WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Working conditions and competition at Piaggio

Over the past few months the Italian Government has granted special incentives for the scrapping of motorcycles. This has led to a higher turnover for motorcycle manufacturers. At the

same time, however, Piaggio, one of the top companies in the sector, has introduced tough shifts in which workers have had to work at weekends and on bank holidays throughout the summer with the same pay and harsher working conditions (the temperature can reach 40° C on the shop floor). Many workers have also been laid off, resulting in further loss of wages.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does the Commission therefore not think that the above-mentioned incentives could have been justified only if extra jobs had been created which was patently not the case at Piaggio?

2. Does it not believe that the Piaggio management should be censured for its disregard of European rules on working conditions?

3. Is it not of the opinion that, unless Piaggio's increased turnover brought about by the above incentives leads to new jobs or improved working conditions, the ensuing capital, which could be invested by the company, could become an unfair competitive advantage, to the detriment of free competition?

4. Will the Commission give its general views on the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Italian Government has introduced special grants for the owners of old motorcycles for scrapping them. These grants are paid to all owners of old motorcycles regardless of make. Owners must then purchase a new motorcycle, allowing manufacturers, especially Piaggio, to increase their turnover significantly.

On the basis of this information, the Commission sees this as a general consumer aid measure, rather than aid to a company in possible contravention of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. All companies manufacturing similar vehicles in Italy have benefited from the replacement market created by the State measure in question. Furthermore, it was neither the aim nor the effect of the measure to reduce Piaggio's costs. Consequently, the measure does not appear to contravene Community rules on State aid.

Council Directive 93/104/EC(1) on the organisation of working time lays down minimum requirements with regard to breaks, daily and weekly rest periods and maximum average working time of workers. The Italian government has not notified the Commission of its measures to implement this directive. The Commission has brought this failure to notify it of the relevant national measures before the Court of Justice (pending case C-386/98). On the basis of the information presented, it is not possible to judge whether the provisions of the directive and any relevant national provisions have been respected or not.

Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC(2)) states in Annexes I and II (Minimum safety and health requirements for workplaces used for the first time after 31 December 1992 and for workplaces already in use before 1 January 1993 respectively) that the temperature in rooms containing workplaces must be adequate for human beings during working hours, having regard to the working methods used and the physical demands placed on the workers (cf. 7.1 of Annexes I and II). Italy has communicated to the Commission the national measures implementing Directive 89/654/EEC, which correctly transpose the minimum requirement relating to workplace temperature. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate controls and monitoring of the national provisions transposing the Directive. This means that any questions regarding enforcement must be referred to the Italian authorities, which must organise and carry out the inspections and checks necessary to ensure proper enforcement.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.