1SEEurope network meeting April 2005 National transposition of SE legislation: an overview A preliminary report Lionel Fulton Labour Research Department

2SEEurope network meeting 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 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 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 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 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 April 2005 Not transposed – not clear on progress - France Latvia Liechtenstein Slovenia Spain

8SEEurope network meeting April 2005 Reasons for delay Elections & change of government –Greece –Portugal –Slovenia –Spain Not priority –France –Ireland

9SEEurope network meeting 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 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 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 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 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 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 April 2005 Seen as part of new EU package Cyprus Czech Republic Slovakia Estonia – to lesser extent –Legislation also covered EWCs

16SEEurope network meeting 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 April 2005 No information Iceland Norway Latvia Liechtenstein Poland

18SEEurope network meeting 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 April 2005 But only preliminary – need your help To provide texts To add missing information To make corrections To comment

34SEEurope network meeting April 2005 Questions and comments