1SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005 National transposition of SE legislation: an overview A...

1SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005

National transposition of SE legislation: an overview

A preliminary reportLionel Fulton

Labour Research Department


Why preliminary?

• Not all countries transposed– Initial rather than preliminary

• Not studied all texts– Language difficulties

• Still some gaps in information• Very complicated

– Will need correction


Transposition score card (out of 28)

• Transposed on time – 9• Transposed since then – 6• Information on progress – 8 • No information or not clear – 5


Transposed on time – 9 • Denmark – April 2004• Sweden – May 2004• Hungary – May 2004• Iceland – May 2004?• Austria – June 2004• Finland – August 2004• Slovakia –September 2004• UK – September 2004• Belgium – October 2004?


Transposed since then – 6

• Malta – October 2004?• Czech Republic – November 2004• Germany – December 2004• Cyprus – December 2004• Estonia – January 2005• Netherlands – March 2005


Not transposed – but prospects – 8 • Greece – in committee• Ireland – consultations – by July?• Italy – agreement signed by social partners• Lithuania – one law passed – by June?• Luxembourg – consultations completed• Norway – draft legislation published• Poland – passed by lower house of parliament• Portugal – one law passed – but delay on employee

involvement


Not transposed – not clear on progress -

• France• Latvia• Liechtenstein• Slovenia• Spain


Reasons for delay

• Elections & change of government– Greece– Portugal– Slovenia– Spain

• Not priority– France– Ireland


How transposed

• Mostly by legislation– Exceptions

• Belgian – employee involvement only• Italy – perhaps but not completed

• Majority (8) – two pieces of legislation• Often possible to deal with statute first

– Examples• Lithuania & Portugal (still not completed)


National debates

• Substantial debate – 1 • Largely technical debate – 10 • Seen as part of new EU package – 3• No great interest – 9 • No information – 5


Substantial national debate

• Germany– Transposition used by employers’ organisations to

make a major attack on German system of co-determination. In particular attack implications of German system for one-tier boards


Largely technical debate - 1

• Austria– How will one tier board function & should it be available to

purely Austrian companies? • Belgium

– Role of unions & costs• Denmark

– Protecting Danish system• Hungary

– Relationship between unions and works councils


Largely technical debate – 2

• Italy– Wider discussion on employee participation

• Netherlands– How will one tier system work & role of employees

• Portugal– Role of unions & costs

• Slovenia– Protecting Slovenian system


Largely technical debate – 3

• Spain– Limited discussion of wider issues of employee

participation• Sweden

– More discussion on powers of tax authorities to prevent transfer of seats


Seen as part of new EU package

• Cyprus• Czech Republic• Slovakia• Estonia – to lesser extent

– Legislation also covered EWCs


No great interest• Estonia – I&C directive more important• Finland – not controversial• France• Greece• Ireland – I&C directive more important • Lithuania• Luxembourg – no new concepts• Malta – not expected to have impact & bad experiences• UK – I&C directive more important


No information

• Iceland• Norway• Latvia• Liechtenstein• Poland


Details of transposition –employee involvement

• Just looking at 15 that have transposed• Look at national members of SNB – similar to

representative body• Look at trade union presence at SNB• Look at paying for experts• Look at withholding information• Look at structural changes


Transposition of directive – SNB national members

• Chosen by works council – 6– Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,

Netherlands• Chosen by trade unions/trade unionists in workplace – 4

– Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden• Chosen by direct elections – 3

– Estonia, Malta, UK• Not clear – 2

– Finland, Slovakia


But choice of SNB undermines unions in CEE countries -

• Czech Republic– Chosen by works council or direct election – but works

councils can only exist where no unions• Estonia

– Elected by general meeting of all employees – but main existing representation is through unions

• Hungary– Chosen by works councils or direct election – but works

councils and unions exist in workplaces with similar powers


And in Malta & UK

• Malta– Directly elected by employees – but domestic legislation says

“employee representative … means the recognised union representative”

• UK– Directly elected by employees unless there is an existing

consultative committee (rare) – but unions represent employees in most workplaces with representation

• Contrast with Cyprus– Chosen by existing unions


Why this weakening accepted?

• Because of limited trade union coverage– Cyprus – 70% in unions– Estonia – 15%? in unions

• Because already accepted for EWC implementation – Although not Estonia as same legislation


Trade union presence at SNB

• External trade unionists can be members – 8– Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany,

Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden (unlikely in practice)• External trade unionists can be experts – 3

– Cyprus, Denmark, Finland (all with TUs already there)• External trade unionists need permission – 2

– Malta, UK• Not specified/no information – 2

– Iceland, Slovakia


Paying for experts in SNB

• Limited to one – 11– Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Estonia, Iceland, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, UK• Not limited – 3

– Finland ( but costs reasonable), Germany (refers specifically to trade unions), Hungary

• No information– Slovakia


Withholding information

• Prior authorisation needed to withhold information – Only Belgium requires this – Although other countries have procedures which

allow employee representatives to contest company decisions on confidentiality


Right to re-negotiate in case of structural change

• Exists in 11 cases– Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, Germany, Hungary, Malta (conditions must be specified in agreement), Netherlands (under certain conditions), Sweden

• Does not exist in 3– Cyprus, Iceland, UK

• No information in 1– Slovakia


Details of transposition one-tier and two-tier systems

• Countries used to one sort of system (eg one-tier) have to provide for the alternative (eg two-tier)

• But they have provided for the alternative in a way that mirrors their existing system

• No information on 8 countries


Introducing two tiers into an existing one-tier system

• Little detailed legislation– Topics to be covered by different levels of board not

defined (Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, UK) • Number of members low

– Belgium and Denmark (management board can be 1), Iceland (supervisory board 3 minimum), UK (2 minimum)

• Largely left to companies


Introducing one tier into an existing two-tier system

• One-tier board appoints separate directors to run business– Austria, Czech Republic (general manager), Germany

• Majority of one-tier board must be independent and not run company– Austria, Germany, Hungary

• Audit committee with many of the functions of supervisory board– Austria, Hungary


Preliminary conclusions on overall impact

• Not been major debate on issue of employee participation as a result of directive– One exception Germany where used as a chance to

attack existing rights• Hopes of promoting wider debate on benefits of

participation not met– Possible exceptions Italy and Spain but too soon to

say


Preliminary conclusions on employee involvement

• In most cases rules for employee involvement have gone in line with existing practice

• But in one third of cases rules have potentially disadvantaged trade unions relative to works councils or direct elections– But reflects weakness on unions– Decisions in line with existing EWC legislation


Preliminary conclusions on governance

• Both one-tier and two-tier countries have tried to introduce the alternative system in a way which reflects their existing reality– One-tier countries have introduced few rules for two-

tier system– Two-tier countries have tried to create a system of

business management within the single tier


But only preliminary – need your help

• To provide texts• To add missing information• To make corrections• To comment


Questions and comments

1SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005 National transposition of SE legislation: an overview A...

Documents

Transcript of 1SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005 National transposition of SE legislation: an overview A...