WRITTEN QUESTION E-0836/01 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission. Hive-off of Major Repairs Shop in San Nicola (Melfi).
Date: 2001-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU employment policy, Italy, cessation of trading, industrial restructuring, labour law

C 350 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2001)

From the information provided by the Honourable Member it would appear that the shipment from
Greece to Germany (via Italy) of the waste in question has not taken place as it was prevented from leaving
the port of Patras due to the lack of facilities for the operation. In view of this, it would not appear that
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of
waste within, into and out of the Community (1) is material at this stage.

As far as the storage of the liquid toxic waste is concerned, the Commission has no information as to its
whereabouts or management, as under the Community system of waste management,
there is no
obligation to inform the Commission of all particular incidents.

It is the role of Member States to ensure a correct implementation of their Community Law obligations in
particular pertaining to the environmentally sound management of their waste, as prescribed notably under
the Directive on Waste, Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC
on waste (2).

it

If
transpires that Greece has failed to comply with this obligation (and to establish this, more
information and evidence would be required), it is open to the Honourable Member or to any other person
concerned to file a complaint with the Commission.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2001/C 350 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0836/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Hive-off of Major Repairs Shop in San Nicola (Melfi)

The company Trenitalia S.p.A. of the FS Group (Italian state railways) has decided, without the consent of
the national and local social partners, to hive off the Major Repairs Shop in San Nicola di Melfi, a factory
which repairs low-power diesel engines and switching locomotives and whose infrastructure is one of the
newest and most technologically advanced of those of the (cid:145)Rolling Stock Technologies(cid:146) unit.

Some work orders are currently being diverted to the sister repair shop in Rimini, whilst others are being
blocked in the various factories belonging to Trenitalia(cid:146)s customers.

The factory in question was perhaps the only one which constructively complied with all Community
regulations, also in the field of environmental protection.

Its closure has led to the loss of 200 jobs in the region and has greatly damaged the economy of an area in
which there is already a great deal of unemployment.

It would also appear that no private company is able to repair this kind of engine at such low costs as
those achieved by the Melfi factory, with the same guarantee of quality.

Can the Commission say what measures it intends to take, in collaboration with the Italian Government, to
help bring about a positive outcome to this affair?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/47

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the central issue of social consequences of corporate
restructuring.

As far as existing European legislation on the protection of employees in cases of corporate restructuring is
concerned, national
legislation implementing a number of Directives in the field of labour law and
industrial relations apply and have to be respected, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 June
1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; (1) and
Council Directive 77/187/EC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the safeguarding of employees(cid:146) rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
part of businesses (2), modified by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 (3).

As these Directives have been transposed into national law, it is up to the national administrative or
judicial authorities to decide if any infringements have taken place in the case concerning the company
Trenitalia S.p.A. of the FS Group.

The Commission has repeatedly stressed the need to ensure that corporate restructuring is done in
a socially acceptable way and, as a consequence, has underlined the urgency of strengthening employees(cid:146)
information and consultation rights, particularly in the context of the spate of restructuring and the
numerous mergers and take-overs we are faced with on an almost daily basis.

This was the central preoccupation of the Commission in the preparation of its proposal for a Council
Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community (4)
on which political agreement on a common position was reached by the Council of Ministers on 11 June
2001. The aim of the Directive is to improve the information and consultation rights of workers employed
in individual companies as well as to fill
in the gaps in provisions for employee information and
consultation at national and Community levels. The directive has to be seen as one concrete answer at
Community level to the concerns of European citizens resulting from the insecurity emerging from
successive waves of mass operations of corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, etc, normally
accompanied by job-losses.

This Directive once finally adopted by the Council and the Parliament and implemented in the Member
States will afford to employees in companies of at least 50 workers (even if they are subsidiaries of
a multinational group) a number of basic rights: the right to information about recent and upcoming
developments in company activity, about the company(cid:146)s economic and financial situation, the right to be
informed and consulted on employment issues and on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in
work organisation as well as the right to know how the company proposes to handle those changes.

In its Social Policy Agenda (5), the Commission proposed the creation of an observatory on change to be
developed in the Dublin Foundation. The proposal was endorsed by the Stockholm European Council
stating that such an observatory should be set up as soon as possible

the Commission intends to present a Green Paper

Moreover,
in July 2001 on corporate social
responsibility underlining that restructuring in a socially responsible manner means to balance the
interests and concerns of all the stakeholders who are affected by the changes and decisions.

In conclusion, Europe must face industrial restructuring (cid:129) which can contribute to increased competitive-
ness and economic growth (cid:129) and its social consequences by combining innovation with social cohesion
and improving its capacity to manage change. The Commission takes a comprehensive approach as

C 350 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

outlined above through improving our capacity to anticipate and manage change through the Dublin
Observatory; by creating legal mechanisms to ensure adequate protection of workers in situations of
industrial restructuring; and by developing corporate social responsibility.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
(2) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.
(3) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.
(4) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.
(5) COM(2000) 379 final.

(2001/C 350 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of limits on residues by the 15 EU Member States

John McCartin, MEP, tabled a written question to the Commission concerning
On 30 March 2000,
(cid:145)maximum permissible residue limits and residue surveillance policy(cid:146) (E-1114/00 (1)). On the basis of data
provided by the pharmaceutical industry, the CVMP in London determines maximum permissible residues
for the active ingredients of veterinary medicines destined for use in food-producing animals.

The 15 EU Member States are required by law to submit their food-residue monitoring programmes for
the coming year and the results for the previous year to the Commission. The results indicate the incidence
of residues from veterinary medicines in food samples from the European Union.

Only one EU Member State (cid:129) the United Kingdom (cid:129) publishes such detailed results every three months.
The other Member States fail to comply or else publish incomplete information, in some cases on the
Internet. Yet complete and transparent publication of such residue results by all EU Member States could
promote consumer confidence.

Can the Commission confirm that only one EU Member State (cid:129) the United Kingdom (cid:129) publishes
a detailed overview of residues of veterinary medicines detected in food samples every three months? If
not, do other EU Member States similarly publish (at the same intervals and in the same degree of detail)
the quantities of residues detected in food samples?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

According to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996, on measures to monitor certain substances
forward to the
and residues thereof
Commission, on a yearly basis, the results of their residue and substance detection plans and of their
control measures. Member States shall make public the outcome of the implementation of the plans(cid:146).

in live animals and animal products (1),

(cid:145)Member States shall

In accordance with these requirements, every year, before 31 March,
the Commission receives the
monitoring plans of the Member States and the results of their plan of the previous year. It is the task of
the Commission to evaluate this information. However, it is the responsibility of the Member States to
make public their results, but the Directive does not specify under which form.

The Commission is not aware of the refusal of any Member State to provide this information upon
request.