1SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
National transposition of SE legislation: an overview
A preliminary reportLionel Fulton
Labour Research Department
2SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
3SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
Transposition score card (out of 28)
• Transposed on time – 9• Transposed since then – 6• Information on progress – 8 • No information or not clear – 5
4SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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?
5SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
Transposed since then – 6
• Malta – October 2004?• Czech Republic – November 2004• Germany – December 2004• Cyprus – December 2004• Estonia – January 2005• Netherlands – March 2005
6SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 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
7SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
Not transposed – not clear on progress -
• France• Latvia• Liechtenstein• Slovenia• Spain
8SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
Reasons for delay
• Elections & change of government– Greece– Portugal– Slovenia– Spain
• Not priority– France– Ireland
9SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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)
10SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
National debates
• Substantial debate – 1 • Largely technical debate – 10 • Seen as part of new EU package – 3• No great interest – 9 • No information – 5
11SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
12SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
13SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
14SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
15SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
Seen as part of new EU package
• Cyprus• Czech Republic• Slovakia• Estonia – to lesser extent
– Legislation also covered EWCs
16SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
17SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
No information
• Iceland• Norway• Latvia• Liechtenstein• Poland
18SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
19SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
20SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
21SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
22SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
23SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
24SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
25SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
26SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
27SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
28SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
29SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
30SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
31SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
32SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
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
33SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
But only preliminary – need your help
• To provide texts• To add missing information• To make corrections• To comment
34SEEurope network meeting 11-12 April 2005
Questions and comments
Top Related