COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Detailed overview of the replies received from the social partners at European level to the first-phase consultation under Article 154 TFEU on Reviewing the Working Time Directive    Accompanying document to the   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Reviewing the Working Time Directive  (Second-phase consultation of the social partners at European level  under Article 154 TFEU)    {COM(2010) 801 final}
Date: 2010-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: arrangement of working time, derogation from EU law, night work, paid leave, rest period, shift work, working time

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.12.2010 
SEC(2010) 1610 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Detailed overview of the replies received from the social partners at European 
level to the first-phase consultation under Article 154 TFEU on Reviewing the 
Working Time Directive  

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Reviewing the Working Time Directive 

(Second-phase consultation of the social partners at European level  
under Article 154 TFEU) 

{COM(2010) 801 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  March  2010,  the  Commission  consulted1  the  social  partners  at  European  level,  in 
accordance with Article 154(2) TFEU, on the need for, and possible direction of, action at EU 
level to review the Working Time Directive2. 

This Staff Working Paper provides a detailed overview of the replies which the Commission 
received.  

It  is  attached  to  a  further  Communication  from  the  Commission  (COM(2010)  801),  which 
launches  the  second  stage  of  consultation  under  Article  154(3)  TFEU,  asking  the  social 
partners at European level for their views on the possible content of such action.  

2. 

CONTEXT  

The first-phase consultation of the social partners on reviewing the Working Time Directive 
was launched on 24 March (COM(2010) 106).  

The questions on which the Commission consulted the social partners are as follows:  

(a) 

How  could  we  develop  balanced  and  innovative  proposals  regarding  the 
organisation of working time that move beyond the unsuccessful debates of the 
last conciliation process? What is your long-term vision for the organisation of 
working time in a modern setting? 

(a)  What impact do you think that changes in working patterns and practices have 
had  on  the  application  of  the  Directive?  Have  any  particular  provisions 
become obsolete, or more difficult to apply? 

(b)  What is your experience to date of the overall functioning of the Working Time 
Directive? What has been your experience regarding the key issues identified 
in section 5 of COM(2010) 106?  

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

Do  you  agree  with  the  analysis  contained  in  COM(2010)  106  as  regards  the 
organisation  and  the  regulation  of  working  time  in  the  EU?  Are  there  any 
further issues which you consider should be added?  

Do you consider that the Commission should launch an initiative to amend the 
Directive?  If  so,  do  you  agree  with  the  objectives  of  a  review  as  set  out  in 
COM(2010) 106? What do you consider should be its scope?  

Do  you  think  that,  apart  from  legislative  measures,  other  action  at  European 
Union  level  would  merit  consideration?  If  so,  what  form  of  action  should  be 
taken, and on which issues? 

Do you wish to consider initiating a dialogue under Article 155 TFEU on any 
of the issues identified in this consultation? If so, on which ones?  

1 
2 

COM(2010) 106 (first phase consultation paper, in accordance with Article 154(2) TFEU). 
Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning 
certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
At the request of the social partners (particularly ETUC and Business Europe), the deadline 
for replies was extended to 12 June 2010.  

The Commission received a total of 47 replies to the consultation.  

33 replies were received from recognised European cross-sectoral and sectoral social partners. 
The sectoral social partners represented the following sectors: agriculture, banking, chemicals, 
education,  film  and  TV  production,  healthcare,  hotel/restaurant/catering,  performing  arts, 
metal/engineering/technological,  municipal  and 
transport, 
retail/commerce, sea fishing and private security. In addition, two social partner organisations 
represent  particular  groups  (workers  at  managerial  and  professional  level).  A  full  list  of  all 
replying social partner organisations is given in Annex I. 

regional  government, 

rail 

In addition, 14 replies were received from organisations3 which are not recognised European 
social  partners  (European  federations  of  doctors,  firefighters,  defence  forces,  and  some 
national doctors’ and nurses’ organisations, as well as employer federations in certain sectors 
(oil  and  gas  exploration,  private  medical  clinics,  camping  parks)).  These  organisations  are 
listed in Annex II. 

In accordance with the Commission’s normal practice, replies to a consultation under Article 
154 TFEU are not published by the Commission (though a replying organisation may publish 
its own reply if it so wishes). Rather, the Commission makes available its own analysis of the 
replies  received.  This  Staff  Working  Paper  provides  that  analysis  for  the  first-phase 
consultation on reviewing the Working Time Directive.  

3. 

REPLIES TO THE FIRST-STAGE CONSULTATION QUESTIONS  

Overall, employers and unions are in broad agreement that the last 20 years have seen major 
changes to the world of work which significantly affect the organisation of working time.  

However,  they  emphasise  different  aspects  of  these  changes,  and  draw  quite  different 
conclusions on their implications for the organisation of working time.  

Employers tend to see the changes as necessitating far greater flexibility in the organisation of 
working  time;  while  unions  consider  that  on  the  contrary,  they  underline  the  continued 
importance  of  providing  effective  legal  protection  for  workers  against  excessive  working 
hours.  

A number of replies (from unions or employers  or both) wanted to see specific changes for 
particular sectors or groups of workers. 

This section continues by providing detailed summaries regarding each of the seven questions 
asked.  

3 

Some replies were received from organisations which are not, and are not affiliated to, the federations 
recognised  by  the  Commission  under  Article  152  TFEU  as  representative  social  partners  at  the 
European  level.  Following  the  Commission’s  usual  practice,  such  replies  cannot  form  part  of 
consultation  of  recognised  social  partners  under  Article  154  TFEU.  They  have  been  accepted  as 
contributing to the overall information available to the Commission services, and are mentioned here for 
completeness, but always with a specific reference to their different status. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
3.1. 

Innovative proposals  

How  could  we  develop  balanced  and  innovative  proposals  regarding  the  organisation  of 
working  time  that  move  beyond  the  unsuccessful  debates  of  the  last  conciliation  process? 
What is your long-term vision for the organisation of working time in a modern setting? 

There  was  general  support  for  the  role  of  collective  bargaining  in  providing  flexible  and 
innovative  working  time  solutions.  Another  theme  which  attracted  wide  support  from  both 
employer  and  union  federations  was  the  growing  importance  of  measures  to  improve  work-
life  balance,  which  were  identified  as  increasingly  important  for  recruiting  and  retaining 
workers. Both public-sector employer federations and cross-sectoral trade unions underlined 
the  importance  of  finding  a  balanced  approach,  which  would  allow  flexibility  for  the 
provision of high-quality public services while avoiding negative health and safety effects for 
workers and ensuring working conditions which respond to workers’ own needs. A key issue 
is  how  to  ensure  that  working  time  flexibility  which  benefits  employers  will  also  benefit 
workers.  

A number of contributions referred to the need for a better fit between working time rules and 
overall  EU  policy  imperatives:  employers  tended  to  refer  more  to  flexicurity  requirements, 
while workers’ organisations tended to focus more on increasing workforce participation by 
means of work-life balance.  

The role of collective bargaining 

There was general support for the role of collective bargaining. For example, BusinessEurope, 
CEEP,  CEEMET  and  UEAPME  all  acknowledged  that  a  wide  range  of  successful 
mechanisms  for  more  flexible  working  time,  which  benefited  both  employers  and  workers, 
had already been established via collective bargaining.  

Increased flexibility  

The  main  emphasis  of  employers  (BusinessEurope,  CEEP,  UEAPME,  Eurocommerce, 
HOSPEEM)  was  on  the  need  for  increased  flexibility  in  the  organisation  of  working  time. 
Employers emphasised that they saw flexibility as providing benefits both for workers and for 
employers.  CEEMET  referred  by  way  of  example  to  short-time  working  schemes,  time 
banking, working time accounts and flexitime arrangements.  

Unions  took  a  more  nuanced  view,  arguing  that  while  flexibility  could  provide  win-win 
solutions, some forms of flexibility risked having severe negative effects on workers. ETUC 
proposed  to  use  the  term  ‘adaptability’  instead,  arguing  that  the  term  ‘flexibility’  risked 
having negative connotations for workers.  

Excessive working hours  

ETUC  advocates  ‘better  working  time’,  avoiding  excessive  working  hours,  as  a  factor  to 
improve  productivity  and  reduce  absenteeism.  Limiting  long-hours  working  will  improve 
protection  of  workers’  health  and  safety,  while  also  supporting  gender  equality  and  family 
wellbeing. Moreover, if workers now need to work more years for demographic reasons, long 
working hours are increasingly unsustainable.  

For ETUC, it is particularly necessary to provide better minimum protection to workers with 
stressful and/or unhealthy working patterns (intensification, broken day shifts …).  

EN 

4 

   EN 

A balanced approach  

CEEP suggested that modern work organisation should be based on striking the right balance 
between  protecting  workers’  health  and  safety,  and  allowing  flexibility  to  provide  quality 
goods  or  services.  This  approach  would  allow  public  services  to  cope  effectively  with  the 
ageing  of  the  EU  workforce  and  provide  innovative  forms  of  work-life  balance.  The  social 
partners were best placed to find such solutions, and EU law should provide scope for this to 
be done.  

HOSPEEM similarly emphasised that in its view real flexibility of working time organisation 
was needed in order to provide effective and well-targeted 24-hour public health services, but 
that the measures needed to ensure patient safety had much in common with those required to 
protect  workers’  health  and  safety.  Health  workers  must  enjoy  fair  working  conditions,  and 
patients should not be treated by overtired staff.  

CEMR also underlined its deep commitment to protecting employees’ health and safety and 
emphasised that its demand for flexibility was intended to benefit employees and to improve 
working conditions.  

Unions  generally  conclude  that  sustainable  working  time  arrangements  must  be  based  on 
strong, clear, legally binding minimum rules at European as well as national and global level, 
so  that  workers  are  not  unduly  pressurised  by  market  forces  to  abandon  health  and  safety 
standards.  

They  consider  that  such  a  framework  also  incentivises  balanced  negotiations  between  the 
social partners to adapt general working time rules to the specific needs of organisations and 
workers. Such an approach must take account of the fact that, increasingly, modern workers 
are  men  and  women  who  also  need  to  reserve  time  for  care  obligations,  for  continuing 
education, and for active participation in society. It should also take account of differing needs 
throughout the life course.  

Adapting work organisation to workers’ needs 

ETUC  called  for  general  reflection  on  how  to  integrate  the  diverse  needs  of  workers  into 
sustainable  long-term  organisation  of  working  time  in  the  EU.  For  example,  work 
organisation  needs  to  take  better  account  of  the  fact  that,  increasingly,  workers  are  not 
operating  in  the  traditional  model  of  a  male  household  breadwinner.  Rather,  both  men  and 
women  are  now  more  likely  to  work  while  also  having  household,  care  and  family 
obligations.  

Given  shrinking  birthrates,  demographic  ageing,  and  the  need  for  later  pensionable  ages, 
thought should also be given to a ‘life-course’ approach (where workers work differently at 
different  stages  of  their  lives  but  may  remain  in  work  longer),  including  income  security 
aspects.  

This concept of ‘adaptability’ would also respond to greater participation of older workers, the 
need  for  a  ‘life-course’  approach,  shrinking  birthrates,  later  pensionable  ages,  and  greater 
diversity  and  individualisation  of  workers’  needs  and  lifestyles.  ‘Limitation  [of  excessive 
hours] and adaptability in smart working time arrangements’ form the key to a modern vision 
of working time organisation.  

More input for workers into the design of working time  

EN 

5 

   EN 

ETUC  considers  that  workers  need  to  have  a  stronger  bargaining  position  for  influencing 
working time patterns to better reflect their needs. Lack of control and influence over working 
time is a major source of stress for workers. Workers should have a right to request changes in 
their working hours, and employers should be obliged to notify workers in time about changes 
to working time schedules. 

Work-life balance  

Many  replies  also  emphasised  the  growing  importance  of  measures  to  improve  work-life 
balance  (BusinessEurope,  Eurocommerce,  EPSU,  ETUC,  UEAPME),  although  many 
employer federations expressed a strong preference for relying on collective bargaining rather 
than legislative initiatives in this area.  

For  example,  Eurocommerce’s  experience  was  that  developing  and  extending  reconciliation 
measures  was  essential  to  recruiting  and  retaining  staff.  It  referred  to  existing  sectoral 
agreements and guidelines on telework, part-time work and age diversity. It noted that high-
performance  businesses  tend  to  provide  flexible  working  arrangements,  and  underlined  the 
importance of reconciliation for increasing women’s workforce participation.  

Similarly, EPSU described work-life balance as ‘key’ to any long-term vision of working time 
organisation, since it was ‘clear that workers do want to achieve a better work-life balance.’ 
Its affiliates had already negotiated at various levels a range of positive working time policies 
(annual leave, sabbaticals, working time accounts, part-time work options for older workers, 
longer  rest  breaks  in  difficult  or  stressful  occupations).  Another  examples  is  DBB/CNV, 
which underlined the importance for its members of improving work-life reconciliation. 

3.2. 

Impact of changes and trends at work  

What  impact  do  you  think  that  changes  in  working  patterns  and  practices  have  had  on  the 
application  of  the  Directive?  Have  any  particular  provisions  become  obsolete,  or  more 
difficult to apply? 

There is broad agreement among employers and unions that the last 20 years have seen major 
changes  in  the  world  of  work  which  significantly  affect  the  organisation  of  working  time. 
Trade  unions  hold  this  view  less  strongly  than  employers,  for  whom  it  is  considered 
paramount.  Employers  and  unions  both  emphasise  the  individualisation  of  lifestyles,  and 
strong  demand  from  workers  for  a  wider  range  of  options  to  help  in  balancing  work  and 
private life.  

Replies to the above question regarding specific provisions of the Directive are considered in 
the section 3.3.  

Private sector employers emphasise  factors such as increased competition, globalisation, the 
shift  from  manufacturing  to  services,  technological  change  and  particularly  the  accelerated 
use of information and communication technologies, rapid changes in the products demanded 
by  consumers,  and  sharp  fluctuations  in  demand.  CEEMET,  for  example,  saw  the  de-
standardisation of individual working time as a key trend and considered that EU rules should 
adapt to this.  

Public  sector  employers  highlight  particularly  their  obligations  to  provide  high-quality  24-
hour services to vulnerable citizens, the escalating demand for health and care services due to 
demographic factors, the difficulty of containing rising costs in the face of budget constraints 
exacerbated by the current crisis, and the chronic shortages of qualified healthcare workers.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

Trade unions underline in particular the intensification of work, the development of precarious 
work, the negative effects of excessive working hours on health and safety of workers, as well 
as on the quality and productivity of their work, and the accompanying risks for third parties 
(especially in safety-critical activities). They emphasise the problems posed by long working 
hours  for  combining  work  and  family  life.  In  ETUC’s  view,  long  working  hours  have  a 
serious  negative  impact  on  already-falling  birth  rates  and  on  the  Lisbon  objectives  of 
increasing workforce participation by women and by older workers, and pose problems for the 
new demographic imperative of longer working lives and later pensionable ages. 

Unions  agree  on  the  factors  affecting  public  services,  but  argue  that  resorting  to  long  hours 
working can only aggravate the problems of recruiting and retaining staff, especially given the 
feminisation of medical and health workforces and the challenges already posed by work-life 
reconciliation. Moreover, health and emergency services should not be delivered by overtired 
staff  whose  skills  or  judgment  may  be  impaired  by  fatigue.  Instead,  public  services  should 
focus  on  better  work  organisation  models  which  make  the  sector  a  more  attractive  place  to 
work. 

Globalisation and costs pressures 

Manufacturing  employer  federations  (CEEMET)  referred  to  the  demands  of  global 
competitiveness,  cyclical  changes  and  just-in-time  production  methods,  which  they  saw  as 
making it essential for employers to have more flexibility over the organisation and quantity 
of  working  hours.  They  argued  that  this  also  contributed  to  satisfying  individual  worker 
preferences.  Employers  in  the  banking  sector,  and  in  film  and  TV  production,  underlined 
concerns that their work could easily be moved to cheaper locations outside the EU if costs 
were  seen  as  uncompetitive.  Public  services  employers  referred  to  the  pressures  on  public 
budgets and the overall increase in health budgets due to demographic and other factors. 

Autonomy and knowledge working  

This issue was important for social partners representing manufacturing employers, managers 
and  professional  employees,  banking  employers,  and  employers  and  workers  in  the 
performing  arts.  They  generally  agreed  on  the  increasing  number  of  knowledge  workers 
whose  skills  could  be  of  pivotal  importance  to  employers,  and  also  on  work  organisation 
which measured performance by achievement of targets rather than by presence at a particular 
place or for a particular length of time. Both advantages and risks of this development were 
highlighted.  

Rapidly fluctuating demand  

Eurocommerce (retail employers) felt that rapidly fluctuating demand was an important factor 
for the sector. 

Employment patterns  

Sectoral  social  partners  for  the  performing  arts  sector  emphasised  the  prevalence  of  short 
temporary  employment  contracts,  multiple  simultaneous  contracts  and  self-employment  in 
this sector. Employers considered that this aspect required more flexibility, while unions saw 
it  as  requiring  greater  legal  protection.  Public  service  education  employers  also  raised 
concerns  about  requirements  regarding  employees  who  work  under  more  than  one 
employment contract.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

Growth of part-time employment  

This  was  mentioned  as  an  important  related  feature  by  social  partners  for  the  commerce, 
performing arts and healthcare sectors.  

Provision of 24-hour services  

A  number  of  replies  from  employers’  federations  invoked  the  importance  of  providing  24-
hour  services:  public  services  employers  generally,  health  services  in  the  public  sector 
(emphasising  responsibility  for  the  care  of  vulnerable  citizens)  and  the  private  sector, 
(information 
taxi  services,  and  cargo 
management).  Private  security  employers,  for  example,  called  for  more  flexibility  on  the 
timing of daily and weekly rest.  

technology,  private  security,  car  rental  and 

A number of replies highlighted specific problems regarding workers who are provided with 
residential  accommodation  at  the  workplace  (residential  care  wardens,  camping  and  holiday 
park staff, offshore oil and gas workers…) or who are available on-call on a 24-hour basis for 
a very limited period of time in particular circumstances (teachers accompanying children on 
school trips, assistants to persons with disabilities...).  

The  question  of  Sunday  rest  was  raised  by  DBB/CNV,  who  considered  that  working  time 
rules  should  in  general  define  Sunday  as  a  collective  day  of  rest,  but  with  exceptions  for 
certain necessary sectors (transport, tourism…).  

Workers’ demands for adaptable working time 

Social  partners  (mainly  employers)  for  commerce,  banking,  rail,  security,  and  health,  all 
identified  demands  by  workers  for  more  individual  working  patterns,  or  for  better 
reconciliation of work and family life, as an important factor in the organisation of work for 
their sector.  

Skills shortages  

Long-term shortages of certain skilled workers were seen as a problem by social partners for 
public firefighting services and for public health services. The problem for health services was 
exacerbated by the relatively long time needed to acquire specialist healthcare qualifications . 

3.3. 

Experience of the current rules  

What  is  your  experience  to  date  of  the  overall  functioning  of  the  Working  Time  Directive? 
What has been your experience regarding the key issues identified in section 5 of COM (2010) 
106?  

Employers  express  rather  varied  perceptions  of  the  Directive  itself.  Business  Europe  is 
opposed  in  principle  to  regulating  working  time  at  EU  level.  UEAPME,  on  the  other  hand, 
considers  that  regulating  working  time  at  EU  level  is  important  in  order  to  provide  a  level 
playing field for small and medium enterprises in particular.  

Business Europe, CEEP, CEEMET and UEAPME all agree in finding the current  EU rules 
unacceptably  rigid  and  in  insisting  on  the  need  to  amend  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law  in 
particular,  as  well  as  the  recent  judgments  on  paid  annual  leave.  They  argue  that  EU  and 
national law already provides a high level of protection for workers’ health and safety. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

Unions,  on  the  other  hand,  generally  stress  that  EU  working  time  rules  are  based  on 
fundamental  social  rights  protected  by  the  Treaty  and  by  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights.  They  are  generally  critical  of  the  state  of  enforcement  and  application  of  certain 
aspects, particularly of the SIMAP-Jaeger judgments. In addition, unions highlighted concerns 
about  derogations  which  they  considered  were  too  broad  (particularly  the  ‘opt-out’  under 
Article  22  and  the  ‘autonomous  workers’  derogation  under  Article  17(1),  which  they 
considered should be tightened up to avoid potential for abuse. For EPSU and ETUC, the need 
to protect workers against excessive working hours must be the paramount objective.  

Employers  and  unions  both  agree  that  the  social  partners  have  already  jointly  developed  a 
range  of  good  models  for  working  time  organisation,  which  can  meet  the  needs  of  both 
employers  and  workers.  Unions  argue,  however,  that  the  existence  of  the  opt-out  and  the 
possibility  of  different  treatment  for  inactive  on-call  time  often  prevent  employers  from 
negotiating seriously on such solutions. 

A  number  of  sectoral  social  partners  sought  to  emphasise  distinctive  features  of  their  sector 
which  needed  to  be  taken  into  account  by  working  time  rules:  opinions  were  varied  on 
whether  these  distinctive  features  required  any  changes  to  the  current  Directive,  and  if  so, 
whether the need was for greater flexibility or greater protection.  

A number of employer federations wanted reference periods for average working time to be 
extended, allowing up to 12 months without needing collective bargaining and longer under 
collective agreements. 

Other factors which were emphasised in the replies4 were as follows:  

Seasonality  

A  number  of  sectoral  social  partners  emphasised  the  importance  of  seasonality  in  the 
following  sectors:  agriculture  (including  sugar  processing),  retail  sales,  performing  arts,  and 
tourism.  

Similarly, sectoral social partners in film and television production underlined the importance 
of  short,  intense  working  periods  within  the  industry.  Here  and  in  agriculture,  employers 
referred to the high cost of using specialised technical equipment for relatively short periods 
and  the  shortage  of  workers  with  the  necessary  skills  to  use  it.  CEFS,  representing  sugar 
producers,  argued  for  a  minimum  12-month  reference  period  for  average  weekly  working 
time.  

The same point was made by employers’ organisations from the camping sector and from the 
offshore work (oil and gas) sectors. 

Provision of residential accommodation 

A number of respondents wanted account to be taken of the fact that workers are commonly 
provided with residential accommodation at the workplace in certain sectors (private security 
(concierges), sea fishing, offshore work and camping: although emphasising that workers are 
only contacted out of hours in rare emergency cases, they were concerned that such a situation 

4 

References  to  offshore  work  and  camping:  the  organisations  concerned  are  not  recognised  European 
social partners. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
could  lead  to  workers’  private  time  being  regarded  as  working  time,  and  asked  for 
clarification.  

A separate point was made by public education employers, who expressed concern about the 
sustainability  of  educational  trips  and  residential  schools,  if  teachers  who  were  on  duty 
overnight or at weekends in case of emergencies involving students, were considered as on-
call at the workplace for the purposes of SIMAP-Jaeger.  

Working in remote areas  

This  was  an  important  consideration  for  public  service  employers,  for  agriculture  and  sea 
fishing, as well as for employers in camping and in offshore work.  

Safety-critical functions  

Employers  in  the  rail  sector,  unions  for  public  health  and  emergency  services,  and 
organisations  of  defence  forces  employees5,  referred  to  the  importance  of  avoiding  fatigue-
related errors, and of ensuring well-rested workers, in the interests of health and safety both of 
the workers concerned and of passengers or patients.  

High prevalence of SMEs  

Employers in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector underlined the high prevalence of SMEs 
in the industry.  

Health services  

The social partners’ replies regarding public health services are already summarised in earlier 
sections of this paper. 

In addition, there were a number of replies from national and European associations of doctors 
and  doctors  in  training  (not  recognised  EU  social  partners),  and  one  reply  from  a  national 
body  of  nurses.  Most  of  these  replies  argued  strongly  for  maintaining  and  enforcing  the 
SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law,  with  no  change  to  the  definition  of  on-call  time  or  working  time. 
They referred to the research on negative health and safety implications of long working hours 
and irregular hours both for medical workers and for patients. They also considered that such 
practices could only exacerbate the difficulties of recruiting and retaining qualified staff.  

On the opt-out, most replies from medical workers favoured its abolition. A joint reply of nine 
European  doctors’  organisations  wanted  to  end  the  opt-out,  but  acknowledged  the  political 
obstacles  to  doing  so  in  practice.  They  concluded  that  there  should  be  no  change  to  the 
existing  Directive.  An  Austrian  doctors’  federation  advocated  removing  the  opt-out,  but 
allowing  doctors  to  work  up  to  60  hours  per  week  (including  on-call  time)  by  collective 
agreement. The nurses’ body felt that compliance with the 48-hour limit is feasible with some 
reorganisation of working practices, and called for the opt-out to be phased out. Conversely, a 
UK organisation representing surgeons argued that all surgeons should be allowed to work up 
to  65  hours  per  week  under  individual  opt-outs,  contending  that  application  of  the  48-hour 
limit in the UK led to more tiring shift patterns and a high level of false compliance.  

Fire services  

5 

Not a recognised social partner. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
Trade unions representing public service firefighters in Germany and in the Netherlands sent a 
joint  reply  on  the  specific  needs  of  the  sector.  They  concluded  that  all  on-call  time  at  the 
workplace  should  be  considered  as  working  time  and  not  as  rest  time,  following  SIMAP-
Jaeger.  However,  the  rules  on  rest  periods  should  be  relaxed  to  allow  for  maintaining  the 
former working pattern of 24-hour shifts, which was considered to suit the particular needs of 
the fire services, subject to further exploration of the health and safety effects. In view of the 
need to recruit and train a sufficient number of additional firefighters, the opt-out should also 
be  extended  temporarily,  subject  to  protective  conditions:  in  the  long  term,  it  should  be 
abolished.  

A  number  of  replies  were  also  received  from  organisations  of  firefighters  at  European  or  at 
national level, who are not recognised social partners. Some advocated maintaining the opt-
out  for  fire  services  which  wished  to  use  it,  changing  the  rules  on  rest  periods  to  allow  24-
hour shifts to continue, or amending the Directive to clarify that volunteer firefighters6 were 
not included within the scope of the Directive.  

Defence forces  

EUROMIL,  an  organisation  of  workers  in  defence  forces  in  different  Member  States  which 
has applied for affiliation to ETUC but is not presently a recognised social partner, deplored 
any proposal to change the SIMAP-Jaeger case law, and stressed the importance of ensuring 
that  workers  in  defence  forces  were  effectively  covered  by  the  Directive.  It  considered  that 
effective  transposition  was  lacking  in  many  Member  States  regarding  working  time  of  the 
defence forces.  

Flexibility  was  possible  for  the  specific  needs  of  the  armed  forces;  however,  any  such 
derogations  should  be  based  on  comprehensive  and  legally  binding  working  time  rules 
treating  all  on-call  time  and  emergency  preparedness  as  working  time,  should  be  negotiated 
through social dialogue, and should provide proper protection against excessive and irregular 
hours. 

3.4. 

Reaction to the Commission’s analysis 

Do  you  agree  with  the  analysis  contained  in  COM  (2010)  106  as  regards  the  organisation 
and  the  regulation  of  working  time  in  the  EU?  Are  there  any  further  issues  which  you 
consider should be added? 

Employers  were  broadly  in  agreement  with  the  analysis  presented  in  the  Commission’s 
consultation paper. Business Europe, UEAPME and CEEP welcomed the broader perspective 
proposed for the current review. In particular, CEEP welcomed a more ‘realistic’ approach in 
the  consultation  paper  and  was  pleased  with  the  recognition  of  the  importance  of  better 
regulation  in  this  area  for  the  provision  of  effective  public  services,  while  CEMR  liked  its 
willingness to listen to the social partners with an open mind.  

Business Europe and UEAPME considered, however, that the issue of on-call time should be 
recognised as  important  for the private as  well as for the  public  sectors  and  should, in their 
view, be seen as essentially cross-sectoral.  

6 

In some Member States, fire services include a core of professional full-time firefighters, together with 
reserves of volunteer firefighters who have other full-time employment but can be called for occasional 
firefighting  training  or  duties  as  required.  According  to  the  replies  received,  their  employment  status 
and the conditions under which they participate differ between Member States. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
Business Europe argues that treating inactive on-call time at the workplace as working time 
would seriously affect the activities of private health and residential care providers, security 
and firefighters at chemical plants, IT service providers (particularly call centres), and private 
security  services.  UEAPME  mentions  private  care  activities,  security  services,  and  private 
transport (taxis, rented cars). 7  

Several  employer  organisations  also  emphasised  that  flexibility  could  benefit  both  workers 
and  employers  and  that  it  should  not  have  a  negative  connotation.  CEMR  and  HOSPEEM 
both thought that the consultation paper portrayed flexibility as negative for employees8, and 
were anxious to emphasise that flexibility could benefit both workers and employers.  

Conversely, the ETUC and EPSU replies were critical of the Commission’s overall analysis. 
They considered that the consultation paper did not reflect adequately the legal importance of 
the  working  time  rules  (Art.  151  TFEU,  Art  31  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights),  nor  the 
Treaty  objective  of  maintaining  and  improving  protection  of  workers’  health  and  safety.  In 
particular, they contend that the Directive is not functioning effectively within Member States 
because the Commission has failed in its obligations to uphold and enforce the legislation.  

3.5. 

Possible legislative action 

Do you consider that the Commission should launch an initiative to amend the Directive? If 
so, do you agree with the objectives of a review as set out in COM(2010) 106? What do you 
consider should be its scope?  

The  main  cross-sectoral  social  partners  agree  on  the  need  to  review  the  Working  Time 
Directive. However, there are important differences between employers and unions regarding 
its context, scope and objectives.  

All  cross-sectoral  employer  organisations  agree  in  finding  the  current  rules  too  rigid  and 
complex, and stress the need to amend the SIMAP-Jaeger case law in particular, as well as the 
Schultz-Hoff and Stringer rulings on paid annual leave. For Business Europe, it would also be 
useful to extend the reference period, but no other issues should be covered by the review, and 
it insists on keeping the opt-out. Conversely, CEEP and UEAPME would consider broadening 
the scope for revision to other matters, and take the view that extending the reference period 
to  12  months  and  changing  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law  would  substantially  reduce  demand 
for the opt-out.  

Unions, on the other hand, emphasise that the working time rules are based on fundamental 
social rights protected by the Treaty and by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, 
they consider that any review must, in overall terms, respect and build on the existing law, in 
order  to  improve  protection  currently  available  to  workers  (both  legally  and  in  practice.) 
Protecting  workers  against  excessive  working  hours  must  be  the  paramount  objective. 
Derogations should be tightened. They also consider that a new review must give due weight 

7 

8 

On-call time in residential care, fire services and 24-hour health services falls within the scope of the 
SIMAP-Jaeger  judgments,  whether  it  takes  place  in  the  public  or  the  private  sector.  It  is  not  clear  to 
what  extent  the  IT,  transport  and  security  activities  mentioned  actually  use  on-call  time  at  the 
workplace, as defined by the SIMAP and Jaeger judgments. 
COM(2010) 106 refers frequently to the positive potential of flexibility for both employers and workers. 
In one instance, on page 4, it states that some forms of flexibility can lead to intensification of work, 
which can affect health and safety, training opportunities and productivity. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
to  the  positions  taken  by  the  Parliament  and  trade  unions  during  the  inter-institutional 
discussions on the previous amending proposal. 

The replies of other social partners generally follow the positions expressed by cross-sectoral 
employers and trade unions respectively, with a small number of exceptions.  

Business  Europe  is  opposed  in  principle  to  regulating  working  time  at  European  level,  and 
considers the Directive is too complex and prescriptive. The new review should recognise the 
limits for effective EU action, and should decentralise decisions on working time as much as 
possible  to  national  or  company  level.  Business  Europe  wants  to  restrict  EU  action  to  the 
Directive’s  core  objective  of  protecting  workers’  health  and  safety.  Other  objectives  of 
working  time  organisation  are,  in  its  view,  best  decided  at  national  level  or  by  collective 
bargaining.  

UEAPME,  on  the  other  hand,  underlines  the  importance  for  SMEs  of  having  a  common 
framework of working time rules which can ensure a fair level playing field across Member 
States.  It  still  considers  the  existing  rules  as  somewhat  detailed  and  prescriptive,  and  would 
like to see simpler and more flexible rules. UEAPME supports a review, noting that ‘the most 
difficult part of the exercise is to define the scope’ but favours including SIMAP-Jaeger, the 
annual  leave  judgments,  and  the  option  of  a  12-month  reference  period  by  legislation. 
UEAPME  seems  to  put  much  less  emphasis  on  the  opt-out,  suggesting  that  a  12-month 
reference period would avoid any ‘systematic’ need for its use. UEAPME felt that protection 
of health and safety must remain the primary objective, but that account should also be taken 
of important new aims, such as the need for more flexibility for businesses and workers in the 
organisation of working time.  

CEEP, CEMR and HOSPEEM emphasise that they still consider a ‘comprehensive’ review of 
the  working  time  rules  as  an  urgent  priority,  in  view  of  its  huge  implications  for  the 
functioning  of  public  services.  Inactive  on-call  time  at  the  workplace  must  be  counted  as 
working  time.  They  emphasise  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law  as  the  main  focus  of  such  a 
review, but also express some openness regarding protection of employees from long hours or 
onerous  shift  patterns  and  improving  reconciliation  of  work  and  family  life.  They  are  all 
reserved regarding any changes to the opt-out, though to different degrees. CEEP regrets the 
rapid spread of the opt-out in public services and considers that its use is not in the interests of 
employers,  workers  or  service  users;  it  suggests  that  changes  to  SIMAP-Jaeger  would 
substantially  reduce  demand  for  the  opt-out  among  public  services.  HOSPEEM  however 
asserts that its members would still insist on keeping the opt-out even if changes were made to 
SIMAP-Jaeger.  Generally,  public  service  employers  felt  that  the  overriding  objective  of  the 
review should be to ensure protection of workers’ health and safety in a way which maintains 
and enhances the continuity and quality of public services, including implications for patients.  

Trade unions consider that the health and safety objective should remain paramount, but could 
encourage action to improve reconciliation of work and family life, provided that this was not 
at the expense of health and safety protection. Otherwise, they argue that there is no basis for 
taking account in a health and safety directive of goals such as productivity, competitiveness, 
or better regulation. 

Both ETUC and EPSU are open to a comprehensive review, but they consider that changes to 
the Directive would only be desirable if they were to genuinely address the need to put an end 
to  the  opt-out,  and  improve  protection  currently  available  to  workers  against  working 
excessive hours. The review should find balanced and sustainable solutions for on-call time, 
but  these  should  respect  and  build  on  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law,  with  no  change  to  the 

EN 

13 

   EN 

definition of on-call time or working time. As well, the review should ensure that the 48-hour 
limit  to  working  time  applies  per  worker,  not  per-contract,  in  the  case  of  a  worker  who  is 
employed simultaneously under more than one contract. Another priority is to tighten up the 
derogation for ‘autonomous workers’. ETUC is also interested in looking at reconciliation of 
work and family life, and allowing workers more influence over working time patterns.  

ETUC and EPSU do not accept that employers or public services would face any insuperable 
obstacles  to  implementing  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  judgments,  and  refer  to  some  successful 
experiences in changing the organisation of working time in public health services to comply 
with  the  48-hour  week.  The  unions  consider  that  because  the  Commission  has  not  issued 
infringement  proceedings  to  enforce  SIMAP-Jaeger,  many  Member  States  have  had  no  real 
incentive  to  explore  different  forms  of  work  organisation  which  would  have  provided  a 
sustainable alternative to using the opt-out.  

EPSU disputes the consultation paper’s references to a lack of legal clarity regarding on-call 
time,  reference  periods  or  the  opt-out.  For  EPSU,  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  judgments  provide 
perfect clarity on the requirements of Community law; the problem is rather a lack of political 
will to implement them on the part of Member States and the Commission.  

In ETUC and EPSU’s view, the proper course for the Commission in the period 2004-2009 
was  a  legislative  proposal  to  end  the  opt-out,  to  clarify  that  the  Directive  should  apply  per-
worker and not per-contract, to codify the SIMAP-Jaeger case law, and to leave the rules on 
reference periods unchanged. Instead, the Commission is seen as having sought compromises 
with  Member  States  who  were  unwilling  to  accept  such  an  approach.  The  unions  state  that 
they would find it unacceptable should the Commission decide not to take due account in any 
new legislative proposal of the Parliament’s and the unions’ views, as expressed by the failure 
of the 2004-2009 proposal.  

The replies of other social partners generally follow the positions expressed by cross-sectoral 
employers and trade unions respectively.  

The  majority  of  health  professionals’  bodies  underlined  the  negative  health  and  safety 
implications  of  long  working  hours  and  irregular  hours  both  for  medical  workers  and  for 
patients. However, two national doctors’ federations in different Member States (Austria and 
UK) contended that surgeons or hospital doctors should be able to work up to 60 or 65 hours 
per week.  

Organisations  of  public  service  firefighters  also  supported  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law. 
However, they considered that rules on rest periods should be relaxed to allow firefighters to 
keep  their  traditional  working  pattern  of  24-hour  shifts,  which  was  considered  to  suit  the 
particular  needs  of  the  fire  services,  subject  to  further  exploration  of  any  health  and  safety 
effects.  Under  certain  conditions,  some  would  consider  continuing  the  opt-out  temporarily. 
Some  replies  advocated  amending  the  Directive  to  exclude  volunteer  firefighters  from  its 
scope.  

For  EUROMIL,  an  organisation  of  workers  in  defence  forces,  the  SIMAP-Jaeger  case  law 
should  be  enforced  and  such  workers  should  be  effectively  covered  by  the  Directive.  It 
considered that effective transposition was lacking in many Member States regarding working 
time of the defence forces. 

Conversely, a few sectoral replies considered that the Directive did not need to be amended. 
HOTREC,  for  hotels, catering and restaurant employers, considered  that the sector had now 

EN 

14 

   EN 

absorbed  the  impact  of  the  legislation,  and  did  not  favour  any  further  changes.  Both 
employers  and  unions  in  the  sea  fishing  sector,  and  employers  in  the  banking  and  private 
security  sectors,  indicated  that  they  did  not  have  any  problems  with  the  current  rules.  The 
same approach was taken by OGP, an association of oil and gas producers providing offshore 
work.  

A few replies from sectoral social partners pointed out that Member States, in their view, had 
not made sufficient use of flexibility already provided by the Working Time Directive (mainly 
regarding the length of reference periods in the security, industrial and agricultural sectors). 

3.6. 

Other forms of action 

Do  you  think  that,  apart  from  legislative  measures,  other  action  at  European  Union  level 
would merit consideration? If so, what form of action should be taken, and on which issues? 

ETUC and EPSU called for legal action by the Commission to enforce the rules, though some 
other  replies  opposed  this.  Several  proposed  EU  support  for  exchanging  good  practices 
regarding  the  organisation  of  working  time.  As  regards  the  health  sector,  there  was  also 
interest in research and other measures to improve the supply of qualified medical and nursing 
staff across all Member States.  

ETUC and EPSU want the Commission to take all possible measures against nonconformity 
by  Member  States,  including  by  launching  infringement  procedures.  They  also  support 
measures  to  encourage  better  staffing  and  resources  for  labour  inspectorates  in  Member 
States. COESS, representing private security employers, also called for stronger enforcement 
of the Directive.  

Conversely,  a  joint  reply  from  nine  European  doctors’  organisations  (not  a  recognised 
European social partner) argued that infringement proceedings were not a good solution, and 
advocated  information,  assistance  and  persuasion  for  Member  States,  together  with  support 
for sharing good practices.  

Several  replies  indicated  that  they  would  welcome  Commission  support  for  comparative 
research  and/or  exchange  of  good  practices  regarding  working  time  generally  (Business 
Europe), to support national studies involving national social partners at local level (CEMR) 
or  on  specific  themes.  Reconciliation  of  work  and  family  life  was  a  popular  theme 
(Eurocommerce,  EPSU).  ETUC  and  EPSU  favoured  action  to  publicise  innovative  work 
organisation to avoid long working hours, and good practices which allow implementation of 
SIMAP-Jaeger. 

Public  sector  employers  in  the  health  sector  proposed  EU  support  for  comparative  research 
and other measures to ensure a sufficient supply of qualified medical staff in all EU Member 
States (HOSPEEM)9 or for exchange of comparative data for local and regional authorities on 
the  match  between  qualifications  and  the  tasks  actually  performed  by  workers,  notably  for 
nursing (CEMR). 

ETUC also felt that an evaluation of the Part-Time Work Directive would be useful, in order 
to assess possible action to support higher quality of part-time work. 

9 

REF DG SANCO’s recent Green Paper on this issue. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
3.7. 

Interest in negotiation 

Do you wish to consider initiating a dialogue under Article 155 TFEU on any of the issues 
identified in this consultation? If so, on which ones?  

The main cross-sectoral social partners (ETUC and Business Europe) emphasise that working 
time  issues  are  considered  as  cross-sectoral,  and  that  any  negotiations  should  take  place  at 
cross-sectoral level. Business Europe’s reply suggests openness to negotiate, while reserving 
its  decision  to  the  second  phase.  UEAPME’s  reply  similarly  states  that  it  is  open  to 
discussions and willing to contribute to finding workable solutions. However, ETUC is more 
reserved, and would require employer positions to move significantly closer to its own before 
it would consider negotiations.  

As  regards  cross-sectoral  social  partners  for  the  public  sector,  the  situation  is  somewhat 
different. The employer federations express a firm interest in negotiating an overall solution. 
CEEP  strongly  advocates  finding  solutions  for  public  services  through  cross-sectoral  social 
dialogue  at  European  level.  CEEP’s  affiliate  CEMR  (representing  municipal  and  regional 
public  services  employers)  expresses  a  preference  for  cross-sectoral  social  dialogue. 
Meanwhile,  HOSPEEM  (CEEP’s  affiliate  representing  public  health  services  employers) 
states its willingness to consider sectoral negotiations as an alternative, should cross-sectoral 
negotiations be ruled out.10  

However,  EPSU  is  the  main  trade  union  partner  for  any  negotiations  regarding  the  public 
sector with CEEP, CEMR or HOSPEEM. EPSU’s position is that negotiations at the moment 
would  distract  from  working  towards  a  Directive  which  offered  improved  protection  for 
workers’  health  and  safety.  Furthermore,  EPSU  insists  that  Member  States  would  have  to 
discontinue all existing opt-outs before EPSU decided whether to enter negotiations.  

European  Medical  Organisations  (a  group  of  nine  European  doctors’  associations),  which  is 
not a recognised social partner, underlined its wish to participate in any negotiations regarding 
the health sector.  

Sectoral social partners generally did not express an interest in negotiation at this stage, other 
than at cross-sectoral level.  

No joint replies were received from the various European social dialogue committees, other 
than one from the sea fishing sector. The sectoral social partners for sea fishing sent a joint 
reply  indicating  that  they  are  already  negotiating  an  agreement  regarding  the  content  of  a 
relevant ILO Convention, and that otherwise they want the existing special provisions for the 
sea fishing sector (under Article 21 of the Directive) to continue unchanged.  

EUROCOMMERCE noted that the sectoral social dialogue committee for the retail sector had 
already agreed to work together on identifying and clarifying any issues of common concern 
on working time, if possible linked to the reconciliation of work and family life. Therefore, it 
would be premature to decide on the possibility of negotiation at this stage.  

Most sectoral social partners did not comment regarding the possibility of dialogue. A couple 
considered that sectoral dialogue would be inappropriate, since the issues had cross-sectoral 

10 

Conversely, the EFEE, representing public sector employers in education, considered that only a cross-
sectoral dialogue would be workable. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
relevance  (CEEMET  for  metal,  engineering  and 
representing performing arts employers.)  

technology  employers;  PEARLE, 

CER for the rail sector indicated that it would be prepared to consider a constructive dialogue 
if  cross-sectoral  dialogue  should  prove  unrealistic.  Eurocadres  was  prepared  to  contribute 
along  with  ETUC  in  any  negotiations  regarding  the  working  time  of  ‘autonomous’  or 
knowledge workers.  

EBF-BCESA,  representing  employers  in  the  banking  sector,  considered  that  only  certain 
sectors  were  really  affected  by  the  EU  rules,  so  that  sectoral  solutions  were  preferable: 
however, it was too early to assess whether a sectoral dialogue was feasible.  

4. 

VIEWS ON THE WAY FORWARD  

Several social partners asked the Commission to defer the second-stage consultation until they 
had received more information. They referred in particular to the Commission’s ongoing work 
to  assess  the  impact  of  the  Directive,  and  to  the  Commission’s  pending  report  on 
implementation of the Directive by Member States.  

UEAPME  and  ETUC  both  argue  that  the  second-stage  consultation  should  take  place  only 
after  the  social  partners  have  been  informed  of  the  outcome  of  the  Commission’s  impact 
assessment 
informed  basis.  
ETUC  also  considers  that  the  social  partners  should  be  provided  with  the  Commission’s 
pending report on implementation of the Directive to inform replies to this consultation.  

respond  on 

study, 

fully 

they 

that 

can 

so 

a 

Eurocommerce  states  that  it  will  await  the  Commission’s  impact  assessment  study  before 
deciding whether social dialogue in the retail sector is appropriate.  

CEEP  meanwhile  expresses  strong  concern  that  the  Commission  is  carrying  out  its  impact 
assessment at the same time as the consultation. It fears that such timing would be unhelpful 
and could have a negative effect on the development of the consultation. 

CEEP and CEMR both ask the Commission to await the social partners’ replies to the second-
stage consultation, before launching any impact assessment, which should then take account 
of the replies received.  

A distinction should be drawn between studies by external experts on the social and economic 
effects of the Directive, which are being prepared for the Commission during the consultation 
of  the  social  partners,  and  the  prospective  impact  assessment  which  the  Commission  must 
prepare in relation to any legislative changes it proposes. The latter could draw on previous 
studies,  but  would  await  the  outcome  of  the  first  and  second  consultations  of  the  social 
partners.  

In order to facilitate the social partners’ preparation of their replies, the Commission proposes 
to publish the results of all the studies and reports that it has used to prepare the second-stage 
consultation.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

List of recognised European social partners’ organisations which 
replied to the first phase consultation on ‘Reviewing the Working Time Directive’  

ANNEX I 

1. Cross-sectoral organisations of employers or workers  
- BusinessEurope 
- European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General 
Economic Interest (CEEP) 
- European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) 

2. Cross-sectoral organisations representing certain categories of workers or 
undertakings 
- Eurocadres 
- European Association of Craft and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (UEAPME) 
- European Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff (CEC) 

3. Sectoral organisations representing employers 
– Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the EU (EUROPECHE) (joint reply 
with COGECA and ETF) 
– Banking Committee for European Social Affairs (EBF-BCESA) 
–  Committee  of  Agricultural  Organisations  in  the  European  Union  (COPA)  &  Employers’ Group  of 
the  Committee  of  Agricultural  Organisations  in  the  European  Union  (GEOPA)  (no  overall  position: 
forwarded replies of AT and UK national affiliates)  
– Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER) 
– Council of European Employers of the Metal, Engineering and Technology-Based 
Industries (CEEMET) 
– Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) (also separate replies of its DE affiliates, 
the  TdL  (employers’  association  representing  German  Länder)  and  DStGB  (employers’  association 
representing German cities and municipalities) 
– European Chemical Employers Group (ECEG) (also separate reply of its DE affiliate, BAVC)  
– European Committee of Sugar Manufacturers (CEFS) 
– European Coordination of Independent Producers (CEPI) (joint reply with FIAPF) 
– European Federation of Education Employers (EFEE) 
– European Federation of Security Services (CoESS) 
– European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ Association (HOSPEEM) (also separate reply of its 
UK affiliate, NHS) 
– European Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM) 
– General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union (COGECA) (re sea fishing 
only: joint reply with Europeche and ETF) 
– Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés in Europe (HOTREC) 
– International Federation of Film Producers’ Associations (FIAPF) (joint reply with CEPI) 
– Performing Arts Employers’ Associations League Europe (PEARLE) 
– Retail, Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the EU (EuroCommerce) 

4. Sectoral organisations representing workers 
– European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) 
– International Federation of Actors (FIA) & International Federation of Musicians (IFM) (joint reply 
with UNI-MEI as EAEA, Alliance Européenne des Arts et du Spectacle)  
-European  Transport  Workers’  Federation  (ETF)  (regarding  sea  fishing  only:  joint  reply  with 
Europeche & COGECA) 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II 

Organisations which replied to the consultation but which are not  
(and are not affiliated to) recognised European social partners 

–  FNSEA (Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d’Exploitants Agricoles [France, farmers]  

–  Federation of European Fire Officer Associations 

–  International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) 

–  EFCO  and  HPA  (European  Federation  of  Camping  Site  Organisations  and  Holiday  Park 

Associations) 

–  BDPK  Bundesverband  Deutscher  Privatkliniken  e.V.  [organisation  of  German  private 

medical clinics] 

–  EUROMIL (European federation of associations representing workers in national defence 

forces: seeking affiliation to, and forwarded by, ETUC) 

–  International Association of Fire & Rescue Services 

–  Fédération française des Sapeurs-Pompiers [France, firefighters’ association] 

–  Royal College of Surgeons [UK, medical training body] 

–  European  Medical  Organisations  [joint  reply  of  nine  European  associations  of  doctors  or 
doctors  in  training:  AEMH,  CEOM,  CPME,  EANA,  EMSA,  FEMS,  PWG-EJD,  UEMO, 
UEMS] and additional reply of FEMS/Fédération Européenne des Médecins Salariés 

–  ANAAO-ASSOMED [Italian association of salaried doctors] 

–  Österreichische Ärztekammer (Austrian Federal Chamber of Employed Doctors) 

–  Royal College of Nursing (UK) 

EN 

19 

   EN