EUROPEAN
COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 8.3.2016
SWD(2016) 52 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council
amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
provision of services
{COM(2016) 128 final}
{SWD(2016) 53 final}

EN

EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED
PARTIES..................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Identification ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2. Consultation and expertise ................................................................................... 4
1.3 Scrutiny by the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board ..................................... 5
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION............................................................................................... 5
2.1. Policy context ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Defining the scope of the issue............................................................................. 9
2.3. Inconsistent playing field for companies grounded on differentiated
wage rules........................................................................................................ 10
2.4. Unclear rules to be applied on specific situations .............................................. 14
2.4.1. Subcontracting....................................................................................... 14
2.4.2. Temporary agency workers ................................................................... 15
2.4.3. Definition of the temporary nature of posting....................................... 16
2.4.4. Intra-corporate posting .......................................................................... 17
2.5. Evolution of the problem without further EU intervention ................................ 18
2.6. EU Right to Act ............................................................................................... 19
3. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 20
3.1. General Policy Objective.................................................................................... 20
3.2. Specific objectives.............................................................................................. 20
3.3. Coherence of the objectives with other EU policies .......................................... 21
4. POLICY OPTIONS....................................................................................................... 21
4.1. Option 1 - No policy change: baseline scenario................................................. 22
4.2. Option 2: clarification of the composition of minimum rates of pay to
codify the rulings of the European Court of Justice ........................................ 22
4.3.1 Option 3a: Application of the same mandatory rules on
remuneration for posted and local workers ....................................... 23
4.3.2. Option 3b: Extension to all sectors of the reference to erga
omnes collective agreements ............................................................. 24
4.4. Option 4: Adapted rules for specific situations of posting................................. 25
4.4.1. Option 4a: long-term postings ............................................................... 25
4.4.2. Option 4b: sub-contracting relations ..................................................... 25
4.4.3. Option 4c: Temporary agency workers ................................................. 26
4.5. Discarded options ............................................................................................... 27
2

4.5.1 Communication by the Commission to clarify the elements of
remuneration applicable to posted workers ...................................... 27
4.5.2. Introduction of equal pay for equal work with respect to a
reference undertaking........................................................................ 27
4.5.3. Clarification of the application of the Directive to the road
transport sector ................................................................................. 28
4.5.4. Option 4d: intra-group posting ............................................................. 28
5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS .................................... 29
5.1. Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 29
5.1.1. Create a level playing field for companies based on equal rules
on wages ............................................................................................ 29
5.1.2. Improve the clarity of EU rules on posting ........................................... 31
5.2. Overall economic impacts .................................................................................. 32
5.3. Overall social impacts ........................................................................................ 41
5.4. Impact on SME's ................................................................................................ 43
5.5. Implementation costs.......................................................................................... 44
5.6. Budgetary Impact ............................................................................................... 44
6. OVERALL COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS ........................................................ 45
6.1 The preferred options .......................................................................................... 46
7. EVALUATION AND MONITORING......................................................................... 48
7.1. Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 48
7.2. Evaluation........................................................................................................... 49
ANNEX I. - SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS EXPRESSED BY THE
MEMBER STATES AND THE STAKEHOLDERS ............................................... 50
ANNEX II. - NUMBERS AND FIGURES ON POSTING OF WORKERS ................... 55
ANNEX III. - OVERVIEW OF THE CASE LAW OF THE CJEU ON THE
CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF MINIMUM RATES OF PAY........................... 71
ANNEX IV........................................................................................................................ 76
ILLUSTRATIVE SIMULATIONS OF THE IMPACT OF EQUAL PAY ON
LABOUR COSTS FOR EMPLOYERS AND AFTER-TAX INCOME FOR
WORKERS IN SITUATION OF POSTING............................................................ 76
ANNEX V. - COMPOSITION OF REMUNERATION .................................................. 86
ANNEX VI. - IMPACT OF THE REVISED DIRECTIVE ON
REMUNERATION ................................................................................................... 87
3

1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES
1.1. Identification
Lead DG: DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL)
Other services involved: SG, LS
CWP/Agenda planning reference: CWP 2016, Annex I, initiative n. 8.

1.2. Consultation and expertise
In the framework of the Labour Mobility Package, the Commission launched on 15 July
2015 a public consultation open to EU citizens and organisations, which remained open
for 12 weeks. The consultation included a chapter on the social security rules applicable
to posted workers. Out of 307 respondents who submitted their replies to the public
consultation, 232 respondents replied online to the questions on the coordination rules on
posting (which amounts to 75.57% of the total number of respondents), including 138
individuals (69.35% of the total number of individuals) and 94 organisations (87.04% of
the total number of organisations).
During the preparation of the initiative, the Commission has received written
contributions from 16 Member States, in the form of two joint letters. The first was sent
on 18 June 2015, signed by Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Sweden. On 31 August 2015, a second joint letter signed by Bulgaria,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Romania was
sent to the Commission.
The targeted revision of the Directive was also discussed with Member States'
representatives within the Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers, in a meeting
held on 7 September 2015.
The Commission organised a consultation of European social partners on the Labour
Mobility Package, including the targeted review of the Posting of Workers Directive, in
the form of a roundtable, which was held on 10 June 2015.
A meeting with was held with civil society on 17 June 2015.
Written contributions were received from the following European social partners: ETUC,
BusinessEurope, UEAPME, EFBWW and FIEC, EBC, CESI, CEC and Eurociett.
4

Written contributions were also received from national social partners, namely the
Swedish Association of Industrial Employers, Gesamtmetall , the Confederation of
Industry of the Czech Republic, the Industry Associations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, Sweden, the Council of Nordic Trade Unions and the Dutch Trade Union
Confederation (FNV).
Two European NGOs have also sent written contributions: ECAS and Eurodiaconia.
Annex III provides a summary of the positions expressed by the Member States and
stakeholders in written contributions
To increase the evidence basis, a study on wage-setting systems and minimum rates of
pay applicable to posted workers in accordance with 1996 Posting of Workers Directive
in a selected number of Member States and sectors was prepared, on behalf of the
Commission, by the Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini1. An analysis on the economic value
of posting of workers was prepared on behalf of the Commission by HIVA KU Leuven2.

1.3 Scrutiny by the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board of the European Commission assessed a draft version of
the present IA and issued a negative opinion on 22 January 2016. A new version of the
Impact Assessment was submitted to the Board on 15 February 2016. A positive opinion
on the new version was issued on 24 February 2016.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1. Policy context3
Posting of workers plays an essential role in the Internal Market, particularly in the crossborder provision of services. It consists of the case in which undertakings post an
employee to another Member State to provide a service. Directive 96/71/EC (hereafter:
'the Directive')4 regulates three variants of posting: the direct provision of services
between two companies under a service contract, posting in the context of an
establishment or company belonging to the same group ('intra-group posting'), and

1

2

3
4

Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini (FGB), Study on wage setting systems and minimum rates of pay
applicable to posted workers in accordance with Directive 97/71/EC in a selected number of Member
States and sectors, December 2015.
De Wispelaere, F. and Pacolet, J., ‘An ad hoc statistical analysis on short term mobility - economic
value of posting of workers’, HIVA KU Leuven, February 2016.
For more information, see Annex II.
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning
the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.
5

posting through hiring out a worker via a temporary work agency established in another
Member State.
The EU established an Internal Market which is based on a highly competitive social
market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress (Article 3(3)TFEU).
The treaty establishes the right for companies to provide their services in other Member
States. It provides that 'restrictions on the freedom to provide services in the Union shall
be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member
State other than that of the person to whom the services are intended' (Article 56 TFEU).
The freedom to provide services may be limited only by rules which are justified by
overriding reasons of general interest, provided that these are justified, proportionate and
applied in a non-discriminatory way.
Altogether, in 2014 (latest data available), there were over 1.92 million postings in the
EU, up by 10.3% as compared to 2013 and by 44.4% with respect to 2010. The upward
trend followed the stagnation of postings during the years 2009 and 20105.
EU-15 Member States represented the destination of 86% of total postings, with
Germany, France and Belgium as the three main countries of destination which
altogether received 50% of total postings in Europe (see figure 1). In proportion to the
domestic employment of the receiving country, posted workers represent a relevant share
in Luxembourg, Belgium and Austria.

5

Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2015), Posting of Workers. Report on A1 portable documents issued
in 2014, Network Statistics FMW&SSC, European Commission. The data include postings to single
Member States (according to art. 12 of Regulation 883/2004) and postings to multiple Member States
(article 13 of Regulation 883/2004). The data also includes the self-employed (on average 8% of total
postings) which are not covered by the posting of Workers Directive. Because no data is available on
the destination of postings to multiple member States, the total figure of sent posted workers (1.92
million) is higher than that of received posted workers (1.45 million, in 2014).
6

Figure 1. Posted workers, breakdown by receiving country, absolute numbers and
% of total employment, years 2010 and 2014.

Source: EMPL elaboration on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015). Note: data on received posted workers
are only available with respect to postings to single Member States (art. 12 of Reg. 883/2004).

Poland, Germany and France accounted for the three largest senders of posted workers in
2014, with EU-15 accounting for 54% of total posted workers sent in that year. The
incidence of posted workers on the domestic employment of sending countries was
highest in Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Slovakia.
Figure 2. Posted workers, breakdown by sending country, absolute number and %
on total employment, years 2010 and 2014.

Source: EMPL elaboration on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015). Note: data on sent posted workers
include both postings to single Member States and postings to multiple Member States (art. 12, 13 of Reg.
883/2004).
7

Postings involve a small share of the total EU workforce (0.7%), with unique posted
persons accounting on average for 0.4% of EU employment (0.2% in full-time
equivalents). However, the relevance of posting of workers is particularly strong in the
construction sector, in which 42% of total postings are concentrated. Posting of workers
is also important in the manufacturing industry (21.8%) and in other service sectors, such
as personal services (education, health and social work, 13.5%) and business services
(administrative, professional, and financial services, 10.3%). Posting of workers through
temporary agency work represents, on average, 5% of total postings in the EU, albeit
with significant cross-country variations.
Further data on posting of workers are presented in Annex II.
However, it is important to note that strong data limitations on posting of workers remain
an on-going problem6. Comparable figures are based on the portable documents A1 (PD
A1) for social security purposes7, although some Member States, including Belgium,
Denmark, France and Sweden have set up national registration systems, requiring
detailed information from companies posting workers to their country. The accuracy of
the information contained in PD A1 documents cannot be guaranteed due to the lack of
formal controls by the authorities in the sending countries, among other things.
Therefore, the figures presented below represent an estimate of the actual number of
postings taking place and do not provide a precise picture of reality8. Moreover, PD A1
forms include incomplete information on the duration of postings (these forms are not
required for short-term postings below one month of duration and for long-term postings
over 24 months) and the precise economic sector of activity; and they include no
information at all on aspects such as the qualification of posted workers, their earnings,
and the economic value of cross-border services involving posting of workers.
Improvements can be expected from the transposition of the 2014 Enforcement
Directive, in particular the administrative requirements and control measures suggested
by article 9(1). Furthermore, the envisaged revision of the Regulation on social security

6

7

8

See also European Commission (2012) Impact Assessment. Revision of the legislative framework on
the posting of workers in the context of the provision of services. Partie I, SWD (2012) 63 final.
Within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security
systems, PD A1 forms serve to certify that the holder is covered by the social security legislation of the
Member State of origin. PD A1 could, inter alia, also be issued for persons who are normally
employed, self-employed or both employed and self-employed in two or more Member States (Art. 13
of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004).
The gap in registered posted workers between PD A1 figures and national registers can be significant.
Annex II provides some examples. The gap can be explained by many factors, including in particular
the non-obligation for sending employers to have a PD A1 form for short-term postings below one
month and long-term postings over 24 months (which are instead compulsory registered in national
systems). However, the gap still demonstrates the shortcoming of the data available through social
security forms, which remain the only fully comparable data source.
8

coordination will propose stricter measures to improve the reliability of the A1 forms,
and therefore of the data, provided by sending Member States.
2.2. Defining the scope of the issue
Posting of workers constitutes an essential resource for the functioning of the Internal
Market. The 1996 Directive sets the EU regulatory framework to establish a balance
between the objectives of promoting and facilitating the cross-border provision of
services, providing protection to posted workers and ensuring a level-playing field
between foreign and local competitors. It stipulates a 'core set' of terms and conditions of
employment of the host Member State which are mandatory to be applied by foreign
service providers, which include (article 3(1) of the Directive): maximum work periods
and minimum rest periods; the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates;
minimum paid annual holidays; the conditions of hiring-out of workers; health, safety
and hygiene at work; protective measures in favour of pregnant women, young mothers,
children, and young people; equality of treatment between genders; and other provisions
of non-discrimination.
The 2014 Enforcement Directive9 has provided for new and strengthened instruments to
fight and sanction circumventions, fraud and abuses. It addresses problems caused by socalled "letter-box companies" and increases the Member States’ ability to monitor
working conditions and enforce the rules applicable. Inter alia, the Directive lists
qualitative criteria characterising the existence of a genuine link between the employer
and the Member State of establishment. The Enforcement Directive also lays down
provisions to improve administrative cooperation between national authorities in charge
of posting. For instance, it provides for an obligation to respond to requests for assistance
from the competent authorities in other Member States within two working days in the
case of urgent requests for information and within 25 working days in non-urgent cases.
Moreover, the Directive lists national control measures that the Member States may
apply when monitoring compliance with the working conditions applicable to posted
workers. The full effects of the Directive should become tangible as of mid-2016, as
Member States will have until 18 June 2016 to transpose the Directive.
The current initiative does not address any issue touched upon by the Enforcement
Directive. Neither the Enforcement Directive nor the measures taken to transpose it into
national laws will be in any way affected by the present initiative. Rather, it focuses on
issues which were not addressed by it and pertain to the EU regulatory framework set by
the original 1996 Directive. Therefore, the revised posting of Workers Directive and the
Enforcement Directive are complementary to each other and mutually reinforcing.
9

Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the
enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative
cooperation through the Internal Market Information System ( ‘the IMI Regulation’ ).
9

Problem Tree

Drivers
Reference to minimum
level of pay
Universal systems not in
all the Member States

Problems

Consequences

Un-level playing field
for companies due to
different rules on wages
between posted and local
workers

Deteriorated acceptance
of posting

Incentives for companies
to replace locally hired
workers with foreign
service providers
Lack of clarity of what
elements are covered by
minimum pay

Social dumping
Unfair competition

Unclear rules to be
applied (implementation
difficulties)

Legal uncertainty/higher
litigation costs (for
companies and workers)

Lack of clarity regarding
the temporary nature of
posting
Inconsistency between
different EU rules

2.3. Inconsistent playing field for companies grounded on differentiated wage rules
The 1996 Posting of Workers Directive establishes a structural differentiation of wage
rules applying to posted and local workers which is the institutional source of an un-level
playing field between posting and local companies, as well as of segmentation in the
labour market.
Wage differentiation originates from three mechanisms set in place by the Directive.
First, the Directive stipulates that posted workers are guaranteed only the minimum rates
of pay, as part of a "hard core of clearly defined protective rules", in the receiving
Member State. Minimum pay is defined either by the law or by universally applicable
collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable. In the absence of
universally applicable collective agreements, Member States may decide to base
themselves on collective agreements which are generally applicable to all similar
undertakings in the geographical area and in the profession or industry concerned, or
10

collective agreements which have been concluded by the most representative employers'
and labour organizations at national level and which are applied throughout national
territory10. Thus, unless there are collective agreements that fulfil these conditions,
posted workers are only entitled to whatever statutory minimum wage that there might be
in the receiving country. However, even when collective agreements are applicable, it is
widely reported that sending companies tend to pay the rates applicable to the lowest pay
group, rather than the adequate pay group corresponding to workers' job tasks,
educational level and seniority11. In summary, the existing Directive has an in-built
structural wage gap between posted and local workers.
Second, the composition of the minimum rates of pay guaranteed to posted workers in
the host Member States is unclear and sensibly varies across the Member States. The
Directive leaves the definition and composition of 'minimum rates of pay' applicable in
their country to the Member States and the social partners. For example, while certain
bonuses or allowances (such as Christmas bonus or bad-weather allowance) are
constituent parts of the pay in some Member States, they are not in others. Annex V
provides an overview of the types of bonuses and allowances included across different
Member States. The European Court of Justice has clarified selected issues of the
concept12. Nevertheless, the lack of a clear standard generates uncertainty about rules and
practical difficulties for the bodies responsible for the enforcement of the rules in the host
Member State; for the service provider when determining the wage due to a posted
worker; and for the awareness of posted workers themselves about their entitlements. In
practice, the notion of "minimum rates of pay" which can in a number of Member States
include seniority allowance, quality bonuses and 13th month bonuses, seems to be
wrongly interpreted without these components, as meaning 'minimum wage' (see Annex
V).
Third, there are uncertainties concerning the effectiveness of the Directive in Denmark
and Sweden where, in the absence of a statutory minimum wage and a scheme for the
extension of collective agreements, minimum rates of pay are set by collective
agreements that are applicable nationwide but leave ample room for integration to
company-level agreements, in line with productivity and skill requirements. Following
the Laval ruling13 through which the European Court of Justice has challenged the
10
11

12

13

See in particular article 3(8) of the 1996 Posting of Workers Directive.
FGB (2015), Wage Study. This situation primarily affects workers posted from low-wage EU Member
States in low-skill occupations. Workers with higher bargaining power vis-à-vis their employers are
reported to receive wages in line with the standards of the receiving countries.
Commission v. Germany (C-341/02), Isbir (C-522/12). In the recent case Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry
(C-396/13), the Court ruled that the 'minimum rates of pay' which a host Member State can require to
be paid to posted workers include: holiday allowances, daily flat-rate allowances for posted workers to
compensate them for disadvantages entailed by the posting, and compensation for travelling time, on
equal terms as local workers. Moreover, it acknowledged the validity of different hourly pay levels
attached to the categorisation of employees into pay groups in collective agreements to the sense of the
Directive, provided that the conditions are universally binding and transparent.
C-341/05 - Laval un Partneri.
11

validity of company-level agreements to set the working conditions for posted workers,
both countries have amended national legislation to clarify the application of their wagesetting systems in the terms set by the Directive14 . While general agreements set basic
wage floors in some relevant exposed sectors, company-level agreements play an
essential role in setting a level playing field with local companies, but the number of such
collective agreements with cross-border service providers seems to be low15..
Figure 3 provides a synoptic view of the level of minimum rates of pay (as a ratio of the
average wage in the whole economy) under different wage regimes and the number of
workers posted to each Member State from lower-wage countries who are likely to
receive only the minimum rates of pay in the receiving country.
Figure 3. Minimum rates of pay guaranteed by the Directive and potential range of
posted workers affected, by receiving country, whole economy, 2010

Source: EMPL calculations on Eurostat data and Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015) data. No data for CY.
Note: in minimum wage countries (MW) the minimum pay is calculated as the ratio between the monthly
statutory minimum wage and the nominal average wage in the construction sector; in Member States with
universally applicable collective agreements (CA), and collective agreements concluded at national level
(in accordance to article 3(8) of the Directive), the minimum rate of pay is calculated as the ratio between
the nominal monthly wage of the lowest pay group (elementary worker) and the average wage in the
construction sector.

14

15

Malmberg, J. (2010), The impact of the ECJ judgements on Viking, Laval, Rueffert and Luxemburg
on the practice of collective bargaining and the effectiveness of social action, European Parliament
Study
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201107/20110718ATT24274/20110718ATT
24274EN.pdf)
FGB Study (2015), Denmark and Sweden Country reports.
12

Differentiated rules on wages translate into a competitive advantage for posting
companies over local companies in receiving countries, with the former being able to
adhere to lower wage bound than the latter, while competing for the same business in the
same (host) country. This is particularly true in domestically-provided services, such as
construction and personal services, given their labour-intensive and price-sensitive
character and the fact that delocalisation of these activities is not possible. In light of EU
labour market conditions, including wage differentials and diversity of wage-setting
regimes, in the context of an enlarged European Union, the balance struck by the 1996
Directive to establish a climate of fair competition has changed considerably. As
illustrated by figure 9 (Annex II), the gap between Member States on minimum wages
has constantly increased since 1996, from a ratio between the lowest and the highest
minimum wage of 1:3 to 1:10. Moreover, differentiated wage rules seem in contradiction
with the principle according to which cross-border service providers should pursue their
activities in another Member State "under the same conditions as are imposed by the
State on its own nationals" (Article 57 TFEU).
The labour market effect of these provisions is segmentation between posted and local
workers. Posted workers are reported to receive a lower remuneration level than local
workers, especially in high-wage EU receiving countries, such as Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Because of the absence of data on the
earnings of posted workers, only gross estimates exist. However, the wage gap (in
compliance with the Directive) is estimated to range from 10-15% in the Danish
construction sector, up to about 25% - 35% in the construction sector in the Netherlands
and Belgium, and up to 50% in the road transport sector in Belgium16. The wage gap
constitutes a source of labour market segmentation insofar as it implies differentiated
rules applying to posted workers on aspects such as composition of pay, correspondence
of certain bonuses, and longer working hours.
Wage differentiation is reported to be especially acute in two cases. First, posted workers
in labour-intensive sectors, such as the construction sector and road transport are more
likely to receive minimum pay rates than posted workers in high-end service sectors, e.g.
finance and insurance. This is because in these sectors labour cost differentials are one of
the key drivers of posting of workers while posted workers tend to have low skills17. By
16

17

See Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini (FGB), Study on wage setting systems and minimum rates of pay
applicable to posted workers in accordance with Directive 97/71/EC in a selected number of Member
States and sectors [henceforth quoted as "FGB - Wage Study"], Final report, November 2015; Schiek,
Oliver, Forde, Alberti, "EU Social and Labour Rights and EU Internal Market Law", Study for the
EMPL
Committee,
European
Parliament,
September
2015
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563457/IPOL_STU%282015%29563457
_EN.pdf); M. Houwerzijl, "The Dutch Understanding of Posting of Workers in the context of Free
Services Provision and Enlargement: a Neutral Approach?", in: S. Evju, Cross-Border Services,
Posting
of
Workers
and
Multilevel
Governance,
University
of
Oslo,
2013
(http://www.jus.uio.no/ifp/english/research/projects/freemov/publications/books/cross-border.html)
See ISMERI Europa, Preparatory Study for an Impact Assessment concerning the possible revision of
the legislative framework on the posting of workers in the context of the provision of services, Final
13

contrast, in sectors or for professions in which posting is driven by skills shortages, such
as the care services sector, or workers have higher skills, wages are not reported to be a
problematic issue18. Second, unequal wage treatment particularly affects workers posted
from low- to high-wage countries. While the 1996 Directive does not preclude companies
from applying more generous conditions than the minimum standards of the receiving
country, workers posted from low-wage countries tend to lack the bargaining power to
obtain more generous conditions in line with the wage standards of the receiving
countries. On the receiving end, the Directive provisions can exert downward wage and
overall labour cost competition on local companies and workers in high-wage Member
States19, including through possible risks of replacement of local workers with posted
workers. It also risks destabilising coordinated wage-setting regimes and the bargaining
autonomy of the social partners in those regimes.
2.4. Unclear rules to be applied on specific situations
The 1996 Directive addresses different types of posting through a one-size-fits-all
principle. In specific situations, however, the rules have not proved to be up to standard
with changing economic and labour market conditions and do not provide sufficient legal
clarity. Unclear rules undermine the efficient functioning of the Internal Market by
creating uncertainties among undertakings, workers and their representatives, and public
authorities.
2.4.1. Subcontracting
Posted workers in the context of sub-contracting chains are in a situation of particular
vulnerability. Subcontracting chains involve a client, or principal contractor,
externalising single specialities or tasks to other companies or self-employed workers.
Workers may be posted to another member State in order to execute that service.
Subcontracting is an extensive practice in the building and construction sector, as well as
in other industries and service sectors, such as shipbuilding, transport, tourism and the
cleaning industry20. The compression of production costs through the subcontracting of
specific tasks to trans-national subcontractors is one of the drivers of the phenomenon
and may be a source of downward wage pressure in the context of posting both on posted
and on local workers, as well as a source of risk of job displacement for local workers21.

18
19

20

21

Report, March 2012; J. Cremers, In search of cheap labour in Europe. Working and living conditions
of posted workers, European Institute for Construction Labour Research – AIAS, 2010.
FGB (2015), Wage Study.
EFBWW and FIEC, Joint Position, 29 February 2015; European Builders Confederation, Open Letter
to Maryanne Thyssen, 5 October 2015; Council of Nordic Trade Unions, 20 January 2016.
Y. Jorens, S. Peters, M. Houwezijl, Study on the protection of workers' rights in subcontracting
processes in the European Union, June 2012.
See Lillie, N. (2012), "Subcontracting, posted migrants and labour market segmentation in Finland",
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(1): 148-167 N. Lillie and I. Wagner, Subcontracting,
insecurity and posted work: evidence from construction, meat processing and ship building, European
Trade Union Institute, 2015
14

As there is little comprehensive data, it is difficult to estimate the extent of subcontracting through cross-border service providers and posting of workers. Overall, in
2011 (latest available data) payments of companies to subcontractors ranged between less
than 15% (RO, PT, DK, and IT) to over 30% (UK, SK, and CZ) of turnover in the
construction sector (figure 10, Annex II).
The 2014 Enforcement Directive recognised that "compliance with the applicable rules in
the field of posting in practice and the effective protection of workers' rights in this
respect is a matter of particular concern in subcontracting chains" (recital 36) while
introducing a system of joint liability of the main contractor22. The Enforcement
Directive hence determines who can be held liable for wage payment but does not
address the question of what wage a posted worker in a subcontracting chain is entitled
to.

2.4.2. Temporary agency workers
The posting of temporary agency workers to a user undertaking established in another
Member State is a rather specific situation, compared with the typical situation of
workers posted in the context of a contract of service. In the case of temporary agency
workers, the movement of the worker to the host Member State constitutes the very
purpose of the provision of services and the posted worker carries out his tasks under the
control and direction of the user undertaking.
Posted agency workers are exposed to the risk of differentiated treatment with respect to
temporary agency workers directly recruited in the host Member States because of the
problematic interaction between the Posting of Workers directive and the Directive
2008/104/EC on temporary agency work (TAW)23.
While the TAW Directive establishes that temporary agency workers should be granted
the same working and employment conditions of workers as comparable workers of the
user undertaking, in the Posting of Workers directive the same principle is not
mandatory. Article 3(9) provides that temporary agency workers posted from another
Member State are granted the application of the hard core of rights as nationals, including
minimum rates of pay, but are not granted equal treatment as comparable workers of the
user undertaking, unless a Member State has ruled so.

22

23

Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the
enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative
cooperation through the Internal Market Information System ( ‘the IMI Regulation’ )
A.Van Hoek and M. Houwerzijl, Comparative Study on the legal aspects of the posting of workers in
the framework of the provision of services in the European Union, 2011.
15

The majority of Member States (15) has transposed article 3(9) to ensure that the equal
treatment principle also applies to posted temporary agency workers, but thirteen
Member States (Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland,
Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Slovakia) do not set any specific provision for
this category of workers, with the general conditions for posted workers applying24.
As a result, temporary agency workers who are posted to the latter group of countries are
exposed to risks of differentiated pay and working conditions with respect to locally
recruited agency workers. National temporary agencies are faced with unfair competition
since the workers assigned by agencies established in another Member State are
potentially paid lower wages. It should be noted, however, that the Posting of Workers
Directive does not affect the regulation of the temporary agency industry with respect to
aspects such as restrictions on particular sectors or licencing systems in the Member
States.
2.4.3. Definition of the temporary nature of posting
The 1996 Directive defines the nature of posting as having a temporary character, for the
"limited period of time" necessary for a worker to carry out in another Member State the
work for which he or she has been posted25. However, the Directive does not provide any
temporary limitation to the posting of workers or any limitation to the assumption that
they do not integrate into the labour market of the host Member State.
The lack of a definition of the temporary limitation of posting creates a mismatch with
the Regulation on the coordination of social security systems26. The Regulation sets at 24
months the maximum duration of postings after which posted workers are compulsorily
integrated in the social security regime of the host Member State for the entire period of
posting. The same rule does not apply for working conditions under the Posting of
Workers Directive. Workers posted for long periods remain entitled to the minimum
standards of the host Member State, as far as remuneration, working time, and paid
holidays are concerned, while remaining subject to the income tax regime of the home
country.
The inconsistency of the EU regulatory framework on posting represents a problem as
such as a matter of clarity of rules, while bearing significant adverse consequences on the
fairness of competition between posting and local companies. Companies posting
workers for long-term services can continue applying a more advantageous set of
minimum-standard labour rules with respect to local companies, thus gaining a
competitive edge based on the application of unequal wage rules.
24

25
26

Austria does not provide for equal treatment of posted temporary agency workers, but established more
generous conditions than the minimum core of rights.
A.Van Hoek and M. Houwerzijl, 2011.
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the
coordination of social security systems.
16

In turn, workers posted for long periods are de facto integrated in the labour market of
the host Member State, but they do not benefit from the principle of equal treatment with
nationals as EU mobile workers (within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU) do, as far as
working conditions are concerned. Workers in long-term postings are more exposed to
abuses of their working conditions27.
The Commission identified this problem in the preparation of the Enforcement Directive,
but no policy option was presented at that time since the initiative focused only on
problems related with the enforcement of the existing rules 28.
2.4.4. Intra-corporate posting
In addition to the typical situation of posting in the context of a contract of services
between undertakings established in different Member States and to temporary agency
workers, the Directive also covers intra-corporate posting, i.e., the posting to an
establishment or to an undertaking owned by the group in the territory of another
Member State.
The specificity of this situation is two-fold: first it has a rather weak link with the
provision of services, being mainly confined to staff mobility within undertakings of the
same group. Secondly, similarly to the agency worker, the link between the posted
worker and the undertaking in which he/she temporarily performs the tasks is much
stronger, since the worker carries out the tasks under the control and direction of the
undertaking to which he/she has been posted. It also creates a difference of treatment
between EU and third-country nationals. Indeed, Directive 2014/66/EU on the conditions
of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate
transfer provides, in its Article 5(4)(b) that third country nationals must be given a
remuneration "not less favourable than the remuneration granted to nationals of the
Member State where the work is carried out occupying comparable positions".
By providing for the same rules as for the typical situation of posting under a contract of
services, the Directive does not address the specificities of this situation and could create
a distortion of competition between companies having (or not) subsidiaries in different
Member States, as well as a difference of treatment between EU and third-country
nationals.

27

28

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), A Revision of the Posting of Workers Directive. Eight
proposals for improvement. Final Report from the ETUC Expert Group on posting, 2010.
(https://www.etuc.org/sites/www.etuc.org/files/final_report_ETUC_expert_group_posting_310510_E
N.pdf).
European Commission, SWD(2012) 63 final.
17

2.5. Evolution of the problem without further EU intervention
With the continuing pick-up of economic activity in the EU29, posting of workers can be
expected to continue growing at a steady pace based on the evidence that the growth of
posting is strongly correlated to the growth of GDP30. If postings continue to grow at the
annual growth rate of 11.1% showed between 2010 and 2014, the total number of
postings may reach up to 3 million workers by 2018. While the increase in the number of
postings represents an indicator of a vigorous Internal Market for cross-border services,
its social acceptance among companies and workers may risk being weakened by
concerns about the fairness of EU rules.
The regulatory framework would nevertheless be subject to some changes as a
consequence of two factors, notably the transposition of the 2014 Enforcement Directive
and the application of current – and possibly, future – case law of the European Court of
Justice.
The transposition of the Enforcement Directive
On 18 June 2016, the deadline for the transposition of the 2014 Enforcement Directive at
national level elapses. The Enforcement Directive tackles a number of important issues
related to the fighting and sanctioning of circumventions, fraud and abuses. Member
States are called upon to set up stronger rules to unmask fraudulent competition practices
by companies through the use of so-called "letter-box companies". The Directive will
also simplify and improve access to information on terms and conditions of employment
in the host Member State, both for employers and to posted workers. Moreover, the
improvement of administrative cooperation between the Member States, in particular as
concerns the exchange of information, will support the fight against abuses of the posting
of workers covering up undeclared or illegal work activities. The set-up of stronger
monitoring systems at national level will increase the availability of reliable data on the
posting of workers across the EU Member States, and enhance inter alia the ability of the
social partners to monitor and enforce the correct application of the provisions set by
collective agreements. The cross-border enforcement of administrative penalties and
fines will also ensure that the sanctions are effective and dissuasive even in case of a
short presence of the cross-border service provider in the host Member State.
The Enforcement Directive will be effective essentially in situations of fraud (letter-box
companies, etc.). It will therefore mainly contribute to preventing severe forms of
distortion of competition. To the extent to which wage differentiation and unfair
competition practices are a matter of poor enforcement at national level, the transposition
of the Enforcement Directive will contribute to tackling the problems listed above.
29

30

European
Commission,
European
Economic
Forecast,
(http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/eeip/pdf/ip011_en.pdf ).
ISMERI Europe (2011)
18

Autumn

2015

The effects of the jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice has clarified on successive occasions the notion of
"minimum rates of pay". In particular, the case Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry (C-396/13)
has established that a host Member State can require sending companies to include in the
payment to posted workers holiday allowances, daily flat-rate allowances to compensate
workers for disadvantages entailed by the posting, and compensation for travelling time,
on equal terms as local workers.
Moreover, the ruling acknowledged that if collective agreements set different pay levels
related to the categorisation of employees into pay groups, these pay levels need to be
considered as valid in line with the Directive, provided that the conditions are universally
binding and transparent.
While the ruling has an immediate effect on the rules applicable to posting companies
and posted workers, its effects will continue to be monitored closely.
In the more recent case Regio-Post (C-115/14)31, the Court's ruling has tackled an issue
in relation to subcontracting activities in public procurement. It established that Member
States can require tenderers of public procurements and their subcontractors to pay their
employees a set minimum wage. They can also exclude those tenderers and
subcontractors who are unwilling to respect that minimum wage level.
In summary, the case law of the European Court of Justice has contributed to
progressively clarify the provisions of the EU regulatory framework (see Annex II for a
summary of recent case law).
The case law of the Court is nevertheless, by definition, unpredictable since it depends on
the number and nature of the cases brought before the Court. Moreover, the Court can
clarify but not amend the provisions of the Directive.
2.6.

EU Right to Act

A regulative framework for posting of workers between Member States can only be
established at EU level. The aims are to facilitate the cross-border provision of services
through posting of workers by improving the clarity and transparency of applicable
labour market rules in the host Member State(s) of posted workers; to ensure a level
playing field for competition in the provision of services between posting companies and
local companies in the host Member State, while ensuring that posted workers have an
adequate level of protection while working in the host Member State.

31

RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz (C-115/14)
19

EU action in the form of a Directive is warranted to encourage the freedom to provide
services across borders on the basis of article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU).
The Directive currently provides for a uniform and EU-wide regulative framework
setting a hard core of protective rules of the host Member State which need to be applied
to posted workers, irrespective of their substance. Therefore, in full respect of the
principle of subsidiarity, the Member States and the social partners at the appropriate
level remain responsible for establishing their labour legislation, organising wage-setting
systems and determining the level of remuneration and its constituent elements, in
accordance with national law and practices. The envisaged initiative does not change this
approach. It thus respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and does not
interfere with the competence of national authorities and social partners.
The proposed policy options respect the limits laid down in primary EU law and the
Charter of Fundamental Rights. Proportionality is one of the factors against which the
developed policy options have been assessed. The principle of equal treatment, including
on pay, is enshrined in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is also at
the core of EU secondary law on fixed-term contracts, part-time work or temporary
agency work. More recently, the EU has developed a consistent legal acquis on equal
treatment, including pay, in matters such as racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation.
3. OBJECTIVES
3.1. General Policy Objective
The general objective is to ensure the smooth functioning of the Internal Market by
adapting the terms and conditions set by the 1996 Directive to the new economic and
labour market conditions, diverting the basis of competition away from wage costs and
workers' working conditions and thereby increasing the fairness of the Internal Market.
3.2. Specific objectives
The specific objectives that correspond to the problems identified are to:
•

create a level playing field for the cross-border provision of services through
equal rules on wages applicable to posted and to local workers;

•

improve the clarity of EU rules on posting by improving the consistency between
different pieces of EU legislation.

In the context of this impact assessment, the level playing field for companies is
understood as the same set of rules applying for the remuneration of labour within a
20

given Member State, which generates equal opportunities for companies. The scope of a
level playing field to other elements such as taxes, legal form of companies, access to
loans, etc. is outside the scope of this initiative.
3.3. Coherence of the objectives with other EU policies
The targeted review of the Posting of Workers Directive figures prominently among the
initiatives proposed by the Commission to achieve the objective of a deeper and fairer
Internal Market, as one of the chief priorities for its mandate. The proposal of targeted
amendments to the Posting of Workers Directive integrates and complements the
provisions set in the Enforcement Directive, which is to be transposed by 18 June 2016.
The targeted revision of the Posting of Workers Directive will interact with the planned
revision of the Regulation on the coordination of social security systems (Reg. No.
883/2004). The revision of social security coordination rules aims at facilitating the full
exercise of citizens' mobility rights while at the same time ensuring an equitable
distribution of the financial burden among the institutions of the Member States
involved. Included in the said proposal of revision is the requirement for Member States
to certify the information contained in the Portable Documents A1, which constitute the
information basis for data on posted workers. Such provision may contribute to
improving the reliability of data on the posting of workers and the evidence-basis for
policy initiatives at national and EU level.
The amendments to the Posting of Workers Directive complement the Internal Market
Strategy aimed at enhancing transparency and simplicity of rules for EU businesses. In
the preparatory consultations led by the Commission with about 300 stakeholders, mostly
SMEs, 30% of companies providing services across borders reported problems with
existing rules on posting of workers, such as burdensome administrative requirements,
paperwork, fees and registration obligations. The lack of clarity of labour market rules in
the country of destination is also considered a relevant hindrance to cross-border service
provision, especially among SME's32. A clarification of certain rules under the Posting of
Workers Directive may positively complement the Internal Market Strategy to address
these concerns.
4. POLICY OPTIONS
To reflect the holistic character of the initiative, the policy options are presented as a
compact set of possible measures. Each option is nevertheless to be understood as
opposed to the baseline scenario.

32

European Commission, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business
Commission, COM(2015) 550final, 28 October 2015
21

4.1. Option 1 - No policy change: baseline scenario
The Commission does not take any initiative to revise the 1996 Posting of Workers
Directive. It monitors and evaluates the transposition of the Enforcement Directive and
takes stock of its implementation, while it is left to the case law of the European Court of
Justice to clarify the legal uncertainties in the EU regulative framework.
The entry into force of the Enforcement Directive will contribute to a better detection and
sanction of situations of fraud (letter-box companies, non-compliance with the rules of
the Member State of origin on taxes or social contributions, etc.).
The European Court of Justice could continue contributing to the clarification of the
notion of "minimum rates of pay", although this is entirely dependent on the cases
brought to the Court.
This option has the support of nine Member States33, Business Europe, UAPME, the
European representations of the metal, engineering and technology industries
(CEEMET), temporary agency work industry (Eurociett, except for issues related to the
temporary agency work sector, see below) and the Confederation of the Managers
(CEC).
4.2. Option 2: clarification of the composition of minimum rates of pay to codify the
rulings of the European Court of Justice
This option entails a revision of the 1996 Directive with the aim of codifying the case
law of the European Court of Justice, with particular reference to the case Sähköalojen
ammattiliitto ry (C-396/13). This option implies some changes to clarify the notion of
"minimum rates of pay" and its composing elements.
The revision would define that minimum rates of pay applicable to posted workers may
include, if set by the law of the Member State:
• holiday allowances;
• daily flat-rate allowances to compensate workers for disadvantages entailed by
the posting; and
• compensation for travelling time, on equal terms as local workers.
Moreover, changes would also include the recognition of different pay levels attached to
the categorisation of employees into pay groups in collective agreements, provided that
the conditions are universally binding and transparent.
A fuller list of case law is provided in Annex III.

33

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Romania.
22

This option codifies case law, but it would not create any additional effect on the pay
conditions applicable to posted workers with respect to the status quo. By codifying the
case-law of the Court at a certain point in time, it could prevent its development in future
cases.
4.3. Option 3: Changes to the provisions of the Directive regarding pay
4.3.1 Option 3a: Application of the same mandatory rules on remuneration for posted and
local workers
This option establishes a new balance in working conditions, including remuneration,
between posted and local workers in the host countries by removing the reference to the
"minimum" rates of pay applicable to posted workers. The pay applicable to posted
workers would thus encompass all the elements of remuneration that are paid to local
workers if they are laid down by law or by collective agreement which are generally
applicable to all similar undertakings in the geographical area and in the profession or
industry concerned, or by collective agreements which have been concluded by the most
representative employers' and labour organizations at national level and which are
applied throughout national territory. In order to ensure that the rules on remuneration
applicable to posted workers are proportionate and do not impede the provision of
services, it could be specified that the applicable rules on remuneration should be all the
elements of remuneration rendered mandatory by national law, regulation or
administrative provision, collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been
declared universally applicable and/or, in the absence of a system for declaring collective
agreements or arbitration awards to be of universal application, other collective
agreements or arbitration awards within the meaning of paragraph 8 second
subparagraph, in the Member State to whose territory the worker is posted. .
This option would continue respecting the differences of wage-setting systems in Europe.
Therefore, EU Member States would be affected differently by the option.
•

In Member States in which terms and conditions of employment are set by law or by
collective agreements not universally applicable (BG, CZ, EE, HR, HU, LV, LT, MT,
PL, RO, SK, UK) this option would make applicable to posted workers elements of
remuneration set by law that are not so far expressly considered as part of the
"minimum rates of pay", if any, such as, for instance, of a Christmas allowance or a
compensation for work during public holidays or night work;

•

In Member States with collective agreements made universally applicable to some
sectors (IE, DE, LU) or professions (CY) or in all sectors (AT, BE, ES, FI, FR, EL,
IT, NL, PT, SI), or by nationwide collective agreements in accordance with Article
3(8) of the Directive (DK, SE), the option would add up to the pay of posted workers
elements of remuneration set by the relevant collective agreement that are not so far
23

expressly considered as part of the "minimum rates of pay". Since collective
agreements tend to be more detailed than statutory provisions on the elements of
remuneration, the option would have a higher impact than in the case above.
Elements of remuneration to be applied to posted workers are totally dependent on
the terms of each collective agreement and may include elements such as seniority
allowances, allowances and supplements for dirty, heavy or dangerous work, 13th/14th
month bonuses.
Existing provisions leaving the faculty to Member States to exempt short-term postings
of less than one month from the application of the rules on pay will not be changed34.
4.3.2. Option 3b: Extension to all sectors of the reference to erga omnes collective
agreements
The option establishes that posted workers must be granted the rates of pay laid down by
law or by collective agreement made universally applicable in all economic sectors.
The modification would overcome the current provision which establishes that the
application of collective agreements made universally applicable is currently mandatory
only for the construction sector and optional for all other sectors. This option envisages
extending the validity of universally-binding collective agreements for posted workers to
all sectors of the economy. Thus, all collective agreements applicable erga omnes would
automatically be applicable to posted workers, as well.
Member States would be differently affected by this provision.
This provision may have an impact on Member States which give generally binding force
to collectively-agreed pay rates in some sectors or professions only (DE, IE, LU, CY).
These Member States will be encouraged to extend this practice to posted workers in all
sectors.
This option would have no impact either on Member States which already extend the
validity of collective agreements to all sectors, in line with the faculty given by Article
3(10) of the 1996 Directive (AT, BE, ES, FR, EL, FI, IE, IT, NL, PT, SI); or on countries
which do not made collective agreements universally applicable (BG, CZ, EE, HR, HU,
LV, LT, MT, PL, RO, SK, UK, as well as DK, SE).
This option would go in the direction supported by seven Member States35, the European
Trade Union Confederation, and the European Builders Confederation.

34
35

Article 3 (3).
Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden.
24

4.4. Option 4: Adapted rules for specific situations of posting
4.4.1. Option 4a: long-term postings
Option 4a would include a provision according to which the labour law of the host
Member States applies to the employment contract of workers posted for longer than 24
months, from day one of posting.
The proposal provides that, whenever the anticipated or the effective duration of posting
exceeds 24 months, the posted worker is deemed to be carrying out his tasks habitually in
the host Member State. By application of the rules of the Rome I Regulation36, the
employment contract will be governed by the law of the host Member State37. In case of
replacement of a posted worker, this option envisages that the cumulative duration of
posting is taken into account with regard to workers who were posted for at least six
months (who would thus benefit from the application of the labour law of the host
Member State).
This provision would meet the objective of aligning the Posting of Workers Directive
with the conditions set by the Regulation on the coordination of social security systems
as regards long-term posting, thus eliminating a source of inconsistency in the EU
regulatory framework.
The proposal would tackle the distortions to competition caused by the application of
lower-standard wage rules by posting companies in host Member States in the event of
long-term postings and correct the internal inconsistency of the EU regulatory framework
as regards the definition of the temporary nature of posting.
This provision would affect workers posted to all Member States, provided that the
anticipated or effective duration of posting is longer than 24 months.
This option goes in the direction of specifying the temporary duration of posting
advocated by seven Member States, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council of
France and the Socio-Economic Council of the Netherlands, as well as by the European
Builders Confederation. The European Builders Confederation and the Economic, Social
Environmental Council of France also propose that social partners are delegated to set the
maximum duration of postings at sector level.
4.4.2. Option 4b: sub-contracting relations
This option would give Member States the faculty (but not the obligation) to provide that
the workers of any subcontractor must be granted the same remuneration as the workers
36

37

Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the
law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6.
Or, in case of an express choice of the law applicable, the provisions "that cannot be derogated from
by agreement" will be applicable.
25

of the contractor, including the rules laid down in collective agreements not universally
applicable (for instance, company-level agreements) which are binding to the contractor.
To avoid discriminating against cross-border service providers, the option would provide
that Member States can only implement this principle for both national and cross-border
service providers.
This provision would add a further level of protection for posted workers in
subcontracting chains which would constitute a major change with respect to the existing
situation. The current Directive provides no specific conditions for subcontracting chains.
While this option may potentially be exercised by all Member States, an essential
precondition for it to have an impact is that the main contractor transparently applies a
not universally applicable collective agreement at any level, including company-level
agreements. The added value of this option would be more evident if applied in Member
States where collective agreements are not universally applicable or the company is the
dominant level of wage bargaining, including DK, SE, and the UK, inter alia. The option
would not affect posted workers who already benefit from more favourable conditions of
employment in accordance with their individual contract or the rules of the Member State
of origin.
4.4.3. Option 4c: Temporary agency workers
Option 4 includes the provision to render mandatory the application to cross-border
temporary agency workers of the principle of equal treatment of temporary agency
workers with respect to comparable workers in the user undertaking, set by Article 5 of
Directive 2008/104/EC.
This change would improve the consistency between the Posting of Workers Directive
and the Temporary Agency Work Directive by eliminating any source of uncertainty as
regards the application of the principle of equal treatment to agency workers.
Currently, it is up to the host Member State to decide whether it applies to these workers
the general rules on posting (i.e. minimum rates of pay laid down in law or erga omnes
collective agreements) or the terms and conditions of employment that are applicable to
temporary agency workers at national level.
The option only concerns temporary agency workers assigned by temporary agencies
established in a different Member State than the user undertaking. The main receiving
Member States have made use of the possibility to provide for equal treatment between
national and cross-border temporary agents. The option would require legislative
amendments in AT, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, IE, LV, PL, PT, SI, and SK.

26

While no stakeholder has expressed any explicit position on this option, Eurociett has
supported the principle of equal pay for equal work for posted agency workers and the
application of the full set of regulations in the Temporary Agency Work Directive to
posted agency workers. General favour for an EU initiative on posted agency workers
has also been expressed by the European Trade Union Conference, the European
Builders Confederation, and the Economic, Social and Environmental Council of France.
4.5. Discarded options
4.5.1 Communication by the Commission to clarify the elements of remuneration
applicable to posted workers
This option would envisage an interpretative Communication which builds on the case
law of the European Court of Justice to clarify the elements of remuneration applicable to
posted workers across the EU Member States.
However, considering the wide range of views on this issue, a non-legislative option
would have a very limited impact and would not attain the objectives of ensuring the
fairness of posting and of increasing legal clarity for companies, workers and public
authorities.
4.5.2. Introduction of equal pay for equal work with respect to a reference undertaking
This option would envisage the introduction of the principle of equal pay for equal work
at company level by requiring that posted workers are guaranteed the terms and
conditions of employment covering remuneration that would be applicable if the posted
workers were employed by a reference undertaking or, in its absence, a similar
undertaking established in the host Member State. In the case of a subcontracting chain,
the proposal would imply that the posted workers should receive the same remuneration
treatment as the employees of the contractor established in the host Member State of
which the service provider is a direct or an indirect subcontractor (hereafter the
"reference undertaking").
This proposal may be most effective to attain the objective of providing equal treatment
to posted workers since it would ensure full equal treatment for posted workers compared
with workers of the undertaking of reference. However, it risks failing the test of
proportionality and compatibility with the Internal Market, as it would create more
obligation on companies posting workers from other Member States than on local
companies in the host Member State. Moreover, the complexity of the mechanism of
identifying a reference or similar undertaking may increase the risk of judicial litigation
in the implementation phase.

27

4.5.3. Clarification of the application of the Directive to the road transport sector
This option would consist in defining that the application of the Directive to international
transport operations other than cabotage (which is always covered by the Directive)
requires the existence of a sufficient link with the host Member States. In order to
provide a high level of legal certainty, the criteria to determine the existence of a
sufficient link should be expressly set out. In any case, given that cabotage falls in any
case within the scope of the Directive, international transport operations combined with a
cabotage operation should also fall within the scope of the Directive. For other
international transport operations, the sufficient link should be expressed in the number
of transport operations in a given Member State within a reference period (one month, for
instance) or in any other way that is applicable in practice and enforceable in the host
Member State.
This option would be effective to achieve the objectives of providing a more balanced
playing field in the transport sector and enhance legal clarity for companies. However, as
more evidence is required in order to establish an adequate definition of a "sufficient
link" as regards to international transport operations, a sector-specific regulation is
deemed more suitable to tackle the problem.
4.5.4. Intra-group posting
This option would concern workers posted between two establishments or undertakings
of the same group, established in two Member States. It would provide that the
remuneration of these posted workers is not less favourable than the remuneration
granted to workers employed in the establishment or undertaking where the workers has
been posted occupying comparable positions.
This option would aim at aligning the protection granted to EU nationals and thirdcountry nationals in case of intra-corporate posting by extending equal treatment to
posted workers, in line with Directive 2014/66/EU. However, the option has been
discarded because it would be an obstacle to the free provision of services which would
not be justified and proportionate.
The Court has recognised that the protection of workers is an overriding objective of
general interest that can justify obstacles to the provision of services on condition that it
is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective or objectives
pursued and that it proportionate, i.e., that it does not go beyond what is necessary to
achieve the objective. This option cannot be seen as necessary for the protection of
posted workers and would, in any case, go beyond what is necessary to reach the
objective.

28

5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS
This section summarises the economic and social impacts of each policy option. No
environmental impact has been identified. The analysis includes an evaluation of the
specific impact of the proposals on small and medium enterprises (SME's).
As noted in section 2.1, one fundamental caveat to the analysis of the impact is the scarce
availability of data. To partially compensate for this, a multiplicity of sources of
qualitative evidence has been used, based on stakeholders' assessment of the situation in
particular sectors and workplaces. Where possible, national data sources have been used
to complement EU data, in the understanding that national sources are not representative
of other Member States. Finally, proxies have extensively been used to simulate the
impact of the proposed provisions on remuneration levels, as well as on the economic
value of posting.

5.1. Effectiveness
The analysis of effectiveness addresses the degree to which the options achieve the
specific objectives of the revision of the Directive: create a level playing field for
companies based on equal rules on wages; and improve the clarity of EU rules on
posting, including by eliminating inconsistencies between different pieces of EU
legislation.
5.1.1. Create a level playing field for companies based on equal rules on wages
Under options 1 and 2, differentials in rules on wages with posted workers may narrow
as a consequence of the recent case law of the European Court of Justice, most notably
the case Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry (C-396/13), establishing that some allowances may
be part of the pay of posted workers and that pay groups set by universally binding
collective agreements should be respected for posted workers. The impact is expected to
be significant especially in the construction sector, where collective agreements are a key
source to determine the wage level of posted workers, either because they are declared
universally binding or because they are signed by the most representative employers' and
workers' associations in accordance with Article 3(8) of the Directive (see table 1). In
those countries, the respect of pay groups may imply some wage raises, if –as reported by
some stakeholders – employers tend to apply only the lowest pay group, under the status
quo38. However, posted workers will still be entitled to minimum pay rates only, while
the application of the Court's case law would have no impact on sectors and in countries
where collective agreements are not binding. Therefore, the structural differentiation in
pay rates and the resulting distortion of competitive conditions will persist.

38

See section 5.2
29

Table 1. Sources of minimum rates of pay for posting of workers in the EU 28
Statutory
Binding collective agreements
Nationwide
minimum wage
agreements (Art.
Selected sectors
All sectors
3(8)
or professions
BG, CZ, EE, HR,
HU, LV, LT, MT,
PL, RO, SK, UK

DE, IE, LU, CY

AT, BE, ES, FR, EL,
FL, IT, NL, PT, SI

DK, SE

Note: In DE, the sector-specific wage minima apply in fourteen sectors (waste management, training
services, construction industry, roofing trade, electrical trades, industrial cleaning services, money and
valuable services, scaffolding erection, agriculture, forestry and horticulture, painting and decorating
trades, care provision, slaughter and meat processing, stonemason and stone sculptor, the textile and
clothing industry, laundry services and temporary agency work sector). In LU, collective agreements are
universally binding in the main nine sectors of posting (building and associated trades, transport, road
haulage and road passenger transport; cleaning of buildings; security guarding; brewing; printing; banking
and insurance; social sector and care; temporary agency work). In IE, Employment Regulation Orders with
statutory effects are currently in place in the catering, contract cleaning, hairdressing, hotels, retail and
trades and in the security industry sectors. In CY, minimum wages have statutory effects for some
professions only, namely shop assistants, clerks, child-care workers, personal care workers, security
guards, and cleaners at business/corporate premises.

Option 3a and 3b would establish equal rules on remuneration and extend the
effectiveness of universally binding collective agreements to workers posted in all
economic sectors. By overcoming the "minimum rates of pay" standard set by the current
Directive, this option would achieve the utmost degree of effectiveness in attaining the
objective of levelling the playing field as regards wage rules. Through the extension of
the validity of universally binding collective agreements to all sectors beyond the
construction sector, which is currently not mandatory, this option reinforces the wagesetting instruments to determine the rates of pay of posted workers. In several Member
States, including among the largest recipients, the provision would have no impact as
collective agreements are already enforced erga omnes in all sectors (see table 1). An
impact may be exerted on DE, IE, LU and CY. These Member States will need to extend
to posted workers those wage rates at sector- or professional level which they decide to
declare universally binding in all sectors, while this is currently compulsory only for the
construction sector. Obviously, the decision on whether or not to make a collective
agreement legally binding will continue to rest with the Member States. This option
would not affect Member States in which collective agreements are not universally
binding and only the statutory minimum wage is applicable to posted workers, unless
they regulate to this effect. Likewise, this option would not have any effect on the wagesetting regimes of DK and SE in those sectors where nationwide collective agreements
do not set any remuneration standard.

30

Option 4 would reinforce the attainment of the objective of a more balanced level
playing field by filling specific legislative gaps. In particular, the equal treatment rule
would eliminate competition on wage rules among subcontractors in a production chain.
As regards to long-term posting, the application of the equal treatment principle from day
one would reduce differentials in the working conditions of long-term posted workers
and contribute to reducing wage differentials with local workers. The clarification of the
interplay between the posting of workers and the temporary agency workers directives
would improve the level playing field by aligning legislation on the working conditions
of posted temporary agency workers across the EU.
Figure 4. Summary of the impact of options on wages
Wage conditions
Equal treatment
Suppression
of
the
reference to minimum
Universal
collective
agreement applicable in all
sectors
Universal
collective
agreement, minimum level
for
construction
and
optional for other sectors

Legal Minimum wage

Options 1 & 2

Option 3

Option 4

Optional for temporary
agency workers

Optional for temporary
agency workers

Temporary agency, Longterm
Optional / subcontracting

All the Member States
AT, BE, CY, DE, ES, FR,
EL, FI, IE, IT, LU, NL,
PT, SI
AT, BE, CY*, DE**, ES,
FR, EL, FI, IE***, IT,
LU****, NL, PT, SI

AT, BE, CY, DE*, ES,
FR, EL, FI, IE**, IT,
LU***, NL, PT, SI

BG, CZ, EE, HR, HU,
LV, LT, MT, PL, RO,
SK, UK

BG, CZ, EE, HR, HU,
LV, LT, MT, PL, RO,
SK, UK

Collective agreements (art.
SE, DK
SE, DK
3(8))
* for 6 professions ** in 14 sectors *** in 6 sectors **** in 9 sectors

BG, CZ, EE, HR, HU,
LV, LT, MT, PL, RO,
SK, UK
SE, DK

5.1.2. Improve the clarity of EU rules on posting
Under option 1, legal clarification is left to the pronouncements of the European Court of
Justice upon the occurrence of judicial litigation on selected aspects. As shown in Annex
III, the Court's jurisprudence has clarified the concept and composition of pay on several
occasions. However, delegating finding a solution for the problems identified to the
Court implies the permanence of uncertainty for companies and workers until the
occurrence of a case of judicial litigation. The risk of further judicial litigation on issues
of pay, among other aspects, and the related costs for businesses and workers, cannot be
prevented through non-action.
Option 2 brings some added value with respect to option 1. By modifying the EU
Directive to reflect the rulings of the Court of Justice, this option would increase the
clarity of the main EU legislative source. However, it would not tackle the identified
legal situation with temporary agency work, subcontracting, long-term posting, and intra31

group transfers; nor would this option prevent further cases of judicial litigation on the
components of pay emerging again in the future.
Options 3a and 3b contribute to improving clarity on the constituent elements of
remuneration and to reducing existing cross-sector differences in the mandatory
application of collective agreements. First, by equalising the rules on remuneration
between posted and local workers, this option would clear any room for interpretation on
the constituent elements of the wage to be applied to posted workers. It would thus
contribute to minimising the risk of further judicial litigation on this very point. Second,
the option would increase the certainty that the minimum pay set by all universally
binding collective agreements apply to posted workers, regardless of their sector of
employment. Within the scope of EU competences, however, the provision would not
harmonise the set of instruments applicable to posted workers across the Member States,
nor the diverse structure of collective agreements, including the definition of pay groups
and bonuses and allowances, which remain a prerogative of the social partners in national
wage-setting practices.
Option 4 contributes to legal clarity by intervening on specific situations by removing
mismatches with other pieces of EU legislation. The thrust of option 4 reaches out to
posted employees in subcontracting chains, in line with the attention conferred by the
2014 Enforcement Directive. The advantage of this option is that it would extend the
applicability of company-level agreements in Denmark and Sweden where these are the
predominant source of wage-setting, thus filling a legislative gap in the existing
Directive. Further contributions to the legal clarity stem from aligning pieces of EU
legislation in the case of long-term posting (with Regulation No. 883/2004) and
temporary agency work (with Directive 2008/104/EC), by establishing similar rules
between posted workers and third-country nationals.
5.2. Overall economic impacts
The economic impact of the options is assessed against the objectives of promoting a
level playing field in the context of the Internal Market based on the application of equal
rules on wages, and of improving legal clarity for companies.
Limited labour market and economic significance
The economic context of posting of workers is one of a rather limited significance in the
national labour markets, with the number of postings accounting for 0.7% of total EU
employment, descending to 0.4% if only unique posted workers are counted and further
down to only 0.2% in full-time equivalents39. Overall, the employment impact of new
39

Postings make up 0.7% of total EU employment, but the figure includes single workers being posted
multiple times during the same year. Therefore, unique persons are normally the more comparable
figure but only a few member States provide data. See Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)
32

legislation may be circumscribed to specific segments of the European labour market,
including in those Member States where posting represents significant shares of the
domestic employment population, such as Slovenia (11.5%) and Luxembourg (20.7%)
from a sending perspective40, and Belgium (3.6%) and Luxembourg (9%) from a
receiving perspective.
The provision of cross-border services through posting of workers may be thus assumed
to have a limited economic impact on sending or receiving countries. In the absence of
any data on the turnover or added value gained through posting of workers, figures can
only be reconstructed via proxies. To take the representative construction sector, crossborder services represent an overall small share of total turnover in the sector (calculated
as the ratio of turnover from export activities on total turnover), amounting to just 0.7%
of total turnover in the EU28 (figure 11, Annex II)41. Exceptions are SI, EE, DK and LU,
where the cross-border trade intensity makes up about 5% of total turnover. It should be
noticed however that not all cross-border construction services are carried out through
posting of workers (e.g. they could be carried out by hiring local workforce).
Two posting models
The wage rules set by the Directive impact differently on the economic context in which
posting takes place. Posted workers tend to support the provision of labour-intensive
services in the context of low value chains, including construction, transports and some
personal services. Labour cost differentials give a competitive edge to posting companies
which thus tend to strictly apply the minimum rate of pay required in the host country.
Wage cost competition is particularly relevant as posted workers support the provision of
domestically-provided services which cannot be delocalised. On the other hand, posted
workers are also employed in the context of the provision of high-productivity services,
such as financial services or of particularly skilled labour in high value chains. In line
with the possibilities given by the Directive, this segment of posted workers tends to be
paid higher wages than the minimum, or at the level of the home country if this has
higher wage standards than the receiving country42.
Wage-based competition does not exhaust the phenomenon of posting of workers in the
EU. Empirical evidence points to the fact that, while labour cost differentials remain one
important driver of posting43, there is no strict correlation between price level or tax
wedge differentials and the volume of sent posted workers (figure 12 and 13, Annex II).
40

41
42
43

Taking into account unique persons posted, however, the labour market impact of sent posted workers
decreases to 4.2% of total employment in Slovenia and 4.7% in Luxembourg (Pacolet and De
Wispelaere 2015). As noted in footnote (39), this implies that single workers are posted multiple times
during the same year.
See also, European Commission, A Single Market Strategy for Europe - Analysis and Evidence,
SWD(2015) 202 final, 28 October 2015.
ISMERI Europe (2011) and FGB (2015).
ISMERI Europe (2011).
33

This is because in high value chains skills shortages or factors such as specialisation or
quality of the service play an important role in the cross-border provision of services.
Wage cost differentials may be estimated to be the driving factor of flows from low- to
high-wage countries, which represented one third of the total stock in 2014, and part of
the comparative advantage for a further 15% of workers being posted from medium- to
high-wage countries (figure 5). However, the remaining 50% of postings flow between
countries with similar wage levels, where it can be assumed that the search for adequate
skills rather than cost reductions constitute the main trigger for businesses to look for
cross-border service providers. In this case, the wage rules set by the Directive are not
reported by the stakeholders to create any particular problem.

Figure 5. Flow of postings between EU Member States divided by wage group (high,
medium, low), % on total posting, year 2014

Notes: EMPL calculations. High-wage (above EU average wage, year 2012): DK, LU, SE, FI, BE, NL,
DE, FR, AT, IT, IE; Medium-wage (around EU average, 2012): CY, ES, EL, MT, SI, PT; Low-wage (less
than half of the EU average wage): HR, CZ, EE, PL, SK, HU, LV, LT, RO, BG; no data on the destination
of postings from CY, DK, and the UK.

Posting of workers tends to be pro-cyclical, satisfying demand for services in more
dynamic economies and contracting in the event of a downturn, which is reflected in the
correlation between the number of postings and overall economic growth (figure 15,
Annex II). However, the possibility for posting companies to wage costs through the
current rules promotes the deepening of specialisation of low-wage countries in the
provision of labour-intensive services in low value chains, most notably construction
services, to high-wage countries. Figure 6 shows that 70% of postings from low-wage
member States occur in industry and construction sectors, as compared to about 50% and
40% of postings from medium- and high-wage countries, respectively. Posting rules thus
favour a strong role of wage-based competition in these services markets. Minimum34

standard rules on wages add up to differentials in labour and income taxation between
Member States and generate significant gaps in total labour costs for employers44.
Figure 6. Posted workers sent in 2014, breakdown by economic sector and group of
countries

Source: EMPL calculations on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015); High-wage (above EU average wage,
year 2012): DK, LU, SE, FI, BE, NL, DE, FR, AT, IT, IE; Medium-wage (around EU average, 2012): CY,
ES, EL, MT, SI, PT; Low-wage (less than half of the EU average wage): HR, CZ, EE, PL, SK, HU, LV,
LT, RO, BG; no data on the destination of postings from CY, DK, and the UK.

Concentrated impact on receiving country
On the receiving end, current rules favour flows of posted workers into a set of highwage economies, with DE, FR, BE, AT, NL receiving 81% of workers posted from lowwage countries, and a few economic sectors, most notably the construction sector (figure
15). In this sector, posted workers represent up to 20% of domestic employment in BE,
and over 10% in AT and LU (figure 6, Annex II)
The labour market impact of the in-flow of workers to which lower pay rules apply in
high-wage Member States is not univocal, although data limitation constrains in-depth
analysis. There is some evidence that posted workers complement domestic employment
in the whole economy by filling job vacancies for skills or positions which are not

44

While nominal social security contribution rates or corporate or income tax rates may not differ widely
(see figures 16-19 in Annex II), the labour cost gap is more relevant the lower the reference wage.
35

present in the domestic labour market45. However, while this seems to be the case of
workers posted in high value chains, a closer analysis of posting in low value chains in a
representative receiving Member State such as Belgium shows that potential substitution
effects have been at play. Figure 7 shows the share of posted workers in the construction
sector increasing since 2010 with overall domestic construction employment decreasing
at the same time.
Figure 7. Belgium, trends in employment, self-employment and posted workers, all
economy and construction sector, 2010-2014.

Source: Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2016) calculations on LIMOSA and BNB data

In other Member States, domestic employment growth remains subdued with respect to
the growth of received posted workers. In this perspective, posted workers risk crowding
out especially national low-skilled jobs with which they compete in the receiving market
(figure 20, Annex II).
Under option 1 (baseline scenario) and largely under option 2, unchanged rules would
be likely to provide the context for the growth of posting of workers at a steady pace with
respect to recent years in line with economic growth.

45

Della Pellegrina, L. and Saraceno, M. (2013), "Posted workers: complements or substitutes for local
employment? Empirical evidence from the EU", Paolo Baffi Centre Research Paper n. 136
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287841).
36

Option 3a and option 3b are expected to have an impact on raising the wage level of
posted workers, particularly those posted from low-wage, and to a lesser extent from
medium-wage Member States to high-wage Member States.
The application of equal rules on wages (option 3a) would imply that posted workers
would be entitled to all elements of remuneration laid down by law or by universally
applicable collective agreement. The quantification of possible wage increases is very
difficult, as bonuses and allowances strongly vary across the member States and sectoral
collective agreement (see Annex VI). On the basis of the distribution displayed in figure
5 for the year 2014, option 3a can be estimated to affect between around 700,000 to
900,000 workers being posted from low- to high-wage countries, and to a lesser extent,
from medium- to high-wage countries which are assumed to receive the minimum rate of
pay under the current scenario. The elimination of the reference to "minimum rates of
pay" will facilitate the application of the Directive to the industrial relations systems of
DK and SE by overcoming the problems related to the definition of "minima" which
were among the causes of the dispute in the Laval case. Nevertheless, option 3a would
affect workers posted to DK and SE only to the extent that nationwide collective
agreements between the most representative social partners set remuneration standards,
in the absence of both a statutory minimum wage and universally applicable collective
agreements. The option would not affect workers being posted from high- to lower-wage
countries, as they are reported to usually be paid the same wage levels as in their home
Member State.
Option 3b may potentially affect only workers posted from lower-wage countries to the
Member States which currently give statutory effect to collective agreements only in a
selected number of sectors, most notably DE, IE and LU. The potential beneficiaries
would be up to 300,000 workers46. Workers in sectors currently excluded from the
application of sectoral minimum pay may benefit from the increased protection of
applicable agreements.
By increasing the reach of equal rules on wages to workers posted from low-wage
countries, the main economic impact of options 3a and 3b would principally be on
labour-intensive services in low value chains but will remain limited. From the receiving
perspective, local companies in high-wage Member States, especially cost-sensitive small
and medium enterprises (SME's), would benefit from a more balanced level playing field
vis-à-vis posting companies from lower-wage countries, thus increasing their cost
competitiveness. However, it should be emphasised that equal rules on wages would
translate neither into equal nominal wages between posted and local workers, nor into
equal levels of labour costs. While the current gap in wage outcomes would narrow
46

The number overlaps with workers affected by option 3a. It refers to workers posted from lower wage
countries to DE, IE, LU and CY. However, available data do not allow to disaggregating information
to the level of detail necessary to know how many of those 300,000 are already covered by sectoral
collective agreements.
37

down, pay structures would remain differentiated more in line with wage distribution in
the domestic labour market of the receiving Member State. Furthermore, social security
and other tax differentials would still generate an advantage on total labour costs for
companies established in countries with lower nominal rates than those in the receiving
one. The simulation carried out in Annex IV shows that companies from high-tax
Member States (e.g. BE or FR) would still be at a cost disadvantage with respect to
posting companies from low-tax countries, even in an extreme situation of equalisation of
wage costs (which is part of the discarded option)47.
For the same reasons, from a sending perspective, the cost competitiveness of posting
companies in labour-intensive sectors established in low-wage Member States would be
reduced with respect to the baseline scenario, but it would not be eliminated by options
3a and 3b. Tax differentials would still play a role in determining lower total labour
costs. On the one hand, stricter rules on wages may have an adverse impact especially on
SME's providing cross-border services in sectors such as constructions with the risk of a
possible loss of business opportunities. On the other hand, option 3a would have the
advantage of enhancing legal clarity as concerns the elements of remuneration applicable
to posted workers, which are currently a possible object of dispute and legal action. On a
more macro-level, higher wage costs may drive companies established in low-wage
Member States to invest in non-cost factors to open markets, such as the skills of their
workforce and service innovation. In the long-run, the effect of equal rules on wages may
contribute to shifting economic specialisation towards higher value chains.
Within the Internal Market, consumers of construction services may possibly be affected
by price increases. However, the effect on prices would be unlikely to be automatic, as
the limited increase of wage costs may simply reduce the mark-ups of construction firms
which are estimated to be relatively higher in sending countries such as CZ, PL, SK and
PT48.
Lower-wage service providers to DK and SE would not be affected by option 3a and 3b.
At the same time, posting of workers in more capital-intensive sectors such as high-end
manufacturing, telecommunications and technological services are expected to be less
affected by the modification of the Directive, to the extent that posting in these sectors is
mainly motivated by the search for adequate skills which are not present in the domestic
market.
The application of equal treatment envisaged by option 4a and 4b is expected to have a
strong impact on levelling the playing field in cases of long-term postings and posting in
47

48

K. Maslauskaite, Posted workers in the EU: State of Play and regulatory evolution, Notre Europe,
Policy paper 107, 2014 (http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/postedworkers-maslauskaite-ne-jdimar14.pdf?pdf=ok).
See Molnar, M. and Bottini, N. (2010), How Large are Competitive Pressures in Services Markets?
Estimation of Mark-Ups for Selected OECD countries, OECD Journal: Economic Studies (2010),
http://www.oecd.org/eco/reform/49850122.pdf
38

the context of subcontracting, albeit on a limited segment of posting. They also
contribute to improving legal clarity though fine-tuning different pieces of EU
legislation, thus avoiding the risk of judicial litigation.
Option 4a would add the reduction of differentials in working conditions, including
equal rules on wages, to the alignment of labour taxation costs envisaged for long-term
postings by Regulation 883/2004 on social security coordination. The lack of data as
regards long-term postings does not allow the estimation of how many workers would be
affected by this option49. However, available data suggest that long-term postings may
represent a small share of total postings. The average duration of posting was 103 days in
2014, with a maximum of 257 days of workers posted from Ireland (see figure 8, Annex
II)50. Sample data from Austria find that 4-5% of total postings to that country are longer
than a year51, while the maximum length of a registered posting in France amounted to
1,288 days in a temporary agency work enterprise in 2012 but only 553 days in 201352.
In the construction sector, the maximum duration of postings is reported to be seldom
longer than 6 months53. Therefore, it can be concluded that, while substantial, the
changes introduced by option 4a would be circumscribed to a limited group of posted
workers.
The impact of this option on the reduction of labour cost differentials would be more
significant with respect to long-term postings from low-wage and high-wage countries.
The margins for competition on labour costs for sending companies from lower-wage
countries, in particular SME's, in low value chains would be reduced, as an effect of the
application of equal rules on wages, as well as of the labour law provisions of the host
Member State. On the other hand, local companies in receiving Member States would
increase their cost competitiveness on more ambitious service provisions, and shift the
determining competitiveness conditions on non-cost factors.
Option 4b would be optional for Member States to introduce in order to reduce the scope
of wage cost competition in sub-contracting chains. The relevant feature of this option is
that it provides the possibility to apply the rules on remuneration applicable to the main
contractor to any subcontractor, including rules stemming from non-universally
applicable collective agreements, for instance at company level, if the main contractor is
49

50

51

52

53

As recalled above, PD A1 forms are not issued for postings up to 24 months, as beyond that duration
posted workers are socially insured in the host country.
J. Pacolet and F. De Wispelaere, Posting of Workers. Report on A1 portable document issued in 2014,
December 2015.
L&R Sozialforschung, Entwicklungen im Bereich des Lohndumpings, Wien, May 2014
(http://www.lrsocialresearch.at/sozialforschung/archiv-de/591Entwicklungen+im+Bereich+des+Lohndumpings).
DGT, Analyse des declarations de detachement des enterprises prestataires de services en France en
2013, November 2014 (http://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Bilan_PSI_2013.pdf).
According to data on Germany provided by SOKA Bau, 90% of postings in the construction sector
lasted less than six months, FGB (2015), Country Report, Germany. See also European Builders'
Confederation, Open Letter on Posting of Workers, 5 October 2015.
39

bound by one. Therefore, this option may have an effect on all wage-setting systems,
including DK and SE, as well as Member States with full wage decentralisation, such as
the UK. Despite the fact that sub-contracting is reported to be a wide-spread practice in a
number of sectors, including construction, cleaning, and manufacturing industries, there
is no data which allows to estimating the number of workers involved. According to
Eurostat figures, in 2011, the relevance of payments to subcontractors in the construction
sector amounted to over 30% of turnover in the UK, SK, and CZ and to less than 15% in
RO, PT, DK, and IT (figure 11, Annex II). Based on the assumption that subcontracting
mainly involves low-skilled workers in low-wage and labour intensive sectors54, it could
be estimated that the potential range of workers affected may fall in the range of up to
676,300 postings in 2014, including workers posted in sectors such as construction,
agriculture, hunting and fishing sector, accommodation and food service activities, and
freight transport by road sector.
The application of equal treatment between posted workers in subcontracting chains with
respect to the wage rules applicable to workers at the main contractor companies would
have the effect of strongly compressing wage differentiation between the main contractor
and its sub-contractors, including both local and foreign ones. Option 4b – proposed to be
facultative for Member States to apply – would reduce the cost competitiveness
especially of SME's posting workers from low- to higher-wage countries and result in
some losses of business opportunities for companies placing their competitiveness on
cost factors. However, option 4b would still entail the payment of the social security
contributions at the rate of the country of origin, thus preserving some room of
manoeuvre on total labour costs for sending firms. While equalising the level playing
field would benefit domestic firms, especially SME's, in higher-wage countries vis-à-vis
low-wage competitors, the provision would reduce room for cost competitiveness for
local companies, as well. Final consumer prices may be pushed upwards to the extent
that the main contractor would have a reduced leverage to optimise total service costs
through competition between sub-contractors.
Option 4c targets a very limited group of posted workers. It would promote the
adaptation of rules on equal treatment for posted temporary agency workers in thirteen
Member States (figure 8). However, while these Member States are the destination of
7.5% of total posted workers in 2014, with Austria and Finland making up the lion's
share of this figure, only Portugal has a relevant share of workers posted to the country
through temporary work agencies (11.4%). Based on 2014 figures, this option may affect
up to 1,000 workers posted to the thirteen Member States requiring legislative adaptation.
In general, the regulation may have a cost-increasing impact to the extent that unclear
rules on the treatment of posted agency workers in these Member States lead to lower
working conditions standards for these workers. However, the impact would be
54

Jorens, Y., Peters, and Houwerzijl, M. (2012), Study on the protection of workers' rights in
subcontracting processes in the European Union, commissioned by DG EMPL - VC/2011/0015.
40

concentrated in countries where the agency work sector makes up low (between 4-5%) to
very low (less than 2%) shares of total in-flowing postings55.
Figure 8. % Share of temporary agency workers on total posting received, 2014

Source: EMPL, on the basis of data provided by Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

5.3. Overall social impacts
The social impact of the initiative is measured against the objectives of fair conditions of
competition among companies based on equal rules on wages applying to posted and
local workers in the host country; and of providing more certain rules to posted workers
and their representatives both in sending and receiving countries.
Under option 1 (status quo) and, to a large extent, option 2, unequal rules on wages
generate a segmentation between posted and local workers, affecting in particular
workers posted from low- to higher-wage countries in labour-intensive sectors. To
provide the same services, posted workers are entitled to minimum rates of pay, while the
unclear status of pay increases according to skill or qualification levels are reported to
create significant gaps in pay with equivalent domestic workers56. Wage differentials
between posted and local workers are reported to vary across member States and sectors,
from 10 up to 50% less. Unequal rules on wages may have an adverse impact on lowskilled workers in labour-intensive sectors of high-wage receiving Member States,
through downward wage competition at the local level and displacement of job
opportunities. On the other hand, wage differentials have a relatively lower impact on the
overall welfare of workers posted from low-wage to higher-wage countries to the extent
that minimum pay levels in high-wage countries exceed average take-home pay in the
55
56

Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2015.
As noted already, no issue is identified with workers being posted from high to lower-wage Member
States as these tend to be paid the same wage levels as in the home country (FGB 2015). The Directive
allows for more favourable wage treatment. See also Cremers (2011), In search of cheap labour.
41

home country. As an illustrative example, in 2010, the level of the statutory minimum
wage in Belgium (EUR 1,415) was almost twice as high as the average wage of a
construction worker in Poland (EUR 752). Moreover, as shown in the simulation carried
out in Annex IV, lower social security and income tax rates in the home Member State –
where taxes are paid - may contribute to smoothing differentials in net earnings between
posted and local workers, although gaps remain significant.
The implementation of the Enforcement Directive and of the rulings of the European
Court of Justice may contribute to mitigating differentials, including through more
effective inspection systems. However, any smoothing effect would not be an intentional
consequence of clearer and more effective EU legislation either on the clarification of the
composition of pay for posted workers, or on the application of rules across different
economic sectors.
Option 2 is not expected to produce substantive changes with respect to the status quo.
The codification of the case law into the Directive may advance some steps on legal
clarity, as individual workers may access information about their entitlements about pay
from one single and clearer legal text. However, while in practical terms the rulings of
the European Court of Justice are already applicable, they only tackle part of the
problems identified and do not provide an effective solution to unequal rules on wages,
and their social consequences.
Option 3a and 3b are expected to have a relevant impact both on reducing wage
differentials between posted and local workers and on clarifying the entitlements of
posted workers across sectors.
While, as mentioned in section 5.2, these options do not aim at equal wage outcomes,
they would contribute to clarifying the entitlement of posted workers to all the
remuneration elements envisaged by universally applicable collective agreements or
agreements signed by the most representative organisations, including bonuses and
allowances, such as seniority pay or the Christmas bonus, inter alia, on equal terms as
local workers57. Option 3a is expected to exert some effects also on Member States
where rates of pay are set through statutory regulation insofar as elements of pay
mandated by law to local workers (e.g. the 13th month bonus) would become applicable
to posted workers.
Option 3b may have a beneficial effect for the social protection of workers posted from
low-wage to higher-wage countries in sectors where collective agreements are not
universally applicable. In DE, IE, LU, the statutory minimum wage represents the
minimum rate of pay in sectors in which sectoral minimum wages are not given statutory

57

FGB, Wage Study, 2015; see Annex VI for a preliminary reconstruction of the elements of wage which
would become applicable to posted workers under option 3.
42

effects. In these Member States, option 3b would promote the extension of sectoral
minima to all sectors.
On the other hand, both options entail the risk of an inflow of dependent posted work
into self-employment as a possible unintended consequence of more equal wage
standards. As collective agreements do not apply to the self-employed, companies may
find it more advantageous to recruit on independent work arrangements, falling outside
the protection scope of the Directive. In 2014, registered posted self-employed were
roughly 8% of total postings, at fairly stable levels with respect to previous years.
Nevertheless, bogus or false self-employment is reported to be a problematic issue as far
as posting is concerned, even though part of the problem source for the phenomenon rests
with labour market segmentation and enforcement of labour law in the sending Member
States58.
Options 4a would enhance the social protection of workers posted for long-term periods
with an impact on the remuneration of posted workers similar to that of option 3.
Options 4b and 4c would have a strong beneficial impact on workers posted in the
context of subcontracting chains or via temporary work agencies. The promotion of the
principle of equal treatment aims at raising the protection especially of workers posted
from low-wage Member States by conferring the entitlement to the remuneration
conditions set by company-level agreements. Especially in the case of posted agency
workers, options 4c would increase the level of protection in the thirteen countries where
the principle of equal treatment is formally not in force. However, as discussed in
section 5.2, little data availability limits the possibility to quantify the impact of these
options. Stronger enforcement tools and coordination provided for by the Enforcement
Directive would contribute to greater effectiveness of these options on the ground.
5.4. Impact on SME's
The envisaged initiative does not increase the administrative burden or costs to crossborder service providers and to SME's in particular. The issues concerning the
administrative requirements and control measures that Member States can impose on
cross-border service providers was dealt with by the Enforcement Directive (Article 9).
None of the options considered here has any impact on these aspects.
SMEs especially in receiving high-wage Member State would benefit from this initiative,
as a level playing field would enhance their capacity to compete on non-wage factors.
This beneficial effect is stressed by some SME stakeholder, as well59. In turn, possible
increases in wage costs may have some adverse effects especially on SMEs basing their
58

59

See, for instance, Cremers, In search of cheap labour, 2010; LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation).
Beyond dreams and belief. Pictures of posting in practice and the need for an amended Posting of
Workers Directive, 2015
European Builders Confederation, Open Letter to Marianne Thyssen, 5 October 2015.
43

competitiveness on wage costs, which is reflected in the concerns of other European
stakeholder associations about the opportunity to revise the Directive60.
The costs of access to information to the conditions of remuneration applicable to posted
workers in different receiving Member States would not be substantially modified by any
of the considered options with respect to the status quo. However, option 3a would
contribute to facilitating the application of collective agreements, as these would be
applicable in their entirety, with respect to the current difficulty of identifying the
components of "minimum rates of pay".
In any case, it should be noted that Article 5 of the Enforcement Directive requires that
Member States ensure that the information on the terms and conditions of employment
which are to be applied and complied with by service providers is made generally
available free of charge in a clear, transparent, comprehensive and easily accessible way
in a single national website on posting.

5.5. Implementation costs
The revision of the 1996 Directive would not bear any implementation cost. In fact, all
implementation costs will be included in the transposition of the 2014 Enforcement
Directive, due by 18 June 2016.
In line with the dispositions of the Enforcement Directive, the Commission will assess
and evaluate the implementation and explore the enforcement mechanisms put in place
by the Member States.
Some options could diminish administrative costs, by improving legal clarity and
reducing the frequency of judicial litigation.
5.6. Budgetary Impact
No extra budgetary impact is envisaged for the implementation of the proposed revision.
As noted above, the transposition of the Enforcement Directive should comprehend all
implementation costs.
However, the proposed changes may have an impact on public budgets in the form of
extra social security revenues for sending Member States, resulting from the increase of
the wage basis on which social security charges are levied – especially for posting flows
from low- to higher-wage countries. It is estimated that social security revenues
represent, on average, 0.7% of total monthly revenues and 0.2% of total yearly revenues
60

UAPME, reply on Mobility package consultation, 25 July 2015.
44

for sending Member States, with higher values (up to an estimated 4.9% in SI) in
countries where sent posted workers represent a strong share of the domestic
workforce61. A marginal wage increase for posted workers may further benefit social
security revenues in sending Member States, even though there is a risk that possible
losses of business opportunities in receiving countries may render the effect neutral.
6. OVERALL COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS
The table below synthetizes the main impacts of the options for different groups of
stakeholders.
Table 3. Impact on main groups and stakeholders
OPTIONS

Posted
workers
Local workers
(host country)

Posting
undertakings

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Local
undertakings
(host country)

0

0

Public
authorities

0

0

0

0

Social
Partners

3a
no
reference
to minima
(+) equal
conditions
(++) less
downward
wage
pressure

3b
Reference
to CA
(+) equal
conditions
(++) less
downward
wage
pressure

4a.
longterm
postings
(++) equal
treatment
(++)
no
competition
on
labour
standards

4b.
subcontracting

4c. temporary
Agency work

(++)
equal
wage
++ less wage
pressure
on
subcontractors

(++)
equal
treatment
++
less
competition
on
labour
standards

(-) Higher
wage costs

(-) Higher
wage costs

(-)
Higher
wage costs

(--)
Higher
wage costs

(+) level
playing
field
on
wage rules
(+) budget
impact

(++) level
playing
field
on
wage rules
(0)

(++)
level
playing field
on
labour
costs
(+) budget
impact

(++)
level
playing field
on wage costs

(0/+) clearer
rules to be
applied
(0/+) clearer
rules to be
applied

(+) respect
of
IR
systems

(+) respect
of
IR
systems

(0)

(0)
budget
impact / adm
cost
(0)

(+)
simplification
(0)

The options are compared in terms of effectiveness in reaching the objectives, in social
and economic impact and coherence. Based on the impact analysis presented above, the
following comparison of options can be drawn.

61

De Wispelaere, F. and Pacolet, J. (2015), Impact of social security coordination and income taxation
law applicable to posted workers on welfare states: from tax competition towards upward social
convergence, KU Leuven working paper, November 2015 (https://hiva.kuleuven.be/nl/docs/workingpapers/HIVA_WP2015_01.pdf )
45

Table 4. Comparison of options
OPTIONS

1

2

3a

3b

4a. longterm
postings

4b.
subcontracting

4c. temp.
Agency
work

Objectives
Ensure fair wage
conditions to posted
workers
Ensure a level playing
field for companies
Improve legal clarity

0

0

++

+

++

++

++

0

0

++

+

++

++

++

0

+

++

+

++

+/0

++

Social impact

0

0

+

Impact
+

++

++

+

Economic impact
Budgetary impact
Cost effectiveness

0
0
0

0
0
+/0

0/+/0
++/+

+/0
++/+

-+/0
+/0

0/0
++

0/+/0
+

Option 2, codifying the case law of the European Court of Justice, has a modest impact
on improving legal clarity of the EU regulatory framework, but has no value added with
respect to the status quo.
Options 3a and 3b have an effective impact on attaining the policy objectives with an
expected high social impact and a valuable economic impact on contributing to a more
balanced level playing field. The risk of adverse impact on the competitiveness of
posting undertakings is rather limited. It does not address specific problems with the
effectiveness of the Directive on regulating particular cases of posting.
Options 4a, 4b, and 4c attain the objectives of legal clarity with a view on the current
mismatches between the Directive and different pieces of EU legislation and a level
playing field for companies as far as specific problems in the context of posting are
concerned. Option 4b may have a strong economic impact on subcontracting chains.
While effective in attaining these objectives, these options alone are not sufficient to
comprehensively address the general problems identified with the existing Directive.
A wider variety of options (communication by the Commission, equal pay, specific
intervention on the road transport sector) have been considered and discarded, as they
have been deemed inadequate or disproportionate to tackle the identified problems.

6.1 The preferred options
In light of the comparison of the options, the preferred options are a combination
between options 3 and 4. Option 3 revises the general regulatory framework of posting of
workers, while option 4 tackles specific problems related to the posting of workers.
46

As for option 3, the introduction of equal rules on the remuneration of posted workers,
coupled with the extension of the validity of universally binding collective agreements to
posted workers in all economic sectors, addresses the identified problems of
differentiated wage treatment of posted workers with respect to local workers in the host
country, and the unfair competition advantage of posting undertakings based on different
wage rules than those applicable to local companies. By removing the reference to
"minimum" rates of pay applicable to posted workers, all the elements of remuneration
legally applicable to local workers in host Member States become applicable to posted
workers, as well. Universally binding collective agreements are automatically applicable
to posted workers in all economic sectors, not only in the construction sector and
optionally in other sectors, as currently is the case.
Option 4 integrates the principles set by option 3 through the introduction of equal
treatment in a number of problematic issues which are currently unclear because of
mismatches between different pieces of EU legislation. By establishing equal treatment
on working conditions with respect to local workers in host countries in cases of postings
lasting over 24 months, the Posting of Workers Directive aligns with the regulation of
social security, thus filling a long-standing gap in EU legislation. The applicability of the
remuneration conditions set in company-level collective agreements of the main
contractor to all undertakings in a sub-contracting chain tackle the vulnerability of posted
workers in subcontracting situations in line with the 2014 Enforcement Directive. By
compulsory application to posted workers of the same rules set in the Temporary Agency
Work Directive, a legislative mismatch is corrected for the benefit of legal clarity and
improved consistency of the EU regulatory framework.
Table 5. Summary of expected impact of the selected options
Content
3a

Impact

Minimum rates of pay replaced by Member States affected: AT, BE, DK, ES, FI, FR, EL, IT,
a reference to remuneration.
NL, PT, SE, SI
(Inclusion of additional elements Impact on workers: additional remuneration elements for
into the remuneration such as about 700,000 to 900,000 posted workers
seniority allowance, 13th, 14th
Impact on companies: more level playing field in
month bonuses)
receiving countries, limited impact on wage
competitiveness of sending companies
Impact on budget: higher social security revenues for
sending Member States.

3b

Extension of the reference to Member States affected: DE, LU, IE, CY
extended collective agreements to
Impact on workers: higher pay rates for about 300,000
all sectors (not only construction)
posted workers affected (2014 data);
Impact on companies: more level playing field in
receiving countries, limited impact on wage
competitiveness of sending companies.
Impact on budget: higher social security revenues for
47

sending Member States
4a

Application of labour law of the Member States affected: all
host MS for posting with duration
Impact on workers: no clear data, estimated marginal
higher than 24 months
share of total posted workers;
Impact on companies: level playing field in the receiving
countries, reduced margins of competition on labour costs.
Impact on budget: none
Member States affected: all (optional)

4b

Impact on workers: no clear data. Equal pay rates with
respect to workers at main contractor estimated up to
Possibility to introduce equal
700,000 workers;
treatment in subcontracting chains
Impact on companies: level playing field in receiving
countries, significant impact on wage competitiveness of
sending companies
Impact on budget: none

4c

Equal
treatment
for
temporary agency workers

posted Member States affected: AT, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, IE,
LV, PL, PT, SI, SK;

Same conditions for cross-border Impact on workers: up to 1,000 posted agency workers to
and national temporary agency MS requiring legislative adaptation;
workers
Impact on companies: higher pay rates for sending
companies in line with work agencies in the receiving
country
Impact on budget: none

7. EVALUATION AND MONITORING
Monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the preferred options consist of a number of
inter-related processes.
7.1. Monitoring
The Commission will monitor the transposition of the Enforcement Directive and its
implementation in the Member States. No later than June 2019, the Commission is
expected to submit a report on the application and implementation of the Enforcement
Directive. Further implementation reports by the Commission will include aspects related
to the revised Posting of Workers Directive in the future.
The Expert Committee on Posting of Workers (ECPW) regularly scrutinises and
discusses various problems related to the Directive. Albeit not constituting a proper

48

monitoring committee, the ECPW can give an important contribution to the transposition
of the revised Directive and to the analysis of its impact over the years.
The improvement of the information contained in the Portable Documents A1 – which is
included in the revision of the Regulation on social security coordination presented by
the Commission in the 2015 Mobility Package – will be key to enhancing the reliability
of the information basis to monitor the dynamics of the posting of workers phenomenon.
On the basis of evidence provided by the PD A1 forms, the Commission will continue to
produce yearly reports on the flows of posted workers throughout the EU Member States,
to be presented and discussed in the ECPW. At the same time, the possible set-up by
some Member States of more extensive control systems and data bases concerning the inflow of posted workers in their countries, as provided for by the 2014 Enforcement
Directive, will further contribute to monitor aspects of the revised Directive for which
data reliability has been found problematic. The newly established European Platform to
enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work will contribute with its work to monitor
abuse of the posting of workers' rules.
The Commission will also promote independent studies, including in collaboration with
the social partners and the EU sectoral dialogue, to survey sector-specific aspects of the
directive, including the application of wage rules and of other working conditions such as
working time, and duration of postings.
7.2. Evaluation
The Commission will proceed to a fully-fledged evaluation of the impact of the revised
Directive five years after the deadline for transposition. The evaluation report will
include an assessment of whether the operational objectives of the revised Directive have
been reached. A particular focus will be cast on the application of the "equal pay for
equal work" principle, its economic effects on the competitiveness of sending enterprises
and flow of posted workers, and sector-specific issues in the temporary agency work
industry and road transport sector, among others. This evaluation report will be
developed by the Commission with the assistance of external experts, on the basis of
terms of reference developed by the Commission services. Stakeholders will be informed
of and consulted to comment on the terms of reference through the ECPW, and they will
also be regularly informed of the progress of the evaluation and its findings. The
evaluation report will be made public.

49

ANNEX I. - SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS EXPRESSED BY THE MEMBER STATES AND
THE STAKEHOLDERS
The targeted review of the 1996 Posting of Workers Directive has been the object of a
roundtable with the social partners and non-governmental organisations, which was held
on 22 July 2015 to identify the main remaining problems beyond the transposition of the
Enforcement Directive and discuss the possible necessity for further EU action. While
the messages conveyed by the social partners and other stakeholders' organisations on
that occasion addressed the main issues of the Directive in a more general way, the social
partners and some Member States followed up with written position papers with more
precise policy preferences later on.
Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden have
claimed support for a modernisation of the Posting of Workers Directive establishing the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work in the same place'62. These Member States
suggested that the provisions regarding working and social conditions, most notably
including remuneration, applicable to posted workers should be amended and widened;
the set-up of a maximum duration limit to postings should be considered, with particular
regard to aligning provisions with the EU Regulation on coordination of social security;
the applicable conditions to the road transport sector should be clarified; the information
basis contained in the Portable Documents A1 should be strengthened in its reliability;
cross-border cooperation between inspection services should be improved; and a study on
the extent and impact of bogus self-employment in the context of posting should be
promoted.
In a separate opinion, the French authorities have proposed to reinforce the core rights
granted to posted workers with a view to including an obligation for the posting
employer to pay for lodging expenses and any other cost incurred by the worker in the
context of posting; to establish a minimum and a maximum duration period for postings;
to tackle double postings of temporary agency workers; to extend the mechanism of joint
liability currently applying to the construction sector to all other sectors; to clarify the
application of the Directive to the road transport sector, most notably as regards the
mechanism of joint liability; and to establish an EU-level structure of cooperation and
coordination of labour inspectorates and authorities to facilitate controls on postings.63
On top of this, the French Economic, Social and Environmental Committee proposed to
delegate to the European social partners at sectoral level the establishment of a maximum
duration cap on postings; to limit the possibilities to post a worker to the Member State in

62
63

Letter to Marianne Thyssen, Luxembourg 18 June 2015.
Note des Autorités Françaises, 30 September 2015.
50

which he or she habitually resides and to establish a minimum of three months of
affiliation to the social security system of a country before a worker can be posted.64
The Socio-Economic Council of the Netherlands also has advised to consider the
introduction of an explicit limit to the temporariness of posting, as well as to clarify other
concepts such as wage elements and untaxed allowances, and other applicable working
conditions to posted workers.65
The European Parliament is discussing a draft Resolution66 which calls to addressing
regulatory gaps with a view to implementing the principle of "equal pay and equal social
protection for the same work". The draft Resolution proposes to extend the legal basis of
the Posting of Workers Directive beyond the freedom of movement and to provide
services, to the social policy chapter (Articles 151 and 153 TFEU). While the draft
Resolution posits that posted workers and local workers should receive equal pay,
including by taking into consideration the role of social security contributions and
posting-specific bonuses, it also calls to limiting the maximum period of posting and
excluding temporary work agencies from the scope of the Directive. Specific measures
are also advocated for the transport industry, in particular to clarify the rules on cabotage.
Favourable to revising the Directive have also been the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC), the European Builders Confederation (EBC) representing the
SME employers in the construction sector, the EU Trade Union of Building and
Woodworkers (EFBWW), the Dutch Trade Union Confederation (FNV), the Estonian
Trade Union Confederation and the Council of Nordic Trade Unions. The EU social
partners in the construction industry have also asked the Commission to assess a number
of issues related to the Directive.
The ETUC has expressed support for a revision to ensure the principle of equal
treatment67. In this context, however, the ETUC called the Commission upon respecting
the principle of autonomy of the social partners to negotiate wages and the plurality of
national industrial relation systems, by establishing provisions on the constituent
elements of pay and having the effect of favouring company-level over sector-level
collective agreements68. In turn, the ETUC advised that the Commission reviews
provisions regarding the requirement of a previous period of employment in the country
of origin to be especially applied to posted temporary agency workers, new rules on

64

CESE, Les Travailleurs detaches, 2015-24.
Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER), Arbeidsmigratie, Advies 14/09, December 2014
66
Report on Social dumping in the European Union (2015/2255 (INI), Committee on Employment and
Social Affairs.
67
ETUC, Paris Manifesto, Stand Up in solidarity for quality jobs, workers' rights and a fair society in
Europe, 1 October 2015.
68
ETUC, Targeted review of the Posting of Workers, ETUC contribution, 28 August 2015.
65

51

combatting bogus self-employment, and better enforcement measures, in particular
inspections and more reliable social security forms69.
The European Builders Confederation (EBC), representing SMEs in the construction
sector, has expressed support for reopening the 1996 Directive in line with the principle
"equal pay for equal work in the same place". Concerning this directive, the EBC
proposes to extend the legal basis of the Posting of Workers directive in line with the
social security regulation and the services directive; to delegate the sector-level social
partners with setting a temporary limit to postings; to tighten rules on the activities of
temporary work agencies in the construction sector, with particular reference to the
provision of information as regards their activities; and to tackle the issue of bogus selfemployment. EBC also proposes the creation of a common database of social security
forms.
The Council of Nordic Trade Unions (NFS) has welcomed the prospect of a revision of
the Directive calling for the close involvement of the social partners and the governments
of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) in its
preparation70. The NFS has agreed with the principle of equal pay for equal work, which
it considers the foundation of collective bargaining in the Nordic countries and a means
to avoid wage competition and discrimination. However, it takes stock of the ambiguity
introduced by the European Court of Justice as regards to the conformity of the labour
market model of the Nordic countries with the Posting of Workers directive.
In a joint position, the EU social partners of the construction sector (the European
Federation of Building and Woodworkers, EFBWW, and the European Construction
Industry Federation, FIEC) have asked the Commission, among other things, to define a
maximum duration of posting, elaborate a EU harmonised module for preliminary
declaration for posting, and provide legal clarity as regards to the position of posted
temporary agency workers in the light of the Temporary Agency Work Directive71. In a
single letter, the EFBWW has encouraged the Commission to provide the instruments for
the principle of "equal pay for equal work in the same workplace" to be widely applied72.
ECAS (European Citizens' Action Service) has stressed the need to align the definition of
posted worker between the Posting of Workers Directive and the Regulation on social
security coordination.

69

ETUC, letter to Marianne Thyssen, Brussels 22 July 2015.
Council of Nordic Trade Unions, Labour Mobility package – Revision of the Posting of Workers
Directive, 20 January 2016.
71
EFBWW and FIEC, Joint Position. Towards a level playing field in the European construction sector.
Joint proposals of the EU sectoral social partners, 27 February 2015. The
72
EFBWW, Observations regarding the proposed EU Labour Mobility Package, 29 February 2016.
70

52

On the other hand, nine other Member States, Business Europe, UAPME (representing
European small and medium enterprises), Eurociett (representing the temporary work
agency industry), CEEMET (representing employers of the metal, engineering and
technology-based industries), Gesamtmetall (the employer association of the German
metalworking industry) and the Association of Industrial Employers of Sweden, the
Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic, and the Industry Associations of
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have expressed their opposition to the
review of the Directive, at this stage.
In a joint letter, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland,
Slovakia and Rumania have argued that a review of the 1996 Directive is premature and
should be postponed after the deadline for the transposition of the Enforcement Directive
has elapsed and its effects carefully evaluated and assessed. These Member States have
expressed the concern that the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place
may be incompatible with the single market, as pay rate differences constitute one
legitimate element of competitive advantage for service providers. Moreover, they have
taken the position that posted workers should remain under the legislation of the sending
Member State for social security purposes, and no measure should thus be taken to revise
the linkages between the posting of workers and the social security coordination in this
sense. Finally, they called upon the Commission to considering action only insofar as
evidence is rigorously analysed concerning the challenges and specificities of crossborder service provision.
Similarly, BUSINESS EUROPE73 has considered a priority to ensure the correct
transposition of the Enforcement Directive as it deems that most of the challenges with
posting of workers are related to poor enforcement and lack of controls in the Member
States. Business Europe has also suggested that the reopening of the Directive may
reduce posting activities because of the uncertainty that the negotiation would create
among companies. While supportive of measures to increase the reliability and
transparency of Portable Documents, Business Europe has considered that the principle
of "equal pay for equal work" would create an undue interference of the EU in the free
determination of wage levels by the social partners and recalls that a level playing field
for competition is created by a large body of EU law addressing various aspects of labour
law. These arguments were also shared by the representatives of employers of the metal,
engineering and technology industries (CEEMET)74, by the Confederation of European
Managers (CEC), by the Swedish Association of Industrial Employers, the Industry
Associations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and by the
Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic.

73
74

Business Europe, letter to Marianne Thyssen, 5 October 2015.
CEEMET, Position against a Revision of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the
framewoek of the provision of services, 5 October 2015.
53

GESAMTMETALL has also called the Commission to clarifying the practical
implications of the principle of "equal pay", as well as to taking into account the possible
impact of this principle on the free provision of cross-border services, with notable
reference to the competitiveness of undertakings established in countries with low wage
standards.
Likewise, UAPME has taken the view that the Posting of Workers Directive should not
be modified before the transposition of the Enforcement Directive is completed and its
effects evaluated.
EUROCIETT75, representing the temporary work agency industry, is of the view that
there is no need for reopening the 1996 Directive. With particular reference to the
temporary agency work sector, Eurociett maintains that the 2008 Temporary Agency
Work Directive already provides for the implementation of the equal pay for equal work
principle in all the Member States. While it argues that information access for companies
and workers and data collection on the industry should be enhanced, it calls for a more
in-depth legal analysis of the interplay between the directives on Posting of Workers and
on Temporary Agency Workers. As the latter already provides for the implementation of
the principle of equal pay for equal work in the host countries, Eurociett sees no need to
modify the Posting of Workers Directive.

75

Eurociett, Posting of agency workers and the cross-border provision of services, 9 November 2015.
54

ANNEX II. - NUMBERS AND FIGURES ON POSTING OF WORKERS
The posting of workers in the EU has steadily picked up since 2010 on an average
annual rate of increase of 9.6%, to reach over 1.9 million postings in 2014. Overall,
the number of posted workers, calculated as number of portable documents A1 (PD A1)
issued, has increased by 44.4%, between 2010 and 2014 (figure 1)76. Although data are
not fully comparable due to changes in the social security registration system in 2010, the
number of postings has rebounded after a downward break in the first dip of the
economic crisis between 2007 and 2009. Currently, the total figure is composed of
postings to a single Member State (on average 75% of total postings in 2014), postings to
two or more Member States (about 22% of the total) and postings in the framework of
common agreements between Member States (2%) and of flight or cabin crew members
(0.05%).
Figure 1. Number of social security certificates for posted workers issued to a single
and to two or more Member States (in millions), 2007-2014

Source: DG EMPL calculations on PD A1s data.
Note: From 2010, the PD A1 form has replaced the previous E101 form. Data are not fully
comparable, because the E101 form could be issued for posting periods up to 12 months – to be
possibly prolonged for another 12 months, whereas under PD A1 rules the maximum duration of
postings is 24 months.

The following analysis is mainly based on EU social security data measuring
postings to single Member States. This is motivated by the facts that EU data are the
only comparable source of information across all Member States; and that data on
76

Workers posted from and to EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) are
included in the calculation, as flows always involve EU countries.
55

postings to two or more Member States do not include any information regarding the
destination of workers and therefore cannot be fully matched with information on
receiving Member States77. However, for the sake of completeness of information,
specific data will be presented when relevant.
Variation in the number of posted workers has been very different across the EU
between 2010 and 2014, also reflecting the different impacts of the crisis. The highest
increases in sending countries were recorded in Greece, Slovakia Lithuania, and
Bulgaria– with more than double as many PD A1 issued in 2014 than in 2010 – and
especially in Slovenia – where the number of posted workers sent more than tripled
during the same period, although the absolute numbers remain low. In turn, Sweden,
Germany, Belgium, Slovenia, Austria and, especially, Estonia recorded the highest
increases among receiving countries, while the receipt of posted workers substantially
dropped in Cyprus, Greece, Spain and Bulgaria.
The contribution of posting to adjusting labour demand within the EU partly
explains the fact that the number of postings has increased faster than expected.
According to simulations, the number of postings was projected to increase to 1.07
million by 2013 and reach up to 1.12 million in 2015. Actual data show that this
projection has been underestimated by over 700,000 postings for each of the years 2013
and 201478. In particular, the flows of posted workers have been directed to the Member
States with relatively better economic performances during the crisis, such as Germany.
Posting has thus proved to be also an important mechanism to adjust labour demand
within the EU.
EU 15 Member States remain the main destination of posted workers. In absolute
numbers, Germany (414,200), France (190,850) and Belgium (159,750) have been the
Member States receiving the highest number of postings in 2014. In proportion to overall
domestic employment, however, the receipt of posted workers had the strongest impact
on Luxembourg (9%), Belgium (3.6%) and Austria (2.5%), while they make up around
1% of employed persons in Germany, the Netherlands, and France.
All Member States are senders of posted workers, but their incidence on domestic
labour markets varies across the Member States. Poland (266,700), Germany
(232,800) and France (119,700) record the highest absolute number of postings sent.
However, while sent posted workers account for 1.7% of the total employed population
77

78

It should be noticed that data also include self-employed workers working temporarily in another
Member States, who do not fall into the scope of the Posting of Workers Directive. The self-employed
make up on average 8% of total postings, with a higher importance in Germany, Italy, the Czech
Republic and Slovakia.
ISMERI Europe (2012), p. 81 projected postings to be 1.07 in 2013 and about 1.1 million in 2014,
whereas actual numbers proved to be, respectively 1.74 and 1.92 million. See also European
Commission (2012) Impact Assessment. Revision of the legislative framework on the posting of
workers in the context of the provision of services. Partie II, SWD (2012) 63 final.
56

in Poland, they make up about 0.6% in France and Germany. In fact, among sending
countries, posted workers have a stronger significance especially in Luxembourg and
Slovenia, where they represent respectively 20.7% and 11.5% of the domestic employed
population, followed by Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal79.
These figures may underestimate the actual number of posted workers. From a
receiving perspective, data from national compulsory registration systems show a
relevant gap between EU and national figures, with the latter being up to five times
higher in the case of Denmark (table 1). National estimations should carefully take into
account full-time equivalents and the number of unique persons posted. However, EU
social security data do not include information neither on short-term nor on long-term
postings, as in these cases PD A1 forms are not required.
Table 1. Comparison between EU and national data sources on received posted
workers, year 2014
Country

Number of PD A1 received
(EU data)
159,753

Belgium
(LIMOSA)
Denmark
10.869
(RUT)
France
190,848
Sources: Member States communications to the Commission

Number of registrations
(national data)
Number of declarations: 499,840
Number of unique persons: 205,279
59,351
228,650

Postings to multiple Member States reflect the phenomenon of highly-mobile
workers and are a significant part of total posted workers sent by some Member
States. While Poland records 428,400 posted workers sent in 2014, Germany has
255,700 and France 125,200. Figure 2 below shows that for Member States such as
Denmark, Latvia, Czech Republic and the Netherlands the figure of total postings can be
up to four times higher than the figure of postings to single Member States only. This
data could be understood as reflecting the extent of the phenomenon of highly-mobile
workers in specific sectors, such as transports. However, there is a lack of data
concerning the sector of activity of this group and the destination of these postings.

79

If forms for unique persons only are taken into account, the percentage share of sent posted workers
on the total employed population drops to 0.3% in France, 4.7% in Luxembourg and 4.2% in Slovenia.
However, this information is not available for many Member States, including Germany and Poland.
57

Figure 2. Posted workers sent to single destinations and total posted workers sent
(including to multiple Member States), selected Member States, year 2014.

Source: EMPL calculations on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

Overall, some Member States are net senders and others net recipients of posted
workers. Poland, Latvia, and Slovenia were among the highest net senders of posted
workers, with levels which have increased over the period 2010-2014 (figure 3). In turn,
Germany, Belgium, Austria, France and the Netherlands were amongst the highest net
recipients. Except for in the Netherlands, the faster increase of receipts over sent posted
workers during the crisis period has accentuated the balance in these countries. Contrary
to most other Member States, Italy and Spain have turned from being net receivers to
becoming net senders of posted workers between 2010 and 2014, mostly due to the
impact of the economic crisis.

58

Figure 3. Net balance between postings sent and received, 2010 and 2014 (in
,000)

Source: EMPL calculations. Note: calculations are done on the basis of postings to single Member States
only, due to the lack of data on the receipt of workers posted to multiple member States.

Posting between companies represents the most widespread type of posting,
although there is no data on other types of postings. Directive 96/71/EC distinguishes
between three types of postings, namely posting between a company and a service
provider, posting of workers within the same group and posting through temporary work
agencies. Although it is quite commonplace that the first type of posting is the most
widespread, the grand majority of the Member States does not collect data to distinguish
between the three types. As regards intra-group posting, only France provides data. In
2013, intra-group posting accounted for 3% of total postings80. Concerning posted
temporary agency workers, available data from PD A1 documents for the year 2014
show that they make up on average 5% of total postings, yet with relevant cross-country
variation. Agency workers represent over 10% of total postings received by the
Netherlands, Belgium, France and Portugal, but up to 35% of total postings sent from the
Netherlands and 25.7% of those sent from Belgium in 201481.

80

81

DGT, Analyse des déclarations de détachement des entreprises prestataires de services en France en
2013, Novembre 2014.
Frequently missing information concerning the sector of activity on the PD A1 forms suggests caution
as regards the handling of data on sectoral breakdowns of postings.
59

All in all, posting of workers still involves a very small fraction (0.7%) of the EU
employed population. In full-time equivalents, it can be estimated that posted workers
account for 0.26% of EU employment. However, the labour market impact is especially
concentrated on specific sectors and Member States.
The construction sector accounts for the largest sector for posting of workers,
followed by the manufacturing industry and different types of services (figure 4).
Overall, the construction sector absorbs 32.7% of total postings in the EU28, thus
proving the most relevant sector for the provision of cross-border services. Industrial
sectors, such as the metalworking industry, account for about another quarter of total
postings. The service sector makes up 32% of total postings, which can be further
disaggregated into personal services (education, health and social work), business
services (finance and insurance, real estate, administrative, professional and technical
services, including temporary agency work), and transports (including road transport and
information and communication systems), as well as other services, such as wholesale
and retail trade (1.4% of total postings) and food and accommodation services (0.4%).
Agriculture employs 1.6% of total posted workers in the EU
Figure 4. Posted workers in the EU28, breakdown by economic sector (%, 2014)

Source: DG EMPL elaboration on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

The incidence of posted construction sector workers on domestic labour markets is
especially strong in some Member States. In Slovenia, Sweden, Finland, Austria,
Belgium, and Latvia posted construction sector workers represented over half of total
workers received in 2014. Measured as a proportion of the domestic employed workforce
in the sector, posted workers made up 20% of Belgian construction workers in 2014, and

60

about 10% and Austrian and Luxembourgish workers (figure 5)82. From a sending
perspective, construction workers represent over 50% of posted workers sent from
Estonia, Portugal and Slovenia, and followed by Hungary, Poland and Luxembourg with
shares slightly below that level.
Figure 5. % Share of received postings in the construction sector on total construction
workers, year 2014

20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
BE AT LU DE SI FI SE FR NL EE HR SK DK ES LV IT LT CZ HU CY IE RO BG MT EL PL UK PT

Source: DG EMPL calculations on Eurostat data

The service sector, mainly personal and business services, absorbs another 32.9% of
posted workers. From a receiving perspective, financial and business services, as well as
personal services represent the majority of postings received in Malta, Greece, Portugal
Cyprus and Bulgaria. In turn, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Belgium and
Luxembourg post a sizeable share of their workers in the services sector, particularly
among financial and professional services, and personal services such as health and
social work. While a minor share of total postings involves the agriculture sector, its
share amongst sending countries is highest (6.5%) in Estonia and Romania.
Geographic proximity is a key context factor of posting dynamics. The majority
(52%) of posted workers are sent to a neighbouring state, with peaks of over 70% in
Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, and the Netherlands (figures 6 and 7). Conversely,
neighbouring countries make up over 70% of posted workers received by Luxembourg,
Austria and the Czech Republic. For instance, Belgium mainly receives posted workers
from and sends its own posted workers mainly to France, the Czech Republic mainly
receives its posted workers from Slovakia, and Germany to the Netherlands, France,
Switzerland and Austria.

82

While the number of PD A1 issued in the construction sector may not reflect the actual number of
posted construction workers (as the same worker could be posted more times during the same year),
the method allows cross-country comparisons.
61

Figure 6. Workers posted to neighbouring and non-neighbouring Member States as %
of total postings, from a sending perspective, 2014

Source: DG EMPL elaboration on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

Figure 7. Workers posted from neighbouring and non-neighbouring Member States as
% of total received postings, 2014.

Source: DG EMPL elaboration on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

Posting is generally limited in time (figure 8). Available data suggests that the average
duration of posting is less than 4 months (100 days in 2013, 103 days in 2014). However,
there are significant differences between the Member States. Whereas the average
duration of postings from France, Belgium and Luxembourg does not last over 33 days,
workers posted from Estonia, Hungary and Ireland tend to stay for over 230 days. It
should be noted that in some Member States workers are posted multiple times per year

62

for short periods. Indeed, by weighting the number of postings with the number of
'unique persons' posted, the same worker is posted on average 1.7 times per year.
Figure 8. Average duration of postings (in days) by sending Member State (2014)

Source: Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

The incompleteness of information, however, suggests much caution in the interpretation
of data. While data on the duration from PD A1 data is only available for twelve EU
Member States (plus Iceland)83, it should be reminded that PD A1 forms are not due for
postings envisaged to be longer than two years, as in that case workers will be covered by
the social security legislation of the Member State of employment84. Therefore, longterm
postings
are
not
included
in
the
above
figure.

83

84

The countries are Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, and Slovenia. There is however a small improvement with respect to the
seven Member States for which data were available in 2013 (Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy,
Hungary, Slovenia and Iceland). Pacolet, De Wispelaere, "Posting of Workers. Report on A1 portable
documents issued in 2012 and 2013", European Commission, December 2014.
If postings are based on common agreements between the Member States (in line with article 16 of
Regulation 883/2004), posting periods are extensible up to 5 years.
63

STATISTICAL ANNEX - ADDITIONAL FIGURES
Figure 9. Dispersion of the monthly minimum wages in the EU (1999-2015)

Source: Eurostat. Note: highest value is the minimum wage in Luxembourg. Lowest value is the minimum
wage (in Portugal from 1999 to 2003; in Latvia from 2004 to 2006; in Bulgaria from 2007 to 2015, except
for 2013 (Romania)

Figure 10. % share of payment to, and income from subcontractors on total
turnover, construction sector, 2011

Source: Eurostat, Structural Business Statistics [sbs_is_subc_r2], EMPL calculation.
No data available for FR and PL.

64

Figure 11. Intensity of cross-border services on total turnover in the construction
sector, 2014

Source: EMPL calculations on Eurostat data.

Figure 12. Sent posted workers and differentials in social security contributions
(2008-2014)

Source: Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2016) on Eurostat data

65

Figure 13. Sent posted workers and price differentials (2008-2014)

Source: Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2016)

Change in Share of
(received workers/posted workers) 2010-2013
-.2
-.1
0
.1
.2

Figure 14: Change in the share of received workers in total posted workers and
GDP growth (2010-2013).

DK
EE
LU

GB

DE

CZ

FR BE
AT
PL

MT IS

CY
HU
NL

PT
SI

FI
RO
LT
IE

ES

LV

SK

IT
BG

-.1

0

.1
GDP Growth 2010-2013

66

.2

.3

Figure 15. Posted workers received in 2014, breakdown by sector and selected
group of countries

Source: EMPL calculation on Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015)

Figure 16. Social contribution rates, paid by employees, EU 28, year 2014

Source: OECD-EC tax benefit indicators. Note: data 2014; except BG, HR, LT, LV, MT, RO 2013 - CY
no data

67

Figure 17. Personal income tax rates, at 67% and 100% of average wage (single
person), 2014

Source: OECD-EC tax benefit indicators. Note: data 2014.

Figure 18. Social contribution rates paid by employers (at 50/67/100% of the
average wage) , EU 28, year 2014

Source: OECD-EC tax benefit indicators. Note: SSCer (data 2014; except BG, HR, LT, LV, MT, RO 2013
- CY no data.

68

Figure 19. Top corporate income tax rates, EU28, year 2015

Source: European Commission, Tax Reforms in the Member States

69

Figure 20. Annual % changes in received posted workers, total construction sector
employment, and low-skilled construction workers, AT, BE, LU (2008-2014)

Source: EMPL calculations on Eurostat data
70

ANNEX III. - OVERVIEW OF THE CASE LAW OF THE CJEU ON THE CONSTITUENT
ELEMENTS OF MINIMUM RATES OF PAY

In the table below, the case law of the CJEU is summarized, distinguishing between the
two perspectives:
1.
the host Member State perspective: is the host Member State entitled or obliged
to consider a certain element as being part of the notion of minimal rates of pay?
2.
the comparative perspective: when assessing whether the amount effectively
paid to the posted worker complies with the minimum rates of pay, must the Member
State take into account a specific element as being part of the notion of minimal rates of
pay?
In the first case, the elements in consideration are provided for by the law of the host
Member State or by a collective agreement declared universally applicable. When the
Court decides that this element is part of the notion of minimum rates of pay, this means
that it needs to be part of the remuneration granted to the posted worker.
In the second case, the elements at stake are not foreseen in the law of the host Member
State or in a collective agreement declared universally applicable, but they are effectively
paid to the worker in accordance to the employment contract, the law of the Member
State of establishment or a collective agreement binding to the undertaking posting the
workers. When the Court decides that such an element must be taken into consideration
as being part of the minimal rates of pay, the ruling has no impact on the constitutive
elements of the host Member State, it only concerns the comparison between the amount
paid to the worker and the amount that must be paid in accordance with the applicable
rules of the host Member State.

71

Table 1: Are the elements below to be considered constituent elements of minimum
rates of pay?
Case

Host MS
perspect
ive
Not ruled
yet

Bonuses
in
respect of the
13th and 14th
month

Case
C341/02,
§31

Quality
bonuses

Case
C341/02,
§39

Not ruled
yet

Bonuses for
dirty, heavy or
dangerous
work

Case
C341/02,
§39

Not ruled
yet

Lump
sum
payments
determined in
the context of
the negotiation
of a collective
agreement

Case
C‑522/
12,
§40-42

Depends
on the
intention
of the
parties to
the
collectiv
e
agreeme
nt

Capital
formation
contribution

Case
C‑522/
12,
§43-45

No

Comparative
perspective

Reasoning of the CJEU

Yes, they are
constituent
elements of
minimum
rates of pay
No, they are
not constituent
elements of
minimum
rates of pay

On condition that they are paid regularly,
proportionately, effectively and irrevocably during the
period for which the worker is posted.

No, they are
not constituent
elements of
minimum
rates of pay

Allowances and supplements which are not defined as
being constituent elements of the minimum wage by the
legislation or national practice of the host Member State,
and which alter the relationship between the service
provided by the worker, on the one hand, and the
consideration which he receives in return, on the other,
cannot be treated as being constituent elements of the
minimum wage.
It is entirely normal that, if an employer requires a
worker to carry out additional work or to work under
particular conditions, compensation must be provided to
the worker for that additional service without its being
taken into account for the purpose of calculating the
minimum wage.
Allowances and supplements which are not defined as
being constituent elements of the minimum wage by the
legislation or national practice of the host Member State,
and which alter the relationship between the service
provided by the worker, on the one hand, and the
consideration which he receives in return, on the other,
cannot be treated as being constituent elements of the
minimum wage.
It is entirely normal that, if an employer requires a
worker to carry out additional work or to work under
particular conditions, compensation must be provided to
the worker for that additional service without its being
taken into account for the purpose of calculating the
minimum wage.
Only the elements of remuneration which do not alter the
relationship between the service provided by the worker,
on the one hand, and the consideration that he receives in
return, on the other, can be taken into account in
determining the minimum wage within the meaning of
Directive 96/71.
It depends whether the parties to the collective wage
agreement intended, in that way, to introduce an increase
in wages in consideration of the work, during the
negotiation of such a collective agreement, of
anticipating, by those lump sum payments, the
application of the new salary scale.
The capital formation contribution seems, in view of its
objective and its characteristics, to alter the relationship
between the service provided by the worker and the
consideration which he receives by way of remuneration
for that service.
72

Guaranteed
pay for hourly
work and/or
piecework in
accordance
with
the
categorisation
of employees
into
pay
groups

C‑396/
13,
§40-45

Yes

Daily
allowance

C‑396/
13,
§46-50

Yes

Compensation
for
daily
travelling time

C‑396/
13,
§53-57

Yes

Since its aim, by the formation of a capital amount that
the worker will benefit from in the longer term, is to
achieve an objective of social policy supported, in
particular, by a financial contribution from the public
authorities, it cannot be regarded, for the application of
Directive 96/71, as forming part of the usual relationship
between the work done and the financial consideration
for that work from the employer.
The rules in force in the host Member State may
determine whether the calculation of the minimum wage
must be carried out on an hourly or a piecework basis.
However, those rules must be binding and must meet the
requirements of transparency, which means, in
particular, that they must be accessible and clear.
The minimum wage calculated by reference to the
relevant collective agreements cannot be a matter of
choice for an employer who posts employees with the
sole aim of offering lower labour costs than those of
local workers.
The rules for categorising workers into pay groups,
which are applied in the host Member State on the basis
of various criteria including the workers’ qualifications,
training and experience and/or the nature of the work
performed by them, apply instead of the rules that are
applicable to the posted workers in the home Member
State. It is only where a comparison is made between the
terms and conditions of employment, referred to in the
first subparagraph of Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71,
applied in the home Member State and those in force in
the host Member State that the categorisation made by
the home Member State must be taken into account when
it is more favourable to the worker.
The allowance takes the form of a flat-rate daily
payment.
The allowance is not paid in reimbursement of
expenditure actually incurred on account of the posting,
as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(7)
of Directive 96/71.
In fact, the allowance is intended to ensure the social
protection of the workers concerned, making up for the
disadvantages entailed by the posting as a result of the
workers being removed from their usual environment.
It follows that such an allowance must be classified as an
‘allowance specific to the posting’ within the meaning of
the second subparagraph of Article 3(7) of Directive
96/71.
That provision of the directive states that such an
allowance is part of the minimum wage.
Accordingly, the daily allowance at issue must be paid to
posted workers such as those concerned in the main
proceedings to the same extent as it is paid to local
workers when they are posted within Finland.
The question raised does not concern compensation for
the costs incurred by the workers concerned in travelling
to and from their place of work but solely the question as
to whether Article 3 of Directive 96/71 must be
interpreted as meaning that compensation for daily
73

Coverage of
the cost of
accommodatio
n

C‑396/
13,
§58-60

Meal vouchers

C‑396/
13,
§61-63

Holiday pay

C‑396/
13,
§64-69

No

No

All
workers
entitled
because
of EU
law

Not ruled yet

travelling time is to be regarded as an element of those
workers’ minimum wage.
According to the relevant provisions of the Finnish
collective agreements, compensation for travelling time
is paid to workers if their daily commute to and from
work is of more than one hour’s duration.
Since such compensation for travelling time is not paid
in reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred by the
worker on account of the posting, it must, in accordance
with the second subparagraph of Article 3(7) of Directive
96/71, be regarded as an allowance specific to the
posting and thus be part of the minimum wage.
Even though the wording of Article 3(7) excludes only
the reimbursement of expenditure on accommodation
which has actually been incurred on account of the
posting and the employer has defrayed the
accommodation costs of the workers concerned without
the latter having first to pay them and then seek to have
them reimbursed, the method which the employer has
chosen to cover such expenditure has no bearing on the
legal classification thereof.
The very purpose of Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71 does
not permit expenditure connected with the posted
workers’ accommodation to be taken into account in the
calculation of their minimum wage.
The Court observes that the provision of those vouchers
is based neither on any law, regulation or administrative
provision of the host Member State nor on the relevant
collective agreements invoked by the Sähköalojen
ammattiliitto, but derives from the employment
relationship established in Poland between the posted
workers and their employer.
Furthermore, like the allowances paid to offset
accommodation costs, these allowances are paid to
compensate for living costs actually incurred by the
workers on account of their posting.
Accordingly, it is clear from the actual wording of
paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 3 of Directive 96/71 that
the allowances concerned are not to be considered part of
the minimum wage within the meaning of Article 3 of
the directive.
As regards payment in respect of holidays, it must be
recalled at the outset that, under Article 31(2) of the
Charter, every worker has the right to an annual period
of paid leave.
That right, which is set out in Article 7 of Directive
2003/88/EC from which that directive permits no
derogation, provides that every worker is entitled to a
period of paid annual leave of at least four weeks. The
right to paid annual leave which, according to settled
case-law, must be regarded as a particularly important
principle of EU social law, is thus granted to every
worker, whatever his place of employment.
The Court’s case-law also makes clear that the term
‘paid annual leave’ in Article 31 of the Charter and
Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 means that, for the
duration of annual leave within the meaning of those
provisions, remuneration must be maintained and that, in
74

other words, workers must receive their normal
remuneration for that period of rest.
According to that case-law, Directive 2003/88 treats
entitlement to annual leave and to a payment on that
account as being two aspects of a single right. The
purpose of requiring payment to be made in respect of
that leave is to put the worker, during such leave, in a
position which is, as regards his salary, comparable to
periods of work.
Thus, the pay which the worker receives during the
holidays is intrinsically linked to that which he receives
in return for his services.
Accordingly, Article 3 of Directive 96/71, read in the
light of Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU, must be
interpreted as meaning that the minimum pay which the
worker must receive, in accordance with point (b) of the
second indent of Article 3(1) of the directive, for the
minimum paid annual holidays corresponds to the
minimum wage to which that worker is entitled during
the reference period.

75

ANNEX IV
ILLUSTRATIVE SIMULATIONS OF THE IMPACT OF EQUAL PAY ON LABOUR COSTS FOR
EMPLOYERS AND AFTER-TAX INCOME FOR WORKERS IN SITUATION OF POSTING
The following analysis simulates the impact of differentials in social security
contributions and corporate and personal income tax rates between sending and receiving
Member States on labour costs for firms and after-tax income for posted.
This simulation has only an illustrative value and neither does it correspond to the
desired outcome of the proposed options nor aims at fully representing the reality of
posting. 'Equal Pay' is therefore a fictitious scenario. It is used to illustrate the most
extreme change but does not represent the outcome of the proposed revision which
should instead fall between the 'status quo' and the 'equal pay' levels, depending on the
applicable collective agreement, as well as other contingent characteristics such as firm
size, worker's skill, seniority, and job position. Absent any systematic data collection,
this simulation constitutes a useful proxy in order to better understand the role of the
home country rule enshrined in Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social
security systems as regards the payment of social security charges and taxes on posting
of workers.
Methodological remarks
To construct the simulation, the three main receiving countries were taken as an example
(BE, DE, FR). Sending countries were selected on the basis of differentials both in home
wage standards, including one high-wage (NL), one medium-wage (PT) and two lowwage Member States (RO, PL), and in levels of labour and income taxation.
The exercise is developed on the basis of the wage of a low-skill manual worker in the
representative construction sector. The reference wage is taken from the Eurostat
Earnings Survey 2010 (latest data available) which provides data on wages per
occupation and sector, inter alia. The EC-OECD tax-benefit database is the source for
social security rates and income taxes.
The simulation analyses the status quo and three scenarios of change:
Status quo: foreign company paying / posted worker receiving the minimum pay set by
the sectorial collective agreement of the host country, and social security contributions in
the home country.
Scenario 1: foreign company paying / posted worker being paid the average wage of the
sector in the host country, and social security contributions in the home country on the
basis of the full wage of the host country
76

Scenario 2: foreign company paying / posted worker being paid the average sectorial
wage of the host country, and social security contributions on the same basis as Scenario
1, as well as corporate / personal income tax in the home country
To simulate the minimum rates of pay received by posted construction workers in the
status quo, the exercise takes the monthly salary level of the lowest-skilled occupation in
the receiving countries, that is, elementary worker. The assumption is that under the
status quo, employers will tend to pay posted workers with the minimum contractual
level, regardless of the actual skill level of the posted worker.
To simulate the scenario involving income taxation, the exercise assumes a company /
worker posted / being posted to another Member State for a period of six months, that
being the only source of profit / work revenue in the corresponding year. The company is
assumed to employ 10 manual workers for 6 months and to pay corporate tax on the basis
of a EUR 500,000 yearly turnout.
Data

Country

Average
wage manual
[elementary]
worker,
constructions
(EUR, 2010)

Social
security
employee
(100%
AW)

Social
security
employer
(100 %
AW)

Corporate
income tax
(%
turnout)

Personal
income
tax
(100%
average
wage)

Receiving countries
Germany
Belgium
France

2,533
[2,081]
2,615
[2,615]
1,714
[1,388]

16.16

17.12

29.65

16.03

22.96

10.79

33.99

21.83

27.69

10.16

33.33

10.59

Sending countries
Poland

613

14.37

15.26

19

5.96

Romania

324

21.88

9.77

16

10.45

Portugal

773

19.19

8.89

21

13.14

Netherlands

3,082

8.97

13.9

25

14.58

77

SIMULATION 1 – Labour costs for posting and local employers

Germany
Scenario 1. Monthly labour costs
4000

2,942

3000

3,087

2,897

3,019

2380

2536

2480

Poland

Romania

Portugal

2,760
2268

2000
1000
0
Local

equal pay

Netherlands

status quo

Scenario 2. Yearly labour costs
350,000

324,770

300,000

276,640
241,820

250,000

246,220

267,100

200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Local

Poland

Romania

78

Portugal

Netherlands

Belgium
Scenario 1. Monthly labour costs
4000

3215

3187

2991

3117

2850

3000
1830

1790

1637

Romania

Portugal

Netherlands

1718

2000
1000
0
Local

Poland

Equal pay

status quo

79

France
Scenario 1. Monthly labour cost
2500

2,146

2000

2,089

1,960

2,043

1692

1654

Romania

Portugal

1587

1,868
1513

1500
1000
500
0
Local

Poland

Equal Pay

Status quo

80

Netherlands

Comments
The simulation of the status quo depicts part of the baseline scenario in the receiving
Member States. Social security contribution levels paid by employers in the selected
sending countries are in all cases lower than in the receiving countries. Since social
security charges are paid on lower wage levels, the total labour cost are substantially
lower (up to 80% in the case of Polish workers in Belgium) than in the receiving
countries.
The case of the Netherlands is telling of the role of taxation in determining labour cost
competitiveness. While nominal wage costs are higher in the home country than in all
other receiving countries, the low social security contribution rate (one third of the
French one) results in lower total labour costs of posted workers from the Netherlands.
Scenario 1 shows that differentials in social security charges have a similar effect if
equal pay is simulated, i.e. if posted workers are paid the same rate as local workers, but
where differentials are lower (e.g. between Romania and Belgium or France) the gap in
labour costs substantially narrows. However, the case of Germany shows that if the social
security charges of the recipient Member State are lower than those of sending countries,
the labour cost competitiveness of posted workers from low-wage countries is
eliminated.
Scenario 2 shows that lower corporate income tax rates in all sending Member States
vis-à-vis receiving countries may contribute to the overall fiscal premium of tax
regulations in a situation of posting, even in a situation of equal pay. In that scenario, the
cost gap is reduced with respect to the status quo but sending companies seem to have
more leverage to compress costs than local firms, including if provisions established an
equal pay rule. Clearly, the present simulation depicts a very simplified fiscal framework
and should be understood only as an indicative sign of potential cost gaps.
In practice, labour costs for posted worker are increased by supplementary allowances
specific to posting, whereas the non-application of a number of allowances granted to
local workers may contribute to lower nominal wages for posted workers. The simulation
has provided a tool to visually understand the implications of current and possible rules
on the economic drivers of posting.

81

SIMULATION 2 – after-income earning of posted and local workers
Germany

82

Belgium

83

France

84

Comments
This simulation analyses the impact of social security contributions paid by employees
and personal income taxes on the potential take-home pay of posted workers vis-à-vis
local workers.
In the case of employees, patterns in levels of social security contributions are less clearcut as in the case of employers. Social security rates are higher in Poland and in the
Netherlands than in Belgium and France, therefore net pay should be lower, nominal
wages being equal. However, it is true that personal income taxes (here considered on a
single person earning 100% the average wage) are generally lower in most sending
countries than in the receiving countries, with the Polish rate being one third of the
French rate). Despite some exceptions, income tax differentials may contribute to higher
take-home pay for posted workers than local workers, pay being equal.
This situation is reflected in the scenario construed by the simulation.
In the status quo, lower nominal wages result in lower net pay of posted workers all
across the board. However, the role of tax differentials emerges in the equal pay scenario
1. For instance, the lower social charges in Portugal than in Belgium produces that the
take-home pay of workers posted from Portugal is higher than that of Belgian workers,
nominal wages being equal. Instead, Romanian posted workers will receive a lower takehome pay than Belgians with the same wage because of higher social security
contributions in Romania.
In scenario 2, the low tax differentials between France and most of the origin countries
of posted workers results in a slightly better situation of local workers than posted
workers, whereas in high-tax Belgium local workers remain significantly worse off than
posted workers from Poland, Romania and Portugal.

85

ANNEX V. - COMPOSITION OF REMUNERATION
Element of wage

Is considered part Is NOT considered EC case law: are EC case law:
of the minimum part of the minimum to be considered must be accepted
rates of pay
rates of pay
as minimum rates as being part of
of pay is present minimum rates of
in the host MS
pay if effectively
paid to posted
workers

BE, DE, EL, AT, BG, CY, EE, FR**,
FR*, LU*, PL, SI, HU, IE, LT, LU**, LV,
IT
SK, UK, MT, CZ, NL
and BE, EE, EL, ES, BG, CY, DE, FR**,
for AT, FR*, LU**, PL, HU, IE, LT, LU**, LV,
SK, MT, CZ and NL
or SI, IT

Seniority allowance

Allowances
supplements
dirty,
heavy
dangerous work
Quality bonuses

No
BE, EE, ES, FR AT, BG, CY, DE, EL,
HU, IE, IT, LT, LU**,
LU*, PL and SI
LV, SK,UK MT, CZ
and NL
th
Yes
13 month bonuses BE, EL, ES, AT, BG, CY, DE, EE,
FR*, IT, LU and FR**, HU, IE, LT,
(Christmas
PL
LU**, LV, SI, SK, UK,
allowances)
MT, CZ and NL
SI
BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE,
Travel expenses
ES, FR, HU, IE, IT,
LT, LV, NL, PL, SK,
UK, EL and AT
Yes,
if
the
Lump sum payments
intention is to
determined
in
increase
the
collective agreement
wages
Yes.
Categorisation
of
employees into pay
groups
Yes
Daily allowance to
compensate
for
posting
Yes
Compensation
for
daily travelling time
Yes
Holiday pay longer
than 4 weeks
No
Meal vouchers
Notes:
*

In collective agreements.

**

In national law

86

ANNEX VI. - IMPACT OF THE REVISED DIRECTIVE ON REMUNERATION
Option 3
Equal rules
on pay
(elements to
be added)
AT

BE

Quality
bonuses

Option 4a

Option 4b

Option 4c

Option 4d

Sectoral
extension

Long-term

Subcontracting

Temp
agency
work

Intracorporate

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
less
than
Impact
1%
of
limited since posted
AT usually workers.
makes CA
universally
applicable.

For
all
MS,
legislative
changes
will
be
required.
There are
no reliable
figures on
the number
intracorporate
posting,
but
it
seems to
represent
only
a
marginal
proportion
of posted
workers.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Impact

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

limited since
BE usually
makes CA
universally
applicable.
BG

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Impact
limited since
only around
30%
of
workers are
covered by
CA
and
workers
posted
to
BG
are
likely
to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
CY

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
88

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

including on whether the
remuneration. main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.

temporary
agency
workers.

Impact
limited
since TAW
represent
around 6%
of a low
Impact
number of
limited.
Around 50% posted
of workers workers.
are covered
by CA and a
large
proportion
of workers
posted
to
CY
could
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.

CZ

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Impact
limited since
only around
38%
of
workers are
covered by
CA
and
89

workers
posted
to
CZ
are
likely
to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
DE

Legislative
Currently,
Legislative
Allowance
required
14 change
for dirty or only
only if MS
sectors.
required.
dangerous
decides to
National
work;
labour
law avail itself
Quality
this
will apply to of
bonuses
faculty.
workers
posted
for
more than 2 Impact
depends on
years,
including on whether the
remuneration. main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
agent
workers
already in
place.

With around
60%
of
workers
covered by
CA
and
universally
applicable
CA only in
some
sectors, the
impact
could
be
significant.
DK

No
impact
since DK has
no mechanism
to make CA
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
90

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.
Impact

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
agent

years,
depends on workers
including on whether the already in
place.
remuneration. main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
With around
80%
of
workers
covered by
CA and no
universally
applicable
CA,
the
impact
could
be
significant.
EE

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

91

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
around 1%
Impact
of a low
limited since number of
only around posted
33%
of workers.
workers are
covered by
CA
and
workers
posted to EE
are likely to
benefit from
more
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
EL

ES

Quality
bonuses

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
around 4%
Impact
of a low
limited since number of
EL usually posted
makes CA workers.
universally
applicable.

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Impact
limited since
ES usually

92

makes CA
universally
applicable.
FI

No
information

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

With around
90%
of
workers
covered by
CA and only
a
few
universally
applicable
CA,
the
impact
could
be
significant.
FR

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

93

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

CA.
Impact
limited since
FR usually
makes CA
universally
applicable.
No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.

HR

-

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

HU

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

94

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
less
than
Impact
2% of a
limited since low
only around number of
33%
of posted
workers are workers.
covered by

CA
and
workers
posted
to
HU
are
likely
to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
around 4%
Some
of a low
impact.
number of
Around 40% posted
of workers workers.
are covered
by CA and
CA at the
level of the
undertaking
are
common.

IE

Currently only
Seniority
7 sectors
allowances;
Quality
bonuses;
13th month
allowance

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

IT

Quality
bonuses

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Already
implemented,
no impact

95

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers

including on whether the already
place.
remuneration. main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Impact
limited since
IT usually
makes CA
universally
applicable.
LT

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.
Impact
depends on
whether the
main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Impact
limited since
only around
15%
of
workers are
covered by
CA
and
workers
posted to LT
are likely to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.

96

in

LU

Currently only Legislative
9 sectors
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

With around
50%
of
workers
covered by
CA
and
universally
applicable
CA only in
some
sectors, the
impact
could
be
significant.
LV

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

97

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
less
than
Impact
2% of a
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

limited since
only around
30%
of
workers are
covered by
CA
and
workers
posted
to
LV
are
likely
to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
MT

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

low
number of
posted
workers.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Some
impact.
Around 60%
of workers
are covered
by CA and
CA at the
level of the
undertaking
are
common.
NL

Seniority
Already
allowances;
implemented,
Allowance
no impact
for dirty or
dangerous

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
98

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and

will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

work;
Quality
bonuses;13th
month
allowance

of
this crossborder
faculty.
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Impact
limited since
NL usually
makes CA
universally
applicable.

PL

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.
Impact
depends on
whether the
main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Limited
impact.
Around 25%
of workers
are covered
by
CA.
Although
CA at the
level of the
undertaking
are
common,
workers

99

posted to PL
are likely to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
PT

RO

No
information

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Some
nonimpact
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
around
Impact
12%
of
limited since workers
IT usually posted to
makes CA PT.
universally
applicable.

Already
implemented,
no impact

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

100

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable

CA.
Impact
limited since
only around
35%
of
workers are
covered by
CA
and
workers
posted
to
RO
are
likely
to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
SE

No
impact
since SE has
no mechanism
to make CA
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

With around
90%
of
workers
covered by
CA and no
universally
applicable
CA,
the
impact
could
be
significant.
SI

Legal change Legislative
required,
change
101

Legislative
required

impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.
Impact
depends on
whether the
main
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Impact
limited since
IT usually
makes CA
universally
applicable.

SK

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

102

Legislative
changes
required to
implement
the
principle of
equal
treatment
Impact
with
depends on national
whether the temporary
main
agency
contractor is workers.
bound by a
Impact
nonlimited
universally
since TAW
applicable
represent
CA.
around 1%
Impact
of a low
limited since number of
only around posted
35%
of workers.
workers are
covered by
CA
and
workers
posted
to
SK
are
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

likely
to
benefit from
more
favourable
conditions
in the home
MS.
UK

Legal change
required,
impact
dependent on
the
number
and content of
CA
made
universally
applicable

Legislative
change
required.
National
labour
law
will apply to
workers
posted
for
more than 2
years,
including on
remuneration.

No impact:
equal
treatment
between
local and
crossborder
temporary
Impact
agent
depends on workers
whether the already in
main
place.
contractor is
bound by a
nonuniversally
applicable
CA.
Legislative
required
only if MS
decides to
avail itself
of
this
faculty.

Some
impact.
Around 30%
of workers
are covered
by CA and
CA at the
level of the
undertaking
are
common.

103