Poročilo Komisije o Direktivi Sveta 2001/23/ES z dne 12. marca 2001 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z ohranjanjem pravic delavcev v primeru prenosa podjetij, obratov ali delov podjetij ali obratov [SEC(2007) 812] /* KOM/2007/0334 končno */





[pic] | KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI | Bruselj, 18.6.2007 COM(2007) 334 konč. POROČILO KOMISIJE o Direktivi Sveta 2001/23/ES z dne 12. marca 2001 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z ohranjanjem pravic delavcev v primeru prenosa podjetij, obratov ali delov podjetij ali obratov [SEC(2007) 812] POROČILO KOMISIJE o Direktivi Sveta 2001/23/ES z dne 12. marca 2001 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z ohranjanjem pravic delavcev v primeru prenosa podjetij, obratov ali delov podjetij ali obratov UVOD Direktiva Sveta 2001/23/ES z dne 12. marca 2001 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z ohranjanjem pravic delavcev v primeru prenosa podjetij, obratov ali delov podjetij ali obratov[1] kodificira Direktivo Sveta 77/187/EGS[2], kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 98/50/ES[3]. V skladu s členom 7b, ki ga uvaja Direktiva 98/50/ES, „Komisija predloži Svetu analizo o učinkih določb te direktive do 17. julija 2006. Predlaga spremembe, ki se zdijo potrebne.“ Ta člen je postal člen 10 Direktive 2001/23/ES. Cilj tega poročila je torej analizirati določbe Direktive z vidika pridobljenih izkušenj in zlasti sodne prakse Sodišča ter ob upoštevanju odgovorov držav članic in socialnih partnerjev na vprašalnik, ki jim ga je poslala Komisija (glej Prilogo I) in na podlagi katerega bi ta lahko predlagala morebitne spremembe. Podrobno poročilo o izvajanju Direktive v vsaki od petindvajsetih držav članic bodo službe Komisije pripravile leta 2007. Namen Direktive, ki temelji na členu 94 Pogodbe ES, je varstvo delavcev v primeru spremembe delodajalca, zlasti da se zagotovi ohranitev njihovih pravic. Izhaja iz ugotovitve, da na tem področju v državah članicah obstajajo razlike v zvezi z varstvom delavcev in poudarja morebitni vpliv teh razlik na delovanje skupnega trga. Na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da je treba to varstvo uskladiti. Cilj te uskladitve je dvojen: zagotoviti primerljivo varstvo pravic delavcev v različnih državah članicah in hkrati prilagoditi obveznosti, ki jih ti predpisi o varstvu prinašajo podjetjem v Skupnosti. Sodišče je večkrat poudarilo, da je treba predpise Direktive šteti za obvezujoče v smislu, da odstopanje od njih na način, ki bi delavce postavljal v slabši položaj, ni dovoljeno. Zato se delavec ne more odpovedati pravicam, ki jih ima na podlagi Direktive, teh pravic pa tudi ni mogoče omejiti niti z njegovim soglasjem in niti če se nevšečnosti, ki mu jih prinaša taka odpoved, izravnajo z ugodnostmi, tako da na splošno ni v slabšem položaju. Na podlagi Direktive je bilo do 31. avgusta 2006 sprejetih 44 sodb Sodišča, od katerih se jih je 40 nanašalo na vprašanja za predhodno odločanje. Trideset sodb je bilo povezanih s področjem uporabe Direktive in zlasti s pojmom prenosa. V zgoraj navedeni Direktivi 98/50/ES je ta pojem podrobno določen z vidika obsežne sodne prakse Sodišča. Videti je, da to pojasnjuje, zakaj je bila v zvezi s tem izdana ena sama sodba, kar zadeva prenose po 17. juliju 2001 (rok za prenos Direktive). PODROčJE UPORABE (čLENA 1 IN 2) Osebno področje uporabe Zadevni subjekti Direktiva se uporablja za prenose podjetij, obratov ali delov podjetij ali obratov. Te pojme je mogoče združiti pod splošnejšim pojmom „gospodarski subjekt“, ki ga je treba v Direktivi razumeti kot organiziran skupek sredstev, na podlagi katerega je mogoče opravljati gospodarsko dejavnost za dosego lastnega cilja. Z vidika dejavnosti je bistveni dejavnik, ki subjekt označuje za podjetje ali obrat, opravljanje gospodarske dejavnosti, z drugimi besedami dejstvo, da dobavlja blago ali ponuja storitve na trgu. Dejavnosti, ki vključujejo izvajanje javne oblasti, ne spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive. Prenosi, ki vključujejo morska plovila, so izrecno izključeni iz Direktive. Kljub temu se nacionalne določbe o prenosu Direktive v dvanajstih državah članicah uporabljajo za morska plovila (glej vprašanje 1.5 Priloge I). Delavci, na katere se varstvo nanaša Pojem „delavec“ se nanaša na vsako osebo, za katero v zadevni državi članici velja varstvo delavca v okviru delovnopravne zakonodaje. Varstvo velja za vse delavce, vključno z zaposlenimi za določen čas ali za skrajšan delovni čas. Stvarno področje uporabe Da lahko govorimo o prenosu, morata biti izpolnjena dva pogoja: (a) sprememba delodajalca in (b) preneseni subjekt mora ohraniti svojo identiteto. Sprememba delodajalca V pogodbenih razmerjih se mora spremeniti pravna ali fizična oseba, ki je odgovorna za opravljanje dejavnosti in ki prevzame obveznosti delodajalca do delavcev nekega subjekta. Pri prenosu lastništva večjega dela delnic podjetja ali spremembi večine delničarjev ne gre za prenos podjetja, ker pravna oseba delodajalca ostane nespremenjena. Komisija meni, da revizija Direktive, na podlagi katere bi v pojem prenosa vključili spremembo nadzora, kot to predlaga Evropska konfederacija sindikatov (glej vprašanje 4 Priloge I), na tej stopnji ni upravičena. Čeprav sprememba nadzora lahko povzroči spremembe v podjetju, je dejstvo, da se pravni položaj delavcev do delodajalca ne spremeni. V vsakem primeru bodo te spremembe v skladu z Direktivo 2002/14/ES[4] predmet ustreznih ukrepov obveščanja in posvetovanja. Ohranitev identitete Ohranitev identitete se hkrati odraža z nadaljevanjem istih dejavnosti v okviru novega delodajalca in z ohranitvijo osebja, vodstvenih delavcev, organizacije dela, metod poslovanja ali razpoložljivih sredstev za delo. Dolžnost nacionalnih sodišč je, da presodijo, ali gre glede na zadevna posebna razlagalna merila za prenos ali ne: - vrsta podjetja ali obrata; - prenos stvarnega premoženja, kot so zgradbe ali premičnine; - vrednost neopredmetenega premoženja v trenutku prenosa; - ali novi delodajalec prevzame večino delavcev ali ne; - prenos strank ali ne; - stopnja podobnosti med dejavnosti, ki se izvajajo pred prenosom in po njem; - po potrebi, obdobje začasne ukinitve dejavnosti. Vendar so vsi ti dejavniki le delni vidiki obvezne skupne ocene in jih zato ni mogoče presojati ločeno. Irski organi so predlagali spremembo pojma prenosa, da bi razjasnili uporabo Direktive pri eksternalizaciji dejavnosti, torej dodelitvi funkcije ali storitve nekega podjetja drugemu podjetju. Komisija meni, da je opredelitev prenosa v Direktivi, kot jo razlaga Sodišče, dovolj široka, da doseže svoj cilj glede varstva delavcev v primeru spremembe delodajalca v zelo različnih primerih eksternalizacije, do katerih lahko pride v nacionalnih okvirih petindvajsetih držav članic. Zato meni, da sprememba tega pojma na tej stopnji ni upravičena. Ozemeljsko področje uporabe Direktiva se uporablja, „kjer in če je podjetje, obrat ali del podjetja ali obrata, ki se prenese, na ozemlju, na katerem velja Pogodba“ (člen 1(2)) ali v državi članici Evropskega gospodarskega prostora (Norveška, Islandija, Lihtenštajn) (člen 68 Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru[5]) . Komisija in nekatere države članice (glej vprašanja 1.1–1.4 Priloge I) so ugotovile, da lahko uporaba nacionalnih ukrepov za izvajanje Direktive pri transnacionalnih prenosih povzroči težave, ki jih ni mogoče rešiti na podlagi Direktive. Direktiva namreč v nasprotju s predlogom Komisije iz leta 1974 ne vsebuje določb o kolizijskih pravilih. Kljub temu nekatere njene določbe vsebujejo izrecno sklicevanje na veljavno nacionalno pravo: na primer pojem delavca (člen 2(1)(d)) ali opredelitev pogodbe o zaposlitvi (člen 2(2)). Tudi Sodišče se je sklicevalo na zakonodajo držav članic, ko je odločalo o nekaterih vidikih prenosov podjetij. Nenazadnje Direktiva prepušča nekatere odločitve državam članicam. Čeprav lahko mednarodno zasebno pravo in zlasti Rimska konvencija[6] zagotovita rešitve v zvezi z usodo individualnih delovnih razmerij v primeru transnacionalnega prenosa, pa skupni vidiki teh prenosov (kolektivne pogodbe, varstvo predstavnikov delavcev, obveznosti obveščanja in posvetovanja) niso urejeni. Zato Komisija meni, da bi bilo lahko vprašanje transnacionalnih prenosov predmet posebne obravnave v Direktivi. OHRANJANJE PRAVIC DELAVCEV (čLENI 3 DO 5) Prenos pravic in obveznosti na pridobitelja Pravice in obveznosti, ki za odsvojitelja izhajajo iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali delovnega razmerja, ki obstaja na dan prenosa, se zaradi prenosa prenesejo na pridobitelja. Prenos teh pravic in obveznosti je samodejen že zaradi samega prenosa podjetja in ne more biti odvisen od namere odsvojitelja ali pridobitelja ali soglasja delavcev, vendar to ne sme vplivati na pravico delavca, da ne nadaljuje delovnega razmerja s pridobiteljem. Prenos se nanaša na vse pravice delavcev iz člena 3(1), ki jih ne zajemajo izjeme iz člena 3(4) (glej spodnjo točko 3.4). Morebitna solidarna odgovornost odsvojitelja in pridobitelja Odsvojitelj je načeloma oproščen odgovornosti delodajalca že na podlagi samega prenosa, ne da bi bilo za ta pravni učinek potrebno soglasje zadevnih delavcev. Kljub temu lahko države članice določijo, da je odsvojitelj po datumu prenosa še naprej odgovoren, in sicer solidarno skupaj s pridobiteljem, za obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali delovnega razmerja, ki obstaja na dan prenosa. Tako solidarnost odsvojitelja in pridobitelja dejansko predvideva štirinajst držav članic (glej vprašanje 2.1 Priloge I). Veljavna kolektivna pogodba V skladu s členom 3(3) mora pridobitelj ohraniti pogoje, sklenjene s kolektivno pogodbo, v enakem obsegu, kot jih je določil odsvojitelj, do datuma prenehanja ali izteka navedene kolektivne pogodbe ali začetka veljavnosti ali uporabe druge kolektivne pogodbe. Države članice lahko omejijo obdobje ohranitve delovnih pogojev, ki izhajajo iz kolektivne pogodbe, vendar to obdobje ne sme biti krajše od enega leta. V vsakem primeru se zadnja omejitev uporabi samo, če v roku enega leta po prenosu ni več nobene od zgornjih okoliščin. To možnost omejitve obdobja je uporabilo deset držav članic (glej vprašanje 2.2 Priloge I). Pridobitelja zavezuje samo kolektivna pogodba, veljavna v trenutku prenosa; Direktiva ne varuje hipotetičnih koristi, ki izhajajo iz naknadnih sprememb kolektivnih pogodb. Na tej stopnji Komisija meni, da Direktive ni treba pojasniti , kot to predlagajo slovaški organi, da bi se upošteval primer, ko bi prenos povzročil uporabo več kolektivnih pogodb. V takih primerih bi namreč sklenitev nove kolektivne pogodbe, kot to dovoljuje člen 3(3), morala pripeljati do poenotenja delovnih pogojev. Neuporaba Direktive pri nadomestilih, dodeljenih zunaj obveznih sistemov socialne varnosti Razen če države članice ne določijo drugače, prenos ne velja za pravice delavcev do starostnih prejemkov, invalidnin ali pokojnine preživelih oseb iz naslova dodatnega podjetniškega ali medpodjetniškega pokojninskega zavarovanja zunaj obveznih sistemov socialne varnosti držav članic. Zato se obveznosti odsvojitelja, ki temeljijo na neobveznih sistemih, ne prenesejo. V trinajstih državah članicah se te pravice prenesejo kot vsake druge pravice, bodisi ker so izrecno vključene, bodisi ker niso izrecno izključene. Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da se v nekaterih državah članicah dejstvo, da ne gre za izrecno vključitev, razlaga kot izključitev (glej vprašanje 2.3 Priloge I). V okviru tega je treba opozoriti, da je Komisija 20. oktobra 2005 predstavila predlog direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o izboljšanju prenosljivosti pravic do dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja[7]. Ta predlog je trenutno predmet medinstitucionalnih razprav. Sprememba delovnih pogojev Ker pridobitelj nadomesti odsvojitelja pri pravicah in obveznostih, ki izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja, Direktiva ne nasprotuje temu, da pridobitelj spremeni delovno razmerje, če veljavna nacionalna zakonodaja dovoljuje tako spremembo, tudi če ne gre za prenos podjetja. Če pogodba o zaposlitvi ali delovno razmerje preneha, ker se delovni pogoji zaradi prenosa v smislu Direktive bistveno spremenijo v škodo delavca, se šteje, da je za to prenehanje odgovoren delodajalec. Dolžnost nacionalnih sodišč je, da ugotovijo, ali pogodba o zaposlitvi, ki jo predlaga pridobitelj, vključuje bistveno spremembo delovnih pogojev v škodo delavca. Komisija meni, da ni primerno, da bi na tej stopnji sprejeli predlog Združenega kraljestva za vključitev možnosti, da delodajalec v soglasju z delavcem spremeni pogodbo o zaposlitvi in tako uskladi delovne pogoje obstoječih in prevzetih delavcev, če se delovni pogoji prevzetih delavcev zaradi takih sprememb na splošno ne bi poslabšali. Komisija namreč meni, da lahko tako uskladitev dosežemo s kolektivnimi pogodbami, ki zaradi sodelovanja predstavnikov delavcev zagotavljajo ustrezna jamstva prevzetim delavcem. Varstvo pred odpuščanjem Prenos podjetja, obrata ali dela podjetja ali obrata sam po sebi odsvojitelju ali pridobitelju ne daje podlage za odpuščanje, vendar ta določba ne preprečuje odpuščanja zaradi ekonomskih, tehničnih ali organizacijskih razlogov, ki zahtevajo kadrovske spremembe. Zato se Direktiva omejuje na prepoved odpuščanja, katerega edini razlog je prenos. Obseg Direktive v zvezi z odpuščanjem je mogoče omejiti s pravico držav članic, da ne razširijo varstva na „nekatere specifične kategorije delavcev, ki jih zakonodaja ali praksa držav članic ne varuje pred odpuščanjem“. To možnost uporabljajo samo štiri države članice (glej vprašanje 2.4 Priloge I). Delavci, ki jih odsvojitelj nezakonito odpusti malo pred prenosom podjetja in jih pridobitelj ne prevzame, se lahko zoper njega sklicujejo na nezakonitost takega odpuščanja. Pravica delavca, da ne nadaljuje delovnega razmerja s pridobiteljem Cilj Direktive je varovati pravice delavcev v primeru spremembe delodajalca, tako da jim je dana možnost, da tudi za pridobitelja delajo pod enakimi pogoji, kot so jih dogovorili z odsvojiteljem. Vendar njen namen ni, da se zagotovi nadaljevanje pogodbe, sklenjene z odsvojiteljem, kadar delavec ne želi še naprej delati za pridobitelja. Če se delavec prostovoljno odloči za prekinitev pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali delovnega razmerja s pridobiteljem, je dolžnost držav članic, da določijo, kaj se bo zgodilo s to pogodbo ali razmerjem. Zlasti lahko določijo, da se v takem primeru šteje, da je za prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali delovnega razmerja odgovoren delavec ali delodajalec. Lahko tudi določijo, da je treba ohraniti pogodbo o zaposlitvi ali delovno razmerje z odsvojiteljem. Prenosi v okviru postopka plačilne nesposobnosti Da bi zagotovili preživetje plačilno nesposobnih podjetij, člen 5 Direktive omogoča državam članicam določeno fleksibilnost. Načeloma se člena 3 in 4 Direktive ne uporabljata za postopke plačilne nesposobnosti, sprožene za likvidacijo sredstev odsvojitelja pod nadzorom pristojnega organa oblasti. Kadar se ta dva člena kljub temu uporabljata pri postopku plačilne nesposobnosti pod nadzorom pristojnega organa oblasti, lahko države članice na podlagi člena 5(2) določijo: (a) da se nekatere obveznosti odsvojitelja ne prenesejo na pridobitelja pod jasno navedenimi pogoji v tem členu, ali (b) da se delovni pogoji delavca pod določenimi pogoji spremenijo. Enajst držav članic uporablja pri prenosih, ko je odsvojitelj predmet stečajnega postopka, nacionalne določbe za prenos členov 3 in 4 Direktive. Šest držav članic je izkoristilo možnosti, ki jih daje člen 5(2) (glej vprašanji 2.6 in 2.7 Priloge I). Kar zadeva praktične učinke teh določb, države članice nimajo informacij, da naj bi se zaradi uporabe teh odstopanj povečalo število rešenih podjetij, ki so bila plačilno nesposobna (glej vprašanje 2.8 Priloge I). Prenos odsvojitelja, ki je v resnih gospodarskih težavah Italija je edina država članica, ki je 17. julija 1998 imela nacionalno zakonodajo, v kateri je bil opredeljen primer resne gospodarske krize, ki izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 5(3), in ki bi torej lahko zakonito dovolila spremembo delovnih pogojev v skladu s členom 5(2)(b). Vendar Komisija meni, da italijanska zakonodaja presega to preprosto spremembo delovnih pogojev, ker delavce iz podjetij v težavah izključuje iz ugodnosti členov 3 in 4 Direktive.V teh okoliščinah se je Komisija odločila, da bo Italiji omogočila, da v skladu s členom 226 ES (kršitev št. 2005/2433) predstavi svoje pripombe v zvezi s tem. Zato je priprava poročila o učinkih te določbe, predvidenega v drugi alinei člena 5(3), brezpredmetna. VARSTVO FUNKCIJ PREDSTAVNIKOV DELAVCEV (čLEN 6) Namen člena 6 Direktive je zagotoviti stalnost funkcije zastopanja in varstva zadevnih oseb. Kar zadeva stalnost funkcije zastopanja, ne smemo pozabiti, da čeprav preneseni obrat ohrani svojo neodvisnost, z drugimi besedami še naprej obstaja kot ločena poslovna enota, in ga ne prevzame kompleksnejša struktura, je treba ohraniti status in funkcijo predstavnikov ali zastopanja delavcev, ki jih zadeva prenos, kot sta določena z nacionalno zakonodajo držav članic. Vendar se ta določba ne uporablja, če so v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo izpolnjeni pogoji, potrebni za novo imenovanje predstavnikov delavcev. Predstavniki delavcev, ki jih zadeva prenos in katerih mandat zaradi navedenega prenosa poteče, „še naprej uživajo varstvo, ki ga zagotavljajo predpisi ali praksa držav članic“. OBVEščANJE IN POSVETOVANJE (čLEN 7) Odsvojitelj in pridobitelj sta dolžna predstavnikom svojih delavcev zagotoviti določene informacije. Medtem ko je obveznost obveščanja splošna, pa je obveznost zagotavljanja posvetovanj omejena. Zadnja obveznost velja, kadar odsvojitelj ali pridobitelj načrtuje ukrepe v zvezi z zaposlenimi, na primer zmanjšanje njihovega števila. Posvetovanje se izvede „za dosego soglasja“. Države članice morajo sprejeti primerne ukrepe, da se v namene obveščanja in posvetovanja iz člena 7 imenujejo predstavniki delavcev. Na podlagi tega daje Direktiva državam članicam proste roke pri določitvi podrobnih pravil imenovanja predstavnikov delavcev. Obveznosti obveščanja in posvetovanja se uporabljata ne glede na to, ali se za prenos odloči delodajalec ali podjetje, ki ga nadzira. Države članice lahko navedeni obveznosti omejijo na podjetja ali obrate, ki glede števila zaposlenih delavcev izpolnjujejo pogoje za izvolitev ali imenovanje kolektivnega telesa za zastopanje delavcev. To možnost je izkoristilo šest držav (glej vprašanje 3.2 Priloge I). Če v nekem podjetju ali obratu ni predstavnikov delavcev, je treba v vsakem primeru o tem predhodno obvestiti zadevne delavce. Francoski organi menijo, da bi moral delodajalec pridobitelj ne glede na obvezno obveščanje predstavnikov delavcev urediti posamično obveščanje zaposlenih o vseh pravicah, ki bodo začele veljati po prenosu. Vendar Komisija meni, da obstoječe obveznosti obveščanja zadostujejo za pomoč delavcem pri obrambi njihovih pravic, ne da bi delodajalcem naložili pretirane obremenitve. Kljub temu imajo države pravico, če menijo, da je to primerno, da v skladu s členom 8 Direktive te obveznosti razširijo na nacionalni ravni. Zato Komisija meni, da sprememba Direktive v tej točki na tej stopnji ni upravičena. SKLEP Skoraj trideset let po sprejetju Direktive 77/187/EGS Komisija meni, da bo še naprej imela bistveno vlogo pri varstvu pravic delavcev. To besedilo je v pravni red številnih držav članic, ki ga prej niso poznale, uvedlo načelo ohranitve pogodb o zaposlitvi kljub spremembi pravne osebnosti delodajalca. Poleg tega je sprememba iz leta 1998 na eni strani omogočila natančno opredelitev pojma prenosa z vidika obsežne sodne prakse Sodišča in na drugi strani državam članicam zagotovila določeno fleksibilnost pri uporabi nekaterih določb, zlasti v primerih plačilne nesposobnosti odsvojitelja. Ker je bilo z Direktivo doseženo pravo ravnovesje med varstvom delavca in svobodo opravljanja gospodarske dejavnosti, je s socialnega vidika precej pripomogla k večji sprejemljivosti številnih primerov prestrukturiranja v Evropi. Vendar Komisija meni, da lahko dejstvo, da vprašanje čezmejnih prenosov ni izrecno obravnavano v Direktivi, ki kljub temu določa svojo uporabo pri prenosih, pri katerih podjetje, ki se prenese, spada na ozemeljsko področje uporabe Pogodbe, povzroči negotovost za delodajalce in delavce. Poleg tega Komisija meni, da so širitev EU in utrditev notranjega trga ter globalizacija in lažje izvajanje čezmejnih dejavnosti na podlagi uredb o evropski družbi[8] in evropski zadrugi[9] ali na podlagi direktive o čezmejnih združitvah[10] dejavniki, ki lahko povečajo pojav čezmejnih prenosov. Zato Komisija meni, da bi bilo Direktivo mogoče spremeniti za pojasnitev tega vprašanja, kar bi pripomoglo k izboljšanju pravnega reda Skupnosti. V ta namen se namerava na podlagi člena 138(2) Pogodbe posvetovati s socialnimi partnerji. Technical annex Overview of the replies to the questionnaire on Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses Questions 1.1 and 1.2 | Do the national measures adopted in your country to implement the Directive apply to transfers of undertakings from your country to another Member State or to another country of the EEA (Article 1(2))? / to countries outside the EEA (Article 1(2))? | Belgium | They apply to any employer subject to the 1968 Law on Collective Agreements. In the case of cross-border transfers only the party located in Belgium will be subject to Belgian law. | Czech Republic | They apply to all labour law relationships subject to the Labour Code. Changes of place of work in connection with transfers involve termination of the employment relationship for organisational reasons with three months' notice and entitlement to severance pay. | Denmark | Yes, if the conditions are met for the employees concerned. | Germany | Yes, provided German law is applicable under private international law. | Estonia | Yes, provided the employment contract is concluded under Estonian law. | Greece | The business to be transferred must be situated within the EU. | Spain | Yes. The starting point is the Rome Convention. The applicable law will depend on the time of transfer: before or after the change of place of work. | France | In principle yes, but account should be taken of possible mobility clauses. | Ireland | Yes. They are not specifically excluded. | Italy | Yes, to the countries where the Rome Convention applies. | Cyprus | Yes, no special exclusion. | Latvia | Yes. | Lithuania | Yes. | Luxembourg | Yes, they apply to undertakings located in Luxembourg. | Hungary | Yes. Hungary's provisions apply to all employment relationships on the basis of which work is performed in Hungary and also to work performed temporarily abroad. | Malta | Yes, they apply to undertakings situated in the EEA. | Netherlands | Yes, there is no special exclusion. | Austria | Yes, but not outside Austria. Territoriality principle. | Poland | No specific provisions. Need to use international private law. | Portugal | Yes, by virtue of the Rome Convention. | Slovenia | Yes. Labour law applies to employment relationships between employers that have their registered office or residence in Slovenia and workers employed by them. It also applies to employment relationships between foreign employers and workers that are based on an employment contract in Slovenia. | Slovak Republic | Yes, no special exclusion. | Finland | No specific provision. | Sweden | Not explicitly addressed. It would be for the ECJ to rule. | United Kingdom | Yes, to transfers of businesses situated in the UK immediately before the transfer. | Iceland | They Act apply to all countries of the EEA, to the Faeroe Islands and to member states of the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association. | Liechtenstein | They do not make a difference between transfers of undertakings from Liechtenstein to another EEA Member State or to countries outside the EEA. For cross-border transfers § 1173a Art. 43 ff ABGB and the regulations of the IPRG have to be considered. | Norway | The issue of cross border transfers not explicitly addressed in the national rules or in the preparatory works. | Question 1.3 | Are the provisions of the Directive suitable for the cross-border transfers mentioned in points 1.1 and 1.2? | Belgium | There should be no major problems in case of transfers within the EEA. Possible problems in the case of non-EEA countries. | Czech Republic | Yes. | Denmark | Yes. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | No problems detected so far. | Greece | Yes. | Spain | The problems raised by the Directive are general (not specific to cross-border transfers) and stem from the diversity of situations that can arise. | France | No. The absence of express provisions on conflict of law creates problems. | Ireland | No. Greater clarity is needed about the applicable law, jurisdiction and enforcement. | Italy | The Rome Convention suffices. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No problems detected so far. | Lithuania | Yes. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | No problem so far. | Malta | No obstacle to application of the national rules implementing the Directive. | Netherlands | No practical experience. | Austria | Yes. | Poland | Yes. The Rome Convention suffices. | Portugal | The Rome Convention applies. | Slovenia | Slovene labour law does not cover enforcement of rights in case of cross-border transfers. It would be necessary to apply the rules of the different legal systems involved. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | The Directive should state that it applies to cross-border situations. | Sweden | No practical experience. | United Kingdom | There would intrinsically be greater difficulties in enforcing rights against foreign-based transferees. | Iceland | No particular problems or conflicts that have arisen in connection with these specific provisions | Liechtenstein | Yes | Norway | As long as there is no court cases on cross border transfers in Norway, we do not know the effects of the provisions in the Directive (or the Norwegian implementation of the Directive). A discussion should be based on the eventual problems that do occur in practice. Therefore Norway sees the need for a study of the effects of the Directive when it comes to protection of workers in the case of cross border transfers. | Question 1.4 | Do you consider that cross-border transfers from your country or to your country are increasing in number or are likely to increase in number? | Belgium | They are likely to increase. | Czech Republic | Likely to increase. | Denmark | Increase expected. | Germany | Likely to increase. | Estonia | The employers' confederation has predicted an increase. | Greece | Currently no cases. | Spain | Likely to increase. | France | No information available. | Ireland | Increase expected. | Italy | No specific information available. | Cyprus | Not likely to increase due to the geographical characteristics of the island. | Latvia | No information available. | Lithuania | No information available. | Luxembourg | No such trend has been noted. | Hungary | No data on transfers. Stabilisation of the number of foreign companies in Hungary. Increase in the number of Hungarian companies abroad. | Malta | No data available. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | Likely to increase. | Poland | No cases reported. Difficult to speculate. | Portugal | No cases reported. | Slovenia | Likely to increase. | Slovak Republic | Likely to increase. | Finland | Likely to increase. | Sweden | No statistics available. | United Kingdom | No statistics available, but likely to increase. | Iceland | No significant changes have been noted. | Liechtenstein | There are no statistics concerning cross-border transfers. | Norway | In Norway there are no specific statistics on "transfers of undertakings" available. | Question 1.5 | Do the national measures adopted in your country to implement the Directive apply to seagoing vessels (Article 1(3))? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | Yes. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | Yes. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | Yes, except for possible specific rules in the Navigation Code. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | Yes. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | Yes. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | Yes. | Poland | Yes. | Portugal | Yes. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | Specific provisions in force. | Sweden | Yes. | United Kingdom | Yes, but there are limitations if a UK-registered ship situated in the UK immediately before the transfer ceases to be UK-registered as a result of the transfer. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | The Principality of Liechtenstein being a midland, the exemption in Article 1 (3) of the Directive has not been implemented into national law . | Norway | No. | Question 2.1 | Do your national provisions provide for joint liability from transferor and transferee in respect of obligations which arose before the date of transfer from a contract of employment or an employment relationship existing on the date of the transfer (Article 3(1))? | Belgium | Yes, except debts from supplementary pension schemes. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes, for debts which arose before the transfer and are due to be met within one year after the transfer. | Estonia | Yes, for debts which arose before the transfer and are due to be met within one year after the transfer. | Greece | Yes. | Spain | Yes, for 3 years after the transfer (or 4 years in the case of social security debts). | France | Yes, except in the cases of insolvency proceedings and of successive contracts without any direct contractual link between transferor and transferee. | Ireland | No. | Italy | Yes. | Cyprus | No, only by agreement between transferor and transferee. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. Only subsidiary responsibility for three years. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | Yes, provided claims are enforced within one year after the transfer. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | Yes, for one year after the transfer. | Austria | Yes. | Poland | Only for transfers of parts of undertakings. Not for transfers of whole undertakings. | Portugal | Yes, for one year after the transfer. | Slovenia | Only for claims made prior to the transfer and claims due to termination of contracts. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | Yes. | Sweden | Yes, except insolvency situations or old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits. | United Kingdom | No, except: a) compensation for failure to consult or inform and b) in the case of public employers, liabilities for injuries or disease which arose before the transfer. | Iceland | Yes. | Liechtenstein | Yes. | Norway | Yes. | Question 2.2 | Do your national provisions implementing Article 3(3) limit the period for observing, following the transfer, the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement? If the reply is yes, please indicate the period. | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes: one year. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | No. | France | Yes: one year plus three months' notice. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | Minimum period for observing any collective agreement is one year. | Latvia | Provisions of any collective agreement cannot be amended to the detriment of the employee for one year. | Lithuania | No, except in bankruptcy proceedings. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | Yes: one year. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | Yes: one year. | Poland | Yes: one year. | Portugal | Yes: one year. | Slovenia | Yes: one year. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | Yes: one year. | United Kingdom | No. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | Yes: One year. | Norway | Yes. According to Section 16-2, 2nd paragraph, the transferee must observe the terms and conditions agreed to in a collective agreement prior to the transfer, unless the transferee explicitly declares in writing within three weeks of the transfer, that he does not want to be bound by the agreement. However, the transferred workers are entitled to keep their individual conditions of employment that arise from the collective agreement agreed to by the transferor, until the collective agreement expires, or a new collective agreement is entered into by the transferee and the transferred employees. | Question 2.3 | Does the transfer of rights and obligations under the national provisions implementing paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 3 apply in relation to employees' rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the statutory social security schemes (Article 3(4)(a))? | Belgium | No: specifically excluded unless there is a collective agreement to the contrary. | Czech Republic | Those schemes are not regulated by legislation in the Czech Republic. At present there is only legislation on supplementary pension schemes with a State contribution. | Denmark | No, not specifically included. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | Yes: no specific rules. | Greece | Yes. | Spain | Yes: specifically included. | France | Yes. | Ireland | No, not specifically included. | Italy | Yes: all rights are transferred. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | Yes, not specifically excluded. | Lithuania | Yes, if they are part of a collective agreement. | Luxembourg | No, not specifically included. | Hungary | No. The supplementary pension funds regulated in Hungary are not company or inter-company pension schemes since they are not linked to employment. | Malta | Yes. | Netherlands | Yes, unless the transferee itself operates a pension scheme, in which case it can choose which of the two. | Austria | Yes, but the transferee has the right to object to the transfer sufficiently in advance. | Poland | Yes. | Portugal | Yes. Since they may be established by collective agreement, they are transferred in the same way. | Slovenia | No, there is no regulation on this matter. | Slovak Republic | No. They are not organised/managed by the employer. | Finland | Yes, they are considered employment benefits that are transferred just like all other rights and obligations. | Sweden | No. However, if they are established in a collective agreement they are transferred in the same way. | United Kingdom | No, but if there is a transfer the transferee has to provide a minimum level of pension provision to employees who were entitled to participate in a scheme run by the transferor. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | Yes, they are transferred to the new employer. However, the transferee has the option of applying existing pension schemes to the transferred employees after the transfer. In situations where the pension schemes cannot be transferred (e.g. transfers from public to private sector, where membership in the State pension fund cannot be upheld), the transferee is obliged to ensure that the transferred workers' are covered by another group pension scheme. | Question 2.4 | Has the possibility laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)[11] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | No. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes: for senior managers. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | Yes: for fixed-term employment contracts. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | No. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | Yes: for managers, relatives of the employer, employees working in the employer's household and employees who are employed for work with special employment support or in sheltered employment. | United Kingdom | Yes: for employees who do not have one year's qualifying service with their employer. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.5 | Do your national provisions implementing Articles 3 and 4 apply to transfers of undertakings where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings mentioned in Article 5(1)? | Belgium | Not in cases of bankruptcy ("faillite"), but they apply in cases of pre-bankruptcy ("concordat judiciaire"). | Czech Republic | Yes. | Denmark | Yes. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | Yes, if the trustee transfers employment contracts. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | Not in cases of administration ("redressement judiciaire") or receivership ("liquidation judiciaire") but they apply in cases of preservation ("sauvegarde"). | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | Yes. However, the administrator can dismiss employees. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | Yes. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | Yes. | Portugal | Yes. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No, unless the transferor and transferee were under the same control. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | Yes. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.6 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 5(2)(a)[12] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | Yes. It is provided for in Article 8 bis of collective agreement (CCT) No 32 bis in cases of pre-bankruptcy ("concordat judiciaire"). | Czech Republic | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Denmark | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Germany | Yes, through Court interpretations of national law. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | Yes. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Luxembourg | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Hungary | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | Yes. The purchaser of a bankrupt company purchases it free of liabilities and is not responsible for the obligations of the bankrupt. | Portugal | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | Yes, for certain pre-existing debts. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.7 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 5(2)(b)[13] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | Yes. It is provided for in Article 8 bis of collective agreement (CCT) No 32 bis in cases of pre-bankruptcy ("concordat judiciaire"). | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes: the insolvency administrator can give notice of dismissals in view of the transfer. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | Yes, through use of the possibility granted by Article 5(3). | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | Nothing stops parties from concluding a collective agreement to this effect. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | Yes. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.8 | Do you consider that the number of insolvent undertakings that have survived in your country has increased thanks to the use of the derogations provided for in Article 5(2)? | Belgium | No information available. | Czech Republic | N.A. | Denmark | N.A. | Germany | The legislation in place was already in force in Germany before. Therefore no change has been noted. | Estonia | N.A. | Greece | N.A. | Spain | No information available, but it appears to have been useful. | France | N.A. | Ireland | N.A. | Italy | Yes, but there are no specific data. | Cyprus | N.A. | Latvia | N.A. | Lithuania | N.A. | Luxembourg | No information available. | Hungary | N.A. | Malta | N.A. | Netherlands | N.A. | Austria | N.A. | Poland | No information available. | Portugal | N.A. | Slovenia | N.A. | Slovak Republic | N.A. | Finland | N.A. | Sweden | N.A. | United Kingdom | Too early to say. Changes have only just been introduced. | Iceland | N.A. | Liechtenstein | N.A. | Norway | N.A. | Question 3.1 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 7(3)[14] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | No. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. No such recourse to an arbitration board is provided for in Luxembourg. | Hungary | No. There is no such arbitration board. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. No such recourse to an arbitration board is provided for in Poland. | Portugal | No. No such recourse to an arbitration board is provided for in Portugal. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | No. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. The Norwegian legislation does not provide for any such arbitration board. | Question 3.2 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 7(5)[15] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes: undertakings with more than 20 employees. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | No limit for information purposes. For consultation purposes in certain circumstances: undertakings with more than 6 employees. | France | Yes. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | Consultations take place only with employees' representatives (who are elected in undertakings with more than 5 workers). | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | No. | Malta | Yes: undertakings with more than 20 employees. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | No. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | Yes: the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings applies to enterprises with at least 30 employees. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | No. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Questions 4.1 and 4.2 | Do you consider that any provision in the Directive needs clarification or improvement? If the reply is yes, please specify which provisions and the problems encountered. Do you have any concrete drafting proposal to overcome the problems identified? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Estonia | The Estonian Employers' Confederation considers that the broad range of possible interpretations of Article 1 of the Directive cause legal uncertainty and court actions. The Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions sees no need to amend the Directive. | Greece | No. | Spain | No. | France | In addition to the information due to employees' representatives, each employee should be informed by the transferee about his or her rights after the transfer. | Ireland | Yes. The Directive does not address the issue of outsourcing. The exclusions arising as a result of application of the principles of the Süzen ECJ ruling are unfair and particularly victimise low-paid workers. It is essential that measures be introduced to recognise that the work performed by a worker is an economic asset with potential to generate profit. | Italy | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | No. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | The issue of cross-border transfers creates doubts. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | Yes, it is necessary to clarify Article 3(3) of the Directive in cases where several legal regimes under several collective agreements are transferred to an acquirer (transferee employer) and each of the collective agreements will have come into force on a different date. Is this a case of employee discrimination by the acquirer (transferee employer)? Does the collective agreement grant the most favourable conditions to employees, e.g. after three undertakings are merged if applicable to all employees of a newly established (merged) undertaking? | Finland | Yes. Cross-border application of the Directive could be clarified. | Sweden | No. Possible problems and solutions could be discussed within the Group of Experts. | United Kingdom | The UK Government considers that Article 3(1), as interpreted by the ECJ and the UK courts, places unnecessary and unhelpful restrictions on employers and employees preventing them from agreeing to vary employment contracts where the purpose of the variation is to harmonise the terms and conditions of transferring employees with those of employees already employed by the transferee. Because such harmonisation is not currently permissible, transferees are required to operate at least two sets of terms and conditions following a transfer. And because some transferees (especially those providing contract services to employers) can be involved in many transfers, there is scope for three of more sets of terms and conditions to apply across a group of employees doing the same or similar jobs. The following new second subparagraph should be inserted in Article 3(1): “This Article shall not prevent the employer and his employee whose contract of employment is, or will be, transferred from agreeing a variation of that contract by reason of such transfer, provided the sole or principal purpose of the variation is to effect harmonisation and provided the employee is no worse off overall as a result. “Harmonisation” means a measure intended to increase uniformity in the terms and conditions of employees, or prospective employees, of the transferee.” The existing second subparagraph of Article 3(1) would then become the third subparagraph. | UEAPME | No. | ETUC | Some of the measures safeguarding employees' rights provided for in the Directive (Articles 3(1), 3(2), 6 and 7) should be extended to cases of change of ownership through share purchases. | Iceland | The provisions are generally clear. It is up to the courts to interpret the provisions if problems or conflicts arise. | Liechtenstein | For the moment, there is no need for clarification or improvement. | Norway | Norway first of all sees the need for more information of the practical problems with cross border transfers. A discussion should be based on the problems that do occur in cases in practical life, and especially what kind of solutions the social partners tend to reach through negotiations instead of going to court. Norway therefore welcomes the result/report from the Commission of the effect of the Directive. Hopefully the report will identify eventually problems and/or needs for clarifications or improvements that might be of interest to discuss in the group of experts in order to find possible solutions. | [1] UL L 82, 22.3.2001, str. 16. [2] UL L 61, 5.3.1977, str. 26. Ta direktiva je eden od ukrepov, določenih v programu socialnih ukrepov EGS z dne 21. januarja 1974. [3] UL L 201, 17.7.1998, str. 88. [4] Direktiva 2002/14/ES Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. marca 2002 o določitvi splošnega okvira za obveščanje in posvetovanje z delavci v Evropski skupnosti, UL L 80, 23.3.2002, str. 29. [5] UL L 1, 3.1.1994, str. 3. [6] Rimska konvencija iz leta 1980 o uporabi prava v pogodbenih obligacijskih razmerjih (prečiščena različica), UL C 27, 26.1.1998, str. 34–46. [7] COM(2005) 507 konč. [8] Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2157/2001 z dne 8. oktobra 2001 o statutu evropske družbe (SE) (UL L 294, 10.11.2001, str. 1) [9] Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1435/2003 z dne 22. julija 2003 o statutu evropske zadruge (SCE) (UL L 207, 18.8.2003, str. 1) [10] Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/56/ES z dne 26. oktobra 2005 o čezmejnih združitvah kapitalskih družb (UL L 310, 25.11.2005, str. 1) [11] The transfer of the undertaking, business or part of the undertaking or business shall not in itself constitute grounds for dismissal by the transferor or the transferee. This provision shall not stand in the way of dismissals that may take place for economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce.Member States may provide that the first subparagraph shall not apply to certain specific categories of employees who are not covered by the laws or practice of the Member States in respect of protection against dismissal. [12] Where Articles 3 and 4 apply to a transfer during insolvency proceedings which have been opened in relation to a transferor (whether or not those proceedings have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor) and provided that such proceedings are under the supervision of a competent public authority (which may be an insolvency practitioner determined by national law) a Member State may provide that:(a) notwithstanding Article 3(1), the transferor's debts arising from any contracts of employment or employment relationships and payable before the transfer or before the opening of the insolvency proceedings shall not be transferred to the transferee, provided that such proceedings give rise, under the law of that Member State, to protection at least equivalent to that provided for in situations covered by Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. [13] Where Articles 3 and 4 apply to a transfer during insolvency proceedings which have been opened in relation to a transferor (whether or not those proceedings have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor) and provided that such proceedings are under the supervision of a competent public authority (which may be an insolvency practitioner determined by national law) a Member State may provide that: (b) the transferee, transferor or person or persons exercising the transferor's functions, on the one hand, and the representatives of the employees on the other hand may agree alterations, in so far as current law or practice permits, to the employees' terms and conditions of employment designed to safeguard employment opportunities by ensuring the survival of the undertaking, business or part of the undertaking or business. [14] Member States whose laws, regulations or administrative provisions provide that representatives of the employees may have recourse to an arbitration board to obtain a decision on the measures to be taken in relation to employees may limit the obligations laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 to cases where the transfer carried out gives rise to a change in the business likely to entail serious disadvantages for a considerable number of the employees.The information and consultations shall cover at least the measures envisaged in relation to the employees.The information must be provided and consultations take place in good time before the change in the business as referred to in the first subparagraph is effected. [15] Member States may limit the obligations laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 to undertakings or businesses which, in terms of the number of employees, meet the conditions for the election or nomination of a collegiate body representing the employees.