WRITTEN QUESTION E-1647/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Works councils and redundancies.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, industrial restructuring, labour law, transfer of businesses, worker consultation, worker information

C 81 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

(2002/C 81 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1647/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Works councils and redundancies

In Portugal, as in other countries of the European Union, there have been a series of closures and
relocations of multinationals to eastern Europe or Asia, as a result of which thousands of workers have
been made redundant, jobs have become increasingly precarious and the economic and social cost has
been high, particularly for the areas directly affected, undermining economic and social cohesion.

the most recent cases in Portugal, mention might be made of the plans by the British group
Of
Marks & Spencer to close their stores, the proposals by J.C. Clark to make hundreds of workers redundant,
the closures of the French-owned firm Moda Real and of Vesticom, belonging to the British group Coats
and Clark, along with various instances of multinationals in the electrical sector which are set to cut back
their activities in Portugal, such as Delphy and Indelma, as well as pressure exerted by Siemens on Tyco for
workers to rescind their contracts.

In a number of cases, these multinationals have received Community and national funding but have
continued to act exclusively in line with their own interests in terms of profits. This calls for urgent
measures to prevent the situation from continuing.

Can the Commission say what urgent measures it will take to protect workers in these companies?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the 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 cases raised by the Honourable
Member.

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 European
Community (4) on which political agreement on a common position was reached by the Council 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.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/47

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.

Moreover, the Commission adopted on 18 July 2001 a Green Paper 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 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 (European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC)) should be set up as
soon as possible. The first meeting of the Steering Committee of the EMCC took place on 6 June 2001 and
there will be a launch conference on 23 October 2001.

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
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) COM(98) 612 final.
(5) COM(2000) 379 final.

(2002/C 81 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1656/01

by Raimon Obiols i Germ(cid:224) (PSE) to the Council

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Harmful tax competition

The OECD has been working for some years now on the preparation of an international code to combat
harmful tax competition, in a climate of growing consensus on the need to abolish tax havens, large-scale
tax avoidance and money laundering. In this connection, in June 2000 a body linked to the OECD, the
International Financial Action Group, called on over thirty countries to clarify their financial systems and
published a list of fifteen especially (cid:145)uncooperative(cid:146) countries. This initiative was supported by the US
Administration.

In May 2001 the new Treasury Secretary of the Bush Administration declared that this stance on tax
havens was not
in line with the new US Administration(cid:146)s (cid:145)tax and economic priorities(cid:146), adding
unequivocally that (cid:145)the United States does not support efforts to dictate to any country what its own tax
rates or tax system should be, and will not participate in any initiative to harmonise world tax systems(cid:146).

These declarations have, obviously, given rise to concern in large parts of the international community.
There is widespread indignation existing at the fact that organised crime can, as things stand, finance itself
unpunished at international level, coupled with anxiety that the new US Administration is, as it seems,
rejecting the idea of cooperation in any initiative for global governance.