COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ANALYTICAL DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE Implementing the European Agreement concluded by the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport
Date: 2014-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: accident prevention, crew, economic consequence, inland waterway transport, labour flexibility, occupational accident, occupational health, organisation of work, social impact













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0226 - EN











|



52014SC0226

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ANALYTICAL DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE Implementing the European Agreement concluded by the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport /* SWD/2014/0226 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1........ Background.................................................................................................................. 7
1.2........ Policy context............................................................................................................... 8
1.3........ Consultation and expertise........................................................................................... 9
1.4........ Impact Assessment Board.......................................................................................... 10
2........... Problem Definition..................................................................................................... 10
2.1........ Characterisation on the sector..................................................................................... 11
2.2........ Specific features of the sector.................................................................................... 14
2.3........ The EU right to act and
subsidiarity........................................................................... 18
3........... Objectives................................................................................................................... 18
3.1........ General objective........................................................................................................ 18
3.2........ Specific objectives...................................................................................................... 18
3.3........ Consistency with other EU
policies............................................................................ 19
4........... Policy options............................................................................................................. 19
4.1........ Detailed comparison between the
agreement and the status quo............................... 20
4.1.1..... Scope and applicability............................................................................................... 21
4.1.2..... Provisions on working time........................................................................................ 22
4.1.3..... Provisions on night work............................................................................................ 25
4.1.4..... Verification................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.5..... Other provisions of the agreement.............................................................................. 27
4.2........ Summary comparison between the
agreement and the baseline................................. 29
5........... Assessment of the impacts.......................................................................................... 31
5.1........ Impact of the specific elements.................................................................................. 31
5.1.1..... Impact of the changed scope...................................................................................... 31
5.1.2..... Impacts of changes to reference
period, working and rest time................................. 32
5.1.3..... Impact of the provisions on night
work...................................................................... 33
5.1.4..... Impact of a general right to
health checks.................................................................. 34
5.1.5..... Impact of the introduced
obligation to allow for verification.................................... 35
5.2........ Socio-economic impacts of the
agreement................................................................. 36
5.2.1..... Economic impacts....................................................................................................... 36
5.2.2..... Impacts on SMEs........................................................................................................ 37
5.2.3..... Social impacts............................................................................................................. 37
5.2.4..... Implementation and costs........................................................................................... 38
6........... Comparison of the options.......................................................................................... 39
7........... Evaluation and Monitoring......................................................................................... 41
8........... Annexes...................................................................................................................... 43
List of abbreviations
CCNR
           Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine
EEA
               European Economic Area
EBU    
           European Barge Union
ESO
               European Skippers' Organisation
ETF
                European Transport Workers' Federation
EU
                 European Union
ITF
                 International Transport Workers’ Federation
IWT
               Inland waterway transport
NAIADES
    Navigation and Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe
PLATINA      Platform for the implementation of NAIADES.
A consortium of 23 different players in the inland navigation field from nine
different EU member States. Its main objective is to support the European
Commission, EU member States and third countries in the implementation of the
NAIADES action programme.
UNECE
         United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
 Executive Summary Sheet 
 Analytical Document accompanying proposal for a Directive implementing the European Agreement concluded by the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport  
 A. Need for action 
 Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
 At their own initiative the social partners at EU level in inland waterway transport negotiated an agreement on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport (IWT) in accordance with Article 155(1) TFEU, because they found the general working time directive not adapted to their needs. In the agreement itself the social partners request the Commission to implement the agreement by a Council decision according to Article 155(2) TFEU. 
 What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
 General objective: to improve the socio-economic situation of the IWT sector. This general objective includes the intention to improve the working conditions for mobile workers, as enshrined in article 153 TFEU, while moving towards more equal and favourable conditions for operators. Specific objectives: to allow more flexibility for the operators in IWT to balance between periods of high and low workload; to ensure minimum health and safety protection for all mobile workers in the sector; to facilitate enforcement of working time rules, in particular in cross-border situations. 
 What is the value added of action at the EU level? 
 At EU level, the agreement provides for "more specific provisions" in the sense of Article 14 of the Working Time Directive. Article 14 refers to "Community instruments" as necessary to lay down such provisions. If the Commission does not propose implementation of the agreement by a Council Decision, it will not be possible for the social partners at EU level to decide on an autonomous implementation of the agreement in accordance with Article 155(2) TFEU. Therefore, the objective of the agreement can only be achieved at Union level. 
 B. Solutions 
 What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? 
 Given that the Commission can accept or reject the signatory parties' request for a legislative implementation of the agreement but cannot amend the text of the agreement, only one policy approach has been analysed, i.e. the measures defined in the agreement, and compared against the baseline, i.e. the current EU legislation (Directive 2003/88/EC on working time will remain in force for mobile workers in IWT). From the comparison of the options, it can be concluded that the agreement makes a step forward to achieve the objectives set and does so at overall reasonable costs. Therefore the Commission considers the implementation of the agreement as an appropriate way forward. 
 Who supports which option? 
 The European Agreement concerning working time in IWT is concluded by the EU social partners in IWT. The signatory parties of the agreement are the European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF). On the employers' side, EBU represents national inland navigation industry organisations (freight and passenger transport), and ESO represents private inland shipping entrepreneurs (self-employed skippers). On the workers' side, ETF brings together trade union officers and representatives of national transport trade unions defending the interests of workers in the sector (freight and passenger transport). 
 C. Impacts of the preferred option 
 What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
 The agreement will limit unfair competition on working time, as it will set minimum requirements for vessels operating within the territory of the EU Member States. Member States which have less favourable provisions than the agreement will have to adapt their legislation to the agreement. Social impacts: Having more consistent rules in line with the work schedules in the sector will facilitate implementation and enforcement of the rules. The agreement should also lead to an improvement of working conditions for mobile workers in those Member States which have no and less favourable provisions on working time compared to the agreement. 
 What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
 Overall, a significant increase of costs when implementing the agreement is not expected. Several types of cost might occur: Higher costs for regular health checks and costs concerning a more systematic registration of working time in some Member States. Some costs occur once when implementing the agreement in national legislation: introducing changes to the system of working time registration; familiarisation with the new rules and how they are to be understood; and adaptation of the national legislation to the requirements of the agreement. 
 How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
 Most of the enterprises in the sector are SMEs or micro-enterprises and most mobile workers are employed in such enterprises, especially in the Rhine region where the proportion of small enterprises is higher than in the Danube region. SMEs are well represented in the sectoral social dialogue by ESO and their representatives were amongst the strongest supporters of the agreement, as they see it as an opportunity to achieve harmonisation with potentially simpler rules on working time in the sector. 
 Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
 In most Member States, governments do not plan to invest more in the enforcement of the legal obligations. In the context of the Ecorys study, the LU government stated that enforcement will be more effective because the agreement provides clearer rules compared to the national legislation. The NL authorities believe that effectiveness will not change because documents that are used to verify if rules have been adhered to will not change. 
 Will there be other significant impacts? 
 No. 
 D. Follow up 
 When will the policy be reviewed? 
 The European Commission shall, after consulting management and labour at European level, monitor the implementation of the Directive implementing the agreement. The European Commission will evaluate the Directive implementing the agreement within 5 years after its entry into force.  
LEAD DG:  DG EMPL
1.1.        Background
Under Article 155 TFEU, the social dialogue at
EU level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements. These
agreements can be concluded further to a consultation process initiated by the
Commission in accordance with Article 154 TFEU, or at the EU social partners'
own initiative in accordance with Article 155(1) TFEU. 
The Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC[1]
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time lays down
minimum standards in the interests of protecting workers’ short-term and
long-term health and safety. These include a limit on average weekly working
time of 48 hours to be calculated over a four month reference period, a right
to paid annual leave of four weeks and a right for night workers to health
checks. The aforementioned provisions apply to mobile workers, both navigation
personnel as well as shipboard personnel in inland waterways. However, crucial
aspects such as the numerical limits related to daily rest, breaks, weekly rest
period and length of night work do not apply to the IWT sector (Article 20 of
the Working Time Directive. 
At their own initiative the social partners at
EU level in inland waterway transport negotiated an agreement on certain
aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport (IWT)
in accordance with Article 155(1) TFEU because they were of the opinion that
the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC was not adapted to their needs (e.g.
reference period, work organisation), while taking into account the provisions
of the Working Time Directive already applicable to mobile workers. Negotiations
took place between January 2008 and November 2011. The agreement was concluded
on 15 February 2012. In the agreement itself the social partners request the
Commission to implement the agreement by a Council decision according to
Article 155(2) TFEU.
When such agreements are concluded, they shall
be implemented on the basis of Article 155(2) TFEU either in accordance with
the procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member
States so called autonomously or, at the joint request of the signatory
parties, by a Council decision on a proposal by the Commission. It is up to the
social partners at EU level who concluded an agreement, to decide on the
modality of implementing their agreement. If management and labour jointly request
implementation of their agreement by Council decision on a proposal of the
Commission in accordance Article 155 (2) TFEU, the Commission can accept or
reject the request for a legislative implementation, but it cannot amend the
text of the agreement. The Commission cannot request the social partners at EU
level to implement their agreement autonomously, as this is the prerogative of
the social partners according to Article 155 (2) TFEU. 
In order for the College to take an informed
decision, the Commission services have to assess such agreement with regard to
the representativeness and mandate of the signatory parties and the legality of
its clauses. 
In addition, when an agreement is concluded on
the social partners' own initiative, such as the agreement concerning certain
aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport, the
Commission services have to assess the appropriateness of the EU action in the
area. In line with the Smart Regulation Agenda, this assessment investigates the
socio-economic impact of implementing the agreement. This shall be done in the
analytical document at hand. The Commission services have prepared this
document in line with the impact assessment guidelines[2]
(including their reference to the existing general principles and minimum
standards for consultation of interested parties). The structure of the
document reflects the specific features of such an analytical document. It
provides a proportionate analysis on the basis of an external study to assess
the socio-economic impact deriving from the implementation of the agreement. 
1.2.        Policy
context
Inland waterway transport plays an important
role for the transport of goods in Europe. Compared to other modes of transport
which are often confronted with congestion and capacity problems, inland
waterway transport is characterized by its reliability, its low environmental
impact and its major capacity for increased exploitation. The total external
costs of inland navigation (in terms of accidents, congestion, noise emissions,
air pollution and other environmental impacts) are seven times lower than those
of road transport. Therefore, the Commission aims to promote and strengthen the
competitive position of the inland waterway transport in the transport system, and
to facilitate its integration into the intermodal logistic chain.
Among other things, the Commission promotes
inland waterway transport in the NAIADES Action Programme. The first action
programme NAIADES covered the period 2006-2013[3].
It focused on five strategic areas for a comprehensive inland waterway
transport policy: market, fleet, jobs and skills, image, infrastructure. In the
mid-term progress report on the implementation of NAIADES, the Commission
restated the importance of social dialogue in the sector and took account of
the negotiations of the social partners regarding working time as one of the
main elements under the "Job and Skills" chapter of NAIADES[4].
In September 2013 the European Commission
adopted the NAIADES II package which covers the period 2014-2020[5]. The
NAIADES II package includes a communication which sets out a policy action
programme foreseeing interventions in the following areas: quality infrastructure; quality through innovation; smooth
functioning of the market; environmental quality through low emissions;
integration of inland navigation into the multimodal logistics chain; and
skilled workforce and quality jobs. 
Furthermore the NAIADES II package contains
two legislative proposals: a proposal for a Directive on the technical
requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 2006/87/EC[6] and a
proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 on a
Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport[7].
Article 14 of the Working Time Directive
provides for other EU instruments containing more specific working time
requirements for certain occupations or occupational activities. Such specific
requirements have already been laid down by Directives for seafarers and for
mobile transport workers in civil aviation and in cross-border rail services,
based on European agreements concluded by the social partners for the sectors
concerned[8].
The agreement in inland waterway transport is the fourth sector specific
agreement on working time. 
1.3.        Consultation
and expertise 
Contributions and involvement from social
partners and stakeholders
The signatory parties of the agreement are the
European Barge Union (EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the
European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF). On the employers' side, EBU
represents national inland navigation industry organisations (freight and
passenger transport), and ESO represents private inland shipping entrepreneurs
(self-employed skippers). On the workers' side, ETF brings together trade union
officers and representatives of national transport trade unions defending the
interests of workers (both of navigation personnel and shipboard personnel) in
the sector (freight and passenger transport). 
In order to make the negotiation process
transparent, EBU, ESO and ETF sent a joint letter to the transport and labour
ministries of the then 27 EU Member States in November 2009 informing them of
the core content of their negotiations and asking them to forward the
information to the relevant national social partner organisations, given the
fact that the EBU, ESO and ETF do not have affiliates in all EU Member States. No
reaction from the national authorities was received. Furthermore, as part of
the external study to assess the costs and benefits of the implementation of
the social partner agreement on working time in the IWT sector[9] the
consultants identified the responsible authorities and management and labour in
all Member States and asked – accompanied by a supporting letter from the
Commission - for information on the national legislation on working time in the
IWT sector. The detailed feedback from the authorities can be found in Annex 1.
Some feedback has been received from the national authorities on the potential
impact of the Agreement. The UK authorities are concerned that the agreement
does not provide for enough flexibility for the work on tidal rivers, like the
river Thames.
For the Netherlands and Germany the agreement seems to be more detailed than the current national regulations in
those countries. However, these authorities state that as the agreement will
provide for a common minimum level of protection for all the EU Member States
this may lead to more efficiency in enforcement. The French authorities
indicated that there was not enough time available for a full assessment of the
agreement. In their preliminary assessment they concluded that French national
legislation seems to offer a higher level of protection for workers than the
agreement. Austria and Lithuania stated that some of their national provisions
are more favourable for workers than the agreement. Eleven Member States
replied that they see no legal obstacles to implement the agreement in their
national legislation[10].
External expertise and interservice group
The Commission launched a study to assess the
costs and benefits of the implementation of the social partner agreement on
working time in the IWT sector[11].
It has been carried out by a consortium led by Ecorys. The final report was
delivered in September 2013. It will be mentioned hereafter as the "Ecorys
study".
An interservice Steering Group, composed of
representatives of DG EMPL, DG MOVE and SG was set up to accompany and discuss
the results of the above mentioned external study. This group met for the first
time in March 2013. The final report of the study was discussed by the
interservice Steering Group on 5 September 2013. The group met four times. A
more extended group, which included in addition to the Steering Group
representatives of SJ and DG SANCO, discussed the draft analytical document and
met two times.
1.4.        Impact
Assessment Board
The Impact Assessment Board (IAB) examined this
analytical document and issued an opinion on 19. December 2013. Following the
recommendations for improvement in particular the problem definition, the
assessment of impacts in Member States and on different stakeholders and the
section on monitoring and evaluation arrangements were strengthened. 
2.           Problem
Definition
Activities of mobile workers[12] in
various transport sectors, including inland waterways, were excluded by the
Council[13]
from the scope of the Working Time Directive 93/104/EEC[14].
According to the 16th recital of Directive 93/104/EEC the exclusion is related
to the specific nature of the work in these sectors[15]. 
The various transport sectors, including inland
waterways, were brought within its scope by Directive 2000/34/EC[16], with
effect from 1 August 2003. At that stage, however, it was not possible to reach
agreement on applying to mobile workers in IWT and other transport sectors the
Directive's general rules on minimum daily and weekly rest periods or on limits
to night work. This was due to the distinctive working conditions and
particular features of their activities (e.g. working and living at the workplace
for certain periods, mainly cross-border activities). It was therefore provided
that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that such workers
are entitled to "adequate rest"[17],
without expressing this principle in specific units of time. Directive
2003/88/EC (Working Time Directive) consolidated and repealed the 1993 and 2000
Directives. 
The absence of EU rules on numerical limits on
daily and weekly working time, and night work of IWT mobile workers opened the
way to a diversity of national rules, which created difficulties for transport
companies[18]
and did not in all cases ensure sufficient protection for workers. This is
particularly true for hotel personnel working in the river cruise industry. As
the passenger navigation season lasts around eight months, hotel staff is away
from home for a very long time. They often have to put up with very long
working days and being accommodated for protracted periods in very small cabins[19]. 
Article 14 of the Working Time Directive
provides for other instruments at EU level containing more specific working
time requirements for certain occupations or occupational activities. Such
specific requirements have already been laid down by specific Directives for
seafarers and for mobile transport workers in civil aviation and in
cross-border rail services, based on European agreements concluded by the
social partners for the sectors concerned[20].
Currently an impact assessment on the review of the Working Time Directive is
on-going; it is not proposed to change the provisions concerning mobile workers
under this review[21].

2.1.        Characterisation
on the sector
The European Union’s inland waterway network
consists of about 37 000 kilometres of inland waterways; rivers, lakes and
canals. It involves 20 Member States[22].

Every year, these waterways transport around
500 million tons of cargo, in particular in the densely populated and congested
areas of Germany, the Netherlands, France and Belgium. These areas are
irrigated by the Rhine, Scheldt, Meuse, and Seine rivers and are connected with
the Danube river. The Rhine and Danube alone connect 9
Member States[23].
In addition four Member States have inland waterways connecting to the Rhine or
 Danube[24].

Structure of the sector
Box 2: Some
data concerning inland waterway transport[25] 
Number of enterprises in the sector within the EU:                                  9,645
Total number of workers in the sector:                                          42,213
Total number of mobile workers in the sector:                               31,007
(73%)
Total number of self-employed in the sector:                                11,206
(27%)
Turn over inland waterway transport                                             7
585 million Euro
Transport by rivers and canals is a silent and
very energy-efficient way of transporting goods. It plays a key role in the
logistics bringing goods from Europe's seaports to its final destination. Its
energy consumption per km/ton of transported goods is approximately 17% of that
of road transport and 50% of rail transport[26].
The top-5 countries with the highest IWT labour
force are the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg and Italy[27]. They
represent around 68% of the total IWT labour force in EU-28. Together with Belgium and Romania, these Member States represent around 73% of the mobile workers in EU-28. In the
  Netherlands, the majority of the enterprises are small companies with only a
few employees. In many cases vessels are family owned and operated by a family
(e.g. husband and wife owning/operating the vessel). Belgium and Germany show similar business types. On the other hand, only 11% of the IWT employment in Luxembourg is employed in small enterprises with 10 employees or less. In the Danube region the fleets are concentrated in large shipping companies.[28]
Employment in IWT is very much a European issue, with employment rates for
non-national but EU citizens going up to 100% as in the case of Luxembourg, around 27% in Belgium, 20% in Germany and 6-7% in the Netherlands. Third country
nationals play a limited role. In the Netherlands 6.8% of the workforce stems
from non-EU countries, the largest share originating from the Philippines[29] (see
Annex 2 for further data on the sector). 
International agreements in the sector
Next to the EU and national working time
regulations that have as their objective the protection of health and safety of
the worker, international agreements exist in the Rhine and Danube regions. The
main objective of these international agreements is the safety of the vessel
operation, not health and safety of workers. Therefore, these agreements
prescribe sailing time of the vessel, minimum rest periods and manning
requirements. However, working time of mobile workers does not always equal
sailing time of the vessel. For instance, workers on board of a ship might also
work if the vessel does not sail (e.g. loading and unloading). The relationship
between these international safety agreements and the EU legislation on working
time is based on the rule that the provisions most favourable to workers
applies. In other words, Provisions foreseen by labour regulation or collective
agreements regarding longer rest periods remain valid[30]. In four
Member States (Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands), the Central
Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR) provides legally binding
minimum rest standards for workers who are part of the crew for
navigation on the Rhine.[31] For the countries
connected by the Danube, the Danube Commission[32]
provides recommendations regarding rest periods for navigation personnel
on the basis of UNECE Resolution 61 on Europe-wide technical requirements for
inland navigation vessels.[33] The recommendations
of the Danube Commission are not legally binding. Member States of the Danube
Commission can transpose these recommendations into their national legislation.
The CCNR Regulations and the provisions of the UNECE Resolution 61 on which the
recommendations of the Danube Commission are based are identical.
Box 1: CCNR
standards and recommendations of the Danube Commission
Both the CCNR standards and the recommendations of the Danube
Commission are minimum rest requirements for the crew. The safety of vessel
operation is the main objective of these requirements. These rules apply
regardless of the employment status of the navigation personnel (worker or
self-employed). They do not apply to shipboard personnel. Another tool to
ensure the safety of operations are manning requirements prescribed by the
aforementioned standards and recommendations. These are linked to the following
exploitation schemes: 
A1 scheme: the vessel sails a maximum of 14 hours continuously. 
A2 scheme: the vessel sails a maximum of 18 hours continuously. 
B scheme: the vessel sails a maximum of 24 hours continuously. 
These sailing hours should not be confused with maximum working
hours of each crew member. A crew member can also rest while the vessel is
sailing. Apart from the maximum continuous sailing hours, the minimum amount of
rest hours for the individual crew members is defined. The obligatory rest is
defined as follows: 
A1 scheme: each crew member is entitled to an uninterrupted rest
period of 8 hours outside sailing time for each period of 24 hours following
the end of each rest period of 8 hours. 
A2 scheme: each crew member is entitled to a rest period of 8 hours,
including 6 hours continuous rest outside sailing time for each period of 24
hours from the end of each rest period of six hours. 
B scheme: each crew member is entitled to a rest period of 24 hours
for each 48 hours.
2.2.        Specific
features of the sector
Increased need for flexibility of working
times because of specific situation
Mobile workers in IWT have specific, irregular
work patterns compared to workers on shore. Periods of high work load are
followed by periods of rest and periods of low work load. Contrary to the
personnel on shore in IWT (e.g. office staff), mobile workers in IWT are
required to spend a longer time away from home, as an integral part of their
work. They work long hours in a short period of time (e.g. multiple voyages or
season) and often work and live at their workplace. Longer rest periods are
generally taken when going home at the end of the work/season. Average working
time in the IWT sector usually includes a considerable amount of inactive time
(for example as a result of unplanned waiting time at locks or during the
loading and unloading of the craft), which may also occur during the night.
Sometimes voyages might take longer than foreseen due to external
circumstances. For example on tidal rivers, the time of a voyage is
considerable longer, when sailing against the tide than sailing with the tide. 
The maximum daily and weekly working time may
therefore be longer than the working time limits stipulated in the Working Time
Directive. The current provisions at EU level do not provide for the required
flexibility needed in this sector in view of these specific work patterns.,
Furthermore, the standard reference period of maximum four months over which
the average weekly working time has to be calculated (unless national laws
and/or collective agreements provide otherwise) causes problems. The national
transposition does not always use the available derogations described in the
Working Time Directive, and the working patterns in the sector often require
long hours worked in a short period followed by a longer period of rest. 
Box 2:
Working Time Directive: Derogations to the reference period
The Working Time Directive provides the possibility to extend the
maximum reference period up to 6 months by national laws or rules, or by
collective agreements in the range of circumstances listed in Article 17(3) of
the Directive.
The reference period can be extended to a maximum of 12 months
(only by a collective agreement, which may be at national, regional or lower
level) under Article 19 of the Directive, if the Member State so allows. 
Whether under Article 17(3) or Article 19, the reference period may
only be extended if the workers concerned are granted equivalent compensatory
rest for any minimum rest periods that are missed or delayed[34]. 
A longer reference period allows balancing the
average weekly working hours over a longer period of time. This is particular
useful in the IWT sector where the working time is not spread evenly over a
year. However, as a result of these derogations the rules actually in force
concerning the reference period differ widely between the various Member States[35]. 
Working time rules are not adapted to the
cross-border work within the sector
Over 75% of IWT within the EU is cross-border
transport[36].
During a 15 day river cruise a vessel will sail from Amsterdam, via Germany and Austria to Budapest[37].
Cargo vessels can be sailing from Romania to Belgium, crossing five different
Member States. Working time regulations vary between these Member States. It
can lead to legal uncertainty for both operators, workers and enforcement
authorities as to which working time regime applies. The Netherlands foresees minimum rest periods for workers during a voyage (24 hours rest per 48 hours); Germany has a limit of maximum 10 hours working time per day. Night time in the Netherlands is defined as the period between 22.00-06.00 or 23.00-7.00 depending on the
employment contract. In Germany night time is defined as 23.00-6.00. The Netherlands does not have any limits on night work. Germany limits night work to 8 hours. 
In practice this could mean that a ship sailing
from Cologne to Rotterdam might do so in one shift (because sailing time in
Germany is less than 10 hours and there is no such limit in the Netherlands),
while the same ship might have to rest/change the crew on the return trip as it
would go beyond the 10 hours working time accepted in Germany. On the other
hand if the ship arrives at 23.00 in the evening in the Netherlands, the preceding work might be considered as night work (assuming a work contract which
defines night time as starting at 22.00), while if the vessel had arrived at
the same time in Germany, the shift is not night work.
Therefore, companies and workers find certain
aspects of the present Working Time Directive and the related national
legislation of the Member States overly complicated to comply with[38]. The
lack of common definitions and use of derogations provided by the Working Time
Directive in national working time regulations causes administrative and
regulatory barriers between Member States and a difference in competitiveness.[39] 
Applicability of the working time rules in
the sector is not clear
The criteria currently used to determine the
applicability of the national regulations on working time of mobile workers in
IWT vary widely across the Member States. Member States can use one or more
criteria to determine the applicability of national law on working time of
mobile workers in IWT. The flag of ship criterion is used in six Member States
(Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, and Romania), five use the
geographical position of the ship as criterion (Austria, Croatia, Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom), two Member States exclusively the seat of
the operator (France and Luxembourg), and the remaining five Member States[40] use
unique composite criteria including the ship visiting the port (Sweden) or the
residence of the worker (Poland). The nationality of the employer or the worker
is not used as a criterion in the national law of any country; however it is
used as a criterion to determine the applicability of collective agreements in
France (for workers), Hungary (for employers) and Bulgaria (for both).
Furthermore, in some Member States only crew members are covered by the working
time for the inland waterways and shipboard personnel (e.g. hotel, catering
personnel) is not covered by it. This situation is dissatisfying to both,
employers and employees, as the majority of inland waterway transport is
cross-border it is not always clear which national regulations applies. 
Furthermore, there are no clear common
standards and rules which would ensure a certain level of protection of health
and safety, while maintaining a high level of flexibility for enterprises in a
sector predominantly operating across borders. The difference in working time
rules between Member States is seen as problematic by both employers and employees
as it allows for competition on working hours in this predominantly
cross-border sector[41].
For example, the study by NEA in 2008 indicates that the legislation of Austria
concerning the IWT sector including working time is usually a lot more protective
and more specific than the laws of other countries along the Danube. Those
countries therefore gain a competitive advantage over Austria by operating under more flexible, less protective rules, which would allow the
vessel more sailing time[42].
Being able to sail longer and/or to sail with less crew on board could lower
the costs for the operator, in comparison to operators who operate under more
protective rules which allow for less sailing time. 
Enforcement of the working time rules is
difficult
Furthermore, working time rules which are not
adapted to the specific features of the inland transport sector reduce
compliance with the rules[43].
This is reported by Member States in both the Rhine and the Danube region. It
is believed that non-compliance in practice is fairly widespread. In 30-50 % of
the controls, the registration of working time or manning requirements is not
in accordance with the applicable legislation. Part of non-compliance is due to
the complexity and lack of ransparency of existing rules. However, companies
which apply the rules consider those which do not as unfair competitors[44]. 
Different interpretation and implementation of
rules can also be noticed which makes compliance as well as controls even more
difficult. 
Working hours and the risks of accidents
Mobile workers in IWT often have a high
responsibility – such as the responsibility for the safe handling of the cargo
or passengers and the safe handling of the vessel. The work is demanding[45] and
includes safety risks[46].
When linking the number of accidents to the number of workers in the IWT
sector, the number of casualties is quite high in IWT. For example, if, on that
basis, IWT is compared with the construction industry, the amount of casualties
reported is 1.65 times higher in IWT[47]
 In recent years data show an increase of incidents and accidents in different
Member States.. For instance the transport inspection in the Netherlands signalled an increase in accidents in IWT of 26% between 2004 and 2012.[48]. In Romania the accident rate in 2012 was 35% higher than in 2009. In Germany and Bulgaria smaller increases have been noted[49].
Infringements on sailing and resting times may not be the only cause for these
problems, however, several operators have confirmed that too long working hours
are an issue of increasing importance in the sector[50] and
working conditions have deteriorated due to the difficult economic situation[51].
Fatigue is identified as one of the risk factors in the sector[52].
This is confirmed by a number of studies[53] which
show a link between long working hours, particularly over prolonged periods,
and negative effects such as increased rates of accidents and mistakes,
increased difficulties in reconciling work, private and family life, stress and
fatigue levels, short term and long-term health[54]. 
The competitive nature of the sector of the
transport sector and the economic situation will not improve significantly in
the foreseeable future[55]
Therefore the current situation will not change. The increasing trend mentioned
above mostly likely will remain as well. 
2.3.        The
EU right to act and subsidiarity
Article 14 of the Working Time Directive allows
for more specific working time requirements at EU level concerning particular
occupations or activities. Such requirements have already been laid down in
specific EU Directives for seafarers and for mobile transport workers in civil
aviation and in cross-border rail services, based on European agreements
concluded by the social partners for the sectors concerned. 
The present agreement provides "more
specific provisions" in the sense of Article 14 of the Working Time
Directive. Article 14 refers to "Community instruments" as necessary
to lay down such provisions. Therefore, the objective of the agreement can only
be achieved at Union level.
Social partners were convinced of the need for
action in the area. They negotiated an agreement at Union level in accordance
with Article 155(1) TFEU. Subsequently, they asked this agreement to be
implemented by a Council decision following a proposal from the Commission
pursuant to Article 155(2) TFEU.
3.           Objectives
3.1.        General
objective
Improve the socio-economic situation of the IWT
sector. This general objective includes the intention to improve the working
conditions for mobile workers, as enshrined in article 153 TFEU, while moving
towards more equal and favourable conditions for operators. 
3.2.        Specific
objectives
In order to reach the general objective set
above, the present agreement has the following specific objectives:
·              
To allow more flexibility for the operators in
IWT to balance between periods of high and low work load;
·              
To ensure minimum health and safety protection
for all mobile workers in the sector; 
·              
To facilitate enforcement of working time rules
in particular in cross-border situations.  
3.3.        Consistency
with other EU policies
Improving the quality of work and working
conditions, in particular reviewing the existing legislation and providing for
a smarter EU legal framework for employment and health and safety at work
constitute key actions within the context of "An Agenda for new skills and
jobs: A European contribution to full employment"[56].
Enabling fair competition and a level playing
field in the IWT sector is in line with the objective of the 2011 Transport
White Paper[57]
to create a genuine Single European Transport Area by eliminating all barriers
between national systems. A higher degree of convergence and enforcement of
among others social standards is an integral part of this strategy. 
4.           Policy
options
As described the Commission can consider only
two options:
·              
Not to propose implementation of the
agreement by a Council decision in accordance with Article 155 TFEU (the baseline): the current EU legislation, Directive
2003/88/EC on working time and Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young
people at work will remain in force for mobile workers in IWT, but there will
be no sector specific working time legislation at European level. 
The Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time lays down
minimum standards in the interests of protecting workers’ short-term and
long-term health and safety. These include a limit on average weekly working
time of 48 hours to be calculated over a four month reference period, a right
to paid annual leave of four weeks and a right for night workers to health
checks. The aforementioned provisions apply to mobile workers, both navigation
personnel as well as shipboard personnel in inland waterways. 
However, crucial aspects such as the provisions
concerning numerical limits related to daily rest, breaks, weekly rest period
and length of night work do not apply to the IWT sector, as a result of the
exception set out in Article 20(1). This provision requires Member States
instead to ensure that such workers are entitled to ‘adequate rest’,
which is defined in qualitative terms: the Directive leaves it to Member
States to specify how this conceptual requirement is to be expressed in units
of time [58].
The current situation (baseline) is very much
characterised by the national legislation and the safety regulations which are
in place in accordance with the international agreements such as CCNR and the
like[59]. 

·              
To propose implementation of the agreement by
a Council decision in accordance with Article 155 TFEU: Directive 2003/88/EC and Directive 94/33/EC (young people at work)
will be complemented by a Directive which will provide more specific rules at
EU level on binding and common definitions concerning the organisation of
working time in IWT. 
The
agreement concerns the following areas: limit to daily and average weekly
working time expressed in units of time, reference period, annual leave,
definition of working days and rest days, special provisions regarding seasonal
work on passenger vessels, minimum daily and weekly rest periods, breaks,
maximum working time during night time, special provisions regarding working
time of workers aged under 18, verifications, emergency situations, health
assessment and right to transfer for night workers, safety and health protection
and pattern of work.
In
its provisions the agreement gives a binding and common definition in units of
time of the required minimum daily and weekly rest periods, and the maximum
working hours per week and at night. 
The agreement will apply to mobile workers:
navigation crew and shipboard personnel, but not to self-employed persons
(owner-operators). 
The
agreement contains a provision on applying the "more favourable
provisions" (Paragraph 17(1)). That means in cases where national
legislation or collective agreements contain more protective provisions in this
regard, nothing must change as a consequence of implementing the agreement.
4.1.        Detailed
comparison between the agreement and the status quo
Before assessing
the impacts of implementing the proposed agreement the substantial changes as
compared to the baseline need to be identified. This is a challenging task as
the baseline is defined through a very complex set of rules. In the remainder
of section 4.1 for each of the areas of the agreement first the main points and
the substantial changes are identified, followed by a table which aims to
indicate which Member States already have legislation in place on working time
in the inland waterway which is equal to the provisions of the agreement or more
favourable, and which Member States have less favourable provisions than the
agreement[60]. A more detailed comparison of the rules can be found in Annex 3. 
Provisions of
Agreement which are similar to the provisions which already apply to mobile
workers in IWT are not compared. This concerns the provisions on annual leave[61] (Paragraph 10 of the agreement), health and safety of night workers[62] (paragraph 15) and work patterns[63] (paragraph 16). 
4.1.1.     Scope
and applicability
The agreement is limited to the IWT sector and
to ‘mobile workers’ as defined under article 2(7) of the Working Time
Directive[64].
The scope of the agreement includes both navigation personnel and shipboard
personnel. 
The agreement does not extend its scope to the
self-employed as do for example the CCNR Regulations. Finally, the agreement
does not distinguish between different employment contracts, e.g. mobile
workers recruited via a recruitment agency. 
The geographical position of the ship
determines the applicability of the agreement. The Working Time Directive does
not contain any specific provisions in this regard. In six Member States
(Belgium Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom), the
national legislation follows already this approach, in other countries different
– sometimes more sophisticated – approaches, e.g. a combination of seat of
operator and location of ship, do apply). 
The main difference between the agreement and
the baseline in terms of scope is therefore a clear definition of which provisions
apply and that the same working time provisions expressly apply to both crew
members and shipboard personnel.
Table 1: Scope and Applicability
 Agreement || Member States' status quo is equal or more favourable || National legislation contains less favourable provisions 
 Applicable to both crew and shipboard personnel || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, IT, HU, LT, PL, SE SK || HR, NL, RO[65], LU, UK 
 Applicable to all mobile workers, irrespective of the nature of their employment relationship || AT, BE[66], BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, IT, HU, LT, LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK || FR, HR, IT and RO 
 Applicable on board of any craft operated within the territory of a Member State in the commercial IWT sector. || BE, HR, DE, NL, PL UK || Flag of the ship: EE, FI, HU, IT, LT, RO and SE Seat of the Operator: LT, LU Other: AT, BG, FI, FR, SK Unknown: CZ In the context of national collective agreements additional criteria such as the nationality of the worker (FR) or the employer (HU), seat of the operator (BE) or both (BG) are used. 
Source: Ecorys Study
4.1.2.     Provisions
on working time
Article 6 of the
Working Time Directive sets a limit of 48 hours for average weekly working
time, calculated over a standard reference period of four months, according to
Article 16 of the Working Time Directive. The reference period may be extended
under different derogations. The agreement provides for the same limit as the
Directive to average weekly working time (maximum 48 hours). The agreement
extends the maximum reference period to 12 months. 
Furthermore, the
agreement provides for a limit to average weekly working time of 72 hours
within any 4 months period in case of a specified work schedule. This provision
introduces working time limits adapted to the work schedules in the sector and
takes into account the considerable amount of inactive time spent on board. 
For the time being,
the length of the reference period, as fixed by the national rules transposing
the Working Time Directive in different Member States, differs between three
months in Belgium and 12 months in Sweden. At the moment a reference period of
12 months is possible, under certain conditions, in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands and United Kingdom. Only Luxembourg does not provide national legislation in this respect, however collective
agreements define 40 hours per week as the usual working time. 
The introduction of
a limit of average weekly working time of 72 hours within four months is new.
In schedules with more working than rest days, e.g. three weeks on board and
one week off, this limit will give operators flexibility in organising the work
time. 
All Member States
already fulfil the proposed requirement of 6 hours uninterrupted daily rest.
Most Member States fulfil the proposed minimum requirement of 10 hours rest in
a 24-hour period, derived from their limits to daily working time. Hungary appears to allow a maximum limit of 16 hours working time in a 24-hour period,
which would not allow for the minimum 10 hours of rest. Croatia, Netherlands and Romania provide for a minimum 24 hours rest within a 48 hours period. 
The main change between the agreement and the
baseline in terms of reference period, working time and rest periods comes down
to the establishment of limits on daily and weekly working time and minimum
rest periods in units of time at EU level which are adapted to the work
schedules in the sector, and an extension of the maximum reference period to 12
months (see Annex 3, Box 2). 
Table 2: Working time, rest and reference
period
 Agreement || Member States' status quo is equal or more favourable || National legislation contains less favourable provisions 
 Daily limits to working time Working time is based on an 8 hour-day (paragraph 3). Working time shall not exceed 14 hours in any 24-hour period (paragraph 4(1)). || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, LT, LU[67], SE, SK. || HU[68], HR, NL[69], IT[70], PL[71], RO[72], UK[73] 
 Limit to weekly working time In all cases, an average of 48 hours a week within 12 months shall not be exceeded (paragraph 3(2). Hence, the maximum amount of working time within 12 months is 2304 hours (48 hours x 52 weeks minus four weeks of annual leave) In addition, working time shall not exceed 84 hours in any seven day period (paragraph 4(1)) || AT, BE, BG CZ, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL UK,DE, EE, LT, PL, NL, RO, SE, SK, LU[74]   ||             
 Special provision allowing longer average weekly working time over a limited period   If, according to the work schedule, there are more working days than rest days, an average weekly working time of 72 hours shall not be exceeded over a four-month period. || N/A no equivalent provisions in the national legislation of the 28 Member States. ||   
 Minimum daily and weekly rest periods Rest periods shall not be less than 10 hours in each 24-hour period, of which at least six hours are uninterrupted, and 84 hours in any seven-day period. || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, LT, SK, SE. || HU[75], IT, LU, PL HR, NL, RO[76], UK[77]. 
Source: Ecorys Study
4.1.3.     Provisions on night work
The agreement provides for a definition of
night time as the time between 23.00-6.00. The definition of night time
currently varies accross the Member States[78].
The definition laid down in the agreeement does not imply changes in the
majority of the Member States as they have the same definition or have a more
extended definition. Implementation of the agreement will have an impact on
countries who either have defined night time more limited than the agreement,
such as Sweden and United Kingdom, or countries who have not regulated this at
all, such as Estonia and Italy.
As the agreement provides for a weekly limit on
night work, it will impact the most, the 8 Member States[79] who
have not provided for any limits on night work. As the larger part of the IWT
sector in Italy consists of passenger ferries over a short distance, this will
only impact on a small part of the IWT sector in Italy(see Annex 3, Box 3).[80] 
The provisions on the limit to night work in
the agreement will require some Member States to adapt their national
legislation as they allow a daily working time of 8 hours or more[81].
However, this will improve consistency of rules across Member States. The
introduction of a limit on nightwork (42 hours/week) will to a very minor
extent affect ships sailing under the CCNR exploitation regimes A1 or A2 (there
can only be an impact when work continues for some time while the ship is not
sailing). For ships sailing under exploitation regime B in situations where
neither national legislation nor sectoral agreements prohibit this, the
agreement might imply some changes.
Table 3: Night work
 Agreement || Member States' status quo is equal or more favourable || National legislation contains less favourable provisions 
 Night time : the time between 23:00 and 06:00[82] || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SK. || EE (undefined), IT, SE, UK. 
 Limit to night work Paragraph 9: Based on a night time of seven hours, the maximum weekly working time during night time shall be 42 hours per seven day period[83]. || CZ, FR, HR, HU, PL[84], SK[85]. || AT, BE, BG, DE, FI, IT, LT, LU, NL, RO, SE, UK[86]   EE: undefined 
Source: Ecorys study
4.1.4.     Verification
The registration and verification of working
time in inland waterway transport is regulated by the national authorities.
Most Member States verify the working time on board of inland waterway vessels.
In the majority of Member States verification takes place at company level, on
the basis of the working time documents per employee or on the basis of the
ship's logbook or a combination of the aforementioned methods. Verification is
done by the national enforcement authorities as designated by the national
authorities in their national legislation on working time. In practice this is
often the labour inspectorate, the inspectorate for (maritime) transport or the
water police. For example, in the Netherlands the registration of rest times in
the log book is verified and enforced by the inspection for transport. In Germany, the CCNR Regulations are verified and enforced by the river police (Wasserschutzpolizei),
in Belgium by the Shipping Police. In the United Kingdom the regulations on
inland waterways are enforced by the Marine and Coastguard Agency and in Romania by the Naval Authority. 
The agreement establishes common methods for
registration and verification of working time at EU level. The registration
should be jointly endorsed by employers and employees. The social partners
wished to establish a common mechanism for verification of the provisions of
their agreement, which would enable an efficient checking of working time by
the enforcement authorities, which at the same time would not pose an
administrative burden on the operators[87].

Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Netherlands, Romania and Sweden do not yet register working time. However,
with the exception of Poland and Sweden, these Member States require that the crew
members' rest times are daily registered in the logbook according to CCNR
regulations and alike. (See Annex 3, Box 4) That means the main change
introduced by this obligation will be a more consistent reporting. 
Table 4: Verification
 Agreement || Member States' status quo is equal or more favourable[88] || National legislation contains less favourable provisions[89] 
 According to paragraph 12 of the agreement, operators are required to keep records of working and rest time of each individual crew member on board of the vessel. These records shall be kept on board until at least the end of the reference period. 3. The records shall be examined and endorsed at appropriate intervals (no later than by the end of the following month) jointly by the employer or employer's representative and by the worker. || AT, BG, DE, EE, FI, FR, LT, SK, UK       || BE, HR, HU, NL, RO, IT, PL[90]. 
Source: Ecorys study 
4.1.5.     Other
provisions of the agreement
Protection of Young People
The protection of young people at work is
regulated by Directive 94/33/EC[91].
According to the agreement mobile workers in IWT under the age of 18 will
continue to be covered by the aforementioned Directive. A provision is
introduced in the agreement to allow Member States to authorise night work by
young people over the age of 16 years, if it is necessary for their training. Bulgaria, Finland, Croatia, Netherlands, and Sweden already allow night work by young people as part
of their training. France and Lithuania prohibit night work for minors. 
No information is available on this aspect of
work in the inland waterway sector from Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. 
This provision will have little impact on
Member States as it will remain up to the national authorities to authorise night
work for young people in this sector. However it will provide for a greater
consistency between the EU Member States as in each Member State, national authorities will be allowed to authorise night work for young people, as long
as certain criteria are fulfilled. 
Table 5: Protection of minors
 Agreement || Member States' status quo is equal or more favourable[92] || National legislation contains less favourable provisions[93] 
 1. Workers under the age of 18 shall be covered by Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work. 2. By way of exception, Member States may in national legislation authorise work by young people over the age of 16, who are no longer subject to compulsory fulltime schooling under national law, during the period in which night work is prohibited if this is necessary in order to achieve the objective of are recognised training course and provided that they are allowed suitable compensatory rest time and that the objectives set out in Article 1 of Directive 94/33/EC are not called into question. || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, NL, PL, RO, SK. SE, UK       || IT, LU     
Source: Ecorys Study
Health checks
As mobile workers in IWT are exposed to noise,
vibration and different working patterns as long working hours, night work and
shift work, paragraph 14 of the agreement provides for an annual health assessment
free of charge for all workers to which the agreement applies[94].

The agreement indicates specific points which
should be taken into account during this assessment. The Working Time Directive
requires health assessment under Article 9(1), which also applies to mobile
workers in IWT, but only for night workers which are entitled to free
health checks before being assigned to night work, and at regular intervals
thereafter.
In most Member States mobile workers are
entitled to free health checks. In the Netherlands and Finland, health checks are conditional on being necessary such as for identifying risks at
the work place, i.e. health checks take place to monitor the suitability for
the function on board. United Kingdom and Poland have regular health checks
only for night workers.[95]

The entitlement to health checks for all mobile
workers is likely to have implications for all Member States. It will assure
consistency within the EU in this area and it will apply to all workers on
board of a vessel, both navigation personnel and shipboard personnel. 
4.2.        Summary
comparison between the agreement and the baseline
Table 6 provides an overview of the main
substantial legal changes that the implementation of the agreement in the 28
Member States will require. The agreement contains provisions on more
favourable provisions and a non-regression clause. As a consequence, Member
States are allowed to maintain or introduce more favourable legislation for the
protection of the health and safety of mobile workers than the minima required
by this agreement. Member States may also allow for the application of more
favourable collective labour agreements. Therefore, the agreement will have no
direct impact on the situation in Member States which already have equal or
more favourable provisions than the agreement. It will have an impact on Member
States who have no or less favourable provisions in their national legislation.

Table 6: Comparison between the Member
States 
 Working time aspect || Member States' status quo is equal or more favourable || National legislation contains less favourable provisions 
   || Equal or more favourable || Less favourable rules 
 Maximum working time in 24 hours period || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, LT, LU[96], SE, SK. || HU[97], HR, NL[98], IT[99], PL[100], RO[101], UK[102] 
 Average weekly working time in 12 months. || AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK, UK ||   
 Length of night work[103] || CZ, FR, HR, HU, PL[104], SK[105]  || AT, BE, BG*, DE*, FI, IT, LT, LU, NL*, RO*, SE, UK 
 Verification[106] || AT, BG, DE, EE, FI, FR,  LT, SK, UK[107]   No information available on CZ en SE. || BE, HR, HU, NL, RO, IT, PL[108].   
* Where applicable the CCNR rules or alike provide already a similar
level of protection. However shipboard personnel on board of passenger ships
are not covered by these rules.
5.           Assessment
of the impacts 
Particular importance will be paid in this
section to the consequences in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium, Romania as these Member States represent around 73% of the total
estimated mobile workers in EU-28. Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, and Slovenia do not avail of employment in IWT and are therefore not looked
at in this analysis. In Spain and Portugal according to the social partners IWT
is negligible and therefore also these countries were not looked at in detail. 
The provisions under discussion were found to
not have any direct impact on the environment. Indirect impacts could occur if
the legislation in question reduces – as a consequence of better working
conditions – the number of accidents (for example avoiding the leakage of
chemicals or oil as a consequence of shorter average working hours). Nevertheless,
it seems very ambitious to stretch the analysis to that point. Therefore
environmental impacts have not been considered in this analysis. 
5.1.        Impact
of the specific elements
5.1.1.     Impact
of the changed scope
Most Member States apply specific working time
rules to all mobile workers, both navigation crew and shipboard personnel, in
inland waterways. However, in five Member States[109] specific
working time rules only apply to the crew and not to shipboard personnel. For
these five countries there are altogether about 3,500 mobile workers working on
passenger vessels, 2,400 of them in the Netherlands. Some of those are
navigation personnel, which are covered by the Rhine Regulations and alike..
The available data do not provide for a further specification. 
Working conditions for shipboard personnel on
board of passenger vessels can reportedly be extremely hard. In that sense any
improvement and consolidation should be considered important and welcome.[110] A
second point of change induced by the agreement is the decision to apply the
agreement based on the geographical position of the ship. This will also have
an effect on the enforcement of the working time limits set in the agreement. 
In other countries with interconnected
waterways, such as Austria, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Slovakia, where 3,900 mobile workers are working in the sector, this will clarify the
situation for ship-owners, operators and enforcement bodies. They will be in a
better position to judge which minimum working time rules to apply to the
extent that national rules on working time limits continue to differ after
transposition of the Agreement. 
In Member States which do not avail of
interconnected waterways (like Lithuania, Finland, Italy, United Kingdom and Sweden), lack of clarity is not so much an issue. In cases where the operator has
his seat in one country, while operations take place in another Member State, and the country where the seat is, uses the place of business as a principle
to carry out inspections, the agreement would now mean that these ships could
expect to be checked.
Irrespective of more detailed national
provisions, national monitoring/enforcement bodies which check compliance with
working time rules can rely under the new rules that all ships have to comply
at least with the minimum standards and that working time can be verified in
accordance to working time records. 
In substance, the application of a uniform rule
for the validity of working time rules means that it should no longer be
possible that there is legal uncertainty on which working time regime applies.
When drafting the agreement both employers' and trade union representatives
expected this legal certainty to be a significant improvement.
As a consequence of this clarity, enforcement
bodies might be more effective in checking compliance with the existing rules.
That could, according to the views of the social partners, improve overall
compliance and thus also improve fair competition and working conditions in the
sector.
5.1.2.     Impacts
of changes to reference period, working and rest time
While the detailed provisions in this area are
very complex, the analysis in chapter 4 shows that the main change compared to
the baseline is the extension of the maximum reference period to 12 months. The
definition of an average limit of 48 hours/week over this period aligns the
agreement with the maximum flexibility allowed by the general Working Time
Directive. 
Any other limit for the average weekly working
hours would introduce inconsistencies with the existing EU legislation and
potentially undermine its validity. In practice in most Member States social
partner agreements or national legislation define a normal working week with
fewer hours. This means that the maximum annual working hours will hardly be
affected by this new provision. During the negotiations of the agreement,
employers did not express concerns about this provision. In interviews carried
out for the Ecorys study, on the basis of a first assessment of the agreement,
a considerable number of Dutch and Romanian operators (40% and 70%) of both
small and large ships believed that extra staff  would be needed because of the
new limits on working time per year. In Romania some operators indicated that
this is partly due to the provisions on four weeks annual leave in the
agreement. Annual leave is already a right for mobile workers according to the
Working Time Directive and should therefore not lead to additional costs or the
need to hire additional staff. Since mobile workers work often in shifts during
continuous voyage, instead of hiring extra staff, it might be possible to have
more frequent crew changes during a voyage. Operators in the Netherlands and Romania also indicated that having the limits laid down in legislation should lead
to a slightly better competitive position for operators and the safety on the
vessel would increase[111].
In Hungary, operators indicated also the need
to hire more staff without providing an exact number. This was stated although
in practice the working time on a yearly basis does not change as compared with
the current regulations. In Poland, operators expect only minimal changes and
therefore they do not see a need to hire more staff.
The enlarged reference period provides for more
flexibility for the employers when organising the work plans including the
possibility for workers to work quite long hours in periods of (seasonal)
peaks. Given that the touristic season is often limited to a part of the year,
such seasonality is an important issue for employers and employees and also in
the freight sector there are times when shipping is more difficult, e.g. in
times of draughts or of floods and in case of strong ice. These times require
overtime working during other periods so to allow for a relatively steady
income for both workers and operators. Although the provisions of the agreement
per se will only constitute minimum standards, it is expected that many Member
States will adapt to this reference period. In that sense the agreement is
expected to have a harmonising effect on the legislation in the sector.
The special provision allowing a maximum
average working week of up to 72 hours over a period of four or more months
constitutes an extremely heavy work load which, if it was continued over longer
periods, would lead to mental exhaustion and therefore needs to be compensated
by sufficiently long continuous rest periods. This is in particular an issue
for the shipboard personnel on board of passenger ships, whose work continues
irrespective of whether the ship sails or not. However, both trade unions and
employers agreed on these long working hours in peak times as minimum
standards. The normal limit to weekly working time (maximum 48 hours per week
on average over 12 months) continues to apply, and this ensures that a period
of very heavy seasonal working time would automatically have to be compensated
by working correspondingly shorter average hours during the rest of the same
year. The main advantage here is also that all workers on board ships would be
covered by a consistent level of minimum protection, on whichever European
waterway the ship sails.
Given the long working hours which continue to
be possible and the temptation of a constant availability of the worker on
board, it is important to define rest periods in a way which allows the
employee to recreate. For such purposes certain minima of uninterrupted breaks
are indispensable. The provisions in that respect are in line with the
provisions of the CCNR. These – or more protective rules – are already in
application for most ships on European inland waterways. Therefore the
provisions on rest times are not expected to have a significant impact on the
sector.
5.1.3.     Impact
of the provisions on night work
According to the agreement night time is
defined as the time between 23.00-6.00. This will provide a consistent
definition of night time on all European waterways, thus avoiding
misunderstandings when ships cross borders or sail on rivers which border
countries with different regimes.
The maximum of 42 hours of night work per week
is new for some Member States. However, when the CCNR exploitation regimes A1
and A2 are applicable, ships have to stop sailing between 22.00 and 6.00 and
between 23.00 and 5.00. Under these conditions, it requires a high volume of
work on the resting ship to reach the threshold. Under the exploitation scheme
B, which allows for continuous sailing, it is possible to reach the threshold.
However, the manning requirements for these ships are made in a way to allow an
organisation which does not necessitate such long hours of night work for any
of the crew members. 
Therefore, whenever the CCNR (or similar) rules
apply such as in Croatia, the Netherlands and Romania, the new situation should
not impose restrictions as compared to the baseline. This was a particular
concern of the social partners during the negotiations and they considered this
as achieved. 
This means - beyond the harmonisation of what
is considered night time – that these changes will not have an impact on
sailing on Rhine and Danube and connected waterways. Given that these are the
biggest inland waterways, where night-travel is most likely, it can be
concluded that these new provisions have mainly a harmonising effect. 
5.1.4.     Impact
of a general right to health checks
For workers in the maritime sector and for
mobile night workers free health checks are already a well-established practice[112] in
most Member States. Staff dealing with food is in most countries obliged to
participate in regular health checks. 
The main extension for all Member States as
compared to the status quo is that navigation crew and shipboard personnel who
are not night workers and who are not dealing with food, will also be entitled
to annual health checks. This would benefit shift workers, as shift work also
has implications for the health and safety of workers[113].
Subsequently it can be expected that probably
more than 50% of the mobile workers of the mobile workers within the EU (more
than 15,500 mobile workers) do already have a right or even the obligation to
undergo such health checks. In case of the navigation personnel the rhythm
might not follow an annual schedule. 
The costs of these health checks are estimated
at a 50 euro fee for the medical service and a similar sum to compensate for
lost working time, in case the test is performed during the working time. This
- however – is not fixed in the agreement. That means the costs/employee are
50-100 euro. Assuming that now every year only a third of the mobile workers,
who have the right to these checks, undergo such checks, this would mean
maximum costs of about 1-2 million euro for the sector under the conditions
that all workers[114]
entitled will actually make use of this right and that the national health
system is not going to support this initiative. Such support could be justified
because preventive intervention is found to reduce general social security
costs in the long run. Looking at the Member States with largest labour force
in IWT (see Annex 2), this would mean maximum costs between 275,000 euro and
100,000 euro a year for the sector in these Member States provided that all
workers entitled will actually make use of this right and that the national
health system is not going to support this initiative[115].
Investment in active prevention policies to
protect the health of their workers leads to tangible results. Health checks
are seen as particularly useful in a situation with an increasing average age
of the sectoral workforce. They allow treating diseases early and avoiding or
reducing absence from the workplace and subsequently also costs of treatment[116]. Compared
to an annual turnover for the sector of 7.5 billion euro additional costs of 2
million euro cannot be considered a substantial increase.
5.1.5.     Impact
of the introduced obligation to allow for verification
Registration of working time is usual practice
in particular in situations with changing shifts. In 12 of the Member States
with IWT, such requirements already exist. In the other 7 Member States[117],
there is no formal legal obligation to do so, however, social partner
agreements or company level regulations might already require the mobile
workers to do so. Furthermore the Member States[118] who
implemented their national legislation based on the Rhine Regulation and the
like are already required to register rest time. That means the main change introduced
by this obligation will be a more consistent reporting 
A simple registration of the working time
should not require more than a few seconds each time. This will add up to a few
minutes per week and to less than an hour per month. Subsequently, in cases
where there was so far no registration, it might mean a few hours of working
time per year and employee. A rather high estimation would probably be 10 hours
per year. Assuming a personnel cost of 20-30 euro per hour, the additional
costs would be 300 euro per year, per employee. The number of mobile workers
who will have to register their working time for the first time is very
difficult to estimate given the heterogeneity of current situations, it can
however be assumed to be rather small.
Navigation personnel in general has to keep
record of sailing and rest times so to demonstrate compliance with the
provisions for the safety of operations, and bigger shipping companies are
likely to pay their personnel according to working hours, so registration can
expected to be part of daily practice. In these cases, the costs can only
result from an adaptation of how registration is done. At the moment a
discussion at EU level is taking place to come to a uniform documentation of
service time on board. The development of an e-format service record book to
register service/navigating time is being researched in the context of PLATINA
II. If such a model e-format would be used or adapted to register working time
as well, such a document could further reduce the costs of keeping and
controlling of service time and working time[119].

The benefits of the new regime at EU level are
a significantly facilitated monitoring of compliance. Under the new regime
enforcement bodies can expect to obtain similar information in a comparable way
on each ship. All ships will have them for all mobile workers within the EU. 
5.2.        Socio-economic
impacts of the agreement
While the Ecorys study started with the
intention to develop a cost-benefit analysis of the new agreement, entering into
the substance it became clear that the complexity of the status quo which
consists of sector-specific national legislation and general national
legislation, which implements the EU legislation on working time and
international agreements on sailing times and the subtlety of the changes
required when implementing the Agreement do not allow for this instrument to be
used in a serious way. Therefore a qualitative analysis of the socio-economic
advantages and disadvantages is provided.
5.2.1.     Economic
impacts
In the present situation, differences in the
regulations between different Member States in the Rhine and the Danube region
lead to competitive advantages for the operators from the countries which have
less protective working time rules and/or rules which are not enforced. This
view was confirmed by operators interviewed in the context of the Ecorys study.
For tidal rivers, the agreement provides for the flexibility needed as the
duration of voyages depends on the tide.  
The agreement will limit competition on working
time, as it will set common definitions and minimum numerical limits on working
time for vessels operating within the territory of the EU Member States. Member
States which have less favourable provisions than the agreement will have to
adapt their legislation to the agreement. The agreement also establishes common
methods for registration and verification of working time at EU level. The
registration should be jointly endorsed by employers and employees. This will
enable an efficient checking of working time by the enforcement authorities,
which at the same time would not pose an administrative burden on the operators[120]. This
could improve competitiveness as working time can be more efficiently enforced 
Operators in the Netherlands and Romania interviewed in the context of the Ecorys study indicated that they see no major
impact on competitiveness, due to the fact that in practice working time of
mobile workers is within the limits as provided for in the agreement. In the Netherlands and Romania operators estimate that the agreement, if strictly enforced across the EU,
will improve competitiveness since in their experience operators in other
countries operate longer working hours.
The agreement will have the most impact on
countries that currently have less favourable provisions in their national
legislation, such as Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Romania or do not have any numerical limits on working time for mobile workers in inland waterways (Italy, Luxembourg[121], Poland). However, for Italy the impact will be limited, as the country does not have any
cross border inland waterways and the length of the inland waterways does
suggest that working time is within the limits because of the nature of the
inland waterway. 
For countries in which most shipping will have
to comply with the Rhine Regulation and the like, such as the Netherlands and Luxemburg, it is expected that the agreement will only lead to minor
changes to the current legislation and practice. With regard to verification
the agreement will have an impact on several countries which have different
methods to register working time (Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Netherlands
Romania, Italy and Poland[122]).
However, Belgium, Croatia, Netherlands and Romania, which have national
legislation in accordance with the Rhine Regulation and the like, are already
obliged to register the rest time of navigation crew. 
The analysis does neither suggest that the
provisions on working time in the agreement would complicate the existing
acquis, nor that the agreement in any other way discriminates against
enterprises newly entering the market. On the contrary, clear minimum standards
might in the long run increase transparency of the rules and thereby even
facilitate market entrance.
5.2.2.     Impacts
on SMEs
Most of the enterprises in the sector are SMEs
or micro-enterprises and most mobile workers are employed in such enterprises,
especially in the Rhine region where the proportion of small enterprises is
higher than in the Danube region. SMEs are well represented in the sectoral
social dialogue by ESO and their representatives were amongst the strongest
supporters of the agreement, as they see it as an opportunity to achieve
harmonisation with potentially simpler rules on working time in the sector and
a more efficient enforcement which will have a positive effect on competiveness
as it limits the possibility to compete on working times. 
Actually, the majority of small or even
micro-enterprises will be less affected by the new provisions as they own the
ships which run on the Rhine and Danube under the exploitation schemes A1 and
A2[123].
These schemes require them already to have certain rest periods. For such ships
excessive night work is less likely than under a 24 hours exploitation regime.
5.2.3.     Social
impacts 
In the present situation the difference in
regulations between Member States and the lack of flexibility of the rules lead
to difference in the implementation of the rules and in working hours for
mobile workers. Having more consistent rules in line with the work schedules in
the sector will facilitate implementation and enforcement of the rules. The
agreement should also lead to an improvement of working conditions for mobile
workers in those Member States[124]
which have no or less favourable provisions on working time compared to the
agreement.
The inclusion of all mobile workers, i.e. crew
and shipboard personnel in the agreement, will lead to equal limits on working
hours for the two aforementioned categories of mobile workers. As most Member
States[125]
already apply working time provisions to both crew and shipboard personnel, no
major impact is expected. As some reports indicate excessive working hours for
shipboard personnel on passenger vessels, the agreement will have some positive
impact on the working conditions of shipboard personnel[126].
Health checks applicable to all mobile workers
are expected to have a positive impact on the health and safety of those mobile
workers, which currently do not undergo regular health checks. Some positive
impact is to be expected in the Netherlands and Finland, where health checks
take place to monitor the suitability for the function on board. United Kingdom and Poland have regular health checks only for night workers. Preventative health
checks will also be to the benefit of the sector as a whole and in so far also
to the companies[127].
Maximum working time and minimum rest time
provisions will have some positive impact in Member States which do not have
these limits in their national legislation, such as Luxembourg Poland and Italy. As most Member States already have regulations which are equal or more protective
than the limits in the agreement, no substantial improvement is to be expected.
In Croatia, Netherlands and Romania, which apply the CCNR (or similar) regulations,
and therefore have some limits on rest time, some slight improvement might be
expected on limits on working time. However, according to the operators
interviewed in practice the work schedules are already in line with the limits
provided for in the agreement.
5.2.4.     Implementation
and costs 
In the context of the Ecorys study,
representatives of enforcement bodies and representatives of the social
partners in the EU Member States were asked if according to their opinion the
time spent by enforcement officers on the verification of working and rest
hours of mobile workers would change due to provisions in the agreement.
Most responses stated that in their view the
time spent by enforcement officers would not change. Some respondents stated
that the provisions of the agreement would lead to an amendment to current
regulations that can be integrated in the labour code (United Kingdom, Czech  Republic). In Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland and Hungary respondents indicated
that the current national legislation on working time is similar to the
provisions of the agreement. Since the legal arrangement of working time does
not change fundamentally, the impact on the time spent to verify adherence
should not change much either.
The responses to the national questionnaires
indicated that, for the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, the agreement sets
rules which are different from the present ones. As a consequence, the
verification process will need to be adapted. 
Respondents from those countries indicate fear
that compliance with the new rules will imply higher costs. However,
respondents in the Netherlands and Germany agreed that a common level of
protection on all European inland waterways could lead to more efficiency in
enforcement. This was also the view from respondents in Luxembourg and Romania. 
According to the Dutch employers' organisation,
the requirement to keep records at the level of individual workers would
require only limited administrative changes. The Dutch employers' organisation
even expects a slightly positive effect from the provisions concerning
verification of working and rest times in the agreement as these provide more
clarity about the applicable regulations. 
In most countries the government does not
foresee to invest more in the enforcement of the legal obligations. The
Ministry of Employment in Luxembourg stated that enforcement will be more
effective because the agreement provides clearer rules compared to the national
legislation. The Dutch Ministry of Transport believed that effectiveness will
not change, because documents that are used to verify if rules have been
adhered to, will not change. However, the higher consistency of records could
help enforcement bodies to control more ships with the same resources.
6.           Comparison
of the options
On the basis of the analysis carried out in the
previous section, both options have been assessed and compared against their
contribution to reach the specific objectives and the costs of their
implementation. 
 Specific objective || Baseline || Agreement || Assessment of the change from baseline to agreement 
 Flexibility to balance between periods of high and low work load || The reference period over which the average weekly working time is calculated as transposed in national rules, is in most cases relatively short, leading to a limited flexibility || By facilitating the extension of the reference period over which the average weekly working time can be computed (up to 12 months), the sector gains a lot of flexibility. This flexibility is consolidated by a quite high maximum number of working hours for shorter periods (up to 14 hours/day, 84 hours/week in any week and 72 hours/week over longer periods) || very positive 
 Minimum health and safety protection for all mobile workers in the sector || Crew members on most inland waterways protected either by specific working time legislation, by provisions on security of operations and/or by social partner agreements. However, in several instances it is not clear which rules should actually be applied. Subsequently protection is unclear and may be lacking especially for shipboard personnel. || The agreement covers all mobile workers. It does not distinguish between navigation personnel and shipboard personnel. All mobile workers have a right to free regular health checks. This may entail immediate costs but preventative action may lead to reduced absenteeism and sickness insurance. With the maximum limit to average weekly working time, even though this is calculated over a whole year, the protection of mobile workers in IWT is aligned with the protection provided by the general Working Time Directive. The possibility to work for rather long periods (four months) average 72 hours per week allows working somewhat excessive hours in the short term. However social partners agree in considering this suited to some specifically seasonal working patterns. However such workers are still covered by the overall limit, so they will be entitled to work correspondingly shorter hours until their average (calculated over 12 months) comes down to a maximum of 48 hours. This provides a protection of workers against excessive situation. || positive 
 Facilitate enforcement of working time rules, in particular in cross-border situation. || A patchwork of sometimes contradicting rules (e.g. different definitions of night time, focus on rests vs. focus on working hours different criteria for identification of applicable legislation), makes it difficult for in particular small operators to really know which rules they have to comply with in every moment. Subsequently also enforcement is difficult for the enforcement bodies. || Harmonised definition of night time, reference period and standard obligations for reporting will facilitate the implementation of rules. The clear definition, of which rules (geographical position of the ship) apply will facilitate compliance and enforcement.   || Very positive 
 Costs of implementing the agreement || Many rules are not systematically enforced. Thus costs of implementation are kept to a minimum. This coincides with a perception that compliance is not considered important. || Operators do not expect a significant increase of costs when implementing the agreement. However, there may be costs to be expected: Continuously: a)         more systematic registration of working time in some cases One-off: b)         introducing changes to the system of working time registration c)         familiarisation with the new rules and how they are to be understood. d)        adaptation of the national legislation to the requirements of the agreement I.e. the permanent costs seem to be limited and in direct relation with the intentions of the initiative. The one-off costs can be considered as not excessively high as the sector is motivated to accept the new legislation, which should also facilitate the implementation for Member States, so that the legal changes can in the long run be expected to be paid back with better compliance. || Increase but willingness to spend money on it might also increase 
Summarising the table it can be concluded that
the agreement makes a step forward to achieve the objectives set and does so at
overall reasonable costs. Therefore the Commission considers the agreement as
an appropriate way forward. 
7.           Evaluation
and Monitoring
Without
prejudice to the provisions of the agreement on the follow-up and review by the
signatories, the European Commission shall monitor the implementation of the directive.

The
following data will be examined:
1.
Rate of compliance with working time provisions in the agreement;
Once
the directive implementing the agreement in EU law is adopted, the Member
States are obliged to transpose the directive into their national legislation. The
national enforcement authorities will then be responsible for the enforcement
of the national legislation. On the basis of the data provided by national enforcement
authorities in annual reports[128],
the European Commission can monitor if there is a better compliance with
working time provisions at national level. This will be an indication that the
working time provisions provide flexibility for the operators to balance high
and low workloads.
2.
Identification of trends, in particular
a)
reduction of accidents in the sector; 
b)
reduction of health problems and a higher satisfaction of workers with their
working, while taking other aspects such as the increased average aging of the
sector into account;  
These
aspects can be monitored in a qualitative way during the ongoing discussion
with Member States and the European social partners. Data will be available
based on information of the different stakeholders, such as national
authorities, in particular enforcement authorities and social partners. In
addition the signatories of the agreement will monitor and review the agreement
in the context of the sectoral social dialogue committee for inland waterway
transport. 
The
agreement would be evaluated by the Commission services five years after the
date of its entry into force. The evaluation will be based on data gathered
from the monitoring exercise, complemented by the results of the monitoring and
of the review by the signatories of the agreement as well as information
collected from Member States and other stakeholders. 
In
order to evaluate the results and the impact of the agreement some evaluation
questions should be addressed:
1. What
have been the impacts on the main stakeholders in the sector? In particular the
following aspects should be analysed: 
a. did
the control on working time provisions become more efficient, in particular in
cross-border situations, in terms of time needed for the control;
b. the
compliance rate within the sector in terms number of non-compliant ships,
correct registration of working time on board of ships;
c.
the number of accidents within the sector;
d.
satisfaction of mobile workers with the working conditions in the sector;
2. Are
there any issues with regard to working time for mobile workers in inland
waterway which still need to be addressed?
8.           Annexes
Annex 1: Overview consultations and
involvement from social partners and stakeholders
Negotiations between the social partners at EU
level, EBU, ESO and ETF started in January 2008. Given the fact that these
three organisations do not have affiliates in all EU Member States and for the
sake of transparency on their negotiation process, they sent, in November 2009,
a joint letter to the national authorities (ministries of employment and of
transport) of the then 27 Member States informing them of the core content of
their negotiations and asking them to forward the information to the respective
national social partner organisations. It appears that this letter met no
official response.
In the context of the Ecorys study, information
on national was collected through a questionnaire that was sent to the
ministries of employment and transport of the then 27 EU Member States and Croatia. The text of the Agreement was annexed to this questionnaire. Most questions were
related to the current national legislation on working time in the IWT sector.
Furthermore questions were asked on the possibilities to include provisions on
working time in collective agreements. Questions were asked on the enforcement
of this national legislation[129].
Replies were received from the national authorities of all EU Member States. 
The national authorities were also asked
whether they perceived legal obstacles to implementing this Agreement in
national law or regulations. Eleven Member States indicated that this question
was not relevant for them without any further specification[130]. Ten
 Member States and Croatia replied that they perceived no legal obstacles[131]. Hungary indicated that the legal obstacles were still unknown at this point. The French
authorities indicated that according to their first analysis the national
legislation contained more favourable standards. They stressed that EU
legislation should permit Member States to keep more favourable national
provisions. The German authorities indicated that they would need further
information on the provisions in the Agreement on working and rest days, as
they had some questions on the interpretation. Austria and Lithuania indicated that some national provisions where more favourable than the Agreement.
The United Kingdom questioned if the agreement contained enough flexibility for
working on tidal rivers and found the standards regarding health assessment for
mobile workers more stringent than for seafarers. Luxembourg indicated some
concerns on weekly rest and annual leave, but did not provide any further
information on these points. 
A questionnaire asking about collective
agreements in the sector was sent to the social partners in the EU Member
States and Croatia. According to the information received from the social
partners, in 15 Member States[132]
it is possible to include some provisions on working time in collective
agreements within the limits set by the national legislation. In some Member
States[133]
it is not possible to derogate from the provisions on working time set by
national legislation through collective agreements. These collective agreements
are mostly concluded at sectoral level. In Luxemburg and Italy social partners commented that collective agreements were concluded rather at company
level than at sectoral level. Swedish social partners indicated that sectoral
collective agreements regulate working time on harbour tug boats and in
domestic travel to the archipelagos and on passenger ferries, but the latter
two agreements apply to maritime travel only[134].
Annex 2: Economic and Employment data on the
inland waterway transport sector
Table 1   Number of
enterprises per country in the IWT sector (freight and passenger) in 2010
 Country || Number of enterprises || Country || Number of enterprises 
 Netherlands || 4,259 || Portugal || 41 
 France || 1,023 || Slovenia || 33 
 Germany || 970 || Bulgaria || 32 
 Italy || 926 || Denmark || 18 
 Poland || 535 || Lithuania || 15 
 Sweden || 487 || Croatia || 13 
 Belgium || 304 || Latvia || 12 
 United Kingdom || 246 || Slovakia || 8 
 Romania || 166 || Estonia || 1 
 Luxembourg || 132 || Cyprus || 0 
 Hungary || 108 || Greece || 0 
 Czech Republic || 95 || Ireland || 0 
 Austria || 82 || Malta || 0 
 Finland || 76 || Total || 9,645 
 Spain || 63 || Numbers in ‘italic’ are based on estimations. 
Source: Ecorys study: PANTEIA based on EUROSTAT; DESTATIS (Germany) and University of Vienna (Austria).
Table 2 Estimated number of mobile workers and self-employed in 2011[135]
 Countries (EU-28) || Freight || Passenger || Total IWT employment || % Mobile workers[136] 
 Self-employed || Mobile workers || Total freight || Self-employed || Mobile workers || Total passenger 
 Netherlands* || 4,908 || 5,912 || 10,820 || 731 || 2,357 || 3,088 || 13,908 || 27% 
 Germany***** || 577 || 2,197 || 2,774 || 288 || 2,527 || 2,815 || 5,589 || 15% 
 France* || 577 || 1,096 || 1,673 || 60 || 1,967 || 2,027 || 3,700 || 10% 
 Luxembourg** || 180 || 2,375 || 2,555 || 18 || 238 || 256 || 2,811 || 8% 
 Italy* || 231 || 403 || 634 || 993 || 926 || 1,919 || 2,553 || 4% 
 Belgium* || 1,294 || 557 || 1,851 || 326 || 222 || 548 || 2,399 || 3% 
 Romania* || 14 || 2,067 || 2,081 || 18 || 230 || 248 || 2,329 || 7% 
 Bulgaria*/*** || 22 || 957 || 979 || 6 || 694 || 700 || 1,679 || 5% 
 Sweden* || 14 || 104 || 118 || 191 || 792 || 983 || 1,101 || 3% 
 United Kingdom* || 60 || 239 || 299 || 162 || 590 || 752 || 1,051 || 3% 
 Hungary* || 9 || 258 || 267 || 25 || 575 || 600 || 867 || 3% 
 Portugal** || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 840 || 853 || 853 || 3% 
 Czech Republic* || 42 || 474 || 517 || 58 || 225 || 283 || 800 || 2% 
 Poland* || 98 || 215 || 313 || 103 || 200 || 303 || 616 || 1% 
 Slovakia* || 1 || 412 || 413 || 0 || 31 || 31 || 444 || 1% 
 Spain* || 6 || 38 || 44 || 20 || 324 || 344 || 388 || 1% 
 Finland* || 1 || 38 || 39 || 28 || 200 || 228 || 267 || 1% 
 Austria* || 1 || 50 || 51 || 57 || 100 || 157 || 208 || 0% 
 Lithuania* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 141 || 145 || 145 || 0% 
 Denmark*/** || 6 || 42 || 48 || 12 || 83 || 95 || 143 || 0% 
 Croatia*/** || 7 || 114 || 121 || 6 || 5 || 12 || 133 || 0% 
 Latvia* || 0 || 89 || 89 || 0 || 17 || 17 || 106 || 0% 
 Estonia** || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 60 || 61 || 61 || 0% 
 Slovenia* || 24 || 16 || 40 || 13 || 8 || 21 || 61 || 0% 
 Ireland || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Greece || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Cyprus || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Malta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0% 
 Latvia* || 0 || 89 || 89 || 0 || 17 || 17 || 106 || 0% 
  Total || 8,072 || 17,654 || 25,726 || 3,134 || 13,353 || 16,486 || 42,212 || 100% 
 Of which mobile workers || 31,007 || 73% 
 Of which self-employed || 11,206 || 27% 
 * Based on division between mobile workers and self-employed given by EUROSTAT for 2010 or most recent year. 
 ** Based on number of enterprises in 2010 (or most recent information) and the average number of self-employed and average number of workers per enterprise. 
 *** Based on survey carried out in 2013 under Ministries, trade unions and employers' organisations in EU-28. 
 **** Based on share freight and passenger vessel within the IVR ship registration for the year 2011. 
 ***** Based on available statistics for 2011. 
Source:
Ecorys study.
The number of self-employed has increased
slightly since 2008 from 25% to 27%. A large number of new vessels have been built
since 2008. Given the financial situation after the economic crisis, many
vessel owner/operators themselves have become more active in the actual
navigation of the vessel in order to reduce labour costs for hired nautical
staff to cope with the reduced revenues. About 40% of the total employment in
the IWT sector in Europe is linked with passenger transport. In Germany, this share reaches almost 51% of the shipboard personnel (excluding shore-based
personnel)[137].
Figure: Development of the total mobile IWT
employment from 2005 to 2011 in EU-28, broken down by mobile workers and
self-employed from 2008 to 2011[138]
Source: EUROSTAT; Belgium (source: RSVZ, ITB, RSZ); Germany (source: DESTATIS); Poland Central Statistical Office Poland); survey carried out in 2013
under Ministries, trade unions and employers' organisations (Austria; Luxembourg and Bulgaria). 
Age
distribution 
The
attractiveness of the IWT sector is a common concern of the employers and trade
unions, especially given the aging problem in the IWT sector. Significant
differences exist in the age distributions of mobile workers and the
self-employed. The aging problem is seen more clearly for the self-employed
compared to the mobile workers. In general, mobile workers tend to be younger
than the self-employed. In the inland navigation sector, the self-employed are
usually also the boat masters. To become a boat master more experience is
required compared to other IWT functions. The self-employed also stay longer in
the IWT sector compared to the mobile workers, even after they turn 65 years.
The
ageing problem in the IWT sector is particularly evident in Belgium (70% of the mobile workers is aged 45 years and older) and Germany (58% is aged 43 years and
older). Based on the questionnaire in the Ecorys study among national
authorities, the problem is similar in Bulgaria (45% of the mobile workers is
aged 45 years and older) and Hungary (67% is 45 years and older). On the other
hand the percentage of young mobile workers is low in all these countries: 9%
is younger than 25 in Belgium, 5% is younger than 23 in Belgium, and 11% is younger than 25 in both Bulgaria and Hungary. On the other hand, ageing is not a
problem in France and the Netherlands. 
Thus,
although partly due to the crisis there are currently no labour shortages in
the sector, the age distribution gives a further indication that attractiveness
of the sector for new workers may become more of an issue in the medium term. 
Nationality

The
friction in the labour market in Western Europe has partially been resolved by
hiring crew members from Central and Eastern European Member States and non-EU
countries (e.g. Philippine nationals). 
In
the Netherlands, 13.6% of the mobile workers are foreigners (value for the year
2008). The share of other EU nationals is 6.7% and 6.8% for third country
nationals. The largest share of foreign mobile workers is by far from the Philippines, followed by Poles, Germans, Romanians and Czechs. Besides mobile workers from
the Philippines there are almost no other non-EU countries of relevance. During
the last years, the number of non-EU foreign workers in the Netherlands has increased steadily. Nevertheless, this percentage of non-EU mobile workers
in the Netherlands is much lower now. In 2012, the Employee Insurance Agency
(UWV) announced that it will become more difficult to obtain working permits
for workers from outside the European Economic Area (EEA). The requirement for
employers of looking first for employees from the Netherlands or other EU
countries will be applied more strictly. Based on the survey carried out for
the Ecorys study, the employers' organisations in the Netherlands reported a share of 1% of third country mobile workers compared to 26% of
mobile workers originating from other EU Member States. 
About
27.3% of the workers in Belgium are EU nationals and 0.01% is third country
nationals. All the IWT employment in Luxembourg comes from other EU countries. 
Only
for Germany, year-to-year information is available on the share of
non-nationals working in the IWT sector. Germany reported a total share of
22.9% of foreigners in 2010, of which: 20.6% EU nationals (mostly from Poland, Czech Republic and Romania) and 2.3% third country nationals (mobile) workers (mostly from Turkey, Ukraine and Philippines). In 2011, this share of foreign mobile workers increased to 23.4%. 
Around
10% of the foreign workers in Slovakia are from other EU countries and 3% are
third country nationals. 
The
share of foreign workers in Bulgaria is: 1% originates from other EU countries
and 2% are third country nationals. 
From
the information presented above it can be concluded that between 20 to 30 per
cent of the workers in Western European countries such as Belgium, Germany and
the Netherlands are foreign nationals of which the majority from other EU
Member States. At most a few per cent of foreign citizens are working in
countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary. 
Economic situation in
the sector
The
overall economic situation within the EU has also affected the inland waterway
transport sector. In the 28 EU Member States, a total of 483 million tonnes
were transported on inland waterways in 2011. Despite a high in 2010, Inland
waterway transport volumes in 2011 were still below the levels of 2008. 
Transport
levels in differ between Member States and rivers within a Member States. For
example the growth rate of the Rhine is 1.5 %. Areas in which slightly stronger
growth rates occurred were the upper Danube area (+8 %), the river Main and the
Main-Danube Canal (+8 % and +17 % respectively), the middle Danube area (Hungary +12.5%) and parts of the lower Danube (Bulgaria +13 %).
Areas
experiencing a fall in demand for transportation were Belgium (-5 %), the Moselle and Rhone in France (-7 % and -9 % respectively), Luxembourg (-5 %), and northern and north-western German area (Ruhr –5 %, Mittellandkanal -3 %).
Demand for transportation stagnated on the Elbe and Moselle in Germany and on the Seine in France.
A
difference in growth can also be signalled in the different segments of inland
waterway transport. For example the transport of chemical products is currently
growing. A process of stagnation is expected to take root for mineral oil
products, in view of the reduced oil price, but also a further structural
reduction in quantities used. Overall - thanks to chemical products - an
increase in transport volumes (of around 2 % up to a maximum of 5 %) is
expected in the tanker shipping sector in 2014[139].
Annex 3: Detailed comparison between the Status Quo
and the agreement
Box 1: Scope and applicability 
 Agreement || Directive 2003/88/EC || Member States || International agreements 
 The agreement applies to mobile workers in IWT. It applies to both freight and passenger transport and contains specific provisions for seasonal work on passenger vessels. It applies to both crew members and shipboard personnel (such as hotel and catering workers on board of passenger ships). It does not apply to persons operating vessels for their own account (owner-operators). || The Working Time Directive defines mobile workers in more general terms as any worker employed as a member of a travelling or flying personnel by an undertaking which operates transport services for passengers and goods by road, air, or inland waterway transport. It does not make the distinction between the crew members and other shipboard personnel. It also does not contain any special regime for seasonal work on passenger vessels. It does not apply to self-employed. || In HR, NL, RO minimum rest time is applicable to all persons in nautical functions. Shipboard personnel are not covered by these regulations for inland waterway in these three Member States. Self-employed are included in BG, HR, HU, IT and NL. || Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine. (CCNR): rest time regulations apply to both navigation personnel and self-employed (owner operators). Regulations do not apply to shipboard personnel. The Danube Commission has provided recommendations identical to the CCNR rules   
 The agreement applies to mobile workers on board a craft operated within the territory of a Member State in the commercial IWT sector. || Directive 2003/88/EC applies to all workers and to all sectors. It allows some special rules as regards mobile workers. || Flag of the ship: EE, FI, HU, IT, LT, RO, SE Geographical position of the ship BE, HR, DE, NL, PL UK Seat of the operator BE, LT, LU Other AT, BG, FI, FR, SK Unknown: CZ In the context of national collective agreements additional criteria such as the nationality of the worker (FR) or the employer (HU) or both is used (BG) || CCNR rules apply to ships on the Rhine in the five CCNR Member States: BE, DE, FR, NL, and Switzerland. The Danube Commission can issue recommendations to its Member States AT, BG, HR, DE, HU, RO, SK Moldova, Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine.   
Box 2: Working time, rest and reference period
 Agreement || Directive 2003/88/EC || Member States || International agreements 
 Daily limits to working time Working time is based on an 8 hour day (paragraph 3). Working time shall not exceed 14 hours in any 24-hour period (paragraph 4(1)).   ||     The Directive does not set any limit to daily working time.   || All Member States have more than 8 hours a day as a maximum: 13 MS have 14 hours or less[140]. HU has more than 14 hours[141]. NL[142] and RO[143] working time regulations are based on the CCNR regulations and alike[144] which only prescribe minimum rest requirements for continuous travel in the context of safety rules. UK: only average weekly working time limits of 48 hours. PL and IT do not seem to have any regulations in this area. || CCNR rules and alike do not prescribe limits to daily working time, but instead minimum rest requirements for continuous travel on the Rhine. 
 Limit to weekly working time In all cases, an average of 48 hours a week within 12 months shall not be exceeded (paragraph 3(2). Hence, the maximum amount of working time within 12 months is 2304 hours (48 hours x 52 weeks minus four weeks of annual leave) In addition, working time shall not exceed 84 hours in any seven day period (paragraph 4(1)) ||     Article 6 requires that the average weekly working time, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours. Derogations are possible, in limited situations under Article 17(1) or Article 22. To be calculated by taking the average over a 'reference period': (Article 16(b)). Normally, the reference period is not to exceed four months; but it may be extended (by law or by collective agreements) to not more than six months in certain activities, and (by collective bargaining only), to not more than twelve months in any activity. || With the exception of FI (50 hours), most Member States have an average of 48 hours or less a week in their national legislation.   Reference periods vary between[145]: 3 months and 12 months[146] 4 months[147] ≥4months to 12 months[148] 12 months/ 1 year[149]   ||   
 Special provision allowing longer average weekly working time over a limited period   If, according to the work schedule, there are more working days than rest days, an average weekly working time of 72 hours shall not be exceeded over a four-month period. || No equivalent provision. || No equivalent in national law on the ratio working/rest days or a limit on days worked consecutively.           ||   
 Minimum daily and weekly rest periods Rest periods shall not be less than 10 hours in each 24-hour period, of which at least six hours are uninterrupted, and 84 hours in any seven-day period. ||     The specific provisions on daily and weekly rest (Articles 3, 4, 5 of the Directive) do not apply to mobile workers according to article 20. However Member States must ensure that all such workers are entitled to ʽadequate restʼ as defined by Article 2(9) including ensuring that they have regular rest periods defined in units of time. || HR, NL and RO implemented CNRR rules and alike. 13 Member States have a limit on daily working time of 14 hours or less in any 24 hours, so rest periods should be 10 hours or more. HU has more than 14 hours or working time, so the rest time will be less than 10 hours. PL and IT, have not any regulations in this area. UK has an average weekly working time of 48 hours.   || Depending on the sailing schedule of the vessel: rest periods are 8 hours uninterrupted in each 24 hours or 8 hours rest of which 6 hours uninterrupted per 24 hour period or 24 hours rest per 48 hours of which twice 6 hours uninterrupted rest.   
HU: maximum 12 hours of work
plus 4 hours of availability;            
HR, NL, RO: same as in the Rhine
Agreement;
BG: The Ordinance for labour and
immediately associated relations between the crew and ship owner (226/2003)
specifies that the captain is required to take all measures to avoid or
minimize overtime of the crew. Crew members have the right to refuse overtime
except in emergencies (§25 and 26). Collective agreement: 720 hours per 3
months divided by 13 weeks = 55.
DE: AZG = Working Time Act
(Arbeitszeitgesetz); collective agreement: 40 hours per week for navigational
staff and 38 hours per week for non-navigational staff (e.g. catering);
EE: standard average working
week is 48 hours. An average of 52 hours per week is possible if the agreement
is not unreasonably harmful to the employee and the employee can cancel the
agreement at any time by giving two weeks’ notice;
FR: Depending on shift work,
classical transport and passenger transport;
HR: max 32 hours overtime in a
month, in addition max 180 hours overtime in a year, regular working time = 40
hours per week;
HU: 2000 hours per year, for the
sake of comparison divided this by 48 weeks; According to paragraph 3(3) of the
Agreement, the maximum working time in a 12 month period is 2 304 hours. 
LU: The labour code excludes the
IWT sector from the applicability of regulations on working time. According to
information received from the authorities collective agreements are concluded
at company level and available to the government, and according to the ministry
of employment the usual working time agreed is 40 hours per week. Daily working
time in various collective agreements is 8 hours + 2 hours on-call time. 
Box 3: Night Work
 Agreement || Directive 2003/88/EC || Member States || International agreements 
 Night time: the time between 23:00 and 06:00; || Night time: Article 2(3): ʻany period of not less than seven hours, as defined by national law, and which must include, in any case, the period between midnight and 5.00;ʼ || 9 Member States[150] define night time as: 22-06 hours. AT and FR define as: 22-05 hours. SE and UK define as: midnight to 5.00 hours. BE defines as: 20.00-6.00 hours. In NL an employment contract can specify night time as 22-06 hours or 23-7 hours. FI 17.00-7.00 hours(freight transport) 19.00-6.00 hours (passenger transport) PL: 21.00-7.00 hours IT: not regulated. In EE not defined. || If the ship is sailing maximum 14 hours, within 24 hours the sailing has to be interrupted for 8 hours between 22.00-6.00 If the ship is sailing a maximum of 18 hours within 24 hours, sailing has to be interrupted for 6 hours between 23.00-5.00   Ships that are sailing 24 hours do not have a specific period to interrupt their sailing. 
 Limit to night work Paragraph 9: Based on a night time of seven hours, the maximum weekly working time during night time shall be 42 hours per seven day period. || Not regulated for mobile workers. || HR, CZ, HU, PL[151], SK[152]: night work ≤ 8 hours. SE: 9 hours. AT and LU: ≤ 10 hours. BE 50 or 56 working time in any week for night workers.   BG, DE, FI, IT, LT, NL, RO, UK: no limit on night work. EE undefined. ||   
Source: Ecorys study
Box 4: Verification
 Agreement || Directive 2003/88/EC || Member States || International agreements 
 According to paragraph 12 of the agreement, operators are required to keep records of working and rest time of each individual crew member on board of the vessel. These records shall be kept on board until at least the end of the reference period. 3. The records shall be examined and endorsed at appropriate intervals (no later than by the end of the following month) jointly by the employer or employer's representative and by the worker. || No similar provisions || Verification at company level by 10 Member States[153]. Documents on rest  time per employee 10 Member States[154]. Verification on the basis of the ship's logbook, 5 Member States[155] BE, IT, SK also inspect company rules on working and rest times in addition to the other documents. BE interviews workers on working and rest time in addition ot other methods. PL indicates no verification takes place. CZ and SE: unknown. || CCNR: Article 3.13 of the Regulations for Rhine navigation personnel: - schedule A1, A2 daily registration of the rest time of each crew member in the ship's logbook. - schedule B: the shifts of each crew members have to be registered in the logbook. 
Box
 5: Protection of minors
 Agreement || Directive 94/33/EC || Member States || International agreements 
 1. Workers under the age of 18 shall be covered by Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work.   2. By way of exception, Member States may in national legislation authorise work by young people over the age of 16, who are no longer subject to compulsory fulltime schooling under national law, during the period in which night work is prohibited if this is necessary in order to achieve the objective of are recognised training course and provided that they are allowed suitable compen- satory rest time and that the objectives set out in Article 1 of Directive 94/33/EC are not called into question. ||                   Article 3 ( c) ‘adolescent’ shall mean any young person of at least 15 years of age but less than 18 years of age who is no longer subject to compulsory full-time schooling under national law;   Night work for adolescents is forbidden in any case between midnight and 4.00. An exception might be made for work in the shipping sector on objective grounds. || FR and LT: prohibit night work for minors.   BG, FI, NL, and SE: only allowed if night work is part of the training.   HR: no night work allowed. If night work is considered essential and it is temporary: night work for minors is limited to 8 hours and no work between midnight and 04.00 hours.   DE: collective agreements regulate that persons aged 17 may work until 22.00 hours.   HU and LU: limited to 8 hours work per day and 40 hrs. per week, no specific legislation for night work.   AT, BE, CZ, IT, PL, SK, UK: no specific information available. ||   
[1]               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. 9–19
[2]               http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf
[3]               Communication from the Commission on the promotion of
inland waterway transport “NAIADES” - an integrated European action programme
for inland waterway transport COM (2006) 006 final.
[4]               SEC(2011) 453 final.
[5]               Communication from the Commission: Towards Quality
Inland Waterway Transport Naiades II COM(2013) 623 final.
[6]               Proposal for a Directive laying down technical
requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 2006/87/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council, COM (2013) 622 final.
[7]               Proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation
(EC) No 718/1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland
waterway transport, COM (2013) 621 final.
[8]               Directive 1999/63/EC OJ L 167, 2 July 1999 on working
time for seafarers, Directive 2000/79 on working time of mobile workers in
civil aviation, OJ L 302 of 1.12.2000, Directive 2005/47/EC concerning working
conditions in the cross border railway sector OJ L 195 of 27.7.2005.
[9]               Ecorys 2013: Study on the expected impacts of the implementations
of the European Agreement on working time in inland waterway transport - a
comparison with the status quo. 
[10]             BE, BG, DE, EE, HR, IT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK. 
[11]             Ecorys 2013: Study on the expected impacts of the
implementations of the European Agreement on working time in inland waterway
transport - a comparison with the status quo. 
[12]             Article 2(7) of Directive 2003/88/EC: ‘mobile worker’
means any worker employed as a member of travelling or flying personnel by an
undertaking which operates transport services for passengers or goods by road,
air or inland waterway.
[13]             White Paper on sectors and activities excluded from the
Working Time Directive, COM(97) 334 final.
[14]             Directive 1993/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. 
[15]             Recital 16 of Directive 1993/104/EC: "Whereas,
given the specific nature of the work concerned, it may be necessary to adopt
separate measures with regard to the organization of working time in certain
sectors or activities which are excluded from the scope of this
Directive;"
[16]             Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and the
Council, amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that
Directive.
[17]             Article 2(9) ‘adequate rest’ requires that ‘workers
have regular rest periods, the duration of which is expressed in units of time
and which are sufficiently long and continuous to ensure that, as a result of
fatigue or other irregular working patterns, they do not cause injury to
themselves, to fellow workers or to others and that they do not damage their
health either in the short term or in the longer term.’
[18]             NEA, 2011: Medium and Long Term Perspectives of IWT in
the EU. 
[19]             Market Observation No. 12 (2010-II)
http://www.ccr-zkr.org/13020800-en.html. 
[20]             See footnote 8
[21]             Roadmap Review of the Working Time Directive. 
[22]             The Ecorys study to assess the costs and benefits of
the implementation of the social partner agreement on working time in the IWT
sector contains data of 19 Member States with IWT. This includes all Member
States, except CY, DK, EL, IE, LV, MT, SI. The national authorities in the
afore mentioned countries stated in answer to the questionnaire on working time
regulation in IWT sent by Ecorys in the context of the external study that they
either had no IWT sector or not in the sense of the agreement. According to the
replies from employers' organisations and trade unions, IWT transport in ES and
PT is neglible. 
[23]             Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia. 
[24]             Belgium (canals connecting to the Meuse and Scheldt
rivers), the Czech Republic (Morava river and Elbe-Danube canal), Luxembourg (Moselle river), Poland (Elbe river and Elbe-Danube canal). 
[25]             Ecorys study and EU transport in figures pocketbook
2013.
[26]             http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/inland/index_en.htm
[27]             The IWT labour force in Italy is mainly concentrated on
the passenger IWT sector. The inland waterways in Italy are not interconnected
with other European inland waterways. 
[28]             CCNR Market Observation 2012-1
[29]             Ecorys study.
[30]             CCNR (2010): Regulations for Rhine navigation
personnel, Chapter 3, Section 2, Article 3.11 on obligatory rest.
[31]             CCNR (2010): Regulations for Rhine navigation
personnel, Chapter 3, Section 2 on obligatory rest time
http://www.ccr-zkr.org/13020500-en.html.
[32]             The Member States of the Danube Commission are: Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Romania, Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and Croatia.
[33]             UNECE (2006), Recommendations on Harmonized Europe-Wide
Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels (Resolution 61), Chapter
23, Article 23.6.1 on mandatory rest period.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/finaldocs/sc3/Resolution%20No61E.pdf.
[34]             Commission Staff Working Paper: Detailed report on the
implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain
aspects of the organisation of working time. (SEC(2010) 1611 final)
[35]             Ecorys study
[36]             Communication of the Commission Towards quality inland
waterway transport - NAIADES II COM(2013) 623 final. 
[37]             For examples of itineraries see
http://www.rivercruise.be/vaarroutes/donau.html.
[38]             NEA: Final Report for the “Study on Administrative and Regulatory
Barriers in the field of Inland Waterway Transport”, 2008.
[39]             Ecorys Study
[40]             BE, LT, PL, SE, SK. CZ did not provide any information
on the issue. 
[41]             Letter by EBU, ESO and ETF of 16 March 2012 to the
Commission. 
[42]             NEA 2008 Administrative and Regulatory Barriers in the
field of Inland Waterway Transport (Summary and cross analysis). 
[43]             ECMT 2006: Strengthening inland waterway transport:
pan-european co-operation for progress. 
[44]             In the context of the NEA 2008 study this was reported
by among others BE, DE, NL, AT, but it is believed that this issue concerns
more EU Member States. 
[45]             Dipl.-Psychologe Dr. Stefan Poppelreuter: Psychische
Belastungen am Arbeitsplatz – auch für die Binnenschifffahrt ein Thema,
November 2012.
[46]             Although inland navigation is a safe mode of transport
in comparison with other transport modalities in terms of accidents per tonnekm.
when comparing the amount of fatalities in IWT with the amount of fatalities
reported for truck drivers, the balance for IWT turns negative. Although the
number of fatalities for truck drivers is higher than the number of fatalities
in IWT, it must be noted that the number of workers in road haulage is more
than 9 times the amount of workers in IWT. Taking this into account, it appears
that the risk for an IWT worker in the Netherlands being involved in a fatal
accident is 1.8 times higher for IWT, compared to the road sector . Source
Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN), Series Transport in Cijfers (2004-2010)
[47]             RIVM, report Bouwnijverheid
[48]             Staat van de Transportveiligheid 2012, inspectie
leefomgeving en transport. 
[49]             http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=iww_ac_nbac&lang=en
[50]             Ecorys study
[51]             Inspection Human Environment and Transport, the Netherlands, Toezichtsplan over water (Water Supervision plan 2013)
[52]             European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2011: OSH in figures: Occupational safety and health in the transport sector — An overview
[53]             COM (2010) 1611 on the Implementation of the 2003/88/EC
Working Time Directive, gives 16 references to literature on this in footnote
268 on page 87. See also Deloitte study to support impact assessment of Working
Time Directive, 2010, Annexe I. 
[54]             Working time/Work intensity, European Foundation for
the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions/Paris School of Economics,
2009. See also Health of people in working age, 2011:The highest occurrence of
accidents was reported by manual workers. Manual work is often related to other
unfavourable work characteristics such as shift work and atypical working
hours, which also were found to be associated with a high occurrence of
accidents. 
[55]             CCNR: Market Observation 2013
http://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/om/om13_en.pdf 
[56]             Communication from the Commission on: 'An Agenda for
new skills and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment',
COM(2010) 682 final.
[57]             COM(2011) 144 final.
[58]             ‘Adequate rest’ is defined at Article 2(9) of the
Working Time Directive as follows: “ ‘Adequate rest’ means that workers have
regular rest periods, the duration of which is expressed in units of time and
which are sufficiently long and continuous to ensure that, as a result of
fatigue or other irregular working patterns, they do not cause injury to
themselves, to fellow workers or to others, and that they do not damage their
health, either in the short term or in the longer term.” 
[59]             The recommendations of the Danube Commission are
identical to the CCNR Regulation. 
[60]             The provisions in the agreement are compared to the
national legislation of the Member States. If a Member State's provisions on
working time in the inland waterway sector are considered to be more
favourable, it means that these provisions contain more protective provisions.
Less favourable provisions that the provisions are less protective than the
provisions in the Agreement (e.g. less rest time, more working time, health
checks limited to a certain category of workers, no special provisions for
young people)
[61]             Article 7 of the Working Time Directive contains the
provisions on annual leave. 
[62]             Article 12 of the Working Time Directive contains
similar provisions on health and safety of workers. 
[63]             Article 13 of the Working Time Directive contains
similar provisions on working time Directive. 
[64]             Article 2(7) of the Directive provides that “ ‘mobile
worker’ means any worker employed as a member of travelling or flying personnel
by an undertaking which operates transport services for passengers or goods by
road, air or inland waterway; ” 
[65]             HR, NL, and RO implemented the rest time regulations in
accordance with the CCNR regulations and the like. These only apply to workers
in nautical functions not to shipboard personnel.
[66]             The recruitment of temporary agency workers or via a
manning agency in the IWT sector is prohibited in BE by a royal decree of 13
December 1999.
[67]             No national legislation, only collective agreement. 
[68]             HU (12 hours plus 4 hours availability).
[69]             In NL working time regulations for the IWT sector are
based on the CCNR regulations which only prescribe minimum rest requirements
for the safety of the vessel. In interviews done in the context of the Ecorys
study, Dutch operators stated that although national legislation in principle
allows for more than 14 hours daily working time, in practice operators apply
less than 14 hours. depending on the sailing schedule applied. 
[70]             According to the Ecorys study IT national legislation
does not contain any daily working time limit for workers in the IWT sector. 
[71]             According to the Ecorys study PL does not have any
legislation in this area. 
[72]             The Romanian national legislation seems to be based on
the recommendations of the Danube Commission which are similar to the CCNR
Regulations. Romanian operators interviewed for the Ecorys study indicate that
in practice daily working day is less than 14 hours.
[73]             Only limit on average weekly working time of 48 hours.
[74]             No national legislation, only collective agreement on
working time in IWT.
[75]             HU: 12 hours of daily working time plus 4 hours
availability. This would mean that the hours of rest are less than 10 hours. 
[76]             HR, NL and RO: Depending on the sailing schedule of the
vessel (see for detailed information Annex 3, box 2.
[77]             UK national legislation only prescribes limits on
average weekly working time. 
[78]             More detailed information on Member States' definition
of 'night time' and 'night worker' is contained in Commission Working Paper,
Implementation of Directive 2003/88/EC by Member States, SEC 2010 1611, in
chapter 8 "night work".
[79]             BU, FI, LT, IT, NL, RO, SE and UK
[80]             Ecorys study.
[81]             HU , HR, NL , IT , PL , RO , UK  
[82]             Equal, more favourable in this context means: The same
time limit (23.00-6.00) or same amount of hours (seven) is defined as night
time. 
[83]             In this context equal or more favourable means not
exceeding 42 hours in any 7 day period.
[84]             PL: if night work is dangerous. 
[85]             SK reference period of 6 months.
[86]             BE, DE, NL, RO apply the CCNR Regulations or the like. 
[87]             Letter sent by EBU, ESO and ETF to the Commission
concerning the agreement on 16 March 2012.
[88]             No information available on CZ, LU and SE.
[89]             Less favourable means in this context: working time
records are not kept, or not kept on board of the ship. 
[90]             HR, NL, RO: according to the Rhine Regulations and
alike, these countries are already obliged to register the rest time of
navigation personnel. 
[91]             Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
protection of young people at work, O.J. L 216 of 20 August 1994. 
[92]             Equal or more favourable in this context means in this
case, no night work allowed, or less night work then what the agreement would allow.

[93]             No information available for AT, BE, CZ, HU, PL, SK and
  UK
[94]             A similar provision concerning annual health checks
free of charge exists for workers in the maritime sector (Clause 13(1) of the
Annex to Directive 1999/63/EC). Costs are either born by the employer or may be
conducted in the national health system. 
[95]             Ecorys study.
[96]             No national legislation, only collective agreement. 
[97]             HU (12 hours plus 4 hours availability).
[98]             In NL working time regulations for the IWT sector are
based on the CCNR regulations which only prescribe minimum rest requirements
for the safety of the vessel. In interviews done in the context of the Ecorys
study, Dutch operators stated that although national legislation in principle
allows for more than 14 hours daily working time, in practice operators apply
less than 14 hours depending on the sailing schedule applied. 
[99]             According to the Ecorys study IT national legislation
does not contain any daily working time limit for workers in the IWT sector. 
[100]            According to the Ecorys study PL does not have any
legislation in this area. 
[101]            The Romanian national legislation seems to be based on
the recommendations of the Danube Commission which are similar to the CCNR
Regulations. Romanian operators interviewed for the Ecorys study indicate that
in practice daily working day is less than 14 hours.
[102]            Only limit on average weekly working time of 48 hours.
[103]            No information received from EE. 
[104]            PL: if night work is dangerous. 
[105]            SK: reference period of 6 months.
[106]            No information available on CZ, LU, SE.
[107]            Most countries have more than method of keeping and
verifying working time 
[108]            HR, NL, RO: according to the Rhine Regulations and
alike, these countries are already obliged to register the rest time of
navigation personnel. 
[109]            HR, NL, RO , LU, UK 
[110]            Market Observation No. 12 (2010-II), http://www.ccr-zkr.org/13020800-en.html.
See also http://www.zeit.de/2012/11/Kreuzfahrtschiff-Zimmermaedchen.
[111]            See also conclusions NEA 2008 study on Administrative
and Regulatory Barriers in the field of IWT, 2008. 
[112]            See Clause 13(1) of the Annex to Directive 1999/63/EC on
the working time of seafarers. Directive 1999/63/EEC has been amended by Annex
A to Directive 2009/13/EC implementing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006,
which entered into force on 20 August 2013. Clause 13(15) of this Directive
provides also for free annual health checks for night workers. 
[113]            Deloitte 2010: Annex to the Study to support an Impact
Assessment on further action at European level regarding Directive 2003/88/EC
and the evolution of working time organisation. 
[114]            Ecorys study estimates that there are 31,700 mobile
workers within the EU. 
[115]            Based on these estimates, for the Netherlands with the largest number of IWT mobile workers, the costs would estimate on 275,000 euro
a year, for France the costs would be estimated on 100,000 euro a year. 
[116]            Communication of the Commission:  Improving quality and
productivity at work: Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work,
COM (2007) 62 final. 
[117]            BE, HR, HU, NL RO, IT, PL
[118]            BE, HR, NL, RO
[119]            http://www.naiades.info/platina/page.php?id=22.
PLATINA II (2013 - 2016) is a European Coordination Action aimed at the
implementation of the NAIADES II policy package "Towards quality inland
waterway transport". PLATINA II translates the contents of the Action
Programme into practise.
[120]            Letter sent by EBU, ESO and ETF to the Commission
concerning the agreement on 16 March 2012.
[121]            Luxembourg: The national labour code excludes the IWT
sector from the applicability of regulations on working time. According to
information received from the authorities collective agreements are concluded
at company level and available to the government. 
[122]            HR, NL, RO According to the Rhine Regulations and alike,
these countries are already obliged to register the rest time of navigation
crew. 
[123]            According
to the Rhine Regulations and the like a vessel operating in A1 schedule means
that the vessel
is operated max 14 hours/day continuously; In A 2 schedule the vessel is
operated max 18 hours/day  continuously)
[124]            Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg , Poland, the Netherlands, and Romania
[125]            With the exception of Netherlands, Romania and Croatia, whose national legislation is based on the Rhine regulation and the like. 
[126]            Ibid footnote 94.
[127]            European Commission 2011: Socio-economic costs of
accidents at work and work-related ill health.
[128]            National enforcement
authorities prepare annual reports on a voluntary basis according to their
national practice. 
[129]            See Annex 3 of the Ecorys Study for the questionnaires
used in the context of this study. 
[130]            CY, DK, EL, ES, FI, IE, LV, MT, PT, SI and SE.  
[131]            BE, BG, DE, EE, HR, IT, NL, PL, RO, SK. 
[132]            AT, BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, HU, HR, IT, LT, LU, NL, RO, SE,
SK. 
[133]            BG, CZ, HR, PL, RO and UK. 
[134]            Ecorys study
[135]            The total number of persons employed in the IWT sector
is – based on provisional data - given for 2011 (unless otherwise specified) .
Nevertheless, information on the distinction between mobile workers versus
self-employed is not yet available. It has been estimated based on the shares
in EUROSTAT from 2010 or national statistics/literature review.
[136]            Compared to total estimated number of mobile workers in
EU-28.
[137]            Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine: Inland
navigation Europe, Market Observation 2013.
[138]            EUROSTAT does not provide data before 2008, with the
distinction to be able to estimate the self-employed and the mobile workers.
The shares presented from 2008 until 2011 have been estimated based on the
numbers of the countries where this information is known.
[139]            Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, Market
Observation 2013. 
[140]            AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, LT, LU, RO, SE SK. 
[141]            HU (12 hours plus 4 hours availability). 
[142]            In interviews done in the context of the Ecorys study,
Dutch operators stated that although national legislation in principle allows for
more than 14 hours daily working time, in practice operators apply less than 14
hours, although it depends on the sailing schedule applied. 
[143]            Romanian operators interviewed in the context of the
Ecorys study also seem to indicate that in practice the daily working day is
less than 14 hours. 
[144]            CCNR rules or the recommendations of the Danube Commission which are similar. 
[145]            The reference periods provided by national law
are sometimes calculated in weeks instead of months. As the Working Time
Directive contains different derogations which allow extending reference
periods from a maximum of 4 to a maximum of 12 months, the Member States have
also different reference periods, under certain conditions. Detailed
information is available in the Ecorys study. 
[146]            BE, FR.
[147]            DE, EE, LT, PL, NL, RO, SK.
[148]            AT, BG, CZ, IT, UK.
[149]            HR, HU, SE.
[150]            BG, CZ, CR, DE, HU, LT LU, RO, SK.
[151]            PL: if night work is dangerous. 
[152]            SK: reference period of 6 months.
[153]            AT, DE, FI, FR, HR, IT, LT LU, NL SK.
[154]            AT, BG, DE, EE, FI, FR, IT, LT, SK, UK. 
[155]            BE, HU, NL RO SK.