Commission staff working paper - Report on the implementation of the European social partners' - Framework Agreement on Telework {COM(2008) 412 final}
Date: 2008-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European social policy, economic and social cohesion, education policy, employment policy, free movement of persons, globalisation, health policy, migration policy, young person

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 

   EN 

 
 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Report on the implementation of the European social partners' 
Framework Agreement on Telework 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

6. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Background to the Framework Agreement on Telework............................................. 4 

The implementation process ........................................................................................ 7 

Implementation in the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway................................. 9 

Key issues concerning the implementation process................................................... 33 

Analysis of the implementation process and outcomes ............................................. 48 

The choice of instruments .......................................................................................... 48 

The level of protection ............................................................................................... 50 

A dynamic implementation process ........................................................................... 51 

Added value and impact............................................................................................. 53 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 54 

Annex ......................................................................................................................... 56 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Framework Agreement on Telework is the first autonomous agreement negotiated by the 
European social partners and as such it represents a landmark in EU industrial relations. For 
the first time,  the  European social  partners and their member organisations at national level 
directly  addressed  the  emerging  challenge  posed  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  the  European  Union  and  the  countries  of  the 
European  Economic  Area  (EEA).  The  Agreement  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 contributed to achieving the Community's objectives 
and  whether  there  is  scope  for  improvement.  Respecting  the  principle  of  autonomy  of  the 
social partners and giving priority to monitoring undertaken by them, it examines in detail the 
implementing measures taken by the social partners and public authorities in all EU Member 
States  and  the  EEA  countries  whose  social  partners  participate  in  the  European  social 
dialogue, i.e. Iceland and Norway. It takes account 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 Framework 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 contributed 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 technologies 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 implementation report of October 2006 and the 

joint reports by national social partners; 

–  the  replies  from  the  Member  States'  authorities  to  a  questionnaire  sent  by  the 

Commission in March 2007; 

–  information from the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO)2; 

–  a report prepared for the Commission by an independent expert3; 

–  information publicly available on the Internet, e.g. on social partners' websites. 

1 

2 

3 

Framework Agreements on Work-Related Stress (2004) 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. 
Based  at  the  European  Foundation  for  the  Improvement  of  Living  and  Working  Conditions,  Dublin; 
website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/  
Prof.  Jelle  Visser,  Amsterdam  Institute  for  Advanced  Labour  Studies  (AIAS),  University  of 
Amsterdam. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
This  Report  is  part  of  the  package  of  initiatives  adopted  together  with  the  Commission's 
Communication  A  Renewed  Social  Agenda:  Opportunities,  access  and  solidarity  in  21st 
century Europe4. It is an illustration of the important role of the European Social Dialogue in 
EU policy-making and of its capacity 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  Liaison  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  Craft,  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 and family life. Regular telework also reduces 
carbon  emissions  from  commuting  to  work  and  therefore  has  a  positive  impact  on  the 
environment.  The  Framework  Agreement  was  designed  by  the  social  partners  as  a  key 
contribution  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy  for  growth  and  jobs,  and  in 
particular  to  the  modernisation  of  labour  markets  and  the  development  of  the  information 
society in a knowledge-based economy.  

The Framework Agreement establishes a general framework 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  social  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  aspects  that  are  specific  to  distance  working  and 
which call for adaptation or special attention, such as employment conditions, data protection, 
privacy, equipment, health and safety, organisation 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 Commission under Article 138 
of the EC Treaty. The consultation document proposed a number of key criteria and principles 
which should constitute the basis of any provisions 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 procedures 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  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Agreement, 
which was published on 11 October 2006. 

4 

COM(2008) 412 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
1.1.2.  Commission consultation 

On 20 June 2000 the Commission launched a first-stage 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  particular  to  express  their  views  on  four  points:  the 
development of a set of principles to modernise employment relations; the establishment of a 
review  mechanism  for  existing  legislative  and  contractual  rules;  the  establishment  of 
framework  provisions  on  telework;  and  the  establishment  of  framework  provisions  on 
economically dependent workers. 

In view of the response from the social partners, the Commission decided to focus the second-
stage consultation6, launched on 16 March 2001, on telework. Since telework had increased 
considerably  as  a  direct  result  of  new  information  and  communication  technologies  and  in 
particular the development of the Internet, the Commission considered that it was necessary to 
formalise the practice of telework without hindering its development.  

Telework  was  recognised  as  a  form  of  work  organisation  offering  numerous  advantages  to 
both  workers  (better  reconciliation  of  work  and  family  life,  working  time  flexibility  and 
greater  autonomy)  and  employers  (more  flexible  work  organisation,  modern  results-based 
management,  and  higher  job  satisfaction  increasing  workers'  sense  of  responsibility  and 
productivity).  Nevertheless,  ensuring  that  the  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, which would facilitate the further expansion of this new form 
of  work  organisation  in  a  way  that  was  beneficial  to  both  enterprises  and  workers. 
Recognising  that  the  most  innovative  ideas  for  adapting  the  employment  framework  to 
telework,  in  particular  in  the  form  of  branch  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 number 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 
6 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/docs/modernisation1_fr.pdf  
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/docs/modernisation_II_en.pdf  

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
–  a guarantee of specific training; 

–  protection in the field of health and safety; 

–  working time; 

–  protection of privacy and protection 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  content  of  the  proposal  under  consideration  in 
accordance  with  Article  138(3)  of  the  EC  Treaty,  or  to  inform  it  of  their  wish  to  start 
negotiations in accordance with Articles 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 intention of starting negotiations with a view 
to  reaching  an  autonomous  agreement  to  be  implemented  by  the  members  of  the  signatory 
parties in the EU Member States and the EEA countries. The negotiations lasted eight months 
and led the conclusion of a draft agreement, which was then approved by the signatory parties' 
internal  decision-making  bodies.  The  Framework  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 general framework on telework at European level 
which would "encourage this new form of work organisation 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  companies  and  public  service  organisations  and  of 
reconciling work, private and family life for workers and of giving them greater autonomy in 
accomplishing  their  tasks.  The  Framework  Agreement  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  premises  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 work, using information technology, in the 
context  of  an  employment  contract/relationship,  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 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
The  Framework  Agreement  makes  it  clear  that  telework  must  be  voluntary  for  both  parties 
and  concentrates  on  the  aspects  which  are  specific  to  working  at  a  distance  from  the 
traditional  workplace.  It  identifies  the  key  areas  requiring  adaptation  or  specific  attention, 
such  as  employment  conditions,  data  protection,  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 responsibilities for implementation 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 implementation of this agreement to an ad 
hoc  group  set  up  by  the  signatory  parties,  under  the  responsibility  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  implementation  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  signatory  parties'  member  organisations  at  both 
national and sectoral levels within the different industrial relations systems. By virtue of the 
Agreement's  approval  by  the  European  organisations'  internal  decision-making  bodies,  the 
member organisations have accepted this responsibility. 

The  Agreement  was  concluded  in  2002  when  the  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 former  candidate  countries 
were  already  involved  to  some  extent  in  the  negotiation  process  and  the  signatory  parties 
invited  "their  member  organisations  in  candidate  countries  to  implement  this  agreement" 
(Clause  1).  All  of  these  former  candidate  countries  except  Turkey  are  now  all  EU  Member 
States.  Furthermore,  as  stated  above,  the  member  organisations  in  the  EEA  countries 
participating in European social dialogue (Iceland 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  applicable  under  the  national  industrial  relations 
systems. Traditional approaches to employer-worker relations and collective bargaining at all 
levels  and  to  the  role  of  legislation  and  contractual  arrangements  in  each  country  had  to  be 
respected when implementing the Framework Agreement. Implementation of the Agreement 
was therefore expected to vary from country to country. 

EN 

7 

   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 organisations throughout the implementation process. 
The Framework Agreement has been disseminated, presented and explained by the European 
organisations  to  their  members  on  various  occasions,  in  particular  under  their  integrated 
programme for technical assistance in the new Member States and candidate countries, which 
involved national seminars aimed at improving those members' participation in the European 
social dialogue. The ETUC drafted an interpretation 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 they sent a request to 
their members to report on implementation measures 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  implementation  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 Committee on 28 June 2006. 
A final version8 was presented to the press and the wider public on 11 October 2006. 

The  social  partners'  implementation  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 and 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 covered. It looks at action 
taken  to  translate  the  agreement  into  the  national  languages  and  to  disseminate  it  amongst 
members. It also analyses the choice of instruments adopted in each country to implement the 
text. Lastly, it examines the way in which the provisions of the Framework Agreement have 
been implemented, looking at each individual clause. 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 beyond the requirements of the EU text. 

The  report's  conclusions  stress  the  wide  range  of  implementation  activities.  They  point  out 
that  this  is  the  first  instance  where  an  autonomous  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  expressed  their  satisfaction  with  the  report,  the  ETUC  has 
repeatedly  stated  that,  while  the  current  report  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 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
As follow-up to the Framework Agreement on Telework, the social partners in the electricity 
sector  (Eurelectric,  EPSU  and  EMCEF)  adopted  a  joint  declaration  in  November  2002  in 
which  they  welcomed  the  cross-industry  agreement  as  relevant  to  their  sector  and  called  on 
their  member  organisations  to  implement  the  agreement  in  accordance  with  their  national 
procedures  and  practice.  Although  the  text  provides  for  monitoring,  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-industry 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,  prevention  of  isolation,  collective  rights,  etc.).  No 
follow-up activities have been reported so far. 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE EU MEMBER STATES, ICELAND AND NORWAY 

This  chapter  analyses  the  implementation  measures  taken  by  the  national  social  partners 
and/or  public  authorities  in  the  27  EU  Member  States  and  the  EEA  countries,  Iceland  and 
Norway, whose social partners participate 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  recommendation  which  could  be  implemented  at  enterprise 
level. However, according to the Austrian government, the discussions on a common national 
procedure  for  implementation,  which  took  place  between  the  Austrian  Trade  Union 
Confederation  (ÖGB)  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  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'  organisations  (WKÖ,  IV  and  VÖWG)  had  unilaterally 
published guidelines (Leitfaden) previously (15 July 2005) on implementing the Framework 
Agreement in Austria. The guidelines, which are 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  specific  regulation  of  telework. 
However,  according  to  the  Austrian  government,  general  labour  legislation  and  both 
collective  (Kollektivverträge)  and  company  agreements  (Betriebsvereinbarungen)  apply  in 
full  to  teleworkers.  The  voluntary  character  of  telework  and  equal  rights  for  teleworkers  as 
regards employment conditions are guaranteed. Provisions on health and safety, in particular 
as regards work with visual display units, are applicable as long as they are not linked to the 
workplace as such. However, access to the teleworker'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 

9 

   EN 

stipulate the voluntary character and the need for a written agreement, leaving the details to be 
regulated by company agreements. Others contain more detailed provisions on working time, 
equipment  and  costs,  prevention  of  isolation,  information  and  training,  rights  of  the  works 
council, reversibility and data protection. According to the Austrian government, even though 
all  issues  are  not  regulated  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 

labour  agreement 

In  order  to  implement  the  Framework  Agreement  on  Telework,  the  Belgian  social  partners 
adopted  a  cross-industry  collective 
(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 November 2005 by the members of the National Labour Council, 
i.e.  the  Federation  of  Enterprises  in  Belgium  (FEB-VBO),  the  "middle  classes"  (i.e.  SME) 
organisations (UCM and UNIZO), the federations of agriculture (FWA and Boerenbond) on 
the  employers'  side,  and  the  Belgian  Confederation  of  Christian  Trade  Unions  (CSC-ACV), 
the  Belgian  General  Federation  of  Labour  (FGTB-ABVV)  and  the  Belgian  Federation  of 
Liberal Trade Unions (CGSLB-ACLVB) on the workers' side.  

The  stated  purpose  of  the  collective  agreement  is  to  establish  the  principles  governing 
telework. The way it is to be applied can be determined by collective agreements at sectoral or 
company  level  to  take  account  of  the  particularities  of  branches  or  enterprises.  The  Belgian 
text follows the structure and wording of most provisions in the Framework Agreement very 
closely  (definition,  voluntary  character,  employment  conditions,  organisation  of  work, 
equipment,  data  protection,  health  and  safety,  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 regarding Belgian labour law that seem self-evident, 
such as the responsibility of the employer for the teleworker's occupational health and safety 
and the inclusion of teleworkers in the calculation of the threshold for worker representation 
bodies.  

On some aspects the Belgian agreement goes beyond the requirements of the European text. It 
requires a prior written agreement between the employer and the teleworker or an addendum 
to the work contract on the practical  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  recognises  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 employer's satellite offices from its scope. It also 
specifies in greater detail the method for calculating the costs linked to the equipment and the 
consequences of equipment breakdown. 

Collective Labour Agreement No 85 was extended 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  collective  labour  agreement  are  liable  to  penalties 
under criminal law. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Alongside  the  collective  agreement,  the  National  Labour  Council  also  adopted  Opinion 
(avis/advies) No 1528 of 9 November 2005, in which the social partners commented on the 
main points in the new agreement. It also addressed 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 introduced by the Act of 20 July 2006. 

Prior  to  the  Framework  Agreement,  specific  provisions  on  homeworking  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  law  was  amended  so  that  it  no  longer  applied  to 
teleworkers  working  from  home,  thereby  bringing  all  telework  carried  out  at  home  or 
elsewhere  within  the  scope  of  National  Labour  Agreement  No  85.  As  regards  matters  not 
regulated  by  the  collective  agreement,  the  general  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 provisions regulating telework which seem to be 
in line with the European Agreement, in particular as regards its voluntary character and the 
provision of equipment and the coverage of costs by the employer. 

2.3. 

Bulgaria 

The Bulgarian social partners which joined the European social dialogue at the beginning of 
2007,  i.e.  the  Confederation  of  Independent  Trade  Unions  in  Bulgaria  (KNSB/CITUB),  the 
Confederation of Labour Podkrepa, the Bulgarian Industrial Association (BSK/BIA) and the 
Union  for  Private  Economic  Enterprise  (SSI/UPEE),  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 collective bargaining at sectoral or undertaking 
levels  and  there  are  no  legal  obstacles  to  its  implementation.  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 conditions, health and safety, access to training, 
collective rights and the voluntary character of telework. General 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’  Confederation  (SEK)  and  the  Democratic  Labour 
Federation  of  Cyprus  (DEOK),  have  not  reported  any  action  to  implement  the  European 
Framework  Agreement  on  Telework.  However,  the  OEB  and  the  SEK  seem  to  be  currently 
conducting  negotiations  with  a  view  to  adopting  measures  to  implement  the  European 

EN 

11 

   EN 

Agreement. The intention of both organisations is to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement 
at national level and then promote its implementation at sectoral and enterprise level. 

Specific  regulation  of  telework  does  not  exist  in  Cyprus.  According  to  the  Cypriot 
Government,  however,  existing  labour  legislation  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  legislation  and  the  Framework  Agreement.  The 
Cypriot Government has not taken any initiative of its own to promote the Agreement. 

2.5. 

Czech Republic 

The Czech social partners, the Confederation 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  distributed  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 Labour 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 partners influenced this change was not clear.  

The new Article 317 stipulates that the Labour Code also covers the employment relationship 
of an employee who does not work at the employer'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 and stipulate that arrangements on working time 
scheduling and delays or breaks caused by adverse weather conditions are not applicable, and 
that  the  employee  is  entitled  neither  to  compensation  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 legally 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  workers.  Collective  and  individual  agreements 
can therefore arrange the conditions and specificities of telework. It is not clear whether any 
collective agreements have made 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  that  the  work  can  also  be  performed  at  the 
employer's premises. It makes no provision for alternating 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,  reversibility,  data  protection,  privacy,  equipment,  health  and  safety,  training  and 
collective  rights).  The  Czech  Government  nevertheless  considers  that  the  Framework 
Agreement  has  been  fully  implemented  in  Czech  law,  as  the  new  legislation  provides 
sufficient scope for the social partners to apply the rules set out in the European agreement.  

EN 

12 

   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  many  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 manufacturing industry and the 
commercial services branches. The Confederation of Danish Industry (DI) and the bargaining 
cartel  of  industry  trade  unions  (CO-industri)  concluded  an  agreement  (protokollat)  on 
telework,  distance  work  and  homework  which  entered  into  force  on  16  July  2005  and  was 
also annexed  to  the three-year collective  framework  agreement  for  the  industry  (Industriens 
overenkomst 2007-2010, Annex No 20). This replaces an earlier agreement on telework from 
1998, which was updated in the light of the European text, while guidelines drawn up by the 
same social partners in January 2002 are still applicable. The industry's agreement follows the 
provisions  of  the  Framework  Agreement  very  closely  in  all  areas,  but  introduces  slightly 
different rules on equipment and is more specific 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  Union  of  Commercial  and  Clerical  Employees 
(HK).  It  also  replaces  an  earlier  agreement  of  1998  and  is  accompanied  by  comprehensive 
guidelines  and  a  model  agreement.  The  agreement  itself,  however,  touches  only  on  a  few 
aspects of the Framework Agreement, i.e. equal rights and obligations for the teleworker, the 
employer's responsibility for equipment and the protection of privacy. 

While  those  two  agreements  cover  large  sections  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  Confederation  of  Trade  Unions  (LO)  and  the 
Confederation of Danish Employers (DA), concluded 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  European  text.  According  to  this  agreement,  the  principles  for 
carrying out telework are to be discussed locally by each company works council, taking the 
various aspects of the Framework Agreement into consideration. 

In  the  public  sector,  two  major  agreements  were  concluded  or  renewed  with  a  view  to 
implementing  the  European  Agreement.  The  Finance  Ministry  acting  in  its  capacity  as  the 
State Employer's authority for the central government sector, and 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  that  both  parties  consider  that  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  signatories  issued  joint 
guidelines  on  telework  which  cover  most  of  the  other  issues  (voluntary  character, 
reversibility, work organisation, equipment, health and safety, privacy and data protection). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

For  the  local  and  regional  government  sector,  the  trade  union  negotiating  body  for  local 
government  employees  (KTO),  Local  Government  Denmark  (KL)  and  the  Danish  Regions 
agreed in a protocol of 30 November 2005 to introduce an article into the earlier framework 
agreement on telework and homework of 30 April 1997. The article states that the European 
agreement  is  to  be  considered  as  implemented  by  the  1997  agreement,  which  however,  like 
the  other  early  agreements,  covers  some  provisions  only  (voluntary  character,  equal 
employment conditions and employer's responsibility for equipment). Again, comprehensive 
joint guidelines also touch on more aspects and indicate relevant legislation. 

In  both  the  private  and  the  public  sectors,  coverage  of  telework  by  the  Danish  sectoral 
agreements  seems  to  be  quite  extensive,  although  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  covers  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  effects  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  social  partners  without  any  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)  and  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  conditions  and  the  voluntary  character  of  telework 
seem to be ensured. 

In  the  current  review  of  the  Employment  Contracts Act, the Government intends to analyse 
the applicability of the Framework Agreement on Telework in the Estonian legal system and 
the  need  to  transpose  it  into  national  law.  The  employers  have  announced  their  intention  of 
translating and publishing the Framework Agreement. 

2.8. 

Finland 

On 23 May 2005 the Finnish social partners concluded an "Agreement on implementation of 
the  Framework  Agreement  on  Telework"  (Sopimus  Etätyötä  Koskevan  Puitesopimuksen 
Täytäntöönpanosta).  This  text  was  signed  by  those  organisations  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  Organisation  of  Finnish  Trade 
Unions  (SAK),  the  Finnish  Confederation  of  Salaried  Employees  (STTK)  and  the 
Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (AKAVA) for the trade unions. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

The text states that the signatory parties undertake 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  Framework  Agreement  should  be  applicable  to  all 
personnel groups and also to public-law employment relationships. Lastly, the Finnish social 
partners  commit  themselves  to  promoting  awareness  and  providing  information  on  these 
principles, urge their member associations to pay 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 agreement, contain most of the provisions of the 
Framework Agreement, but also refer to the relevant Finnish labour legislation, 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  telework  is  started  and  on  the  applicable  legislation 
with  regard  to  employment  conditions.  They  also  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 equipment. Their aim is to help local actors to draft agreements 
on telework.  

The  Finnish  social  partners’  agreement  does  not  have  the  legal  status  of  a  collective 
agreement, i.e. its provisions are not legally binding. However, the Finnish industrial relations 
system is strongly structured and the general coverage level of collective bargaining is high 
(up  to  90%),  so  that  relatively  good  take-up  of  the  recommendations  can  be  expected.  All 
Finnish  social  partner  organisations  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  based  on  the  Framework  Agreement  have  yet  been 
reported,  in  particular  owing  to  the  fact  that  most  sectoral  collective  agreements  were  valid 
until the end of September 2007 (i.e. after the information was collected). The Finnish social 
partners  expected  that  telework  could  be  on  the  agenda  in  subsequent  sectoral  bargaining 
rounds, since sectoral agreements are important instruments for setting employment terms and 
conditions. 

Both the Finnish social partners and the Government consider that the legislation in force and 
the Finnish agreement cover all aspects of the Framework Agreement. No conflicts between 
the  Framework  Agreement  and  Finnish  legislation  are  reported.  Before  starting  their 
negotiations, the Finnish social partners conducted a thorough analysis of the national labour 
legislation  and  collective  agreements  and  concluded  that  no  legislative  amendments  were 
necessary. On the contrary, many of the principles of the Framework Agreement are already 
enshrined  in  Finnish  labour  legislation.  Few  specific  telework-related  provisions  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 

15 

   EN 

confederations (CFDT, CFE-CGT, CFTC, CGT-FO and CGT). At the request of the signatory 
parties, the agreement was extended to all employers and workers by a Government Decree of 
30 May 2006, published in the French official journal 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  beyond  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 contract is required: in addition to an "adaptation 
period",  it  must  specify  the  conditions  for  a  move  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 teleworker; 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 coverage, the national agreement is legally binding on 
all  employers  and  workers  within  its  professional  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 specificities and needs of certain branches and 
undertakings.  However,  most  of  its  articles  are  mandatory  and  permit  no  derogations 
(definition,  voluntary  character,  principle  of  reversibility,  employment  conditions,  privacy, 
health and safety, work organisation, training and collective rights). Collective agreements at 
lower levels can be more specific about issues regarding equipment, rules on reversibility, and 
data  protection.  A  first  sectoral  agreement  was  concluded  on  6  October  2006  in  the 
telecommunications industry, and a request has been made for its extension by decree. Several 
companies have also made use of the possibility 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  authorities.  The  French  Government  considers 
that  the  national  agreement  addresses  the  main  issues  involving  telework  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 form of work. Case law already established the 
voluntary  character  and  reversibility  of  homework  and  the  employer’s  responsibility  for 
bearing  the  material  costs.  Relatively  few  sectoral  (banking  and  telecommunications)  or 
company agreements referred to telework 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 signing). The declaration welcomed the European 
text  and  encouraged  the  social  partners  at  sectoral  and  company  level  to  devise  rules  for 
introducing  the  Framework  Agreement  into  national  practice.  The  German  cross-industry 
social partner organisations, including the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts (ZDH) and 
the  Confederation  of  Local  Public  Employers  (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 

16 

   EN 

The  direct  role  of  the  German  cross-industry  social  partners  in  labour  regulation  and 
collective  bargaining  is  rather  limited  and  they  have  therefore  confined  themselves  to 
providing  information  and  dissemination.  The  social  partners'  involvement  at  sectoral  and 
regional  level,  where  most  collective  bargaining  occurs,  also  seems  to  be  limited,  except  in 
some  cases,  including  a  recommendation  by  the  social  partners  in  the  chemical  industry, 
which  seems  to  be  in  line  with  the  Framework  Agreement.  The  implementation  by  sectoral 
social  partners  might  improve  over  time  with  the  renegotiation  of  medium-term  master 
collective  agreements  (Manteltarifverträge),  which  determine  labour  standards  and  working 
conditions outside wage issues. 

is 

the 

through 

telework 

regulated 

issue  of 

Typically, 
agreements 
(Betriebsvereinbarungen, Firmentarifverträge) in Germany. Several agreements dealing with 
telework  are  known,  some  of  which  were  concluded  prior  to  the  Framework  Agreement, 
while others have been prompted by it. These 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  company.  Various  trade  unions  and  the  local  public 
employer  organisation  VKA  have  drawn  up  model  agreements  which  are  being  used  as  a 
basis  when  the  employer  and  worker  representatives  launch  negotiations.  Company 
agreements are legally binding on the signatory parties. 

company 

The social partners consider that the highly decentralised approach to regulating telework in 
Germany is the best way to deal with problems arising 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 partners and the Federal Government consider that 
teleworkers are covered by the general protective mechanisms of German labour law. Worker 
protection  provisions  on  working  conditions,  working  time  and  health  and  safety  apply. 
Privacy  and  data  protection  are  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 voluntary 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  implementation  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  Confederation  of  Hellenic  Commerce  (ESEE)  and  the 
Hellenic  Confederation  of  Professionals,  Craftsmen  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  and  retail  trade  sector  signed  a  new  two-year 
national  collective  agreement  on  7  September  2006  undertaking  inter alia  to  implement  the 
European agreement. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

Since  Annex  B  to  the  Greek  national  agreement  is  an  almost  literal  translation  of  the 
European  text,  all  aspects  of  the  Framework  Agreement  are  covered  by  the  implementing 
measure. In accordance with Greek law, the National General Collective 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 labour 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  particularities.  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  Telework  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  Safety  Act  (Act  XCIII  of  1993,  Chapter  VII/A), 
thereby introducing provisions on telework into the Hungarian labour law. Penalties for non-
observance of those regulations were included in the law on labour inspection (Act LXXXV, 
Article  1).  The  labour  law  regulations  on  telework  also  cover  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  consideration.  The  Hungarian  Government  gave 
two reasons for proposing legislation in this field: first, with the take-up of telework since the 
late 1990s, more detailed legislation was already on the agenda; second, given the lack of a 
strong  tradition  of  collective  bargaining  and  low  representativeness  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  agreement  by  the  Hungarian 
social  partners  at  cross-industry  or  sectoral  level  could  not  ensure  sufficient  coverage  and 
binding force. 

Although it was initiated by the Government, this method of implementation was accepted by 
the  social  partners.  Their  involvement  in  the  regulatory  process  was  similar  to  their  role  in 
preparing other employment-related laws, i.e. through consultations in the tripartite National 
Interest Reconciliation Council (OÉT) on a Government proposal before the bill is adopted by 
Parliament.  The  debate  in  the  latter  body  was  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  Chapter  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  some  discrepancies.  Teleworkers  essentially 
have the same rights and responsibilities as other workers and the provisions of general labour 
law apply to them in full. However, owing to the particular nature of telework, some general 
employment  regulations  were  adapted.  The  new  chapter  on  telework  sets  out  those  points 
where derogations apply to teleworkers. 

EN 

18 

   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 involved 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  engage  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  provide  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 access to the private workplace subject to prior 
notification is regulated in detail, as is his/her access to data on the IT equipment. However, 
the  use  of  monitoring  systems  is  not  addressed.  While  the  Hungarian  law  stipulates  that, 
unless  otherwise  agreed,  the  equipment  is  provided  by  the  employer,  it  seems  to  be  less 
favourable to the teleworker than the European text on issues of costs and liability. In contrast 
to the Framework Agreement,  the  Labour Code states  that coverage  of or  compensation  for 
costs is subject to an agreement between the parties and it increases the teleworker's liability 
for damage to the equipment. While general health and safety regulations apply to teleworkers 
and some specific rules are laid down (e.g. the employer's duty to inspect equipment before 
telework is started), there is no specific mention of work with visual display units (although 
Hungary  has  implemented  the  relevant  EU  Directive).  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 recording of working time and the method of communication. 

The  Hungarian  labour  law  therefore  incorporates  the  main  points  in  the  Framework 
Agreement,  although  it  is  more  detailed  in  certain  aspects,  is  less  explicit  than  or  diverges 
slightly from the European text in others. As is the case of all legislation, full coverage and 
binding legal force are guaranteed. The new legislation does not limit the scope of collective 
bargaining  on  telework  at  sectoral  or  company  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  Confederation  of  Labour  (ASI)  and  the  Confederation  of 
Icelandic  Employers  (SA)  signed  on  5  May  2006.  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  serves  as  "binding  guidelines"  when  telework  is  introduced  in 
work contracts.  

The agreement covers all provisions of the European 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 

19 

   EN 

2.14. 

Ireland 

To  implement  the  Framework  Agreement,  the  Irish  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  agreement  on  15  December  2004  on  an  updated  Code  of 
Practice  applicable  to  the  private  sector.  However,  this  text  was  never  signed,  published  or 
disseminated.  ICTU  considered  that  public-sector  workers  should  be  covered  by  the  Irish 
Code,  since  CEEP  was  a  party  to  the  European  agreement.  Owing  to  the  difficulty  in 
establishing  who  represented  the  public  service  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 still not been formally implemented in Ireland. 

The 2000 Code of Practice, which contains practical 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 includes 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  Practice  (which  was  never  formally  adopted  or 
disseminated) contains new points drawn from the Framework Agreement. It now follows the 
structure of the European text and incorporates all its provisions, including the definition, and 
adapts  them  to  Irish  conditions  and  legislation.  The  existing  practical  advice  has  been 
included  in  a  new  chapter  ("practical  considerations"),  while  the  model  agreement  and  the 
overview of legislation are maintained. Information for self-employed workers has been taken 
out, in line with the Framework Agreement.  

It is difficult to assess to what extent the Code of Practice has influenced company practice or 
collective and individual agreements. There seem to be only a few company-level agreements 
incorporating telework issues, but a number of trade unions have produced guidelines for use 
in negotiating telework arrangements with employers. 

2.15. 

Italy 

The Italian social partners implemented the Framework Agreement on Telework through an 
"interconfederal  agreement"  (accordo  interconfederale)  concluded  on  9  June  2004  by  the 
national  employers'  organisations  (Confindustria,  Confartigianato,  Confesercenti,  CNA, 
Confapi,  Confservizi,  Abi,  Agci,  Ania,  Apla,  Casartigiani,  Cia,  Claai,  Coldiretti, 
Confagricoltura, Confcooperative, Confcommercio, Confinterim, Legacoop and Unci) and the 
most representative trade union confederations (CGIL, CISL and UIL).  

The "Interconfederal Agreement on the transposition 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  (definition  and  scope,  voluntary  character,  employment 
conditions, data protection, right to privacy, work equipment, health and safety, organisation 
of work, training and collective rights) in an almost literal translation. Some adjustments were 

EN 

20 

   EN 

made  to  allow  for  better  interpretation  and  to  bring  the  terminology  into  line  with  general 
practice in Italy. In addition, the Agreement establishes 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 principles and criteria laid down in the cross-
industry agreement in order to take account of their specific needs. It also 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  signatory  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  contracts.  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.  According  to  the  Italian  Government,  most  sectoral 
collective  agreements  (contratti  collettivi  nazionali  di  lavoro)  concluded  after  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 legislation or regulation had been issued for 
the private sector in Italy and telework was governed exclusively by several national sectoral 
collective  agreements,  in  particular  in  the  telecommunications,  electricity,  chemical, 
graphical/paper and ceramics industries, and small and medium-sized enterprises. According 
to  the  Government,  no  sectoral  agreement  seems  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  Framework 
Agreement. In addition, some company agreements had already been signed in Italy. 

In  the  public  sector,  telework  was  introduced  by  Law  No  191  of  16  June  1998  and  its 
organisation and implementation was regulated subsequently by Presidential Decree No 70 of 
8  March  1999.  A  framework  agreement  signed  by  the  Negotiating  Agency  for  Public 
Administration (ARAN) and the public-sector trade unions on 23 March 2000 laid down the 
main  points  concerning  the  assignment  of  public  employees  to  telework  projects.  This 
agreement seems to be in line with the main provisions of the Framework Agreement on the 
voluntary character of telework and reversibility, equal rights in particular as regards training, 
pay,  career  advancement,  trade  union  activities  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  probably  been  respected  and  sees  no  need  for  legislation  in  this 
field. It also points out that teleworking does not reduce the level of worker protection under 
the  Constitution,  the  Civil  Code  and  specific  legislation  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 

21 

   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  Agreement  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 implementation of telework" were negotiated by the social 
partners, government representatives and members of parliament. It is not clear whether any 
collective agreements have incorporated provisions on telework and to what extent company 
practice has been influenced. According to the Government, implementation of the framework 
provisions is not widespread, but the process is going ahead slowly. 

Latvian  legislation  contains  no  specific  provisions  regulating  telework,  but  the  Labour  Act 
does not restrict its possibility. According to Article 53(1) of the latter, a worker has the duty 
to  perform  work  in  the  undertaking  unless  the  worker  and  employer  agree  otherwise. 
Article 40(2)  states  that  information  concerning  the  workplace(s)  must  be  mentioned  in  the 
work contract. The general rules of Latvian labour 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  Framework  Agreement  cannot  be  considered  as 
implemented  via  the  national  legislation.  According  to  the  Latvian  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  "Solidarumas"  (LPSS/LDS),  the  Lithuanian  Labour 
Federation  (LDF),  the  Lithuanian  Confederation  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 regulations concerning telework. However, the 
Lithuanian  Government  considers  that  telework  is  covered  by  the  existing  provisions  on 
homework in the Labour Code, which entered into force on 1 January 2003, and Decree No 
1043  of  19  August  2003.  In  its  view,  these  provisions  are  compatible  with  the  Framework 
Agreement. 

Article  115  of  the  Labour  Code  provides  for  an  "employment  contract  on  homeworking", 
which  is  defined  in  Decree  No  1043  as  "work  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  recording  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 

22 

   EN 

homeworkers and employers. Details can be laid down in collective agreements, but neither 
the  Government  nor  the  social  partners  are  aware  of  collective  agreements  laying  down 
conditions governing homework/telework.  

The Lithuanian legislation on homework does not 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 Agreement through a collective 
agreement (convention) on the legal framework for telework, 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 Confederation (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  issues:  it  contains  a  list  of  written  information  on  the  rules  for 
performing  telework  that  must  be  agreed  before  it  is  started,  covering  the  place  of  work, 
contact  hours,  description  of  tasks  and  work  equipment,  insurance  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  three  to  twelve  months 
with a "right to return" for both parties. The article on privacy clarifies the employer's right of 
access to the workplace. The agreement also stipulates 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,  Luxembourg  had  no  regulation  or  collective  agreement 
dealing  with  telework.  Under  the  decree  extending  its  coverage,  the  agreement  was  made 
legally binding throughout Luxembourg and covers the whole private sector. However, public 
officials are excluded from the scope of the agreement. The agreement is valid for three years. 
The Luxembourg social partners have raised the issue of the implications of telework for the 
social  security  and  tax  regime  of  cross-border  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 Trade Unions (CMTU) and the Malta Federation 
of  Industry  (MFOI),  reported  that  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 Collective Agreement for Employees in the Public 
Service,  concluded  on  26  October  2005  by  the  Government  and  the  relevant  public-sector 
trade  unions  for  the  period  2002-10,  provides  for  the  introduction  of  telework  among  other 

EN 

23 

   EN 

flexible work arrangements (paragraph 8.1). As follow-up to that provision, a set of guidelines 
for  an  "e-work  framework"  has  been  drafted  and  is  to  be  implemented  in  the  public  sector. 
According  to  the  Government,  these  guidelines  cover  all  aspects  of  the  Framework 
Agreement and are legally binding. 

Malta had no specific legal or collective framework 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) Regulations states that "a homeworker shall be 
considered  a  self-employed  person"  and  that  the  Regulations  do  not  apply  to  "temporary  or 
mobile work sites". On the other hand, Legal Notice 43 of 2002 on the Minimum Health and 
Safety Requirements for Work with Display Screen Equipment Regulations covers employees 
who use "display screen equipment at a workstation provided by the employer at home". 

2.20.  The Netherlands 

The  Dutch  social  partners  decided  to  implement  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  Confederation  of  Christian  Trade  Unions  in  the 
Netherlands (CNV) and the Trade Union Federation for Intermediate and Higher Employees 
(MHP)  and  the  three  leading  employers'  associations,  the  Confederation  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 platform for preparing and conducting national-level negotiations.  

The  Recommendation  of  11  September  2003  brings  the  Framework  Agreement  to  the 
attention  of  employers  and  workers  at  both  sectoral  and  enterprise  level  and  calls  for  its 
implementation via collective agreements (CAO) and/or in dialogue with works councils and 
in individual agreements. To that end, it lists the main points that should be covered, namely 
the definition and voluntary character of telework, equal working 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 possibilities, assessment, coaching, data protection and privacy should be 
discussed  with  the  works  council  or  individually.  The  Recommendation  describes  the 
development  of  telework  in  the  Netherlands  in  qualitative  and  quantitative  terms.  The  full 
Dutch translation of the Framework 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 Foundation 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  childcare  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 stricter legislation has sometimes been introduced. 
Little information is available on the Recommendation's impact on telework and on whether it 
has influenced collective bargaining in sectors and companies. The social partners have been 

EN 

24 

   EN 

engaged  in  information  activities,  in  particular  through  their  websites,  a  brochure  by  VNO-
NCW and in discussions within the so-called Telework Forum.  

While there is no specific legislation regulating telework in the Netherlands, some provisions 
of  Dutch  labour  law  are  applicable  to  teleworkers,  such  as  the  Working  Conditions  Decree 
(Arbeidsomstandighedenbesluit,  Articles  5.15  and  6.30),  which  grants  teleworkers  the  same 
protection  as  employees  at  the  workplace,  in  particular  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 Agreement on Telework, the Norwegian social partners 
adopted joint guidelines (retningslinjer) in December 2005. This document was approved by 
the  four  main  organisations  on  the  employers'  side,  the  Confederation  of  Norwegian 
Enterprise (NHO), the Federation of Norwegian Commercial and Service Enterprises (HSH), 
the  Norwegian  Association  of  Local  and  Regional  Authorities  (KS)  and  the  Employer 
Federation NAVO  (now  renamed Spekter), and the five main trade union organisations, the 
Norwegian  Confederation  of  Trade  Unions  (LO),  the  Confederation  of  Vocational  Trade 
Unions  (YS),  the  Confederation  of  Unions  for  the  Professionals  (UNIO),  the  Federation  of 
Norwegian  Professional  Associations  (Akademikerne)  and  the  Norwegian  Society  of 
Engineers and Technologists (NITO). 

These guidelines are the result of national bipartite 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  particular  employers  and  workers,  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 European 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 responsibility 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  text  of  the  Framework  Agreement  is  annexed  to 
the  guidelines,  together  with  references  to  guidelines  on  telework  issued  previously  by 
individual social partner organisations and the regulation on work performed at the worker's 
home. 

The  Norwegian  trade  unions  initially  intended  to  conclude  a  binding  national  collective 
agreement  on  telework,  but  could  not  convince  the  employer  organisations  and  finally 
accepted their proposal for non-binding guidelines. All major social partners, including those 
in  the  public  sector,  have  signed  up  to  the  guidelines:  only  the  Ministry  of  Government 
Administration  as  the  State  employer  authority  is  not  among  the  signatory  parties.  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  general  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  provisions  on  the  working 
environment  and  working  time  and  on  monitoring  and  inspection.  They  also  require  home-

EN 

25 

   EN 

based telework to be carried out on the basis of an agreement between the employer and the 
individual  worker,  thereby  safeguarding  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 Telework was implemented by legislation amending 
the  Labour  Code  drafted  on  the  basis  of  a  bipartite  agreement  between  the  Polish  social 
partners.  The  most  representative  national  employer  and  trade  union  organisations,  i.e.  the 
Confederation  of  Polish  Employers  (KPP),  the  Polish  Confederation  of  Private  Employers 
Lewiatan  (PKPP  Lewiatan),  the  Polish  Craft  Association  (ZRP),  the  Independent  and  Self-
Governing  Trade  Union  Solidarność  (NSZZ  Solidarność),  the  All-Poland  Alliance  of  Trade 
Unions (OPZZ) and the Trade Unions' Forum (FZZ), started negotiations 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 requirements and into more detail on certain 
aspects.  It  committed  the  signatory  parties  to  ensuring  the  agreement  was  applied  through 
their  organisations.  This  draft  agreement  was,  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  with  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 proposal for an Act amending the Labour Code with a view to 
creating a legal basis for telework. 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 Economic Affairs. Adopted by the Government in 
April 2007, the draft Act was approved by Parliament 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  Section  II  of  the  Labour  Code 
(Kodeks pracy). The new legislation focuses on the specificities of telework, both as regards 
its introduction and the relations between the employer and the worker. In matters relating to 
telework  not  regulated  by  the  new  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  character  for  both  sides  and  its  reversibility,  equal  employment 
conditions  (in  the  form  of  a  non-discrimination  clause),  rules  on  equipment  (provision, 
maintenance,  costs  and  technical  assistance),  right  to  privacy,  data  protection,  health  and 
safety,  training  and  collective  rights,  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  the  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  own  equipment,  contacts  and  monitoring  of  the 
employee's work.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

2.23. 

Portugal 

In  Portugal,  the  Framework  Agreement  on  Telework  was  implemented  through  legislation. 
Provisions on telework, which were clearly inspired by the European 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 own to implement the Framework Agreement. 

Articles  233  to  243  of  the  Labour  Code  contain  several  of  the  main  provisions  of  the 
Framework  Agreement,  in  particular  as  regards  the  following:  written  information  to  be 
provided  by  the  employer,  equal  rights  and  obligations  for  teleworkers  as  regards  working 
conditions,  training  and  promotion  opportunities,  privacy,  installation  and  maintenance  of 
equipment  and  coverage  of  costs,  health  and  safety,  work  organisation  and  collective 
representation of workers. Since teleworkers are defined as employees subject to contractual 
subordination, in the absence of specific provisions the general employment regulations apply 
to  teleworkers.  The  definition  of  telework  as  work  carried  out  "usually"  outside  the 
employer's  premises  using  ICT  includes  alternating  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 voluntary character. Reversibility, i.e. return to 
the initial form of work, is automatic after the end of the agreed period of telework. In terms 
of data protection, the teleworker is bound to keep 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  goes  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.  The  Labour  Code  also  provides  for  penalties  on 
employers in the event of regulatory offences against general rules or specific provisions on 
telework.  Several  provisions  of  the  Framework  Agreement  are  not  reflected  in  detail  in  the 
Portuguese Labour Code, in particular 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 Labour Code within the tripartite 
Standing  Commission  for  Social  Dialogue  (CPCS),  but  they  did  not  agree  fully  with  the 
Government’s  proposals  on  telework.  The  employers,  in  particular  the  Confederation  of 
Portuguese  Industry  (CIP),  were  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  legislation  on  telework  and 
felt that some of the articles proposed were less 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  particular  some  differences  with  the  Framework 
Agreement  and  a  lack  of  rules  on  call  centres  and  self-employed  teleworkers  (which, 
however, are also excluded from the scope of the European Agreement). 

There  is  scope  for  the  social  partners  to  conclude  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  collective  agreement  on  telework.  Prior  to  the 

EN 

27 

   EN 

Framework  Agreement,  no  legal  definition  of  telework  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  have  not  yet  started 
implementing the Framework Agreement on Telework. Therefore the trade unions, including 
the  National  Trade  Unions  Block  (BNS),  the  National  Trade  Union  Confederation  "Cartel 
Alfa", the National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania "Fratia" (CNSLR-Fratia) 
and  the  Democratic  Trade  Union  Confederation  of  Romania  (CSDR),  and  the  employer 
organisations,  in  particular  the  Romanian  Alliance  of  Employers'  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  regulating  telework,  and  the  social 
partners  have  not  concluded  any  collective  agreement  covering  this  form  of  work.  The 
Romanian Labour Code (Law No 53/2003) contains 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  the  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  April  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 Government 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 substantial provisions of the Framework Agreement are covered by 
the  new  regulation,  including  the  voluntary  character  of  telework,  the  equal  treatment  of 
teleworkers  compared  with  other  employees  and  the  main  provisions  on  data  protection, 
privacy,  equipment,  prevention  of  isolation,  training  and  collective  rights.  The  Slovak 
regulations  on  occupational  health  and  safety  and  in  particular  on  work  with  visual  display 
units apply in full to teleworkers. By way of derogation from the principle of equal rights and 
since the teleworker manages his/her own working time — as provided for in the European 
text — the rules on the allocation of weekly working time do not apply and the teleworker is 
not entitled to compensation in the event of personal obstacles to work, overtime, night work 

EN 

28 

   EN 

and work on public holidays (as in Czech legislation). 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  the  Government,  the  Slovak  social  partners 
welcomed  its  proposal  to  regulate  telework  and  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  social  partners  in  the 
future  and  intends  to  support  them  in  implementing  individual  sections  of  the  Framework 
Agreement  through  the  conclusion  of  collective  agreements  at  sectoral  and  company  level. 
Telework does not yet seem to have been 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 seem to have been finalised. 
The employers' organisations, the Association of Employers of Slovenia (ZDS), the Chamber 
of Crafts of Slovenia (OZS) and 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 final 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  Employment  Relationship  Act  or  one  for 
implementation in branch collective agreements. The Slovenian social partners take the view 
that  the  Framework  Agreement  is  already  partially  implemented  via  the  regulation  of 
homework. 

In Slovenian legislation (prior to the Framework Agreement), homeworking was governed by 
Articles 67 to 71 of the Employment Relationship Act (Zakon o delovnih razmerjih, ZDR) and 
defined as work carried out at the home of the employee or on premises of his/her choice. In 
order to include teleworkers explicitly, the law 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 entered into force on 28 November 2007, also makes 
it  clear  that  teleworkers  (and  homeworkers)  enjoy  the  same  rights  as  employees  working  at 
the employers' premises, including participation and 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  Slovenian  Government,  the  homework/telework 
contract  must  contain  specific  details  concerning  the  place  of  work,  the  tasks,  the  use  of 
resources and equipment, etc. As a general rule, the employer must provide all the resources 
and  material  required  to  perform  the  work;  otherwise,  the  employee  is  entitled  to 
compensation for the use of resources and reimbursement of costs. The amount of work must 
be  equivalent  to  what  can  be  expected  under  normal  working  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 considers that the above-mentioned Articles 
of the Slovenian law implement the terms of the European agreement. It is not clear to what 

EN 

29 

   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  the  (bi-)annual  "Interconfederal  Agreements  on 
Collective  Bargaining"  (acuerdos  interconfederales  para  la  negociación  colectiva  –  ANC). 
The  ANCs  address  the  essential  aspects  of  employment  relations  and  wage  issues  and  are 
signed  by  the  most  representative  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-sized Enterprises (CEPYME). In Chapter 7 of 
their ANC for 2003 signed on 30 January 2003, the signatory parties refer to the background 
and  the  main  provisions  of  the  Framework  Agreement,  declare  that  they  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 character, equal rights for teleworkers) and the need 
for the social partners to regulate aspects such as privacy, confidentiality, prevention of risks, 
equipment,  training,  etc.  The  ANCs  have  each  been  extended  for  the  following  years,  i.e. 
2004,  2006  and  2008.  They  are  not  legally  binding,  but  address  recommendations  and 
priorities  to  the  signatory  parties'  member  organisations  when  they  enter  into  collective 
bargaining. As such they provide guidance for collective 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  information  and  communication  industry,  and  one  at 
provincial  level  (Valencia)  deal  with  telework;  some  of  these  refer  to  the  European 
Agreement.  While  full  coverage  of  all  workers  and  companies  cannot  be  ensured,  the 
Framework Agreement and the ANC seem to fulfil a strong guiding function when the social 
partners at lower bargaining levels 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 (newsletters, 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 Royal Decree has been 
drawn up along the lines of the European Agreement and guarantees the voluntary nature of 
access  to  telework  and  equal  conditions  of  employment  for  teleworkers.  Aspects  relating  to 
equipment,  costs,  data  protection  and  health  and  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  discussed  in  the  Spanish  Economic  and  Social 
Committee, the draft was agreed by the relevant trade unions (CC.OO., UGT, CSI-CSIF, CIG 
and ELA) in May 2007. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

Prior  to  the  Framework  Agreement,  the  only  legal  provision  in  Spain  was  Article  13  of  the 
Workers' Statute (amended by Royal Legislative Decree 1/1995 of 24 March), which governs 
homework  contracts.  In  the  Government’s  view,  this  provision  was  drafted  with  an  eye  to 
manual work, in particular in sectors such as textiles, 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  Government  considers  that  the  preference  for 
collective  bargaining  is  appropriate  for  telework  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  April  2005  refers  to  the  European  Framework 
Agreement as interpretation criteria to confirm the voluntary nature of telework for workers 
and  employers  when  the  initial  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 contract which may be affected by telework and 
repeatedly quotes the Framework Agreement. 

2.28. 

Sweden 

The Swedish social partners have adopted "common guidelines" (gemensamma riktlinjer) to 
implement the European Framework Agreement on Telework. These guidelines were signed 
on 28 May 2003 by the cross-industry social partner organisations, i.e. the Confederation of 
Swedish  Enterprise  (SN),  the  Swedish  Association  of  Local  Authorities,  the  Federation  of 
Swedish  County  Councils  and  the  Swedish  Agency  for  Government  Employers  for  the 
employers, and the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (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  Swedish  social  partners  back  the  Framework 
Agreement,  which  should  serve  as  a  reference  when  telework  agreements  are  concluded  on 
the  Swedish  labour  market.  In  implementing  the  Agreement,  due  consideration  should  be 
given  to  the  special  conditions  applying  in  different  industries,  sectors,  companies,  public 
authorities  and  individual  employees.  The  text  reaffirms  the  principle  of  equal  rights  for 
teleworkers  and  the  other  areas  highlighted  in  the  Framework  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 Swedish context. The social partners welcome 
the development of autonomous agreements under 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 collective 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 recommend the Framework Agreement as a 
model  when  (collective  or  individual)  agreements  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 circulars or in some other way. In certain branches, the subject 

EN 

31 

   EN 

of  telework  has  not  been  addressed  in  collective  bargaining  because  it  does  not  arise  or 
because the social partners saw no need for regulation. Research suggests 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 bargaining 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  concluded  on  15  December  2005  for  the  central  State 
authorities and implementing agencies 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 other 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  important  issues  to  consider  before  starting 
telework. Those documents have not been updated 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  national  coverage  is  considered  adequate.  In 
accordance with the Swedish industrial relations system, the public authorities have not taken 
any  action  to  facilitate  the  implementation  process  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  social 
partners' autonomy. 

Some provisions of Swedish labour legislation dealing 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  (employment  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 (work with visual display 
units  and  accidents  at  work)  and  privacy  (protection  of  personal  data),  applies  in  full  to 
teleworkers. 

2.29.  United Kingdom 

The  UK  social  partners  implemented  the  Framework  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 Trade 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 implementing teleworking". Management and employee 
representatives  are  encouraged  to  "use  this  guide  to  draw  up  company  specific  policies  on 
teleworking".  It  follows  the  same  structure  and  covers  all  aspects  of  the  Framework 
Agreement by quoting the vast majority of the latter'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 

32 

   EN 

data protection and the right of some parents to request flexible working, including telework. 
Issues of taxation relevant to teleworkers are also mentioned.  

The guidance brochure has been widely promoted and disseminated by all three organisations 
to their members (regional offices, affiliated organisations, companies, etc.) by newsletter and 
the Internet, through publications and at meetings, with a message to hand on copies locally, 
in  particular  to  employers,  trade  union  officials  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 feedback from their members, but there seems to 
be no information on the actual use of this brochure and its contents in company agreements, 
corporate policies or individual arrangements.  

The  UK  industrial  relations  system  makes  no  provision  for  formal  cross-industry  collective 
bargaining,  and  the  CBI  and  TUC  do  not  negotiate  such  agreements  on  behalf  of  their 
members.  There  was  thus  no  precedent  for  a  more  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  nature  of  telework,  but  coverage  is  incomplete  and  therefore 
does not ensure that the most important sectors and professions are sufficiently protected.  

The  UK  Government  is  satisfied  with  the  way  the  Framework  Agreement  has  been 
implemented  by  the  national  social  partners.  Previously,  there  were  no  legislative  measures 
specific  to  telework  in  the  UK,  but  a  number  of  general  labour  regulations  also  apply  to 
teleworkers. 

3. 

KEY ISSUES CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 

This  chapter  looks  at  how  the  Framework  Agreement  on  Telework  and  implementing 
measures adopted at national level have addressed the issues arising in the introduction and 
practice of telework identified in the Commission document for 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 factors — the performance of work at a distance and the use 
information technology and electronic data transmission — 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  permanence  or  continuity  in  time.  Lastly,  the 
teleworker had to be in an employment relationship. A definition based on these factors could 
provide  a  basis  for  discussion,  leaving  the  door  open  to  adjustments  later  in  line  with 
technological developments that made it possible 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  working  time  and  which  is  done  by  a  natural 
person in the framework of an employment relationship, in the following cumulative 
conditions: 

EN 

33 

   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  information  technology  and  technology  for  data 
transmission, in particular the internet." 

Definitions  based  on  these  factors  could  cover  the  three  types  of  telework  identified: 
teleworking from home, mobile teleworking (via portable communication systems) and work 
in telework centres (outstations, neighbourhood offices, telecottages). They could also cover 
both permanent and alternating telework, i.e. arrangements 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  European  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  employment  contract/relationship,  where  work, 
which could also be performed at the employer's premises, is carried 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, regularity, and employment relationship) and therefore covers 
all the types of telework mentioned above. However, it clearly restricts 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  States  adopted  this  or  a  similar  definition. 
However,  the  definition  and  scope  of  the  implementing  measure  were  modified  in  varying 
degrees in some countries (for instance in the Czech Republic, where the use of information 
technology  was  omitted,  and  in  Portugal,  where  the  requirement  that  the  relevant  activities 
could also be performed within the firm was left out). In other countries, the definitions list 
various  types  of  telework  (e.g.  Ireland),  explicitly  include  certain  forms  (e.g.  telework  by 
"télétravailleurs  nomades"  in  France)  or  exclude  certain  forms  (e.g.  work  in  call  centres  by 
Finland; mobile work by Denmark; and repair work by Austria).  

The consequences of most of these 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 concerns the largest percentage of teleworkers in most European 
countries. In several countries this issue requires clarification.  

Another controversial point with regard to the definition 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  validly  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 

34 

   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  agreements  and  other  tools  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 possibility 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  limits  full  implementation  of  the  Framework 
Agreement. Legislation on homework therefore does 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, with the teleworker being entitled to return to a conventional 
post at his/her request. Neither the employer nor the worker should have the right to impose 
telework  unilaterally  on  the  other  party.  This  principle  should  in  particular  concern  persons 
already employed by the firm and not newly recruited 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 voluntary 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 the terms and conditions of employment of 
that worker. 

If telework is not part of the initial job description, 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  premises  at  the  worker's  or  at  the  employer's 
request.  The  modalities  of  this  reversibility  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 right 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 

35 

   EN 

mainly  in  cases  where  telework  is  not  agreed  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, the worker's right to request 
telework (under certain circumstances) and the employer's obligation to consider this request 
seriously  is  enshrined  in  legislation  (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  character  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) agreement 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 perform telework is not a reason for terminating the 
employment relationship or for changing its terms 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 description, 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  therefore  does  not  envisage  a 
unilateral  right  of  return  for  the  teleworker,  but  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  flexibility  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 collectively between both parties before taking up telework (e.g. Finland and 
Ireland).  Some  of  them  also  recommend  the  circumstances  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 arrangement if it is limited in time (e.g. Portugal 
and  Denmark  –  local  and  regional  government  sector).  In  some  countries,  collective 
agreements  establish  adaptation  periods  during  which  the  worker  or  the  employer  can 
unilaterally  end  the  telework  arrangement  (e.g.  France,  Poland  and  Luxembourg).  After  the 
end of this period, a return to work at the previous 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  traditional  jobs  at  the  employer's  premises  (e.g. 
France and Luxembourg). 

EN 

36 

   EN 

3.3. 

Guarantee of maintenance of the employee's status 

The  Commission  expressed  concern  that  —  because  the  work  (or  part  of  it)  was  no  longer 
performed at the company's premises and therefore less likely to be subject to inspection by 
labour inspectors — some employers might take advantage of the introduction of telework to 
reduce the rights and protection enjoyed by the workers, in particular by changing their legal 
status, for instance to self-employment. 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 concern 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 teleworker's employment status. …" 

This key provision for protecting teleworkers is very clear. Regrettably, it is only taken up in 
those national implementing measures developed by the social partners and based on a literal 
translation  of  the  Framework  Agreement.  It  is  not  addressed  by  any  of  the  legislative 
implementation instruments. The public authorities might have considered that this protection 
was already guaranteed by the generally applicable labour law.  

The  definition  of  telework  chosen  by  the  European  social  partners  clearly  excludes  self-
employed  telework,  which  is  outside  the  social  partners'  remit.  Consequently,  the  national 
implementing  measures  do  not  address  the  situation  of  self-employed  teleworkers.  The  risk 
inherent  in  this  approach  is  that,  when  agreeing  on  telework,  former  employees  might  be 
encouraged  to  become  self-employed  and  thereby  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 teleworkers in several countries. 

While a clear line must be drawn between employees performing their work at a distance in 
the  context  of  an  employment  relationship  and  truly  self-employed  workers,  the  social 
partners or the public authorities should take measures at national level to prevent any abuse 
in the use of (quasi) self-employment when the factors of dependence and subordination that 
define the employment relationship are clearly present.  

3.4. 

Guarantee of equal treatment 

As  additional  protection  against  lowering  of  standards,  the  Commission  considered  it 
necessary to guarantee equal rights for teleworkers. 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.  More  generally,  since  telework  affects  the 
organisation  of  work  only  and  does  not  create  a  special  employment  status,  all  rights 
enshrined in the law and in contractual arrangements  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,  teleworkers  benefit  from  the  same  rights, 
guaranteed  by  applicable  legislation  and  collective  agreements,  as  comparable 

EN 

37 

   EN 

workers  at  the  employers  premises.  However,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the 
particularities  of  telework,  specific  complementary  collective  and/or  individual 
agreements may be necessary." 

The  Framework  Agreement  therefore  guarantees  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  standards,  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 training and career development opportunities 
as  comparable  workers  at  the  employer's  premises  and  are  subject  to  the  same 
appraisal policies as these other workers. …" (10. Training) 

"Teleworkers have the same collective rights as workers at the employer's premises. 
…" (11. Collective rights 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 workers at the standard workplace. Most of the 
implementing measures also state that the particularities 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 partner instruments (e.g. Spain and Sweden). Some instruments 
highlight employment regulations that apply in full to teleworkers (e.g. Finland, Ireland and 
Austria). Some measures also name those aspects 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 deals with specific aspects of telework (e.g. The 
Netherlands).  

In some cases where implementation involves legislation, the principle of equal treatment is 
only  implicitly  recognised  in  so  far  as  telework  is  governed  by  the  relevant  Labour  Code, 
which means general employment regulations are 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  there  have  been  no  specific  implementation 
measures,  the  governments  often  affirm  that  general  labour  law  and  the  rules  on  non-
discrimination at work must be assumed to apply to teleworkers, so guaranteeing their equal 
treatment (e.g. Germany and Cyprus). 

EN 

38 

   EN 

Implementing  measures  in  some  countries,  where  national  actors  may  have  considered  a 
general clause sufficient (e.g. Hungary), do not include a clear reference to equal treatment in 
terms of training, career development, collective rights and workload. 

3.5. 

Information to be provided to the teleworker 

The  Commission  considered  that  teleworkers  deserved  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  future  working  conditions  prior  to  their  assignment  or 
recruitment to teleworking. The employer should have a duty to inform the teleworker of the 
following: 

–  particulars pertaining to his/her assignments, 

–  exact  working  conditions:  working  hours,  work  sites,  determination  of  the 
material  conditions  pertaining  to  the  installation  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  the  worker's  protection,  in  particular  in 
cross-border situations), 

–  particulars  concerning  monitoring  of  the  use  of  information  technology  made 
available to the worker for telework purposes (such as surveillance of the websites 
consulted, details of telephone calls, etc.). 

With regard to transnational situations, the Commission made it clear that the worker and the 
employer should agree beforehand on the law applicable to the employment contract. 

Clause  3  and  certain  other  clauses  of  the  Framework  Agreement  provide  a  response  to  this 
proposal: 

"…  the  employer  provides  the  teleworker  with  relevant  written  information  in 
accordance  with  directive  91/533/EEC,  including  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 teleworker is attached, his/her immediate 
superior or other persons to whom she or he can address questions of professional 
or personal nature, reporting 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  policy  on  occupational 
health and safety, in particular requirements on visual display units." (8. Health and 
safety) 

EN 

39 

   EN 

"…  The  establishment  to  which  the  teleworker  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  employers  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 the work, the usual working hours, applicable collective agreements, etc. 
The  Framework  Agreement  indicates  that  some  additional  written  information  may  be 
required because of the specificities of telework (e.g. the relevant department, the immediate 
superior,  contact  persons,  reporting  arrangements).  Furthermore,  more  specific  information 
should  be  given  on  the  company's  policy  regarding  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  mentioned  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 directly based on a translation of the European 
text require the employer to inform teleworkers in writing about the issues mentioned in the 
Framework Agreement. Some social partner instruments refer to provisions of national law or 
regulations  transposing  Directive  91/533/EEC  which  stipulate  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 obligation 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,  installation,  maintenance, 
insurance and telecommunication 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  responsible  for  providing,  installing  and 
maintaining the equipment necessary for regular telework unless the teleworker uses 
his/her own equipment. 

EN 

40 

   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 technical support facility. 

The employer has the liability, in accordance with national legislation 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 equipment 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  telework  is  performed  at  home, 
where  equipment  can  also  be  used  for  other  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  parties,  but  nevertheless  establishes  a  general 
rule  on  the  employer's  duty  to  provide,  install  and  maintain  the  equipment  (unless  the 
teleworker  uses  his/her  own)  and  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  Framework  Agreement  goes  further  than  the 
Commission's  proposal  and  establishes  a  technical  support  facility  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 Agreement have given rise to a variety of solutions 
in national implementing measures with regard to the obligations of employers and workers. 
All solutions, however, respect the general balance found in the European text, i.e. a general 
obligation  on  the  employer  to  bear  the  costs  of  equipment  and  communications  with  some 
possible  exceptions.  Several  instruments  simply  reproduce  the  provisions  of  the  Framework 
Agreement  (e.g.  Italy  and  The  UK)  or  use  similar  wordings  (e.g.  Finland  and  Denmark  — 
commerce/services), while the rules are more detailed 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 that the employer will bear the responsibility only if there is 
no agreement on this point (e.g. Hungary and Portugal). In other countries, the social partners 
or  the  legislator  have  decided  that  the  employer  should  bear  the  full  responsibility  for  the 
provision  of  equipment,  except  where  the  worker  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, liability for damage and loss, and due diligence) 
of  this  clause  have  not  been  implemented  everywhere,  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,  although  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 teleworker's obligation to inform the employer in such an event 
(e.g. Belgium and France). 

EN 

41 

   EN 

3.7. 

Guarantee of specific training 

The  Commission  found  it  desirable  for  the  teleworker  to  receive  training  in  the  technical 
equipment  at  his/her  disposal  and  in  the  characteristics  of  this  method  of  work  organisation 
(in particular time management, the use of email and electronic archiving), where necessary. 
Such  training  for  the  teleworker  should  be  accompanied  by  broader  action  targeting  the 
supervisory staff and the teleworker's colleagues also (e.g. on the principles of management 
by objectives, and specific management of distant or mobile workers). 

The European social partners included a reference to specific training for telework in Clause 
10 of the Framework Agreement: 

"10. Training 

…  Teleworkers  receive  appropriate  training  targeted  at  the  technical  equipment  at 
their  disposal  and  at  the  characteristics  of  this  form  of  work  organisation.  The 
teleworker's supervisor and his/her direct colleagues may also 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  potential  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 based 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 exceptions, where legislative measures have been 
adopted  (Poland  and  Portugal).  Some  instruments  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 health and safety (e.g. Poland).  

3.8. 

Protection in the field of health and safety 

The  Commission  considered  that  the  provisions  governing  the  prevention  of  occupational 
hazards and the protection of workers must apply to teleworkers, including mobile workers, 
and  to  their  workplaces.  The  employer  is  responsible  for  the  health  and  safety  at  work  of 
his/her employees, irrespective of where this work is performed. In cases where telework is 
performed  from  home,  the  teleworker  must  authorise  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  safety  rules  in  force  and  to  comply  with  any 
instructions issued to him/her. 

These concerns are addressed by Clause 8 of the Framework Agreement: 

"8. Health and safety 

The employer is responsible for the protection of the occupational health and safety 
of  the  teleworker  in  accordance  with  Directive  89/391  and  relevant  daughter 
directives, national legislation and collective agreements. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

The employer informs the teleworker of the company's policy on occupational health 
and safety, in particular requirements on visual display units. The teleworker applies 
these safety policies correctly. 

In  order  to  verify  that  the  applicable  health  and  safety  provisions  are  correctly 
applied,  the  employer,  workers'  representatives  and/or  relevant  authorities  have 
access to the telework place, within the limits of national  legislation and  collective 
agreements.  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." 

As  this  clause  shows,  the  social  partners  agreed  with  the  Commission's  view  regarding  the 
employer's full responsibility for the  teleworker's occupational health 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  that  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. Hungary). In several cases, the national legislation 
specifically states that the employer is responsible for ensuring safe working conditions at the 
teleworker's  workplace  (e.g.  Slovenia  and  the  Netherlands).  Many  national  governments 
stress that health and safety regulations apply 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 referring to relevant health and safety legislation, 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 arise from electrical equipment (e.g. The UK and 
Austria). 

However, in some countries, certain health and safety provisions apply 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 are 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  telework  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  measures.  The  legislation  of  some  countries 
regulates or limits access by labour inspectors to workers' homes (e.g. Austria). 

The general thrust of Clause 8 is thus reflected 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 considered that some allowance could be made 
for flexibility vis-à-vis the working hours of employees working at the firm's premises. While 

EN 

43 

   EN 

the  total  working  time  must  remain  the  same,  some  flexibility  could  be  granted  in  order  to 
allow  teleworkers  to  organise  their  working  time  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 applicable legislation, collective agreements and company 
rules, the teleworker manages the organisation of his/her working time. …" 

The European social partners followed the Commission's proposal and recognised the general 
applicability  of  working  time  regulations  to  telework,  while  at  the  same  time  allowing  the 
teleworker some flexibility to arrange his/her own working schedules.  

The issue of working time has been explicitly dealt 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 text (e.g. Belgium, Italy and 
Greece)  and/or  refer  to  the  fact  that  legislation  and  collective  agreements  on  maximum 
working  time  are  applicable  to  teleworkers  (e.g.  Austria,  Ireland  and  Portugal).  Some  legal 
instruments  do  not  contain  any  specific  rules  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  general  regulations:  overtime  (Luxembourg  and 
Germany - company agreements), time registration (Hungary), compensation for overtime or 
work  on  public  holidays  (The  Czech  Republic  and  Slovakia),  and  bonuses  for  night  work 
(Slovakia). Other instruments allow working time to be determined by either the employer or 
the  teleworker;  the  collective  rules  on  working  time  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  amount  of  work  to  be  performed,  taking  into 
consideration the performance 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 other communication tools. Employers must inform 
their workers about the exact nature of the restrictions they impose on the use of such tools, in 
particular as regards use for private purposes, and 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  protection  are  addressed  in  Clauses  5  and  6  of  the 
Framework Agreement: 

"5. Data protection 

EN 

44 

   EN 

The  employer  is  responsible  for  taking  the  appropriate  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  relevant  legislation  and  company  rules 
concerning data protection. It is the teleworker's responsibility to comply with these 
rules. 

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. 

6. Privacy 

The employer respects the privacy of the teleworker. If any kind of monitoring system 
is  put  in  place,  it  needs  to  be  proportionate  to  the  objective  and  introduced  in 
accordance with Directive 90/270 on visual display units." 

The  provisions  agreed  by  the  European  social  partners  follow  the  Commission  proposal 
closely as regards protection of the teleworker's personal data and privacy and points relating 
to  private  use  of  equipment  and  controls  by  the  employer.  The  Framework  Agreement 
addresses the issue of protection of professional data and it makes a clear distinction between 
data protection in the interest of the employer (Clause 5) and the 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 the minimum safety and health requirements for work with 
display  screen  equipment,  which  states  that  "no  quantitative  or  qualitative  checking  facility 
may be used without the knowledge of the workers" (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 teleworker (Hungary), and written confirmation by 
the teleworker that s/he is aware of data protection rules (Poland). Some social partner tools 
list a number of risks and issues related to data protection (document disposal, virus checking, 
data back-up, etc.) that should 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  translation  or  through  other  references  to  the 
employer's duty to respect the teleworker's privacy. Reference is sometimes made to specific 
collective agreements or regulations to protect the privacy of employees (e.g. Belgium). Some 
instruments require both sides to agree on hours during which the employer can contact the 
teleworker (e.g. The UK, France and Luxembourg). 

The question of the employer'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 

45 

   EN 

Many  instruments  reproduce  the  provisions  of  the  Framework  Agreement  on  monitoring 
systems,  including  a  reference  to  Council  Directive  90/270/EEC  or  the  corresponding  legal 
instrument transposing that Directive (e.g. Denmark — industry, Finland and Italy). It must be 
assumed that the Directive is applied correctly in all Member States 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 Governments and the social partners stress that 
constitutional  or  legal  provisions  on  privacy  and  data  protection  apply  to  teleworkers  (e.g. 
Sweden and Germany). 

3.11.  Keeping in contact with the firm 

The Commission considered it necessary to prevent the occurrence of certain forms of social 
isolation associated with telework (lack of communication and informal information, lack of 
contact and exchanges with colleagues, etc.). Where possible, teleworkers should therefore be 
invited to attend meetings held at the firm's premises. Teleworkers should also have access to 
information communicated by the employer to other workers, in particular via access to the 
internal  mail  service  and/or  the  Intranet.  Lastly,  workers'  representatives  must  be  able  to 
communicate with teleworkers. Employers must take all the measures necessary to establish 
these links. 

The social partners addressed the issue of preventing 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 working 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  communicating  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, especially 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  detail  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. France 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 workers' representatives and 
to stand for election. 

Collective rights issues are addressed in Clause 11 of the Framework Agreement:  

"11. Collective rights issues 

EN 

46 

   EN 

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  determining  thresholds  for  bodies  with  worker 
representation in accordance with European and national law, collective agreements 
or  practices.  The  establishment  to  which  the  teleworker  will  be  attached  for  the 
purpose of exercising his/her collective rights is specified from the outset. 

Worker representatives are informed and consulted on  the introduction of telework 
in  accordance  with  European  and  national  legislations,  collective  agreements  and 
practices." 

The European Agreement satisfies all the conditions spelled out by the Commission to ensure 
that teleworkers enjoy their rights to collective representation and participation. 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 establishment to which the teleworker is attached. 
Furthermore,  the  role  of  workers'  representatives  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  legislation  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 bodies representing workers, in accordance with national legislation and 
collective agreements (e.g. Belgium, Finland and Poland). In one case the role of the works 
council  is  limited  to  receiving  information  on  the  number  and  position  of  teleworkers 
(Hungary). Some instruments require agreements between employers and trade unions to spell 
out the conditions for applying telework (e.g. Poland). In many countries, rules on telework 
are typically established by company-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 subject 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 and in compliance with the principles of equal 
treatment and equal opportunities. 

This  issue  is  only  dealt  with  indirectly  by  the  Framework  Agreement  in  so  far  as  worker 
representatives must be informed and consulted 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  should  accommodate  the  employee's  request  for 
telework "where possible" (Poland). 

EN 

47 

   EN 

4. 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES 

Autonomous agreements implemented in Member States through social dialogue must follow 
the  specific  rules  of  each  country's  national  industrial  relations  systems,  which  vary 
considerably as regards the responsibilities of the actors, and in particular of the national trade 
union  and  employers’  organisations.  The  implementation  process  cannot  therefore  be 
regarded as equivalent to the legislative transposition process for Community directives, and 
uniform outcomes cannot be expected. Any assessment of the implementation of autonomous 
agreements  has  to  take  account  of  their  specific  character  and  national  industrial  relations 
systems in general. 

4.1. 

The choice of instruments 

A  number  of  instruments  are  used  by  the  social  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 legislation or other action by public authorities, such as measures to 
extend  the  scope  of  collective  agreements  to  the  entire  workforce  (see  following  table  for 
more details). 

EN 

48 

   EN 

Instruments chosen to implement the Framework Agreement on Telework 

Instruments chosen* 

Countries 

Collective 
agreements at 
national level  

Agreements by 
social partners  

cross-industry 

extended by decree/binding 
erga omnes 

FR, BE, LU, GR1,2 
and IS1 

binding on signatory parties 
and their members 

IT 

sectoral  

DK3 

recommendations to lower bargaining levels 

FI and ES2 

Guidelines, 
recommendations 

addressed mainly to lower bargaining levels as 
well as companies and teleworkers 

NL and SE2 

addressed mainly to individual companies and 
teleworkers 

UK, IE4, AT5, LV2 
and NO2 

Joint declarations 

Model agreements proposed by social partners  

DE 

DE5 and IE 

Legislation 

based on agreement between social partners 

PL 

after consultation of social partners  

HU, SK and CZ6 

no/little involvement of social partners  

PT and SI6 

no implementation yet/no information  

Notes:  

CY, EE, LT, MT, 
BG and RO 

* This table does not cover sector-specific 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  Agreement  (e.g.  DE,  ES  and  AT).  Furthermore,  it  does  not  cover  individual  company 
agreements  on  telework  reported  by  social  partners  and  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 

49 

   EN 

The first alternative in Article 139(2) to which 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  and  practices  have  been  followed:  collective 
bargaining  at  national  or  sector  level  has  reflected  traditional  practice  in  several  countries 
(Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Greece,  Iceland,  Italy  and  Luxembourg).  Some  national  social 
partners have made recommendations to counterparts at lower levels in accordance with their 
usual  procedures  (Spain,  Finland,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden).  Guidelines  have  been 
adopted by the social partners in countries where industrial relations tend to be decentralised 
and do not provide for binding instruments at national level, leaving national social partners 
with little more than a coordinating function (The UK, Ireland and Latvia). In Germany the 
issue has typically been dealt with 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  legislator  even  though  they  were 
involved  in  the  drafting  or  consultation  process  (Poland,  Hungary,  Slovakia  and  the  Czech 
Republic). 

In several cases the social partners have developed 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  have  not  gone  as  far  as  expected,  given  the 
degree of development of industrial relations there. Sectoral social partner organisations could 
have been more involved in the implementation 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 implemented in a number of countries and the social 
partners may be expected to start the implementation process in accordance with their national 
industrial  relations  systems  (Cyprus,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and  Malta).  In  the  case  of  Bulgaria 
and Romania, the fact that social partners have only recently started to participate in European 
social dialogue explains 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 and 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 rules 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 

50 

   EN 

                                                 
The analysis shows that the main provisions and principles of the Framework Agreement have 
been incorporated fully into most national implementing 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  teleworkers  compared  with  other  employees 
working at the employer's premises (as regards working conditions, 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 teleworkers' health and safety at work; 

–  data protection and respect of privacy. 

By addressing the most important issues regarding 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 protection 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 instruments at workplaces may be expected to vary 
considerably  from  country  to  country.  This  is  also  the  result  of  the  great  variation  in  legal 
status and options for enforcing the implementing measures. Autonomous agreements cannot 
guarantee  uniform  outcomes,  binding  status  and  full  coverage  in  all  countries;  they  simply 
provide an overall framework and cannot enforce minimum labour standards or fundamental 
social rights.  

However, autonomous agreements should nevertheless 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  unions,  individual  employers,  local  trade  union 
officials,  workers  and  their  representatives  is  therefore  crucial  to  enhancing  the  impact  of 
autonomous  agreements.  The  benefits  of  telework  and  its  potential  contribution  to  active 
ageing could also be addressed 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 have their own dynamics and different priorities may prevail at 

EN 

51 

   EN 

different  times  in  different  countries.  European  agreements  may  be  implemented  as  part  of 
package deals or in conjunction with other issues. In several countries, collective bargaining 
rounds on the subject of working conditions (other than wages and working time) take place 
every few years only. Telework could therefore feature as one aspect of periodic sector-level 
bargaining  in  coming  years,  and  the  EU  Framework  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  some  extent  during  the  negotiations  in  2002  and 
were  invited  to  implement  the  Framework  Agreement.  In  these  countries,  labour  legislation 
and  industrial  relations  went  through  a  fast  catching-up  process  as  the  full  acquis 
communautaire  had  to  be  introduced  and  applied  in  practice.  In  these  circumstances, 
implementing  an  autonomous  EU  agreement  represented  a  major  challenge  to  industrial 
relations systems that had only been established relatively recently and were still developing. 
Nevertheless,  several  countries  managed  quite  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  action  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  the  Agreement  (Cyprus,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and 
Malta). 

Growing incidence of telework 

Telework  is  growing  in  importance  across  Europe  as  a  new  form  of  work  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 over 1% of the working population10. 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 has not featured as a priority in 
national  bipartite  social  dialogue  and  why  implementation  of  the  Framework  Agreement  is 
comparatively less advanced there. Nonetheless, the incidence of telework may be expected to 
rise across all Member States, since its potential has not yet been fully exploited and new IT 
tools are constantly being developed and disseminated on an ever wider scale. This may help 
ensure that telework takes on greater importance in discussions and negotiations between the 
social  partners,  which  should  lead  to  the  progressive  implementation  of  the  EU  Framework 
Agreement  and  thereby  create  positive  conditions  for  telework’s  steady  development  across 
Europe. 

10 

11 

12 

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 
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 
For instance, the rates of at least occasional home-based telework are 2% in Bulgaria and Romania, 3% 
in Malta and 5% in Cyprus. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

                                                 
Precedent for other autonomous agreements 

Lastly, the implementation of the Framework Agreement on Telework, the first autonomous 
agreement, is a groundbreaking achievement for the European and national social partners. In 
many  instances,  national  actors  needed  to  discuss  and  agree  on  their  responsibilities  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  confidence-building.  Lessons  will  certainly  be 
learned for the future as regards implementation 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  understanding  of  social 
dialogue instruments, including 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 partners 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,  safeguarding  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 therefore been achieved in most countries, though some reservations 
remain in cases where it is treated as equivalent to home working. The risk of discrimination 
of  teleworkers  compared  with  employees  working  on  a  permanent  basis  at  the  employer's 
premises is likely to have been reduced. Several 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  available,  the  full  impact  of  the  Framework 
Agreement on the protection of workers and the promotion of telework is difficult to assess at 
this stage. Further analysis based on more experience is necessary to determine its long-term 
impact. 

13 

See footnote 1. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

                                                 
5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

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  protection  and  guidance  provided  by  them  are  deemed 
adequate in the majority of EU Member 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  Agreement’s  implementation  has  therefore  clearly 
contributed to the Lisbon goals of modernising labour markets and achieving a more dynamic 
knowledge-based  economy.  By  ensuring  sound  management and organisation of  telework it 
has  also  made  useful  contributions  to  the  goals  of  the  i2010  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 development 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  several  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 countries 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, such as joint guidelines; 

–  taking up recommendations from national social partners to counterparts at lower 

levels in periodic sector-level bargaining; 

–  strengthening  efforts  to  disseminate  non-binding  guidelines  drafted  by  social 
partners in several countries and to raise awareness among individual employers 
and local trade union officials. Monitoring of company-level developments could 
be useful in that case. 

(3) 

Lastly,  the  Framework  Agreement’s  specific  objectives  could  be  achieved  more 
successfully in some countries by: 

–  implementing those aspects of the Agreement still outstanding in countries where 

it has only been partially implemented; 

EN 

54 

   EN 

–  clarifying  the  following  content-related  aspects:  the  relationship  between 
traditional  home  working  and  telework  in  national  legislation;  the  protection  of 
teleworkers  who  are  bogus  self-employed; 
implementing  measures’ 
applicability  to  alternating  telework  (which  concerns  the  large  majority  of 
teleworkers) and permanent telework; 

the 

–  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  exchanges  and  cross-border  learning,  and  monitoring 
the implementation process. Further monitoring and, where appropriate, specific action in the 
context  of  sectoral  social  dialogue  could  also  help  in  implementing  the  Framework 
Agreement. In addition, where the European social partners decide to conduct a review under 
Clause 12 of the Framework Agreement, they could usefully consider at greater depth some of 
the issues that have emerged both in this Report and in the social partners' own analysis as a 
result of monitoring the Framework Agreement, such as bogus self-employment, treatment of 
teleworking as equivalent to home working, alternating and permanent telework, cross-border 
situations and coverage of the public sector. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

6. 

ANNEX 

FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON TELEWORK 

1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 

In the context of the European employment strategy, the European Council invited the social 
partners  to  negotiate  agreements  modernising  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 consultation 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  negotiations  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  Economic  Area.  Through  them,  they  wished  to 
contribute to preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society as agreed by 
the European Council in Lisbon. 

Telework covers a wide and fast evolving spectrum of circumstances 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 way for companies and public service organisations 
to modernise work organisation, and as a way for workers to reconcile work and social life 
and giving them greater autonomy in the accomplishment of their tasks.  If Europe  wants to 
make  the  most  out  of  the  information  society,  it  must  encourage  this  new  form  of  work 
organisation 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. 

This voluntary Agreement aims at establishing a general framework at the European level to 
be  implemented  by  the  members  of  the  signatory  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  field  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 social partners to conclude, at the appropriate 
level, including European level, agreements adapting and/or complementing this agreement in 
a manner which will take note of the specific needs of the social partners concerned. 

2. DEFINITION AND SCOPE 

Telework is a form of organising and/or performing work, using information technology, in 
the  context  of  an  employment  contract/relationship,  where  work,  which  could  also  be 
performed at the employer's premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular 
basis. 

EN 

56 

   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  description  or  it  may  be  engaged  in  as  a  voluntary 
arrangement subsequently. 

In  both  cases,  the  employer  provides  the  teleworker  with  relevant  written  information  in 
accordance  with  directive  91/533/EEC,  including  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 teleworker is attached, his/her immediate superior or other persons 
to  whom  she  or  he  can  address  questions  of  professional  or  personal  nature,  reporting 
arrangements, etc. 

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. 

The  passage  to  telework  as  such,  because  it  only  modifies  the  way  in  which  work  is 
performed,  does  not  affect  the  teleworker's  employment  status.  A  worker  refusal  to  opt  for 
telework is not, as such, a reason for terminating the employment relationship or changing the 
terms and conditions of employment of that worker. 

If  telework  is  not  part  of  the  initial  job  description,  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 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  collective  agreements,  as  comparable  workers  at  the  employer's 
premises.  However,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the  particularities  of  telework,  specific 
complementary collective and/or individual agreements may be necessary. 

5. DATA PROTECTION 

The  employer  is  responsible  for  taking  the  appropriate  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 relevant legislation and company rules concerning 
data protection. 

It is the teleworker's responsibility to comply with these rules. 

The employer informs the teleworker in particular of: 

–  any restrictions on the use of IT equipment or tools such as the internet, 

EN 

57 

   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 place, it needs to be proportionate to the objective 
and introduced in accordance with Directive 90/270 on visual display units. 

7. EQUIPMENT 

All  questions  concerning  work  equipment,  liability  and  costs  are  clearly  defined  before 
starting telework. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  employer  is  responsible  for  providing,  installing  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 particular those relating to communication. 

The employer provides the teleworker with an appropriate technical support facility. 

The  employer  has  the  liability,  in  accordance  with  national  legislation  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 equipment provided to him/her and does not collect or 
distribute illegal material via the internet. 

8. HEALTH AND SAFETY 

The  employer  is  responsible  for  the  protection  of  the  occupational  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  occupational  health  and 
safety, in particular requirements on visual display units. The teleworker applies these safety 
policies correctly. 

In  order  to  verify  that  the  applicable  health  and  safety  provisions  are  correctly  applied,  the 
employer,  workers'  representatives  and/or  relevant  authorities  have  access  to  the  telework 
place, within the limits of national legislation and collective agreements. 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 legislation, collective agreements and company rules, the 
teleworker manages the organisation of his/her working time. 

The  workload  and  performance  standards  of  the  teleworker  are  equivalent  to  those  of 
comparable workers at the employers premises. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

The employer ensures that measures are taken preventing 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 regular basis and access to company information. 

10. TRAINING 

Teleworkers  have  the  same  access  to  training  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 this form of work organisation. The teleworker's supervisor and 
his/her direct colleagues may also need training 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  determining  thresholds  for  bodies  with  worker 
representation  in  accordance  with  European  and  national  law,  collective  agreements  or 
practices.  The  establishment  to  which  the  teleworker  will  be  attached  for  the  purpose  of 
exercising his/her collective rights is specified from the outset. 

Worker  representatives  are  informed  and  consulted  on  the  introduction  of  telework  in 
accordance with European and national legislations, collective agreements and practices. 

12. IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP 

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 implementation of this agreement to an ad hoc group 
set up by the signatory parties, under the responsibility 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  agreement,  member  organisations  involved  can 
separately or jointly refer to the signatory parties. 

The  signatory  parties  shall  review  the  agreement  five  years  after  the  date  of  signature  if 
requested by one of the signatory parties. 

Brussels, 16 July 2002 

EN 

59 

   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 

EN 

60 

   EN