The actual implementation of the EU Framework agreement in the different countriessectors

1
Session 2 The actual implementation of the EU
Framework agreement in the different
countries/sectors Stefan Clauwaert ETUC NETLEX
Coordinator/ETUI-REHS Senior Researcher
 


ETUC Project Final Conference Prague 21-22
September 2006
2
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Sources
• Implementation fiches of affiliates
• Joint implementation report SDC 28/06/2006
• Reports 3 regional meetings project
• Riga/ Budapest/Brussels
• Other input by affiliates

3
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• General
• Only few countries described the practices and
  procedures specific to management and labour and
  member states (Art. 139 2)
• Collective bargaining BE, FR, ES, SW
• Law CZ (as basis for more favourable CA)
• Tripartite Council LT
• No real specific procedure but changes to law
  most logic EE
• Problem in identifying the specific procedure
  SK
• Is nevertheless crucial information!!!

4
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Implementation via Collective Bargaining
  National level
• BE interprof CA n 72 of 30/3/1999 (extended by
  RD of 21/6/1999)
• ES EU text annexed to ANC 2005 (recommendation
  for lower level CB- no results yet)
• SE national CA for local/regions authorities
  (04/2005)
• FR negotiations on penabilité au travail
  include WRS negotiations failed
• Initiatives started/foreseen
• BG proposal to national council Conditions at
  work to elaborate Common strategy/decision/propo
  sal
• SLO via national tripartite council Working
  group Oct 2005- draft CA prepared by ZSSS
  refused by employers
• RO start negotiations on National CA 2007
  September 2007
• CY invitations send to employers no reaction
  so far
• FI negotiations started February 2006 no final
  result yet
• Iceland started and end result was hoped to be
  reached by end June 2006 result?

5
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Implementation via Collective Bargaining
  sectoral/regional level
• DK CA for state sector authorities (spring 2005)
• DK CA for local and regional authorities (spring
  2005) further negotiations foreseen to start in
  October 2007
• ES No real results yet as follow up to ANC 2005
  several CAs dealing with WRS but not really
  triggered by EU agreement
• National wide sectoral CA telemarketing
  (2004-2006)
• National wide sectoral CA chemical sector
  (2004-2006)
• Provincial CA for hotel sector in Tenerife
  (2005-2008)
• Provincial CA for casinos in Allicante
  (2006-2009)
• MT foreseen for next CB round as current CAs
  are valid until 2007

6
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Implementation via Collective Bargaining
  enterprise level
• DE most likely level as HS aspects are
  tradionally not settle via CAs on higher levels
• AT main objective is to get it implemented on
  this level
• ES Codorniu Sant Sadurni but not directly
  triggered by EU agreement

7
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Implementation via Legislation
• Existing
• BG Act on Health and Safety Working Conditions
  1997
• MT Act XXVII of 2000
• PT Constitution, Penal Code, Labour Code (art.
  18 24)
• NO Working Environment Act covers most aspects
  of EU agreement considered as satisfactory basis

8
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Implementation via Legislation
• New legislation
• CZ new Labour Code of 21/04/2006 via Law
  262/0226 Coll., Chapter I article 102 (in force
  as from 1/1/2007)
• SK partial implementation via
• New Law OHS nr 124/2006 Z.z.
• New Health Law nr 126/2006 Z.z.
• Partially also via amendments to Labour Code
• SLO proposals for amendments by ZSSS to regulate
  criteria for OHS services licences for risk
  assessments on WRS no reaction yet
• EE proposed amendments to Occupational HS Act
  adding WRS to list of health risk factors
  refuses under pretext that it was already covered

9
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Implementation via Legislation
• Needed BE for public sector
• Hoped for
• PT use revision of national list of occupational
  health illnesses to add WRS
• RO amendments to H S law
• Problem
• SW Swedish Work Environment Authority uses EU
  agreement as argument for not issuing new
  provisions on social and psychological conditions
  at work Serious set back for trade unions

10
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Other forms/instruments of implementation
• BE as national CA was not really used in
  practice brochure of National Labour Council on
  how to use in practice
• SLO proposal to national economic council to
  translate Copenhagen Questionnaire into Slovenian
• MT joint interprofessional Declaration of
  Commitment
• NL update of national Declaration on WRS in line
  with EU agreement
• SW joint interprofessional agreements both for
  private (16/6/2005) and public sector (spring
  2006) including translation of EU agreement and
  recommendations to lower CB levels to use it as
  guideline

11
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• Other forms/instruments of implementation
  (continued)
• IRE changes foreseen to Code of Practice
• LV interprofessional agreement LBAS/LDDK
  prescribing next steps in implementation
• UK interprofessional guide by CBI, CEEP UK,
  Forum of Private Business and TUC in cooperation
  with governmental agencies such as Health and
  Safety Executive and DTI
• AT
• joint interprofessional guidelines near
  adoption
• These will also be signed up to by Austrian
  Chamber of Agriculture to make them applicable in
  concerned sector
• EU sectoral social dialogue
• Electricity Joint Declaration Eurelectric/EPSU/EM
  CEF (15/12/2004)
• Construction Joint Statement FIEC/EFBWW
  (10/06/2006)
• Cleaning at SDC of October 2004 commitment to do
  annual review on implementation

12
ETUC Project Implementation WRS agreement

• BUT problems identified
• BE no real minutes of EU social dialogue
  negotiations available as well as no joint
  interpretation guide
• Several countries no real interest by employers
  are afraid of the costs!
• SLO
• Fear of employers that WRS will be put on list of
  occupational illnesses damage claims by workers
• No OHS services with adequate know how on WRS
• Several countries most companies are SMEs
• Several countries no decently functioning SD
  mechanisms