Italy and telework was governed exclusively by se veral national sectoral 
collective agreements, in particular in th e telecommunications, electricity, chemical, 
graphical/paper and ceramics industries, and sm all and medium-sized enterprises. According 
to the Government, no sectoral agreement se ems to be in conflict with the Framework 
Agreement. In addition, some company agreem ents had already been signed in Italy. 
In the public sector, telework was introdu ced by Law No 191 of 16 June 1998 and its 
organisation and implementation was regulated s ubsequently by Presidential Decree No 70 of 
8 March 1999. A framework agreement signed by the Negotiating Agency for Public Administration (ARAN) and th e public-sector trad e unions on 23 Marc h 2000 laid down the 
main points concerning the assignment of pu blic employees to telework projects. This 
agreement seems to be in line with the main  provisions of the Fram ework Agreement on the 
voluntary character of telework and reversibility, equal rights in particular as regards training, 
pay, career advancement, trade union activitie s and working time, costs for equipment and 
communication, privacy  and controls. 
The Italian Government is satisfied with the state of implementation. It considers that all 
protective measures have probabl y been respected and sees no n eed for legislation in this 
field. It also points out that teleworking does not reduce the le vel of worker protection under 
the Constitution, the Civil Code and specific legi slation on occupational health and safety. 
However, there seem to be exceptions where protective legislation on working time does not 
apply to teleworkers (Article 17(5) of Legislative Decree No 66 of 8 April 2008). 
EN 22   EN 2.16. Latvia 
The Latvian social partners, the Employers' Confederation of  Latvia (LDDK) and the Free 
Trade Union Confederation of Latvia (LBAS), concluded an agreement on the 
implementation of the Framework Agreemen t on Telework on 12 April 2006. Under the 
agreement, which is not a collective agreement,  the signatory parties undertook to facilitate 
the implementation process, in particular by disseminating information to the members of employers' and trade union organisations, other institutions and the general public. They also sought to ensure that collective agreements at sectoral and local level took account of the aims and provisions of the European Agreement.  
A translation of the Framework Agreement into Latvian was also agreed on by the social 
partners and disseminated with the agreement.  The Government and the labour inspectorate 
were informed and "guidelines on implementati on of telework" were negotiated by the social 
partners, government representatives and members of parliament. It is not clear whether any 
collective agreements have incorporated provisi ons on telework and to what extent company 
practice has been influenced. A ccording to the Government, implementation of the framework 
provisions is not widespread, but th e process is going ahead slowly. 
Latvian legislation contains no specific prov isions regulating telework, but the Labour Act 
does not restrict its possibility. According to Ar ticle 53(1) of the latter,  a worker has the duty 
to perform work in the undertaking unless th e worker and employer agree otherwise. 
Article 40(2) states that information concerni ng the workplace(s) must be mentioned in the 
work contract. The general rules of Latvian la bour law, e.g. on the employer's responsibility 
for workers' health and safety, and the law on personal data apply fully to teleworkers. However, the main provisions of the Fram ework Agreement cannot be considered as 
implemented via the national le gislation. According to the La tvian Government, there is no 
conflict between the legal provisions and the terms of the Framework Agreement. 
2.17. Lithuania 
The Lithuanian national social partners, i.e.  the Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation 
(LPSK), the Lithuanian Trade Union "Solid arumas" (LPSS/LDS), the Lithuanian Labour 
Federation (LDF), the Lithuanian Confederatio n of Industrialists (LPK) and the Lithuanian 
Business Employers’ Confederation (LVDK), have not reported any measures to implement 
the Framework Agreement on Telework.  
Lithuanian labour law lays down no specific re gulations concerning telework. However, the 
Lithuanian Government considers that telewo rk is covered by the ex isting provisions on 
homework in the Labour Code, which entered into force on 1 Janua ry 2003, and Decree No 
1043 of 19 August 2003. In its vi ew, these provisions are comp atible with the Framework 
Agreement. 
Article 115 of the Labour Code provides fo r an "employment contract on homeworking", 
which is defined in Decree No 1043 as "wor k performed by a person at home for a wage 
agreed on with the employer". The regulations stipulate that  work and equipment must 
comply with the relevant occupational health and safety rules. They set a maximum weekly working time of 40 hours, but  leave its allocation and r ecording to the homeworker. 
Compensation for work-related expenditure can be agreed on in the work contract, but is not 
systematic. For all other matters, homeworkers are subject to the general provisions of the 
Labour Code, which thus ensures equal treatment. These rules are binding on all 
EN 23   EN homeworkers and employers. Details can be la id down in collective agreements, but neither 
the Government nor the social partners ar e aware of collective agreements laying down 
conditions governing homework/telework.  
The Lithuanian legislation on homework does no t cover teleworkers who do not work from 
home or perform alternating telework. (However, where the teleworker is employed under a 
work contract, the normal labour regulations seem to be fully applicable.) Furthermore, the 
provisions on homework do not cover several of the issues addressed by the Framework 
Agreement, in particular those relating to the use of information technology, e.g. privacy, data 
protection and equipment. 
2.18. Luxembourg 
The Luxembourg social partners  implemented the Framework Ag reement through  a collective 
agreement ( convention ) on the legal framework for telewo rk, signed on 21 February 2006 by 
the Union of Luxembourg Enterprises (UEL)  on a mandate from the other employer 
federations, the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Luxembourg (OGB-L) and the 
Luxembourg Christian Trade Union Confedera tion (LCGB). The agreement was extended to 
all workers and companies ( déclaration d'obligation générale ) by grand-ducal decree on 13 
October 2006. 
The Luxembourg agreement covers all provisions of  the European text in  full, but goes into 
more detail on a number of issu es: it contains a list of written information on the rules for 
performing telework that must be agreed befo re it is started, covering the place of work, 
contact hours, description of ta sks and work equipment, insura nce etc. The reversibility of 
telework, i.e. the possibility to move (back) to work at the employer's premises, is regulated in 
great detail, in particular with a compulsory "adaptation period" of th ree to twelve months 
with a "right to return" for both parties. The ar ticle on privacy clarifies the employer's right of 
access to the workplace. The agreement also stipul ates the teleworker's obligation to inform 
the employer in the event of equipment malfunction. In their agreement, the social partners 
addressed a request to the legislator to amend a certain number of legal provisions to bring the 
national labour law into line with the agreement. 
Prior to the Framework Agreement, Luxembour g had no regulation or collective agreement 
dealing with telework. Under the decree exte nding its coverage, the agreement was made 
legally binding throughout Luxembourg and covers  the whole private sector. However, public 
officials are excluded from the sc ope of the agreement. The agreement is valid for three years. 
The Luxembourg social partners ha ve raised the issue of the implications of telework for the 
social security and tax regime of cross-bord er workers, which has not yet been resolved 
satisfactorily by the public authorities. 
2.19. Malta 
The Maltese social partners affiliated to the European organisations, the General Workers' 
Union (GWU), the Confederation of Malta Tr ade Unions (CMTU) and the Malta Federation 
of Industry (MFOI), reported th at there has been no real implementation of the Framework 
Agreement on Telework in Malta. They attribute this in particular to the low incidence of 
telework there. 
As regards the public sector, however, the Colle ctive Agreement for Employees in the Public 
Service, concluded on 26 October 2005 by th e Government and the relevant public-sector 
trade unions for the period 2002-10, provides for the introduction of te lework among other 
EN 24   EN flexible work arrangements (paragraph 8.1). As fo llow-up to that provisio n, a set of guidelines 
for an "e-work framework" has been drafted a nd is to be implemented in the public sector. 
According to the Government, these guide lines cover all aspects of the Framework 
Agreement and are legally binding. 
Malta had no specific legal or collective framew ork regarding telework in place before 2002. 
While Malta's general regulations on health and safety apply to all workers, there seem to be 
some exemptions for teleworkers. Legal Notice 44 of 2002 containing the Work Place 
(Minimum Health and Safety Requirements) Regul ations states that "a homeworker shall be 
considered a self-employed person" and that the Regulations do not a pply to "temporary or 
mobile work sites". On the other hand, Lega l Notice 43 of 2002 on the Minimum Health and 
Safety Requirements for Work with Display Sc reen Equipment Regulations covers employees 
who use "display screen equipment at a wo rkstation provided by the employer at home".  
2.20. The Netherlands 
The Dutch social partners decided to impl ement the Framework Agreement on Telework 
through a recommendation ( aanbeveling ) by the Labour Foundation ( Stichting van de 
Arbeid ), which is made up of the three leading trade union federations – the Netherlands 
Trade Union Confederation (FNV), the Confeder ation of Christian Trade Unions in the 
Netherlands (CNV) and the Trade Union Federation for Intermediate and Higher Employees (MHP) and the three leading employers' associ ations, the Confederat ion of Netherlands 
Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW), the Royal Dutch Association of Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises (MKB-Nederland) and the Dutch Association for Agriculture and Horticulture (LTO). The Labour Foundation is a cooperative body of the social partners under 
private law and serves as a pl atform for preparing and conducti ng national-level negotiations.  
The Recommendation of 11 September 2003 br ings the Framework Agreement to the 
attention of employers and workers at both sect oral and enterprise level and calls for its 
implementation via collective agreements ( CAO ) and/or in dialogue with works councils and 
in individual agreements. To th at end, it lists the main points that should be covered, namely 
the definition and voluntary char acter of telework, equal work ing conditions for comparable 
workers, compensation for equipment costs, and training and career prospects. It also 
recommends that such organisational aspects as  working time, availability, information and 
instructions, contact possibiliti es, assessment, coaching, data pr otection and privacy should be 
discussed with the works council or indi vidually. The Recomme ndation describes the 
development of telework in the Netherlands in qualitative and quantitative terms. The full 
Dutch translation of the Fram ework Agreement is attached to the Recommendation, together 
with a description of the relevant Dutch labour  law relating to telework and some provisions 
on telework in existing collective agreements. 
Recommendations by the Labour Fo undation are the standard tool  used by the Dutch social 
partners to promote dialogue and agreement on issues concerning working conditions and have been used before in many areas, such  as part-time work, employment of ethnic 
minorities, gender gaps and childca re facilities. By definition, they are not legally binding. 
They encourage the negotiation of company and sector agreements and are intended to pre-empt legislation. They are a mixed success: recommendations from the centre have not 
always been followed on the ground and strict er legislation has sometimes been introduced. 
Little information is available on the Recomme ndation's impact on telewo rk and on whether it 
has influenced collective bargaini ng in sectors and companies. The social partners have been 
EN 25   EN engaged in information activitie s, in particular through thei r websites, a brochure by VNO-
NCW and in discussions within th e so-called Telework Forum.  
While there is no specific legislation regulating telework in the Netherlands, some provisions 
of Dutch labour law are applicab le to teleworkers, such as the Working Conditions Decree 
(Arbeidsomstandighedenbesluit , Articles 5.15 and 6.30), which gr ants teleworkers the same 
protection as employees at the workplace, in pa rticular in terms of health and safety. The 
Dutch Government believes that the Labour Foundation Recommendation covers all aspects 
of the Framework Agreement and seems to be satisfied with the method of implementation 
chosen.  
2.21. Norway 
In order to implement the Framework Agreemen t on Telework, the Norwegian social partners 
adopted joint guidelines ( retningslinjer ) in December 2005. This document was approved by 
the four main organisations on the employe rs' side, the Confederation of Norwegian 
Enterprise (NHO), the Federation of Norwegian Commercial and Servic e Enterprises (HSH), 
the Norwegian Association of Local and Re gional Authorities (KS) and the Employer 
Federation NAVO (now renamed Sp ekter), and the five main tr ade union organisations, the 
Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (L O), the Confederation of Vocational Trade 
Unions (YS), the Confederation of Unions fo r the Professionals (UNIO), the Federation of 
Norwegian Professional Associations (Akade mikerne) and the Norwegian Society of 
Engineers and Technologists (NITO). 
These guidelines are the result of national bipa rtite negotiations, but do not commit the social 
partners at lower levels. They are intended as  voluntary recommendations to the members of 
the signatory parties, in pa rticular employers and worker s, for starting and performing 
telework. They contain most of  the provisions of the Framework Agreement in an almost 
literal translation and sometimes go beyond the Eu ropean text, e.g. on the need for a written 
agreement on telework and its content, on the fact that the equipment provided remains the 
property of the employer and on the employer's res ponsibility with regard to the teleworker's 
health and safety. On the other hand they do not contain any explicit reference to collective 
rights of teleworkers. The original English te xt of the Framework Agreement is annexed to 
the guidelines, together with references to gu idelines on telework issued previously by 
individual social partner organi sations and the regulation on wo rk performed at the worker's 
home. 
The Norwegian trade unions initially intended to conclude a binding national collective 
agreement on telework, but could not convin ce the employer organisations and finally 
accepted their proposal for non-binding guidelines. A ll major social partners, including those 
in the public sector, have signed up to the gu idelines: only the Mini stry of Government 
Administration as the State empl oyer authority is not among the signatory partie s. It is not 
clear to what extent any sectoral, company or individual agreements have taken up the 
guidelines. 
There is no specific legislation on telework in Norway, but the Working Environment Act is 
considered to be applicable to work carried  out away from the employer's premises and 
therefore grants teleworkers the same genera l rights and protection.  However, the above-
mentioned administrative regulations on home- based work of 5 July 2002 lay down some 
exemptions from this rule, in particular  as regards some pr ovisions on the working 
environment and working time and on monitori ng and inspection. They also require home-
EN 26   EN based telework to be carried out on the basi s of an agreement between the employer and the 
individual worker, thereby safe guarding its voluntary character . Telework was regulated in 
some collective agreements prior to the European  text, which, however, remain very general. 
2.22. Poland 
In Poland, the Framework Agreement on Telewo rk was implemented by legislation amending 
the Labour Code drafted on the basis of a bipa rtite agreement between the Polish social 
partners. The most representative national em ployer and trade union organisations, i.e. the 
Confederation of Polish Employe rs (KPP), the Polish Confeder ation of Private Employers 
Lewiatan  (PKPP Lewiatan ), the Polish Craft Association (ZRP), the Independent and Self-
Governing Trade Union Solidarno ść (NSZZ Solidarno ść), the All-Poland Alliance of Trade 
Unions (OPZZ) and the Trade Unions' Forum (FZZ), started negotiatio ns in January 2005 at 
the Social Dialogue Roundtable for European Integration (OSDSIE) and reached a draft 
agreement on 10 June 2005. This text contained almost all the provisions of the European 
Agreement and in some cases went beyond its re quirements and into more detail on certain 
aspects. It committed the signatory parties to  ensuring the agreement was applied through 
their organisations. This draft agreement wa s, however, never formally ratified by the 
statutory bodies of all the organisations, because  it lacked the list of legislative amendments 
which the signatory parties intended to request the Government to introduce. Nevertheless, 
informal consultations continued, including wi th the Government, on how to move to the 
legislative stage.  
The Polish Ministry of Labour and Social Policy  finally took the Framework Agreement as a 
basis when in 2006 it drafted a pr oposal for an Act amending the Labour Code with a view to 
creating a legal basis for telewor k. The draft Act, which is very similar to the text agreed by 
the social partners, was presented to the social  partners in October 2006 and discussed within 
the Tripartite Commission for Social and Economi c Affairs. Adopted by the Government in 
April 2007, the draft Act was approved by Parliame nt in August and entered into force on 15 
October 2007. A new Chapter IIb entitled "Terms  of employment of teleworkers" comprising 
13 new articles (Article 675 to 6717) was thus inserted into Sect ion II of the Labour Code 
(Kodeks pracy ). The new legislation focuses on the sp ecificities of telewo rk, both as regards 
its introduction and the relations between the em ployer and the worker. In matters relating to 
telework not regulated by the ne w chapter, the other provisions of the Labour Code apply. 
The new provisions cover the entire workforce. Prior to the amendment of the Labour Code, 
no regulations specifically dealing with telework existed in Poland. 
In the main the new Polish law reflects the Framework Agreement as regards the definition of 
telework, its voluntary characte r for both sides and its reve rsibility, equal employment 
conditions (in the form of a non-discriminati on clause), rules on equipment (provision, 
maintenance, costs and technical assistance), right to privacy, data protection, health and 
safety, training and collective righ ts, in particular as regards the requirement to discuss the 
introduction and practical details of telework with the employee representatives. In some 
areas, the Polish law goes beyond the text of the Framework Agreement, in particular as regards the employer’s duty to accommodate th e worker's request for telework "where 
feasible", the teleworker's duty to share essential information with the employer, the requirement for the teleworker’s prior written consent to any controls by the employer and the possibility for the employer and the teleworker to conclude a separate agreement, in particular 
on the rules for the use of the teleworker's ow n equipment, contacts and monitoring of the 
employee's work.  
EN 27   EN 2.23. Portugal 
In Portugal, the Framework Agreement on Telework was implemented through legislation. 
Provisions on telework, which we re clearly inspired by the Eur opean text, have been included 
in the new Labour Code ( Código do trabalho ) adopted by Act No 99/2003 of 27 August, 
which entered into force on 1 December 2003. The Portuguese social partners did not 
undertake any joint initiatives of their ow n to implement the Framework Agreement. 
Articles 233 to 243 of the Labour Code cont ain several of the ma in provisions of the 
Framework Agreement, in particular as rega rds the following: written information to be 
provided by the employer, equal rights and ob ligations for teleworkers as regards working 
conditions, training and promo tion opportunities, privacy, inst allation and maintenance of 
equipment and coverage of costs, health and safety, work organisation and collective 
representation of workers. Since teleworkers ar e defined as employees subject to contractual 
subordination, in the absence of specific provisions the genera l employment regulations apply 
to teleworkers. The definition of telework as work carried out "usually" outside the employer's premises using ICT includes alte rnating telework, but seems to exclude 
arrangements whereby only a minor part of working time is spent away from the employer's premises. The Labour Code stipulates that assignment to telework involves a written 
agreement, which implicitly acknowledges its volunt ary character. Reversibility, i.e. return to 
the initial form of work, is auto matic after the end of the agreed  period of telework. In terms 
of data protection, the teleworker is bound to ke ep the information and techniques entrusted to 
him/her confidential. Maximum daily and weekly working hours are applicable to 
teleworkers, but they can be exempted from the working time schedule. 
On several points, the Portuguese law goe s beyond the requirements of the Framework 
Agreement. It sets an initial time limit of three years for telework arrangements, unless another time frame is stipulated by collective agreement. Access by the employer to the home 
of the teleworker is regulated in detail. Th e Labour Code also provides for penalties on 
employers in the event of regulatory offences ag ainst general rules or specific provisions on 
telework. Several provisions of the Framework Agreement are no t reflected in detail in the 
Portuguese Labour Code, in partic ular the more detailed rules on data protection, monitoring 
systems, liability in the event of loss of or damage to equipment, the right to a technical 
support facility, workload and information for and consultation of worker representatives on 
the introduction of telework. 
The Portuguese social partners were consulted on the draft La bour Code within the tripartite 
Standing Commission for Social Dialogue (CPCS), but they di d not agree fully with the 
Government’s proposals on telework. The employe rs, in particular the Confederation of 
Portuguese Industry (CIP), were opposed to th e introduction of legislation on telework and 
felt that some of the articles proposed were le ss flexible than the provisions of the Framework 
Agreement. The trade unions, i.e. the General Workers Union (UGT) and the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN ), welcomed the initiative, but were unhappy 
about shortcomings in the draft bill, in par ticular some differences with the Framework 
Agreement and a lack of rules on call centr es and self-employed teleworkers (which, 
however, are also excluded from the scope of the European Agreement). 
There is scope for the social partners to conc lude collective agreements with more specific 
rules, but collective bargaining rarely seems to address the issue of teleworking. The Government knows of only one local-level coll ective agreement on telework. Prior to the 
EN 28   EN Framework Agreement, no legal definition of tele work existed in Portugal, and the specific 
scheme for homeworking did not cover non-manual work contracts. 
2.24. Romania 
The Romanian social partners affiliated to the European social partner organisations which 
joined the European social dialogue at  the beginning of 2007 ha ve not yet started 
implementing the Framework Agreement on Tele work. Therefore the trade unions, including 
the National Trade Unions Block (BNS), the National Trade Union Confederation "Cartel 
Alfa", the National Confederati on of Free Trade Unions of Ro mania "Fratia" (CNSLR-Fratia) 
and the Democratic Trade Union Confederat ion of Romania (CSDR), and the employer 
organisations, in particular the Romanian Alliance of Empl oyers' Confederations (ACPR), 
have nothing to report yet. Nevertheless they have acknowledged the need for telework regulations at national level and are willing to take the Framework Agreement as a guideline. 
So far Romania has not adopted any specific legislation regula ting telework, and the social 
partners have not concluded any collective agreement covering this form of work. The 
Romanian Labour Code (Law No 53/2003) contai ns a chapter on homework (Articles 106 and 
107), according to which homeworkers enjoy all the rights laid down by law and by collective 
agreement that are applicable to employees working at employers' premises. General provisions on data protection and the right of privacy are also applicable. However, the 
provisions regarding homework clearly relate to manual piecework and do not take account of 
work carried out using information technology.  
2.25. Slovakia 
The Slovak social partners, in particular th e National Union of Employers (RUZ) and the 
Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR), have not reported any 
action to implement the Framework Agreement on Telework.  
Slovak labour law introduced a legal status for employees not performing work at the 
employer's premises (treated as equivalent to  homeworking) in Apr il 2002, i.e. prior to the 
Framework Agreement. When the Labour Code ( Zákonník práce ) was amended by Act 
No 348/2007, which entered into force on 1 September 2007, the concept of "telework" and new rules were included in Article 52, which up to then had covered "work at home” only. 
This reform was initiated by the Slovak Governme nt with a view to bringing its labour law 
into line with the Framework Agreement. 
The new definition of telework in Article 52 of the Labour Code now includes the use of 
information technologies and is therefore closer  to the European text. However, it does not 
state that the work can also be performed at  the employer's premises and seems to exclude 
alternating telework. The subs tantial provisions of the Fram ework Agreement are covered by 
the new regulation, including the voluntary charac ter of telework, the equal treatment of 
teleworkers compared with other employees and the main provisions on data protection, 
privacy, equipment, prevention of isolati on, training and collectiv e rights. The Slovak 
regulations on occupational health and safety a nd in particular on work  with visual display 
units apply in full to teleworkers. By way of de rogation from the principl e of equal rights and 
since the teleworker manages his/her own work ing time — as provided for in the European 
text — the rules on the allocation of weekly wo rking time do not apply and the teleworker is 
not entitled to compensation in the event of pe rsonal obstacles to work, overtime, night work 
EN 29   EN and work on public holidays (as in Czech legisl ation). Article 52 does not seem to address the 
issue of reversibility of telework. 
The Slovak social partners were consulted on  the new rules on telework and on the full 
package of proposed amendments to the Labour  Code within the tripartite Economic and 
Social Council (HSR SR). According to th e Government, the Slovak social partners 
welcomed its proposal to regulate telework an d had no objections regarding this method of 
implementing the European agreement. The new telework regulation is  legally binding and 
applies to all sectors and workers. 
The Slovak Government sees the need for greater  involvement of the so cial partners in the 
future and intends to support them in implementing individua l sections of the Framework 
Agreement through the conclusion of collective ag reements at sectoral and company level. 
Telework does not yet seem to have b een the subject of collective bargaining. 
2.26. Slovenia 
The Slovenian social partners  have started discussions on the implementation of the 
Framework Agreement on Telework, but the process does not yet se em to have been finalised. 
The employers' organisations, the Association of Employers of Slovenia (ZDS), the Chamber 
of Crafts of Slovenia (OZS) a nd the Association of Employers for Craft Activities of Slovenia 
(ZDODS), and the Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia (ZSSS) informed the 
European social partners in May 2006 that a fi nal version of the translation of the European 
text was about to be agreed and that a decision had to be taken on whether implementation 
should entail a proposal amending the Em ployment Relationship Act or one for 
implementation in branch collective agreements. The Slovenian social partners take the view 
that the Framework Agreement is already pa rtially implemented via the regulation of 
homework. 
In Slovenian legislation (pri or to the Framework Agreemen t), homeworking was governed by 
Articles 67 to 71 of the Empl oyment Relationship Act ( Zakon o delovnih razmerjih, ZDR ) and 
defined as work carried out at the home of th e employee or on premises of his/her choice. In 
order to include teleworkers explicitly, the la w was amended in 2007 to extend the scope of 
those Articles to "distance work performed by  the employee with the aid of information 
technology". The Amending Act, which entere d into force on 28 November 2007, also makes 
it clear that teleworkers (and homeworkers) enjo y the same rights as employees working at 
the employers' premises, including participation a nd trade union rights. According to the Act, 
the employer must ensure safe working conditions in accordance with the occupational health and safety regulations. According to the Sl ovenian Government, the homework/telework 
contract must contain specific details concerni ng the place of work, the tasks, the use of 
resources and equipment, etc. As a general ru le, the employer must provide all the resources 
and material required to pe rform the work; otherwise, the employee is entitled to 
compensation for the use of resources and reimbu rsement of costs. The amount of work must 
be equivalent to what can be expected under normal work ing conditions within normal 
working hours.  
Although many of the provisions of the Framework Agreement seem to be covered, others do 
not appear in the Slovenian legislation, e.g. the provisions on data protection, privacy and 
organisation of work. The legislation seems to provide only for permanent, not alternating, 
homework/telework. The Slovenian Government c onsiders that the abov e-mentioned Articles 
of the Slovenian law implement the terms of the European agreement. It is not clear to what 
EN 30   EN extent the social partners were involved in the preparation of the Amending Act. Several 
sectoral collective agreements (postal services, banking, health and social insurance services) 
already address homeworking/teleworking.  
2.27. Spain 
With a view to implementing the Framework Agreement, the Spanish social partners have 
incorporated its main principles into th e (bi-)annual "Interconf ederal Agreements on 
Collective Bargaining" ( acuerdos interconfederales para la negociación colectiva – ANC ). 
The ANCs address the essential aspects of em ployment relations and wage issues and are 
signed by the most representativ e trade unions, the General Workers' Union (UGT) and the 
Trade Union Confederation of Workers Commissions (CC.OO.), and the employer 
organisations, the Spanish Confederation of  Employers' Organisations (CEOE) and the 
Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-si zed Enterprises (CEPYME). In Chapter 7 of 
their ANC for 2003 signed on 30 January 2003, the signatory pa rties refer to the background 
and the main provisions of the Framework Agr eement, declare that th ey fully endorse its 
content and commit themselves to promoting its application and adaptation in Spain. A full Spanish translation is annexed to the 2003 ANC.  
The following ANCs in 2005 and 2007 mention the European Agreement and reiterate its 
main principles (voluntary and reversible characte r, equal rights for tele workers) and the need 
for the social partners to regulate aspects such  as privacy, confidentialit y, prevention of risks, 
equipment, training, etc. The ANCs have each b een extended for the following years, i.e. 
2004, 2006 and 2008. They are not legally bi nding, but address recommendations and 
priorities to the signatory parties' member organisations when they enter into collective 
bargaining. As such they provide guidance for co llective agreements at sectoral, regional or 
company level. 
On the basis of the cross-industry agreement, two (binding) collective agreements have been 
signed for the chemical industry (2004) and the daily press sector (2005), which both use the 
European text to regulate certain aspects of  telework. Several collective agreements at 
enterprise level, in particular in the in formation and communicati on industry, and one at 
provincial level (Valencia) de al with telework; some of these refer to the European 
Agreement. While full coverage of all wo rkers and companies ca nnot be ensured, the 
Framework Agreement and the ANC seem to fulf il a strong guiding function when the social 
partners at lower bargaining leve ls regulate the practical aspects of telework, in particular in 
branches with a high incidence of telework. This guiding function has been strengthened by 
the dissemination and information activities (new sletters, Internet, seminars, etc.) carried out 
by the Spanish social partners to promote the Framework Agreement. 
Part of the public sector will be covered by a Royal Decree regulating telework in the General 
State Administration. According to the Spanish Government, the draft R oyal Decree has been 
drawn up along the lines of the European Agre ement and guarantees th e voluntary nature of 
access to telework and equal conditions of empl oyment for teleworkers. Aspects relating to 
equipment, costs, data protection and health a nd safety are also addressed. It provides for 
alternating telework only and will be applicable both to civil servants and to public employees 
at central government level. After it was di scussed in the Spanish Economic and Social 
Committee, the draft was agreed by the releva nt trade unions (CC.OO ., UGT, CSI-CSIF, CIG 
and ELA) in May 2007. 
EN 31   EN Prior to the Framework Agreement, the only lega l provision in Spain was Article 13 of the 
Workers' Statute (amended by Royal Legisla tive Decree 1/1995 of 24 March), which governs 
homework contracts. In the G overnment’s view, this provisi on was drafted with an eye to 
manual work, in particular in sectors such as te xtiles, and is not in line with the new realities 
of telework, although some aspects might be  transferable (equal pay and collective 
representation rights). While the Spanish Gove rnment considers that the preference for 
collective bargaining is appropriate for telewo rk and that the field covered by the social 
partners' implementation instruments is sufficient, it does not rule out changes to the legislation in force, if the need arises.  
A Spanish Supreme Court ruling of 11 Apr il 2005 refers to the European Framework 
Agreement as interpretation criteria to confirm the voluntary nature of telework for workers and employers when the initi al job description does not cover telework. The Labour 
Inspectorate's Operational Guide (published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) 
looks at various aspects of the employment c ontract which may be affected by telework and 
repeatedly quotes the Framework Agreement. 
2.28. Sweden 
The Swedish social partners ha ve adopted "common guidelines" ( gemensamma riktlinjer ) to 
implement the European Framework Agreemen t on Telework. These guidelines were signed 
on 28 May 2003 by the cross-industry social partner orga nisations, i.e. the Confederation of 
Swedish Enterprise (SN), the Swedish Associat ion of Local Authorities, the Federation of 
Swedish County Councils and th e Swedish Agency for Government Employers for the 
employers, and the Swedish Trade Union Confed eration (LO), the Swedish Confederation of 
Professional Employees (TCO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations 
(SACO) for the trade unions.  
The "common guidelines" state that the Swed ish social partners back the Framework 
Agreement, which should serve as a reference when telework agreements are concluded on 
the Swedish labour market. In implementing th e Agreement, due consideration should be 
given to the special conditions applying in different industries,  sectors, companies, public 
authorities and individual empl oyees. The text reaffirms the pr inciple of equal rights for 
teleworkers and the other areas  highlighted in the Framew ork Agreement which require 
adaptation or special attention when telework  is agreed (its voluntary character, data 
protection, equipment, etc.). The principles set out in the European text are considered to be 
well balanced as guidance on telework in the Sw edish context. The social partners welcome 
the development of autonomous agreements unde r the European social dialogue, which they 
consider well adapted to the Swedish labour market. They also undertake to report on the 
implementation process in Sweden. A Swedish translation of the Framework Agreement has 
been annexed to the "common guidelines".  
Since the Swedish industrial relations system does not provide for a direct role for the cross-
industry social partners in collective bargaining,  it is up to the sectoral social partners to 
implement the "common guidelines" through their co llective agreements. In the private sector, 
the Swedish social partners report that addenda have been annexed to collective agreements in 
certain branches of industry (not specified) which recommen d the Framework Agreement as a 
model when (collective or individual) agre ements are concluded on telework. In other 
branches, employer organisations have committed themselves, in the minutes of collective negotiations, to informing their member companies of the Framework Agreement and the "common guidelines" through circul ars or in some other way. In certain branches, the subject 
EN 32   EN of telework has not been addressed in colle ctive bargaining because it does not arise or 
because the social partners saw no need for re gulation. Research suggest s that the number of 
branches in the private sector  where the "common guidelines" have actually been taken up in 
collective bargaining or other instruments is quite limited. 
In the public sector, provisions on telework already existed in certain collective agreements 
for local and regional authorities. In the 2005 ba rgaining round, these were updated, so that all 
the main agreements for municipalities and county councils now refer to the Framework 
Agreement and state a number of points that should be taken into account where telework is 
introduced. The collective agreement conclude d on 15 December 2005 for the central State 
authorities and implementing agen cies states that the Framework Agreement should serve as a 
model for provisions on telework  and that the authorities which choose to allow telework 
must have general internal guidelines for this form of work. The field covered by 
implementation in the public sector therefore seems fairly comprehensive. 
In some branches, guidelines, brochures and othe r information dealing with telework already 
existed before the adoption of the "common guidelines". The trade unions and a Government committee had already drawn up checklists on impor tant issues to consider before starting 
telework. Those documents have not been update d in the light of the Framework Agreement. 
In the Swedish Government’s view, all aspects dealt with by the Framework Agreement are 
covered by the implementation measures and nati onal coverage is considered adequate. In 
accordance with the Swedish industr ial relations system, the public  authorities have not taken 
any action to facilitate the implementation pro cess so as not to interfere with the social 
partners' autonomy. 
Some provisions of Swedish labour legislation d ealing with aspects of telework were already 
in place prior to the Framework Agreement. The relevant sections of the Working Time Act 
(SFS 1982:673) and the Employment Protection Act (SFS 1982:80) are fully in line with 
Chapter 4 of the Framework Agreement (emp loyment conditions) as they guarantee equal 
rights for teleworkers as regards working time and job security. However, the Working Time 
Act and the limits on working hours do not apply if there is no IT system in place to monitor 
working time. General labour law, in particular on  health and safety (wor k with visual display 
units and accidents at work) and privacy (prot ection of personal data), applies in full to 
teleworkers. 
2.29. United Kingdom 
The UK social partners implemented the Fr amework Agreement through a brochure called 
"Telework Guidance". It was drafted jointly by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), 
the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the UK branch of CEEP, and published in August 
2003 with the support of the Department of Trad e and Industry, the government department 
responsible for industrial relations at the time. 
The guidance brochure is a non-binding instrument  which is "intended to provide a useful 
checklist of issues to consider when impl ementing teleworking". Management and employee 
representatives are encouraged to "use this guide to draw up company specific policies on 
teleworking". It follows the same structur e and covers all aspects of the Framework 
Agreement by quoting the vast majority of the la tter's provisions directly  and giving practical 
advice on implementation and best  practice guidelines. It also gives information on relevant 
UK legislation regarding the provision of written information to the worker, health and safety, 
EN 33   EN data protection and the right of some parents to request flexib le working, including telework. 
Issues of taxation relevant to teleworkers are also mentioned.  
The guidance brochure has been widely promoted  and disseminated by a ll three organisations 
to their members (regional offices, affiliated organisations, companies, etc.) by newsletter and the Internet, through publications and at meeti ngs, with a message to hand on copies locally, 
in particular to employers, trade union offici als and workers engaged in or interested in 
telework. The Government has also published the document in both hard copy and electronic 
form. The UK social partners note positive fee dback from their members, but there seems to 
be no information on the actual use of this br ochure and its contents in company agreements, 
corporate policies or i ndividual arrangements.  
The UK industrial relations system makes no provision for formal cross-industry collective 
bargaining, and the CBI and TUC do not negotia te such agreements on behalf of their 
members. There was thus no precedent for a mo re robust instrument which the UK social 
partners could have used to implement the Framework Agreement. Informal cooperation 
leading to the drafting of a non- statutory guidance document was therefore seen as the most 
suitable way to adapt the European text to the UK labour market, particularly in view of the 
wide, shared appreciation and understanding of the value of  telework on both sides of 
industry. This method of implementation may be appropriate given its low cost of adaptation 
and the rather uncontroversial na ture of telework, but coverage is incomplete and therefore 
does not ensure that the most important sector s and professions are su fficiently protected.  
The UK Government is satisfied with th e way the Framework Agreement has been 
implemented by the national social partners. Prev iously, there were no legislative measures 
specific to telework in the UK, but a number of general labour regula tions also apply to 
teleworkers. 
3. K
EY ISSUES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS  
This chapter looks at how the Framework Agreement on Telework and implementing 
measures adopted at national level have addres sed the issues arising in the introduction and 
practice of telework identifie d in the Commission document fo r the second-stage consultation. 
It also analyses the way these issues have been reflected in the implementation process. 
3.1. Defining the concept of telework 
The Commission considered two fa ctors — the performance of work at a distance and the use 
information technology and electronic data transm ission — as critical in defining the concept 
of telework. Furthermore, to be considered a teleworker, a worker had to carry out his/her 
activity in a stable manner, with some perm anence or continuity in time. Lastly, the 
teleworker had to be in an employment relati onship. A definition based on these factors could 
provide a basis for discussion, leaving the door open to adju stments later in line with 
technological developments that made it possibl e for new forms of work to be included.  
The Commission therefore proposed the following definition of telework: 
"Telework is a method of organising and/or  performing work which accounts for at 
least a considerable proportion of worki ng time and which is done by a natural 
person in the framework of an employment relationship, in the following cumulative 
conditions: 
EN 34   EN - the work is done at a distance (away from  the firm's premises or away from the 
place where the work is expected), 
- the work is performed using informa tion technology and tec hnology for data 
transmission, in particular the internet."  
Definitions based on these fact ors could cover the three types of telework identified: 
teleworking from home, mobile teleworking (v ia portable communication systems) and work 
in telework centres (outstat ions, neighbourhood offices, telecottages). They could also cover 
both permanent and alternating telework, i.e. a rrangements whereby the worker spends part of 
his/her working time at the employer's premises and the rest elsewhere. 
The definition of telework drawn up by the Eur opean social partners in Clause 2 of the 
Framework Agreement was close to that proposed: 
"2. Definition and scope 
Telework is a form of organising and/ or performing work, using information 
technology, in the context of an employ ment contract/relationship, where work, 
which could also be performed at the emplo yer's premises, is ca rried out away from 
those premises on a regular basis. 
This agreement covers teleworkers. A teleworker is any person carrying out telework 
as defined above."  
This definition comprises all four features proposed by the Commission (work at a distance, 
use of information technology, regu larity, and employment relati onship) and therefore covers 
all the types of telework mentioned above. Howe ver, it clearly restrict s the scope of mobile 
telework by excluding activities that could not be performed at the employer's premises, e.g. 
tasks requiring access to the client's premises. 
The implementing measures in many Member Stat es adopted this or a similar definition. 
However, the definition and scope of the im plementing measure were modified in varying 
degrees in some countries (for instance in th e Czech Republic, where the use of information 
technology was omitted, and in Portugal, where th e requirement that the relevant activities 
could also be performed within the firm was left out). In othe r countries, the definitions list 
various types of telework (e.g. Ireland), explic itly include certain forms (e.g. telework by 
"télétravailleurs nomades" in France) or exclud e certain forms (e.g. work in call centres by 
Finland; mobile work by Denmark; and repair work by Austria).  
The consequences of most of th ese variations seem to be minor  and the general thrust of the 
definition in the Framework Agreement is followed. However, certain national implementing measures seem to cover permanent telework only (e.g. in Hungary and Slovakia), leaving out alternating telework, which concer ns the largest percentage of teleworkers in most European 
countries. In several countries this  issue requires cl arification.  
Another controversial point with regard to the de finition of telework in the legislation of some 
Member States is the way telework is  treated as equivalent to homework
. Homework involves 
traditional manual work carried out at home, mostly by low-skilled workers and often paid by the piece: the way it is regulated cannot vali dly be applied to such  modern employment 
relationships as those of teleworkers (who use information technology) and cannot ensure 
equal treatment for teleworkers as compared  with workers at the employer's premises. 
EN 35   EN This feature tends to be found in the labour legislation of several Member States (e.g. 
Slovenia, Romania and Lithuania) , which argue that the situation of teleworkers is thereby 
adequately addressed. It seems to apply less in countries where the social partners have been 
steering the implementation process, as agre ements and other tool s developed by social 
partners tend to be tailored to the specific conditions of employees working with electronic 
communication devices. In other countries there are doubts about the possi bility of applying 
the legislation on traditional homework to teleworkers (e.g. Spain, Austria), while the 
definition has been clarified in some cases (e.g. Belgium).  
Treating telework in the same way as homework also excludes types of telework not carried 
out at the worker's home, and thereby lim its full implementation of the Framework 
Agreement. Legislation on homework therefore doe s not cover the full scope of telework as 
defined by the European social partners and does not offer adequate protection for 
teleworkers.  
3.2. Voluntary nature of assignment to  telework and the right to return 
The Commission considered that assignment to  telework posts should be organised on a 
voluntary and reciprocal basis, w ith the teleworker be ing entitled to retu rn to a conventional 
post at his/her request. Neither the employer nor the worker s hould have the right to impose 
telework unilaterally on the other party. This pr inciple should in particular concern persons 
already employed by the firm and not newly recru ited workers, for whom telework is simply a 
particular form of work requested by the employer at the time of taking up the job.  
The European social partners enshrined the volunta ry character of telework in Clause 3 of the 
Framework Agreement: 
"3. Voluntary character 
Telework is voluntary for the worker and the employer concerned. Teleworking may 
be required as part of a worker's initial job description or it may be engaged in as a 
voluntary arrangement subsequently. […] 
If telework is not part of the initial job description, and the employer makes an offer 
of telework, the worker may accept or refuse this offer. If a worker expresses the wish to opt for telework, the employer  may accept or refuse this request.  
[…] A worker's refusal to opt for telework is not, as such, a reason for terminating 
the employment relationship or changing th e terms and conditions of employment of 
that worker. 
If telework is not part of the initial job de scription, the decision to pass to telework is 
reversible by individual and/or collective agreement. The reversibility could imply 
returning to work at the employer's premis es at the worker's or  at the employer's 
request. The modalities of this reversibili ty are established by individual and/or 
collective agreement."  
The Framework Agreement confirms the voluntary character
 of telework for both sides, i.e. 
neither the employer nor the worker has the righ t to impose a move to telework without the 
other's approval. This principle protects both the worker, who cannot be obliged by his/her 
employer to switch from working at the firm to  working at a distance, and the employer, who 
has the right to oppose an employee's request to start teleworking. This provision is relevant 
EN 36   EN mainly in cases where telework is not ag reed from the beginning of the employment 
relationship as part of  the job description. 
The principle of voluntariness is affirmed in all the implementing measures adopted by social 
partners. It is highlighted as one of the main  principles in many social partner instruments 
(e.g. Spain, The Netherlands and Denmark). In some countries, th e worker's right to request 
telework (under certain circumstances) and the em ployer's obligation to consider this request 
seriously is enshrined in le gislation (e.g. The UK and Poland). An addendum to the work 
contract or a written agreement is required by several implementing measures (e.g. France, 
Belgium, Poland and Finland).  
In legislative instruments, the voluntary char acter of telework is not always mentioned 
explicitly (e.g. Hungary and Portugal). However,  these laws require a decision to switch to 
telework to be based on a (written) agreemen t between both parties, which by definition must 
be voluntary, in line with the spirit of the European text. 
The clause whereby a worker's refusal to perfor m telework is not a reason for terminating the 
employment relationship or for changing its te rms and conditions has only been taken up in 
those national implementing measures based on a literal translation of the Framework 
Agreement and has rarely been further developed at national level.  
If telework is not part of the initial job desc ription, the Framework Agreement affirms that the 
decision to switch to telework can be reversed  by individual or collective agreement, which 
could imply returning to work at the employer' s premises. It therefor e does not envisage a 
unilateral right of return for the teleworker, bu t only the possibility of return if both sides 
agree. The rules governing reversibility are to be established by individual and/or collective 
agreement. The Framework Agreement therefore leaves much leeway for implementing this 
provision.  
Several national implementation instruments have made use of this flex ibility by clarifying 
the conditions for returning to the traditional workplace, while the majority simply reproduce 
the wording of the Framework Agreement. Only  a few do not address the issue at all (e.g. 
Slovakia). Some of the implementing measures  suggest, for instance, that the issue of 
reversibility and the rules for applying it, such  as the period of notice, should be agreed 
individually or collect ively between both parties before taking up telework (e.g. Finland and 
Ireland). Some of them also recommend the circ umstances in which a decision to telework 
cannot be reversed should be spelt out from the beginning (e.g. The UK).  
Some instruments provide for an automatic right to  return to the previous  form of work or a 
similar position at the end of the telework a rrangement if it is limited in time (e.g. Portugal 
and Denmark – local and regional government  sector). In some countries, collective 
agreements establish adaptation periods du ring which the worker or the employer can 
unilaterally end the telework arrangement (e.g. France, Pola nd and Luxembourg). After the 
end of this period, a return to work at the prev ious location is subject to an agreement between 
both sides.  
In cases where telework is required as part of the initial job description, some collective 
agreements go beyond the terms of the European text by granting such teleworkers preferential treatment when they apply for trad itional jobs at the employer's premises (e.g. 
France and Luxembourg). 
EN 37   EN 3.3. Guarantee of maintenance of the employee's status 
The Commission expressed concern that — becaus e the work (or part of it) was no longer 
performed at the company's premises and theref ore less likely to be subject to inspection by 
labour inspectors — some employers might take advantage of the introd uction of telework to 
reduce the rights and protection enjoyed by the wo rkers, in particular by changing their legal 
status, for instance to self-emplo yment. It therefore considered that, as long as the nature and 
content of work remain unchanged and only the way in which it was performed was modified, 
the worker's status had to be maintained. 
The Framework Agreement addresses this con cern in Clause 2 on the voluntary character: 
"…The passage to telework as such, because it only modifies the way in which work 
is performed, does not affect the te leworker's employment status. …" 
This key provision for protecting te leworkers is very clear. Regret tably, it is only taken up in 
those national implementing measures developed by the social partners a nd based on a literal 
translation of the Framework Agreement. It is not addressed by a ny of the legislative 
implementation instruments. The public authoritie s might have considered that this protection 
was already guaranteed by the gene rally applicable labour law.  
The definition of telework chosen by the Europ ean social partners clearly excludes self-
employed  telework, which is outside the social pa rtners' remit. Consequently, the national 
implementing measures do not address the situa tion of self-employed teleworkers. The risk 
inherent in this approach is that, when ag reeing on telework, former employees might be 
encouraged to become self-employed and ther eby lose the rights and protection granted by 
general labour legislation and the Framework Agreement. This seems to be confirmed by the 
evidence of a high rate of self-employment among telewo rkers in several countries. 
While a clear line must be drawn between empl oyees performing their wo rk at a distance in 
the context of an employment relationship a nd truly self-employed workers, the social 
partners or the public authorities should take me asures at national level to prevent any abuse 
in the use of (quasi) self-employment when th e factors of dependence and subordination that 
define the employment relati onship are clearly present.  
3.4. Guarantee of equal treatment 
As additional protection agai nst lowering of standards, th e Commission considered it 
necessary to guarantee equal rights for teleworker s. Teleworkers should be treated in the same 
way as workers who are permanently present on the firm's premises, in particular as regards pay, career development, access to training, involvement in the life of the firm and termination of the employment relationship. Mo re generally, since telework affects the 
organisation of work only and does not creat e a special employment status, all rights 
enshrined in the law and in contractual arra ngements should be granted to teleworkers on a 
comparable basis. 
This principle was taken up in Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement: 
"4. Employment conditions 
Regarding employment conditions, telework ers benefit from the same rights, 
guaranteed by applicable le gislation and collective agreements, as comparable 
EN 38   EN workers at the employers premises. How ever, in order to take into account the 
particularities of telework, specific co mplementary collectiv e and/or individual 
agreements may be necessary." 
The Framework Agreement therefore guara ntees the fundamental principle of non-
discrimination of teleworkers, but allows some adaptation of working conditions to take account of the specific situation of teleworkers.  In addition to this horizontal clause on 
employment conditions, the Framework Agreement develops the principle of equal treatment in more detail in other clauses on workload and performance standard s, training and career 
development and collective rights: 
"… The workload and performance standards of  the teleworker are equivalent to 
those of comparable workers at the employer's premises. …" (9. Organisation of 
work) 
"Teleworkers have the same access to trai ning and career development opportunities 
as comparable workers at the employer's premises and are subject to the same 
appraisal policies as thes e other workers. …" (10. Training)  
"Teleworkers have the same collective rights as workers at the employer's premises. 
…" (11. Collective ri ghts issues)  
This principle of equal treatment can be found in all implementing measures introduced by 
the social partners and public authorities, which stipulate that teleworkers enjoy the same rights and working conditions as comparable work ers at the standard workplace. Most of the 
implementing measures also state that the particul arities of telework can be taken into account 
in collective or individual agreements.  
Equality of rights is highlighted as one of the fundamental provisions of the Framework 
Agreement in several social pa rtner instruments (e.g. Spain a nd Sweden). Some instruments 
highlight employment regulations  that apply in full to telewo rkers (e.g. Finland, Ireland and 
Austria). Some measures also name those aspect s of the work relationship which may need to 
be adapted or specified because the work is not  carried out at the employer's premises (e.g. 
The UK) or refer to legislation which already de als with specific aspects of telework (e.g. The 
Netherlands).  
In some cases where implementation involves legi slation, the principle of equal treatment is 
only implicitly recognised in so far as tele work is governed by the relevant Labour Code, 
which means general employment regulations ar e applicable to teleworkers (e.g. The Czech 
Republic). The laws therefore explicitly list a limited number of exceptions  to this rule, as a 
result of the particular nature of telework. In one specific case, the law states that the rights, 
obligations and conditions which depend on the nature of telework  are to be regulated by the 
employment contract, which means that general labour law is applicable  in all other aspects 
(Slovenia). In most other countries where implementation took place via legislation, the 
principle of equal treatment of teleworkers is  clearly enshrined in the law (e.g. Slovakia, 
Portugal and Poland). In countries where ther e have been no specific implementation 
measures, the governments often affirm that  general labour la w and the rules on non-
discrimination at work must be assumed to appl y to teleworkers, so guaranteeing their equal 
treatment (e.g. Germany and Cyprus). 
EN 39   EN Implementing measures in some countries, wh ere national actors may have considered a 
general clause sufficient (e.g. H ungary), do not include a clear re ference to equa l treatment in 
terms of training, career developmen t, collective rights and workload. 
3.5. Information to be provided to the teleworker 
The Commission considered that teleworkers de served special protection owing to the fact 
that they work at a distance from the company. They should therefore be informed as thoroughly as possible about fu ture working conditions prio r to their assignment or 
recruitment to teleworking. The employer should ha ve a duty to inform the teleworker of the 
following: 
– particulars pertaining to  his/her assignments, 
– exact working conditions: working hours, work sites, dete rmination of the 
material conditions pertaining to the inst allation and use of working equipment, 
responsibility for insurance covering equipment and accidents, 
– particulars of the establishment to which s/he  is attached from the point of view of 
organisation of work within the enterprise (crucial for reliance on certain rights such as information/consultation and for th e worker's protection, in particular in 
cross-border situations), 
– particulars concerning monitoring of th e use of information technology made 
available to the worker for telework purpos es (such as surveillance of the websites 
consulted, details of telephone calls, etc.). 
With regard to transnational situations, the Co mmission made it clear that the worker and the 
employer should agree beforehand on the law applicable to the em ployment contract. 
Clause 3 and certain other clauses of the Fram ework Agreement provide a response to this 
proposal: 
"… the employer provides the teleworker  with relevant written information in 
accordance with directive 91/533/EEC, including informati on on applicable 
collective agreements, description of the wo rk to be performed, etc. The specificities 
of telework normally require additional written information on matters such as the department of the undertaking to which the te leworker is attached, his/her immediate 
superior or other persons to whom she or  he can address questions of professional 
or personal nature, reporti ng arrangements, etc. …" (3. Voluntary character)  
"… The employer informs the teleworker of all relevant legislation and company 
rules concerning data protection. […] The employer informs the teleworker in 
particular of: any restrictions on the use of IT equipment or tools such as the 
internet; sanctions in the case of non-compliance." (5. Data protection)  
"The employer informs the teleworker of the company's po licy on occupational 
health and safety, in particular requi rements on visual display units." (8. Health and 
safety)  
EN 40   EN "… The establishment to which the telewo rker will be attached for the purpose of 
exercising his/her collective rights is  specified from the outset. …" (11. Collective 
rights issues)  
In the Framework Agreement the European social  partners included a reference to the Council 
Directive (91/533/EEC) which requires employer s to inform employees of the conditions 
applicable to the employment relationship. This duty implies written information, to be 
supplied within two months of commencement of employment, covering the place of work, a 
brief description of th e work, the usual working hours, appl icable collective agreements, etc. 
The Framework Agreement indicates that some additional written information may be required because of the specificities of telewo rk (e.g. the relevant department, the immediate 
superior, contact persons, reporting arrangemen ts). Furthermore, more specific information 
should be given on the company's policy regard ing data protection, use of equipment and 
health and safety as well as on the establishment to which the teleworker is attached for the purpose of exercising collective rights. The use of monitoring systems is addressed in the 
clause on privacy (Clause 6). The Framework Agreement thus covers the most important 
information duties of the employer mentione d in the Commission's proposals. It does not 
address the law applicable to the work contract in transnational situations. 
Most of the implementation measures that are di rectly based on a translation of the European 
text require the employer to inform teleworkers in writing about the i ssues mentioned in the 
Framework Agreement. Some social partner inst ruments refer to provisions of national law or 
regulations transposing Dire ctive 91/533/EEC which stipul ate the employer's general 
information duty (e.g. Greece, The UK and Ireland) . Some collective agreements extend the 
list of items about which the teleworker must  be informed, e.g. the frequency of telework, 
contact hours, conditions for return to normal work, work equipment, cost reimbursement, 
insurance (e.g. Belgium, Luxembourg and France).  
Most legislative implementing instruments do  not impose specific information duties on 
employers for telework-related aspects with one exception, which requires additional 
information on the organisational unit and the contact  person to be shared with the teleworker 
(Poland). However, it can be assumed that the general information oblig ation established by 
Directive 91/533/EEC is applicable to teleworkers in all countries. 
3.6. Coverage of costs by the employer 
Given the general duty of the employer to provide the tools for working, the Commission 
considered that in the case of telework the costs of equipment, in stallation, maintenance, 
insurance and telecommunicat ion have to be covered entirely by the employer. 
The Framework Agreement addresses the issue of equipment in Clause 7: 
"7. Equipment 
All questions concerning work equipment,  liability and costs are clearly defined 
before starting telework. 
As a general rule, the employer is re sponsible for providing, installing and 
maintaining the equipment necessary for regul ar telework unless the teleworker uses 
his/her own equipment. 
EN 41   EN If telework is performed on a regular basis, the employer compensates or covers the 
costs directly caused by the work, in particular those relating to communication. 
The employer provides the teleworker with  an appropriate techni cal support facility. 
The employer has the liability, in accordan ce with national legisl ation and collective 
agreements, regarding costs for loss and damage to the equipment and data used by the teleworker. 
The teleworker takes good care of the e quipment provided to him/her and does not 
collect or distribute illegal material via the internet." 
As telework by definition calls for equipment using information technology, the provision and 
use of equipment is an important  issue, in particular when te lework is performed at home, 
where equipment can also be used for othe r purposes. The Framework Agreement strikes a 
balance between the interests of  the employer and those of the teleworker. It leaves much 
leeway for individual agreement between the pa rties, but nevertheless establishes a general 
rule on the employer's duty to provide, inst all and maintain the equipment (unless the 
teleworker uses his/her own) a nd to cover or compensate for the costs, in particular for 
communications. Exceptions from this general rule, as proposed by the Commission, are, 
however, possible. On the other hand, the Fr amework Agreement goes further than the 
Commission's proposal and establ ishes a technical support facili ty for the worker and the 
employer's liability for loss and damage as well as the teleworker's duty of due care. It does 
not address the question of insurance. 
The rules on equipment in the Framework Agreemen t have given rise to a variety of solutions 
in national implementing measures with regard to the obligations of employers and workers. 
All solutions, however, re spect the general balance found in the Europ ean text, i.e. a general 
obligation on the employer to bear the costs of equipment and commun ications with some 
possible exceptions. Several instruments simp ly reproduce the provisions of the Framework 
Agreement (e.g. Italy and The UK) or use si milar wordings (e.g. Finland and Denmark — 
commerce/services), while the rules are more de tailed or are slightly different in others.  
Some instruments state that the responsibilities of the employer and the teleworker are subject 
to agreement between them, and th at the employer will bear the responsibility only if there is 
no agreement on this point (e.g. Hungary and Portuga l). In other countries, the social partners 
or the legislator have decided that the empl oyer should bear the full responsibility for the 
provision of equipment, except where the work er uses his/her own equipment (e.g. France, 
Slovakia and Germany – local government), in which case there may be some element of 
compensation (e.g. Poland and Belgium). 
The remaining provisions (technical support, liabili ty for damage and loss, and due diligence) 
of this clause have not been implemented ev erywhere, but can be found in the instruments 
which include a translation of the Framework Agreement and in most of those based on 
negotiation between the social partners. In some countries, it is deemed the responsibility of 
the employer to insure the equipment, a lthough this is not required by the Framework 
Agreement (e.g. Poland). Some measures lay down more detailed rules in respect of 
equipment breakdown and the telewo rker's obligation to inform th e employer in such an event 
(e.g. Belgium and France). 
EN 42   EN 3.7. Guarantee of specific training 
The Commission found it desirable for the telewo rker to receive trai ning in the technical 
equipment at his/her disposal and in the char acteristics of this method of work organisation 
(in particular time management, the use of em ail and electronic archiving), where necessary. 
Such training for the teleworker should be  accompanied by broade r action targeting the 
supervisory staff and the teleworker's colleague s also (e.g. on the principles of management 
by objectives, and specific management of distant or mobile workers). 
The European social partners included a referen ce to specific training for telework in Clause 
10 of the Framework Agreement: 
"10. Training 
… Teleworkers receive appropriate training ta rgeted at the technical equipment at 
their disposal and at the characteristics of this form of work organisation. The 
teleworker's supervisor and hi s/her direct colleagues may al so need training for this 
form of work and its management." 
Apart from the principle of equal treatment of  teleworkers in terms of training opportunities, 
the Framework Agreement also recognises the pot ential need for specific training, both for 
teleworkers and for their colleagues or superiors,  due to the introduction of this new form of 
working. 
This principle is present in most implementing measures which contain a literal translation of 
the Framework Agreement or are directly base d on it (e.g. Greece, Spain and Belgium), and to 
a lesser extent in social partner instruments freely inspired by the Agreement (e.g. Denmark 
and Finland). It is less evident, with some ex ceptions, where legislative measures have been 
adopted (Poland and Portugal). Some instrument s list the core areas, both technical and 
management-related, in which teleworkers may need training (e.g. The UK) or make 
provision for special training on heal th and safety (e.g. Poland).  
3.8. Protection in the field of health and safety 
The Commission considered that  the provisions gove rning the prevention of occupational 
hazards and the protection of workers must appl y to teleworkers, including mobile workers, 
and to their workplaces. The employer is respons ible for the health and safety at work of 
his/her employees, irrespective of where this wo rk is performed. In cases where telework is 
performed from home, the teleworker must au thorise maintenance personnel and the firm's 
safety officer, as well as the State monitoring services responsible for inspection of health, 
safety and hygiene, to access the equipment he/she  uses, in order to verify that the rules 
governing the teleworking post and the associated  technical equipment are correctly applied. 
The teleworker is obliged to respect the safe ty rules in force and to comply with any 
instructions issued to him/her. 
These concerns are addressed by Clau se 8 of the Framework Agreement: 
"8. Health and safety 
The employer is responsible for the protec tion of the occupational health and safety 
of the teleworker in accordance with  Directive 89/391 and relevant daughter 
directives, national legisla tion and collective agreements. 
EN 43   EN The employer informs the te leworker of the company's policy on occupational health 
and safety, in particular requirements on vis ual display units. The teleworker applies 
these safety policies correctly. 
In order to verify that the applicable heal th and safety provis ions are correctly 
applied, the employer, workers' representa tives and/or relevant authorities have 
access to the telework place, within the li mits of national legi slation and collective 
agreements. If the teleworker is working at  home, such access is subject to prior 
notification and his/her agreement. The telewo rker is entitled to  request inspection 
visits." 
As this clause shows, the social partners ag reed with the Commission's view regarding the 
employer's full responsibility for the teleworker's occupational he alth and safety and for the 
need to allow access to the workplace, including at home, to verify that health and safety 
policies are correctly applied. 
These principles have been respected and laid down more strictly by most of the 
implementing measures, which make it clear th at general rules on health and safety are 
applicable to teleworkers. Some countries have  adapted their occupational health and safety 
legislation to implement the principle (e.g. Hunga ry). In several cases, the national legislation 
specifically states that the employer is responsib le for ensuring safe working conditions at the 
teleworker's workplace (e.g. Slovenia and th e Netherlands). Many national governments 
stress that health and safety regulations appl y fully to teleworkers (e.g. Latvia and Sweden), 
including in those countries where the Agreement on Telework has not been formally implemented (e.g. Cyprus and Germany). Several instruments adopted by the social partners 
provide specific information by re ferring to relevant health and safety le gislation, e.g. on the 
employer's duty to perform a risk assessment or  on specific requirements for visual display 
units, or by listing possible hazards that can ar ise from electrical equipment (e.g. The UK and 
Austria). 
However, in some countries, certain health a nd safety provisions appl y to teleworking from 
home in a limited way only (e.g.  Poland, Finland and Austria), owing to the fact that the 
employer cannot freely decide on the design  of the workplace. There are also some 
exemptions for cases where the teleworker uses his/her own equipment (e.g. Hungary). 
In some cases the instruments ar e more specific as regards the employer's duties if telework is 
performed from home, and entail , for instance, the obligation to check the conformity of 
electrical installations  and other equipment before telewo rk starts(e.g. France, Luxembourg 
and Hungary). Access by the employer, the health  and safety officers and labour inspectors to 
the workplace at home with a view  to inspecting the health and safety conditions is regulated 
in sufficient detail in most implementing me asures. The legislatio n of some countries 
regulates or limits access by labour inspect ors to workers' homes (e.g. Austria). 
The general thrust of Clause 8 is thus reflect ed in all implementing measures, although not all 
of the secondary provisions are covered. 
3.9. Working time 
With regard to working time of teleworkers,  the Commission took the view that all laws, 
regulations and contractual rules (rest breaks , maximum working time , annual leave, night 
work, etc.) should apply in full. However, it co nsidered that some allowance could be made 
for flexibility vis-à-vis the wo rking hours of employees working at the firm's premises. While 
EN 44   EN the total working time must remain the same, some flexibility could be granted in order to 
allow teleworkers to organise their working ti me more freely outside fixed slots when they 
have to be on call. 
The Framework Agreement deals with working time in Clause 9: 
"9. Organisation of work 
Within the framework of app licable legislation, collect ive agreements and company 
rules, the teleworker manages the organi sation of his/her working time. …" 
The European social partners followed the Commission's proposal and recognised the general 
applicability of working time re gulations to telework, while at  the same time allowing the 
teleworker some flexibility to arra nge his/her own working schedules.  
The issue of working time has been explicitly d ealt with in the great majority of implementing 
measures. The solution set out in  the Framework Agreement has been followed in most cases. 
Many instruments simply reproduce the wording of the European te xt (e.g. Belgium, Italy and 
Greece) and/or refer to the fact that legi slation and collective agreements on maximum 
working time are applicable to teleworkers (e .g. Austria, Ireland a nd Portugal). Some legal 
instruments do not contain any specific ru les on working time, which means general 
regulations are implicitly applicable (e.g. Poland and Slovenia). In  one case, national 
legislation provides for an exemption from  general working time regulations for 
"unmonitored" work (Sweden). 
Several instruments lay down specific rules as  regards certain aspects of working time, 
sometimes with exemptions from the gene ral regulations: overtime (Luxembourg and 
Germany - company agreements), time registra tion (Hungary), compensation for overtime or 
work on public holidays (The Czech Republic and Slovakia), and bonuses for night work 
(Slovakia). Other instruments a llow working time to be determined by either the employer or 
the teleworker; the collective rules on working tim e being applicable only in the first case 
(e.g. Denmark - industry). Some stipulate that working time should be determined not by the 
number of hours, but on the basis of the am ount of work to be performed, taking into 
consideration the performan ce of employees in similar positions (e.g. Hungary).  
3.10. Protection of privacy and of personal data 
With a view to protecting teleworkers, in particular where telework is performed from home, 
the Commission considered that employers must  respect their employees' privacy, when they 
use the PC, the Internet, the telephone or othe r communication tools. Employers must inform 
their workers about the ex act nature of the restri ctions they impose on the use of such tools, in 
particular as regards use for private purposes, an d of the penalties applicable in the event of 
non-compliance. If any type of controls is put in place, it has to be  proportionate and accepted 
by the employees concerned. 
The questions of privacy and data protecti on are addressed in Clauses 5 and 6 of the 
Framework Agreement: 
"5. Data protection 
EN 45   EN The employer is responsible for taking the appropriate measures, notably with 
regard to software, to ensure the prot ection of data used and processed by the 
teleworker for professional purposes. 
The employer informs the teleworker of all relevant  legislation and company rules 
concerning data protection. It is the telework er's responsibility to comply with these 
rules. 
The employer informs the teleworker in particular of: 
– any restrictions on the use of IT equi pment or tools such as the internet, 
– sanctions in the case of non-compliance. 
6. Privacy The employer respects the privacy of the te leworker. If any kind of monitoring system 
is put in place, it needs to be pro portionate to the objective and introduced in 
accordance with Directive 90/270 on visual display units." 
The provisions agreed by the European soci al partners follow th e Commission proposal 
closely as regards protection of the teleworker's personal data a nd privacy and po ints relating 
to private use of equipment and controls by the employer. The Framework Agreement addresses the issue of protecti on of professional data and it ma kes a clear distinction between 
data protection in the interest of the employer (Clause 5) and th e teleworker's privacy (Clause 
6). As regards systems to monitor the activity of the teleworker, it includes a reference to 
Council Directive 90/270/EEC on th e minimum safety and health requirements for work with 
display screen equipment, which states that "no quantitative or quali tative checking facility 
may be used without the knowledge of the worker s" (Annex 3b) and that workers and/or their 
representatives must be consulted. 
Most implementing measures follow the Framework Agreement's provisions on data 
protection , in many cases referring to the application to teleworkers of national data 
protection rules (e.g. France, Ireland, The Netherlands, Slovakia and The UK). Some 
instruments entail further provisions, e.g. on private use of equipment (Finland), the 
employer's access to the data used by the te leworker (Hungary), and written confirmation by 
the teleworker that s/he is aware of data prot ection rules (Poland). Some social partner tools 
list a number of risks and issues related to da ta protection (document disposal, virus checking, 
data back-up, etc.) that s hould be addressed jointly by both sides (e.g. Ireland). 
The Framework Agreement's provisions on privacy  have been taken over in most 
implementing measures, either in literal tran slation or through other references to the 
employer's duty to respect the teleworker's priv acy. Reference is sometimes made to specific 
collective agreements or regula tions to protect the privacy of  employees (e.g. Belgium). Some 
instruments require both sides to agree on hour s during which the employer can contact the 
teleworker (e.g. The UK, France and Luxembourg). 
The question of the empl oyer's right to access  to the workplace, subject to prior notification 
and approval by the teleworker, in the case of home-based telework is dealt with under the 
provisions on health and safety at work in most implementing provisions. However, some 
countries have introduced more detailed rules on this issue and other privacy issues (e.g. 
Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland and Portugal).  
EN 46   EN Many instruments reproduce the provisions of  the Framework Agreement on monitoring 
systems , including a reference to Council Directiv e 90/270/EEC or the corresponding legal 
instrument transposing that Directive (e.g. Denmar k — industry, Finland a nd Italy). It must be 
assumed that the Directive is applied correc tly in all Member St ates on this point.  
Some national instruments do not tackle issues of data protection and privacy (e.g. The Czech 
Republic and Slovenia). In several cases, the G overnments and the social partners stress that 
constitutional or legal provisi ons on privacy and data protecti on apply to teleworkers (e.g. 
Sweden and Germany). 
3.11. Keeping in contact with the firm 
The Commission considered it necessary to preven t the occurrence of certa in forms of social 
isolation associated with tele work (lack of communication and informal information, lack of 
contact and exchanges with coll eagues, etc.). Where possible, teleworkers should therefore be 
invited to attend meetings held at the firm's pr emises. Teleworkers should also have access to 
information communicated by the employer to othe r workers, in particular via access to the 
internal mail service and/or the Intranet. Lastl y, workers' representatives must be able to 
communicate with teleworkers. Employers must ta ke all the measures necessary to establish 
these links. 
The social partners addressed the issue of prev enting isolation of teleworkers in two clauses 
of the Framework Agreement: 
"… The employer ensures that measures are taken preventing the teleworker from 
being isolated from the rest of the worki ng community in the company, such as giving 
him/her the opportunity to meet with colleagues on a regular basis and access to 
company information. …" (9. Work organisation) 
"…No obstacles are put to communicati ng with workers' representatives. …" (11. 
Collective rights issues)  
These provisions fully address the concerns expressed by the Commission. They have been 
taken up in a number of implementing measures, es pecially those based on a literal translation 
of the Framework Agreement, and in several legislative measures (e .g. Portugal, Poland and 
Slovakia). Some instruments go into more deta il on the types of measures expected or 
possible, such as regular meetings with the superior, participation in social activities, 
electronic networking facilities  and innovative organisational practices (e.g. Fr ance and The 
UK). Other measures do not address this issue (e.g. The Czech Republic, Denmark on industry/services, and Slovenia). 
3.12. Collective rights of teleworkers 
In order to guarantee adequate representation of teleworkers, the Commission considered that 
they should have full opportunities to exercise their trade union rights . The trade unions or 
workers' representatives must be involved in  negotiating the rules concerning teleworkers. 
Teleworkers must have the right to participate in the election of worker s' representatives and 
to stand for election. 
Collective rights issues are addressed in Clause 11 of the Framework Agreement:  
"11. Collective rights issues 
EN 47   EN Teleworkers have the same collective rights as workers at the employer's premises. 
No obstacles are put to communicati ng with workers' representatives. 
The same conditions for participating in  and standing for elections to bodies 
representing workers or providing worker representation apply to them. Teleworkers 
are included in calculations for determin ing thresholds for bodies with worker 
representation in accordance with Europe an and national law, collective agreements 
or practices. The establishment to which the teleworker will be attached for the 
purpose of exercising his/her collective ri ghts is specified from the outset. 
Worker representatives are informed and consulted on th e introduction of telework 
in accordance with European and national legislations, collective agreements and 
practices." 
The European Agreement satisfies all the condi tions spelled out by the Commission to ensure 
that teleworkers enjoy their righ ts to collective repr esentation and particip ation. The European 
social partners went into even greater detail on  several points to ensure that teleworkers were 
able to exercise their collective rights, i.e. the inclusion of teleworkers in threshold calculations and the need to determine the establ ishment to which the teleworker is attached. 
Furthermore, the role of workers' representati ves in laying down rules for telework is also 
guaranteed. 
The majority of implementing measures ensure that teleworkers can exercise their collective 
rights:  some do this by stating that national legi slation on collective representation is fully 
applicable to teleworkers. Other measures  do not specifically address the question of 
collective rights, since they consider them to be guaranteed by the equal treatment clause (e.g. 
Hungary).  
Many implementing measures also state that the introduction of telework should take place in 
consultation with the bodi es representing workers , in accordance with national legislation and 
collective agreements (e.g. Belgium, Finland a nd Poland). In one case the role of the works 
council is limited to receiving informati on on the number and position of teleworkers 
(Hungary). Some instruments requi re agreements between employe rs and trade unions to spell 
out the conditions for applying telework (e.g. Poland). In many countries, rules on telework 
are typically established by co mpany-level agreements negotiated by the management and the 
workers' representatives; several agreements of this type are known to exist (e.g. Germany, 
The Netherlands and Spain). Some national collective agreements on telework explicitly allow for adaptation by agreements at lower levels, notably within the company (e.g. France and Italy), while others make the introduction of telework subj ect to a local agreement (e.g. 
Denmark – local government). 
3.13. Access to telework 
The Commission proposed that access to telework  should be granted on the basis of objective 
criteria known to the workers and management a nd in compliance with the principles of equal 
treatment and equal opportunities. 
This issue is only dealt with indirectly by th e Framework Agreement in so far as worker 
representatives must be informed and consulte d on the introduction of telework (see Section 
3.12 above). Nevertheless, several implementing measures address the issue of access to 
telework, e.g. by stating that the employer sh ould accommodate the employee's request for 
telework "where possible" (Poland). 
EN 48   EN 4. A NALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES  
Autonomous agreements implemented in Member  States through social dialogue must follow 
the specific rules of each country's nationa l industrial relations systems, which vary 
considerably as regards the respons ibilities of the act ors, and in particular of the national trade 
union and employers’ organisations. The impl ementation process cannot therefore be 
regarded as equivalent to the legislative tr ansposition process for Community directives, and 
uniform outcomes cannot be expected. Any assessment of the implementation of autonomous agreements has to take account of their specif ic character and nationa l industrial relations 
systems in general. 
4.1. The choice of instruments 
A number of instruments are used by the soci al partners and/or public authorities to 
implement the Framework Agreement on Telework. They range from collective agreements at 
cross-industry or sector level to other forms of agreements with recommendations to lower 
bargaining levels and guidelines addressed to companies and teleworkers. In some countries 
instruments also include legisla tion or other action by public author ities, such as measures to 
extend the scope of collective agreements to the entire workforce (see following table for 
more details). 
EN 49   EN Instruments chosen to implement th e Framework Agreement on Telework 
Instruments chosen* Countries 
extended by decree/binding 
erga omnes  FR, BE, LU, GR1,2 
and IS1 cross-industry 
binding on signatory parties 
and their members IT Collective 
agreements at national level  
sectoral  DK
3 
Agreements by 
social partners  recommendations to lower bargaining levels FI and ES2 
addressed mainly to lower bargaining levels as 
well as companies and teleworkers NL and SE2 Guidelines, 
recommendations 
addressed mainly to individual companies and 
teleworkers UK, IE4, AT5, LV2 
and NO2 
Joint declarations DE 
Model agreements proposed by social partners  DE5 and IE 
based on agreement between social partners PL 
after consultation of social partners  HU, SK and CZ6 Legislation 
no/little involvement of so cial partners  PT and SI6 
no implementation yet/no information  CY, EE, LT, MT, 
BG and RO 
Notes:  
* This table does not cover sector-speci fic or regional agreements reported by  social partners which relate to a 
small number of sectors or regions only and which have sometimes been adopted prior to/without any reference 
to the Framework Agreemen t (e.g. DE, ES and AT). Furthermore, it does not cover individual company 
agreements on telework reported by social partners an d adopted prior to or as follow-up to the Framework 
Agreement (e.g. NL, DE and ES). Incomplete or example-based reporting of individual instruments and the 
difficulty of identifying them in all Member States could distort the overall presentation. 
1 Legal status not fully certain. 
2 Mainly based on literal translation/translation in  annex, i.e. little adaptation to national context. 
3 Covers the industry, services, local, regional and national government sectors, is accompanied by guidelines 
and is supplemented by cross-industry agreement. 
4 Implementation not finalised. 
5 Unilateral instruments, i.e. not jointly adopted. 
6 Partial implementation only. 
EN 50   EN The first alternative in Article 139(2) to whic h the Framework Agreement refers provides that 
autonomous agreements are to be implemented "in accordance with the procedures and 
practices specific to management and labour and the Member States" . The instruments 
chosen and the procedures for their adoption should therefore follow the usual practice for 
dealing with similar issues in  national industrial relations.  
In most countries, traditional procedures an d practices have been followed: collective 
bargaining at national or sector  level has reflected traditional practice in several countries 
(Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, It aly and Luxembourg). Some national social 
partners have made recommendations to counterpa rts at lower levels in  accordance with their 
usual procedures (Spain, Finland, the Nether lands and Sweden). Guidelines have been 
adopted by the social partners in countries wher e industrial relations tend  to be decentralised 
and do not provide for binding inst ruments at national level, leav ing national social partners 
with little more than a coor dinating function (The UK, Ireland and Latvia). In Germany the 
issue has typically been dealt w ith at company level and several social partners have issued 
model agreements for use at that level. In some  Member States, given their industrial relations 
system, the social partners left  regulatory matters to the le gislator even though they were 
involved in the drafting or consultation pro cess (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech 
Republic). 
In several cases the social partners have de veloped promising innovative practices that have 
sometimes gone further than could have been  expected, given the traditional industrial 
relations there (Poland and The UK).  
In some countries the implementing measures ha ve not gone as far as  expected, given the 
degree of development of industrial relations ther e. Sectoral social part ner organisations could 
have been more involved in the implementatio n process (Germany, Sweden and Austria) and 
coordination and dissemination at cross-industry level could have been better. In Portugal and 
Slovenia, the social partners  would traditionally have been more involved in the 
implementation of the Framework Agreement. In Ireland, the social partners may be expected 
to finalise the implementation process they are engaged in.9 
Lastly, the Agreement has not yet been implemen ted in a number of countries and the social 
partners may be expected to start the implemen tation process in accordan ce with their national 
industrial relations systems (Cyprus, Estonia, Li thuania and Malta). In the case of Bulgaria 
and Romania, the fact that social partners have only recently started to participate in European 
social dialogue expl ains why not much has happened yet. 
4.2. The level of protection 
The Commission’s consultation document laid  down a number of general principles 
governing telework that should be observed so  that teleworkers and employers enjoy the 
necessary protection, stability a nd flexibility, and telework can develop in a balanced fashion 
across Europe. The European social partners’ Framework Agreement, which covers the main 
concerns raised by the Commission, sets out rule s for ensuring these principles are observed. 
Incorporation of key principles into implementing measures 
                                                 
9 In Norway, non-binding guidelines were adopted  in place of a national collective agreement. 
EN 51   EN The analysis shows that the main provisions a nd principles of the Framework Agreement have 
been incorporated fully into most national im plementing measures with some exceptions (the 
Czech Republic, Slovenia and, to a lesser extent , Hungary). The key principles featuring in 
the vast majority of national instruments are: 
– a common definition of telework; 
– the principle of equal treatment of tele workers compared with other employees 
working at the employer's premises (as regards working cond itions, training and 
career development, and collective rights); 
– the maintenance of teleworkers’ employee status; 
– the voluntary nature of telework; 
– the employer's responsibility for equipment and costs; 
– the employer's responsibility for telewo rkers' health and safety at work; 
– data protection and respect of privacy. 
By addressing the most important issues regard ing the practice of telework, the implementing 
measures have achieved an appropriate level of  convergence across Europe  with regard to the 
regulation of this form of work and the prot ection of workers and employers' interests.  
The case for awareness-raising 
Owing to the diversity of instruments chosen by the social partners, the effective application 
of these principles and awareness of the instru ments at workplaces may be expected to vary 
considerably from country to country. This is al so the result of the gr eat variation in legal 
status and options for enforcing the implemen ting measures. Autonomous agreements cannot 
guarantee uniform outcomes, binding status and fu ll coverage in all c ountries; they simply 
provide an overall framework and cannot enforce minimum labour  standards or fundamental 
social rights.  
However, autonomous agreements should neverthe less produce tangible results in all Member 
States. Particularly in the case of  ‘soft’ instruments, there is a risk that knowledge of them is 
not sufficiently widespread at the workplace  and their objectives may therefore not be 
fulfilled. Raising awareness of national implementing measures among sectoral, regional and 
local employers’ organisations and trade unio ns, individual employers, local trade union 
officials, workers and their representatives is  therefore crucial to enhancing the impact of 
autonomous agreements. The benefits of telewo rk and its potential contribution to active 
ageing could also be addre ssed in this context.  
4.3. A dynamic implementation process 
Ongoing implementation Even though the implementation period expired in  2005 and the social partners delivered their 
report in 2006, the implementation process is not yet over. Several implementing measures 
were adopted in 2006 and 2007 and more action can  probably be expected in coming years. 
National industrial relations ha ve their own dynamics and differe nt priorities may prevail at 
EN 52   EN different times in different countries. European  agreements may be implemented as part of 
package deals or in conjunction with other issu es. In several countries, collective bargaining 
rounds on the subject of working conditions (oth er than wages and working time) take place 
every few years only. Telework could therefore f eature as one aspect of periodic sector-level 
bargaining in coming years, and the EU Fram ework Agreement may continue to provide 
useful guidance in this respect. 
Specific challenges in the new Member States 
Social partners from 12 Member States joined  the European social dialogue in 2004 and 2007. 
They were, however, already involved to so me extent during the negotiations in 2002 and 
were invited to implement the Framework Agr eement. In these countries, labour legislation 
and industrial relations went through a fast catching-up process as the full acquis 
communautaire  had to be introduced a nd applied in practice. In these circumstances, 
implementing an autonomous EU agreement re presented a major cha llenge to industrial 
relations systems that had only been established relatively recently and were still developing. Nevertheless, several countries managed qu ite well, often with the support of public 
authorities. A positive element in this connection is the work undertaken by the European social partners to improve the capacity of their national members to implement social dialogue results. Improvements and more acti on may be expected in those countries, 
especially Bulgaria and Romania,  whose social partners joined only last year, as well as in 
countries that have not yet implemented th e Agreement (Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania and 
Malta). 
Growing incidence of telework 
Telework is growing in importance across Europe  as a new form of wo rk organisation. In 
2000, only 5% of the European workforce (EU-15) reported that they were teleworking from 
home for at least a quarter of their working time, while home-based teleworking on a full-time 
basis was carried out by just ove r 1% of the working population
10. In 2005 those figures had 
risen to 8% of the workforce teleworking at least occasionally from home and around 2% for 
permanent home-based teleworkers in the enlarged European Union (EU-27)11. 
The incidence of telework and the use of modern IT tools at work in general are still rather 
low in several countries12, which may explain why telework ha s not featured as  a priority in 
national bipartite social dialogue and why im plementation of the Framework Agreement is 
comparatively less advanced there. Nonetheless, the incidence of telework  may be expected to 
rise across all Member States, si nce its potential has not yet b een fully exploited and new IT 
tools are constantly being devel oped and disseminated on an ever wider scale. This may help 
ensure that telework takes on greater importanc e in discussions and negotiations between the 
social partners, which should lead to the pr ogressive implementation of the EU Framework 
Agreement and thereby create positive conditio ns for telework’s steady development across 
Europe. 
                                                 
10 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Third European 
Working Conditions Survey 2000: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0121.htm 
11 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Fourth European 
Working Conditions Survey 2005: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/EWCS2005/index.htm 
12 For instance, the rates of at least occasional home-b ased telework are 2% in Bulgaria and Romania, 3% 
in Malta and 5% in Cyprus. 
EN 53   EN Precedent for other autonomous agreements 
Lastly, the implementation of the Framework Agreement on Telework, the first autonomous 
agreement, is a groundbreaking achievement for th e European and national social partners. In 
many instances, national actors needed to discus s and agree on their re sponsibilities for the 
implementation process. Some of them may have had initial doubts and reservations 
concerning their involvement and commitment. Implementation is a continuous process of 
learning — including across borders — and co nfidence-building. Lessons will certainly be 
learned for the future as regards implementati on of other autonomous agreements at national 
level13. 
The importance of the European social partners ’ coordinating role has been recognised by all 
actors. The lessons to be learnt should provide  input for discussions planned in the European 
social partners’ joint work programme for 2006-08 on a common unders tanding of social 
dialogue instruments, includi ng autonomous agreements. 
4.4. Added value and impact 
Triggering action With some exceptions (e.g. Denmark and Ireland),  very few regulatory instruments, such as 
laws and collective agreements, covering telework  were in place at national level prior to the 
signing of the Framework Agreement in 2002. That  event successfully triggered discussion 
and joint action by the social part ners in most Member States on how this new form of work 
may be utilised for the benefit of both workers and employers. The Framework Agreement created critical momentum and provided useful  guidance on how telework may be introduced 
and carried out in a balanced way, safeguard ing basic employee rights and providing the 
necessary flexibility. With few exceptions (the  Czech Republic and Slovenia), the Framework 
Agreement influenced implementing measures to a very large extent. 
Shaping telework practices 
A positive result of the implementation process is that telework has been ‘mainstreamed’ in 
labour law in the vast majority of countries . The aim of the Commission and the social 
partners for telework to be recognised as a form of work organisation rather than a new 
employment status has therefor e been achieved in most countries, though some reservations 
remain in cases where it is treated as equivale nt to home working. The risk of discrimination 
of teleworkers compared with employees wo rking on a permanent basis at the employer's 
premises is likely to have been reduced. Seve ral national implementing measures have clearly 
sought to reduce the incidence of bogus  self-employment among teleworkers. 
As was pointed out above, the impact of the Framework Agreement may be expected to vary 
considerably between the Member States, owing to different coverage and status of instruments. On the basis of information av ailable, the full impact of the Framework 
Agreement on the protection of workers and the prom otion of telework is difficult to assess at 
this stage. Further analysis based on more e xperience is necessary to determine its long-term 
impact. 
                                                
 
13 See footnote 1. 
EN 54   EN 5. C ONCLUSIONS  
At this point the implementation of the Framework Agreement on Telework may be 
considered a success. Given the objectives and scope of autonomous agreements, the 
instruments chosen and the level of protec tion and guidance provide d by them are deemed 
adequate in the majority of EU Me mber States and EEA countries.  
On the whole, the specific objectives set by the Commission (and shared by the social 
partners) have been achieved both through the Framework Agreement itself and via its implementation at national level. The Agr eement’s implementation has therefore clearly 
contributed to the Lisbon goals of modernis ing labour markets and achieving a more dynamic 
knowledge-based economy. By ensuring sound mana gement and organisation of telework it 
has also made useful contribu tions to the goals of the i2 010 Strategy, which emphasises 
information and communication technologies as a driver of inclusion and quality of life, and 
to the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy. 
The Framework Agreement and the autonomous process for its implementation have paved 
the way for steady, balanced deve lopment of telework across Europe and are likely to warrant 
a high level of ownership and commitment by employers and trade unions. 
Analysis has also shown that there is scope for improvement in seve ral Member States in 
terms of the implementation process, follow-up to implementing measures and/or the content 
of instruments. 
(1) The coverage of the Framework Agreement could be improved by: 
– starting or pursuing discussion in countri es where the implementation process has 
not yet been finalised or even started; 
– exploring the possibility of  a joint instrument being adopted by both employers 
and trade unions in cases where the only solutions found so far have been unilateral. 
(2) The impact of several implementing measures might be enhanced by: 
– improving the Framework Agreement’s visibility in some countries through 
additional instruments, su ch as joint guidelines; 
– taking up recommendations from national soci al partners to c ounterparts at lower 
levels in periodic sect or-level bargaining; 
– strengthening efforts to disseminate non-binding guidelines drafted by social 
partners in several countries and to ra ise awareness among individual employers 
and local trade union officials. Monitori ng of company-level developments could 
be useful in that case. 
(3) Lastly, the Framework Agreement’s speci fic objectives could be achieved more 
successfully in some countries by: 
– implementing those aspects of the Agreemen t still outstanding in countries where 
it has only been partially implemented; 
EN 55   EN – clarifying the following content-relate d aspects: the relationship between 
traditional home working and telework in national legislation; the protection of teleworkers who are bogus self-empl oyed; the implementing measures’ 
applicability to alternating telework (w hich concerns the large majority of 
teleworkers) and permanent telework; 
– concentrating special efforts on sectors and professions where there is a high 
incidence of telework. 
At European level, the social partners have played a very important role in promoting the 
Framework Agreement, coordinating excha nges and cross-border le arning, and monitoring 
the implementation process. Further monitoring and, where appropriate, sp ecific action in the 
context of sectoral social dialogue coul d also help in impl ementing the Framework 
Agreement. In addition, where the European soci al partners decide to conduct a review under 
Clause 12 of the Framework Agreement, they coul d usefully consider at greater depth some of 
the issues that have emerged bot h in this Report and in the soci al partners' own analysis as a 
result of monitoring the Framework Agreement, such as bogus self-employment, treatment of 
teleworking as equivalent to home working, al ternating and permanent telework, cross-border 
situations and coverage of the public sector. 
EN 56   EN 6. A NNEX  
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON TELEWORK 
1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
In the context of the European employment st rategy, the European Council invited the social 
partners to negotiate agreements modernisi ng the organisation of work, including flexible 
working arrangements, with the aim of making  undertakings productive and competitive and 
achieving the necessary balance between flexibility and security. 
The European Commission, In its second stage consultati on of social partners on modernising 
and improving employment relations, invited the social partners to start negotiations on 
telework On 20 September 2001, ETUC (and the liaison committee EUROCADRES/CEC), 
UNICE/UEAPME and CEEP announced  their intention to start negotiati ons aimed at an 
agreement to be implemented by the members of the signatory parties in the Member States 
and in the countries of the European Econ omic Area. Through them, they wished to 
contribute to preparing the tr ansition to a knowledge-based ec onomy and society as agreed by 
the European Council in Lisbon. 
Telework covers a wide and fa st evolving spectrum of circum stances and practices. For that 
reason, social partners have chosen a definition of telework that permits to cover various forms of regular telework. 
The social partners see telework both as a wa y for companies and public  service organisations 
to modernise work organisation, and as a way fo r workers to reconcile work and social life 
and giving them greater autonomy in the accomplis hment of their tasks. If Europe wants to 
make the most out of the information societ y, it must encourage this new form of work 
organisation in such a way, that flexibility and s ecurity go together and th e quality of jobs is 
enhanced, and that the chances of disabled people on the labour market are increased. 
This voluntary Agreement aims at establishing a general framework at the European level to 
be implemented by the members of the signato ry parties in accordance with the national 
procedures and practices specific to management and labour. The signatory  parties also invite 
their member organisations in candidate countries to implement this agreement. 
Implementation of this agreement does not constitute valid grounds to reduce the general level 
of protection afforded to workers in the fiel d of this agreement. When implementing this 
agreement, the members of the signatory parties avoid unnecessary burdens on SMEs. 
This agreement does not prejudice the right of so cial partners to conclude, at the appropriate 
level, including European level, agreements ad apting and/or complementing this agreement in 
a manner which will take note of the specifi c needs of the social partners concerned. 
2. DEFINITION AND SCOPE 
Telework is a form of organising and/or pe rforming work, using information technology, in 
the context of an employment contract/relat ionship, where work, which could also be 
performed at the employer's premises, is carrie d out away from those premises on a regular 
basis. 
EN 57   EN This agreement covers teleworkers. A teleworker is any person carrying out telework as 
defined above. 
3. VOLUNTARY CHARACTER 
Telework is voluntary for the worker and the employer concerned. Teleworking may be 
required as part of a worker's initial job desc ription or it may be e ngaged in as a voluntary 
arrangement subsequently. 
In both cases, the employer provides the telework er with relevant written information in 
accordance with directive 91/533/EEC, includ ing information on applicable collective 
agreements, description of the work to be performed, etc. The specificities of telework normally require additional written information on matters such as the department of the 
undertaking to which the telework er is attached, his/her immedi ate superior or other persons 
to whom she or he can address questions of  professional or person al nature, reporting 
arrangements, etc. 
If telework is not part of the initial job de scription, and the employer makes an offer of 
telework, the worker may accept or refuse this offer. If a worker expresses the wish to opt for telework, the employer may accept or refuse this request. 
The passage to telework as such, because it only modifies the way in which work is 
performed, does not affect the te leworker's employment status. A worker refusal to opt for 
telework is not, as such, a reason for termin ating the employment relationship or changing the 
terms and conditions of employment of that worker. 
If telework is not part of th e initial job description, the d ecision to pass to telework is 
reversible by individual and/or  collective agreement. The reve rsibility could imply returning 
to work at the employer's premises at the worker 's or at the employer's request. The modalities 
of this reversibility are established by individual and/or collective agreement. 
4. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS 
Regarding employment conditions , teleworkers benefit from the same rights, guaranteed by 
applicable legislation and coll ective agreements, as comparab le workers at the employer's 
premises. However, in order to take into acco unt the particularities of telework, specific 
complementary collective and/or individual agreements may be necessary. 
5. DATA PROTECTION 
The employer is responsible fo r taking the appropria te measures, notably with regard to 
software, to ensure the protection of data used and processed by the teleworker for 
professional purposes.  
The employer informs the teleworker of all rele vant legislation and co mpany rules concerning 
data protection. 
It is the teleworker's responsibil ity to comply with these rules. 
The employer informs the tele worker in particular of: 
– any restrictions on the use of IT equi pment or tools such as the internet, 
EN 58   EN – sanctions in the case of non-compliance. 
6. PRIVACY 
The employer respects the privacy of the teleworker. 
If any kind of monitoring system is put in pl ace, it needs to be proportionate to the objective 
and introduced in accordance with Direct ive 90/270 on visual display units. 
7. EQUIPMENT 
All questions concerning work equipment, liab ility and costs are clearly defined before 
starting telework. 
As a general rule, the employer is responsible  for providing, installi ng and maintaining the 
equipment necessary for regular telework unless the teleworker uses his/her own equipment. 
If telework is performed on a regular basis, the employer compensates or covers the costs 
directly caused by the work, in part icular those relati ng to communication. 
The employer provides the teleworker with an appropriate techni cal support facility. 
The employer has the liability, in accordance with national legislation and collective 
agreements, regarding costs for loss and dama ge to the equipment and data used by the 
teleworker. 
The teleworker takes good care of the equipment provided to him/her a nd does not collect or 
distribute illegal material via the internet. 
8. HEALTH AND SAFETY 
The employer is responsible fo r the protection of the occupati onal health and safety of the 
teleworker in accordance with Directive 89/391 and relevant daughter directives, national legislation and collective agreements. 
The employer informs the teleworker of the company's policy on occu pational health and 
safety, in particular requiremen ts on visual display units. The teleworker applies these safety 
policies correctly. 
In order to verify that the a pplicable health and safety prov isions are correctly applied, the 
employer, workers' representatives and/or rele vant authorities have access to the telework 
place, within the limits of nationa l legislation and collective agre ements. If the teleworker is 
working at home, such access is subject to prior notification and his/her agreement. 
The teleworker is entitled to request inspection visits. 
9. ORGANISATION OF WORK 
Within the framework of applicable legislati on, collective agreements and company rules, the 
teleworker manages the organisa tion of his/her working time. 
The workload and performance standards of th e teleworker are equivalent to those of 
comparable workers at the employers premises. 
EN 59   EN The employer ensures that measures are taken pr eventing the teleworker from being isolated 
from the rest of the working community in the company, such as giving him/her the opportunity to meet with colleagues on a regul ar basis and access to company information. 
10. TRAINING 
Teleworkers have the same access to traini ng and career development opportunities as 
comparable workers at the employer's premises and are subject to the same appraisal policies 
as these other workers. 
Teleworkers receive appropriate training targeted at the technical equipment at their disposal 
and at the characteristics of th is form of work organisation. The teleworker's supervisor and 
his/her direct colleagues may also need traini ng for this form of work and its management. 
11. COLLECTIVE RIGHTS ISSUES 
Teleworkers have the same collective rights as workers at the employer's premises. No 
obstacles are put to communicating with workers representatives. 
The same conditions for participating in and standing for elections to bodies representing 
workers or providing worker representation apply to them. 
Teleworkers are included in calculations for de termining thresholds for bodies with worker 
representation in accordance with European a nd national law, collective agreements or 
practices. The establishment to which the telewo rker will be attached for the purpose of 
exercising his/her collective right s is specified from the outset. 
Worker representatives are informed and co nsulted on the introduction of telework in 
accordance with European and national legisl ations, collective agreements and practices. 
12. IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP 
In the context of article 139 of the Treaty, th is European framewor k agreement shall be 
implemented by the members of UNICE/UEA PME, CEEP and ETUC (and the liaison 
committee EUROCADRES/CEC) in acco rdance with the procedures and practices specific to 
management and labour in the Member States. 
This implementation will be carried out within three years after the date of signature of this 
agreement. 
Member organisations will report  on the implementation of this agreement to an ad hoc group 
set up by the signatory parties, under the responsi bility of the social dialogue committee. This 
ad hoc group will prepare a joint report on the actions of implementation taken. This report 
will be prepared within four years after the date of signature of this agreement. 
In case of questions on the content of this ag reement, member organi sations involved can 
separately or jointly refer to the signatory parties. 
The signatory parties shall review the agreemen t five years after the date of signature if 
requested by one of th e signatory parties. 
Brussels, 16 July 2002 
EN 60   EN Emilio GABAGLIO,  
General Secretary of the ETUC (On behalf of the trade union delegation) 
Georges JACOBS, 
President of UNICE 
Andrea BONETTI, 
President of UEAPME 
Rainer PLASSMANN, 
General Secretary of CEEP