CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

Implementation and monitoring of cross-border agreements – Bercusson
41 case studies of the practical operation of EWCs in companies based
in five countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom)
(Hall, 2005, p. 18). Experience was extremely diverse. For example,
information provided to employees through EWCs could be the
“bare minimum”, though in most cases employee representatives judged
positively this information. But as regards consultation, most employee
representatives stated that their involvement was at the point at which
decisions were taken by management, or even after that. In the minority
of cases where employees did exercise some influence, it was only over
implementation issues, not the content of the decision. Employee representatives’
general view was that EWCs were weak and their expectations
were low for potential influence. 9
The problems of EWCs might be addressed through revision of the
EWC Directive, aimed at: making the establishment of EWCs mandatory;
elaborating the duties of information and consultation in order to
reinforce a duty to engage in collective bargaining; 10 and strengthening
sanctions in order to secure effective implementation of these obligations.
However, there is little indication that the European Commission in its
present form (December 2007) is inclined to take any such initiatives.
The Commission’s Green Paper on modernizing labour law
The Commission’s Green Paper of November 2006 (European
Commission, 2006a) 11 and its legislative programme for 2007 (European
Commission, 2006b) 12 do not even mention cross-border social
9
Although the overall view expressed by case studies’ interviewees was that “the advantages and benefits
of EWCs far outweigh the disadvantages”, the report concluded that “the main objective of providing
workers with a view in transnational corporate decision-making processes has been achieved only ‘in a minority
of cases researched’.” (Hall, 2005, p. 20).
10
See Irmtraub Junk c. WolfangKuhnel als Insolvenzverwalter uber das Vermogen der Firma AWO,
Case C-188/03, Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 30 September 2004, ECJ decision, 27 January 2005.
11
This begins “The purpose of this Green Paper is to launch a public debate in the EU on how labour
law can evolve the Lisbon Strategy’s objective of achieving sustainable growth with more and better jobs. …
As the Commission’s 2006 Annual Progress report on Growth and Jobs emphasizes: ‘Increasing the responsiveness
of European labour markets is crucial to promoting economic activity and high productivity’.”
12
Under the heading, “The Priorities for 2007”, the subheading: “Addressing the challenges of European
society” states: “At the heart of aspirations of European citizens, in particular young Europeans, is the
breaking down of barriers to the opportunities offered by the European labour markets. ‘Flexicurity’ has been
acknowledged as a promising approach to marrying labour market flexibility and the development of skills
with robust social protection. The Commission will put forward proposals to encourage common principles
to stimulate flexicurity. The Commission is undertaking a comprehensive stocktaking of European society, to serve
as a basis for a new agenda for access and solidarity and for European policy-making into the next decade. As
part of this exercise, the Commission will present a mid-term review of the implementation of its Social
Agenda with a view to taking stock of EU achievements in delivering more and better jobs and offering equal
opportunities for all” (European Commission, 2006b, p. 6).
137