Committee Reports::Report No. 19 - Workers' Consultation and Information Rights::03 September, 1985::Report

1.The Joint Committee at its meeting on 7 November, 1984 decided that its Sub-Committee on Social, Environmental and Miscellaneous Matters and its Sub-Committee on Statutory Instruments and Legal Affairs would jointly examine the amended proposal for a Council Directive on procedures for informing and consulting employees. The present Committee’s predecessor had examined the original Commission proposal but had not had time to adopt a report thereon due to the dissolution of Dail Eireann on 4 November, 1982.

Acknowledgements

2.The Report was prepared by Senator Mary Robinson who chaired the joint meetings of the Sub-Committees. The Joint Committee is indebted to Senator Robinson and her colleagues on the Sub-Committee.

Written submissions were received from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), Federated Union of Employers (FUE), Confederation of Irish Industry (CII), the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies - Ireland and the Departments of Labour, and Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.

Consultations

In the course of a visit by a delegation of the Joint Committee to the Commission of the European Communities in Brussels on 15 February 1985 Members had further discussions on this matter with Mr. Aneurin Hughes, Adviser, Directorate-General for Information. The Sub-Committee also had discussions on the Vredeling Directive with officials of the Departments of Labour, and Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, and also with representatives of the CII and FUE.

B. HISTORY AND SCOPE OF COMMISSION PROPOSAL

3.The Commission proposal for a Council Directive on employee information and consultation is generally called the “Vredeling” proposal after the former Dutch Commissioner responsible for Social Affairs, Henk Vredeling, who was a main force behind the original (1980) version of the proposal. The original proposal for a Council Directive on procedures for informing and consulting employees of undertakings with complex structures, in particular transnational undertakings, was submitted to the Council on 24 October, 1980⁽¹⁾.

The EC Economic and Social Committee (ESC) approved the proposal by 79 votes to 61 with 11 abstentions, subject to the structure of the proposal being simplified⁽²⁾.

The European Parliament⁽³⁾ approved the Commission initiative by 161 votes to 61 with 84 abstentions, subject to a certain number of amendments⁽⁴⁾.

The amended proposal was adopted by the Commission on 8 July, 1983 and submitted to the Council on 13 July 1983⁽⁵⁾. It incorporates the Opinions delivered by the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the Commission’s initial proposal.

Account has also been taken of the consultations with the interested parties which had taken place since the beginning of 1983.

4.The Vredeling proposal has given rise to much controversy at European level. The European Industry Organisation (UNICE) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and business organisations from within and outside the Community have all taken part in this controversy. This debate has been reflected at national level in the submissions received by the Joint Committee. On the one hand it is argued that the Directive is necessary in order to safeguard the interests of employees while on the other hand the need for a Directive in preference to a voluntary code of practice in this area is questioned.

5.Discussions on the revised Commission proposal took place within the Working Party on Social Questions during 1983 and the first half of 1984. These discussions brought to light several problems of a political and technical nature. On the initiative of the Minister for Labour, Mr. Ruairi Quinn TD, as President of the Council of Ministers for Social Affairs, the decision to set up an ad hoc Working Group on the draft Directive was taken at a meeting of the Social Questions Group on 10 July, 1984.

The deliberations of this Group under the Chairmanship of Dr. Mary Redmond resulted in a “new approach” being put forward which entailed considering the proposed Directive as more of an instrument of social policy giving workers the right to information and consultation rather than a company law instrument imposing obligations on companies. Thus the Directive would relate more to labour law than company law.

Scope

6.The draft Directive relates to procedures for informing and consulting employees of an undertaking or subsidiary within the EEC which employs a total of 1,000 people or more, in one or more locations within the Community. The “decision making” centre of the undertaking or subsidiary may be located in the same EEC country, or in another EEC country, or even outside the EEC.

(i)annually, on a fixed date, information concerning the entire organisation and any subsequent updating of information which is required by law to be given to shareholders and creditors;

(ii)30 days’ notice of any decision “liable to have a substantial effect” on their interests; and

(iii)if this decision were likely, in the opinion of the workers’ representatives (e.g. trade unions, works councils, etc), to have a direct effect on the workers’ terms of employment or working conditions, the management of the subsidiary concerned would have to hold consultations with the representatives or, in the event of their not being consulted, the workers’ representatives would have the right to appeal to a tribunal or other competent national authority.

C. DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Definitions

8.Article 1 defines the concepts of “parent undertaking” and “subsidiary” by reference to the criteria adopted by the Council on the 7th Directive on company law (consolidated accounts)⁽¹⁾. Whether the applicable national law is that of the parent company’s Member State or that of the subsidiary company’s Member State, it is the Member State concerned which must ensure that all obligations under the Vredeling proposal are fulfilled. In other words, if both the parent and the subsidiary companies are established in the EC, the EC Member State where the parent is established will be responsible to ensure that the latter fulfils all its obligations. If the parent company is established outside the EC, the EC Member State where the subsidiary is established will be responsible to ensure that the employees of the latter are properly informed and consulted. A definition of establishment has been introduced in response to the numerous queries which arose in the course of the consultations held by the Commission’s departments. The definition of employees’ representatives is taken from the Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses.⁽²⁾

The European Parliament had been in favour of introducing in all Member States a compulsory system of direct election of worker representatives by secret ballot. The Commission has pointed out that the purpose of this directive is limited to procedures for informing and consulting employees: it is not designed to change existing industrial relations systems in the Community.

Scope

9.Article 2 limits the scope of the Directive to undertakings employing 1,000 or more workers as a whole within the EC. It gives no threshold for the size of subsidiary or establishment to which the provisions would apply. Each subsidiary concerned in the Community will be held responsible in the event of a parent undertaking established outside the Community failing to fulfil its information and consultation obligations. The Joint Committee is aware of the criticisms which have been levelled at the extra-territorality of this aspect of the draft Directive. It is also aware that Article 2 raises numerous complex problems in relation to the law which would be applicable where more than one country was involved.

Information Provisions

10.Article 3 lays down that at least once a year, at a fixed date, the management of a parent undertaking shall forward general but explicit information giving a clear picture of the activities of the parent undertaking and its subsidiaries as a whole to the management of each of its subsidiaries in the Community, with a view to the communication of this information to the employees’ representatives. For the same purpose, the management of the parent undertaking shall forward to the management of each subsidiary concerned specific information on a particular sector of production or geographical area in which the subsidiary is active.

Where information is brought up-to-date or published more frequently by virtue of other Directives or national legislation the management of the parent undertaking must also forward the updated information.

12.The information to be given to employees’ representatives under the draft Fifth Directive on the structure of public limited companies differs in some respects from the Vredeling proposal, and is to be provided on different timescales and in a different form. Under the Work’s Council option of the draft Fifth Directive on company law, for example, employees’ representatives would receive regular information similar to that to be provided under the provisions of the Vredeling proposal. But they would also receive a written report on the company’s affairs every three months, and all documentation and information on the agenda of the company’s board.

13.As a result of the adoption by the Council of the 4th and 7th Directives on company law, there is already a Community law in force binding enterprises to issue a consolidated report giving precise information on the group as a whole (Articles 34 and 36 of the 7th Directive) and to make available to the public information on the activities of individual companies. Neither of these two Directives has yet been implemented in this country. The Fourth Company Law Directive was due to be implemented originally on 1 January 1982 and the final date for implementation of the Seventh Company Law Directive is 1 January 1988. However, a Bill has been published and is at present before the Dail - the Companies (Amendment) Bill 1985 - which purports to enact into Irish law the provision of the Fourth Company Law Directive.

14.Employees’ representatives will be able to apply in writing to the management of the parent undertaking if the management of the subsidiary has not communicated the relevant information within thirty days. This is known as the “by-pass” provision. Member States would have to provide for penalties for failure to comply with the obligations of Article 3.

ICTU considers that this provision is one of the most important provisions in the Directive and of vital importance to the large number of Irish workers employed in transnational and multinational companies. The amended proposal requires a written procedure which implies a possibility of seeking a court ruling and could, in the opinion of Congress, prove prohibitive and would in effect leave workers’ representatives without any means of appeal or redress in a situation where the subsidiary fails to communicate information to the worker representatives.

To the CII the by-pass provision, even in its modified form, is completely unacceptable. The Confederation feels that if employees’ representatives were able to demand information directly from the parent company the autonomy and authority of subsidiary management would be seriously undermined. Furthermore, it is firmly of the opinion that the provisions of this article would not be helpful in efforts to attract international companies to locate in Ireland.

Consultation Provisions

15.Where the management of a parent undertaking proposes to take a decision concerning the whole or a major part of the parent undertaking or of a subsidiary in the Community which is liable to have serious consequences for the interests of the employees of its subsidiaries in the Community, it shall be required to forward precise information to the management of each subsidiary concerned in good time before the final decision is taken with a view to the communication of this information to the employees’ representatives in the manner provided in paragraph 3. This information shall relate in particular to:

(1)the grounds for the proposed decision

(2)the legal, economic and social consequences of such decision for the employees concerned

(3)the measures planned in respect of such employees.

16.Article 4(2) gives a list of such decisions although it is not exhaustive. It states that they should “in particular” relate to:

(b)substantial restrictions or modifications of the activities’ of the undertaking

(c)major modifications with regard to organisation, working practices or production methods, including modifications resulting from the introduction of new technologies

(d)the introduction of long-term cooperation with other undertakings or the cessation of such cooperation

17.Local management would then be required to communicate this information without delay to employees’ representatives and consult them “with a view to attempting to reach agreement” on the measures planned for the employees. The preamble to the Directive states that the management of each subsidiary “must have the necessary powers to conduct the consultations referred to above in good faith”. The proposed decision could not then be implemented until the employees’ representatives had given their opinion or until 30 days had elapsed from when the information had been communicated.

The CII considers that the requirement that consultations should be held with the employees’ representatives for a period of at least thirty days would introduce considerable delays in the decision-making process which would have a serious effect on a company’s competitive position and, ultimately, on the employment prospects of its employees.

18.Article 4 also provides that, where information is defined as secret under Article 7, local management must still consult employees’ representatives on the measures planned in respect of employees 30 days before the decision is implemented. Appropriate penalties are to be provided for failure to comply with these provisions.

19.The provisions of the draft Fifth Company Law Directive relating to consultation of employees’ representatives are also extensive. Under the Works’ Council option of the draft Fifth Directive employees’ representatives would, for example, have more radical rights than those given in the Vredeling proposal to be regularly consulted on plans. They would also have to be consulted on a number of specific decisions which are listed. The list is similar but not identical to that given in the Vredeling proposal. The draft Fifth Directive, however, specifies that a Works’ Council would have to be consulted before “the supervisory organ considers whether to grant authorisation”. Where a company comes under the scope of both Directives it is therefore possible that management might have to consult a Works’ Council before a decision is actually taken, and other employees’ representatives on the implementation of the decision. The overlapping aspects of the Fifth Company Law Directive and the Vredeling proposal are further discussed at paragraph 24.

Representation of Employees “at a higher level”

20.Article 5 states where, in a Member State, a body representing employees exists at a level higher than that of the subsidiary, the information referred to in Article 3 relating to the employees of all the subsidiaries thus represented shall be given to that body. Employers may inform and consult their employees direct. However, this is without prejudice to the other provisions in the Directive. Employees’ representatives would still need to be informed and consulted where they existed.

21.Article 6 ensures that the provisions of the Directive would apply equally to undertakings and their establishments as to parent undertakings and their subsidiaries.

Secrecy Provisions

22.Article 7 allows the management of an undertaking to withhold secret information where if disclosed “could substantially damage the undertaking’s interests or lead to the failure of its plans”. Employees, their representatives and the experts to whom they refer shall not reveal to third parties any information which has been given to them in confidence.

23.The disclosure of meaningful information is intended to be counterbalanced by the requirement not to divulge trade secrets. No definition of confidential information is given in the proposal and the ultimate authority for determining secret information would be a special tribunal rather than the management itself.

24.The draft Fifth Directive, however, has no provision for the withholding of secret information. Employees’ representatives are simply required to exercise “a proper discretion in respect of information of a confidential nature concerning the company”. Where a company comes under the scope of both Directives, a situation might therefore arise where information could be withheld from employees’ representatives given information rights under the Vredeling proposal but would have to be conveyed to representatives under the Fifth Directive. An even greater anomaly would exist where the same representatives of employees received information rights under both Directives.

The CII believes that the draft Directive does not provide adequate safeguards for maintaining commercial secrecy and confidentiality. The distinction which the Directive seeks to draw between “secret” and “confidential” information it feels has no place in existing Irish law and is unrealistic.

On the general question of secrecy and confidentiality Congress rejects the presumption that workers have a lesser interest in the welfare of the company where they are employed and are therefore likely to use information indiscriminately and to the detriment of the business interests of the company. Congress also considers that this article guards against management being the sole judge of the confidentiality of information by providing that tribunals or other national bodies should be empowered to settle any disputes relating to the confidentiality of certain information.

Harmonisation with other Directives

25.Article 8 states that the Directive shall be without prejudice to the collective redundancies Directive (implemented in Ireland by the Protection of Employment Act, 1977) and the acquired rights Directive (implemented in Ireland by the European Communities [Safeguarding of Employees’ Rights on transfer of Undertakings] Regulations 1980) ⁽¹⁾ and would allow Member States to implement provisions more favourable to employees.

Exemptions

26.Article 8(2) would enable Member States to lay down “special provisions for undertakings and establishments whose direct and main objectives are (a) political, religious, humanitarian, charitable, educational, scientific or artistic, or (b) related to public information or expression of opinion”. A similar provision appears in the draft Fifth Directive.

27.Article 8(3) provides that the draft Directive would be “without prejudice to the application of national laws concerning bankruptcy, winding up proceedings, arrangements, compositions, or other similar proceedings in so far as these proceedings result from judicial decisions”.

D. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

The ICTU has requested that the Government should press for the adoption of the original Vredeling proposal and oppose the revised draft. Congress supports the European Trades Union body (ETUC) which argues that national legislative provisions are inadequate if a common market is to function properly and that regulations laid down at European level on procedures for information disclosure and consultation with workers would contribute towards the democratisation of social and economic life in the Community. The ETUC regards the draft Directive as a logical follow-up to the Social Action Programme adopted by the Council of Social Affairs Ministers in 1974.

29.The ICTU in its submission to the Joint Committee broadly supports the original Vredeling proposal on information and consultation rights of workers but considers that the amended proposal has the effect of weakening the Directive. Congress has requested the Irish Government to oppose any weakening of this proposal at EEC level and to introduce national legislation which will introduce legal requirements on information and consultation rights in accordance with the provisions of the original draft of the Directive. It considers the Vredeling proposal to be one of the most important steps towards the development of industrial democracy in the EEC. The development of the original Vredeling proposal in its view would have had the effect of bringing Ireland into line with other EEC countries where advanced legislation already exists in this area.

30.Congress agrees with the view originally put forward by Commissioner Vredeling that his original draft was “an essentially modest proposal” and that it was put forward by the Commission in the context of the many advantages and benefits which transnational and multinational companies enjoy as a result of the creation of the Common Market. It feels that the Vredeling proposal aims at placing some responsibility on these companies by requiring them to inform and consult their workers when decisions are being taken which directly affect their interests as workers.

Confederation of Irish Industry

31.The Confederation believes that the proposals contained in the amended Vredeling proposal, if made the subject of a binding Directive, could jeopardise the attractiveness of Ireland as a base for foreign industrial investment which would be inclined to go elsewhere, to countries outside the EEC where such constraints would not apply. This is because much of the information that the draft proposes for disclosure is of a commercial and confidential nature. Ireland has a heavy dependence on foreign industrial investment and, compared to other EEC Member States, has one of the highest percentage rates of unemployment. Other objections raised by the Confederation are as follows:-

-the proposal if implemented could undermine the authority of local management, which would not be helpful to industrial relations at plant level. The Confederation is also concerned that the proposal could disrupt the existing framework of industrial relations in Ireland, which for the most part is local and national in character;

-the additional administrative burden envisaged by the proposal could affect the competitiveness of firms required to comply with its provisions;

-the risks of confidential and commercially sensitive information being leaked would be unacceptable. Delays would be introduced into the process of decision making at a time when there is an increased need for speed and flexibility.

32.The Confederation is of the opinion that a voluntary code of practice on information disclosure, consultation and employee participation in multinational and group companies represents the best approach to this issue. The Confederation envisages that such a code would contain provisions relating to disclosure of relevant information to employees on employment prospects and conditions of employment in a timescale adequate to be of benefit to those concerned.

Federated Union of Employers

33.The FUE considers there are several compelling reasons why the draft Directive should be firmly opposed:

-it threatens to infringe in an extremely damaging way on management’s right to make important decisions promptly

-it is not practicable to superimpose EEC legislation on the widely varying frameworks of company law and industrial relations law which exists in the ten Member States of the Community

-it could be regarded as superfluous as both the International Labour Organisation and the OECD have developed guidelines which are more than adequate

34.Furthermore, the Federation submitted that, in the EEC context and particularly in Ireland, the proposal would create delays and difficulties in the planning and implementation of structural and operational changes which are required to ensure competitiveness. This it feels would have detrimental effects on economic recovery, business confidence, new investment and ultimately on growth in the EEC.

Department of Labour

35.In its submission to the Joint Committee, the Department stated that the Minister considers that the sharing of information between management and workers and the development of participative structures within the workplace can only have a positive impact especially in regard to the development of a healthy industrial relations environment. The Minister believes that the communication of all relevant information, which does not directly threaten the commercial security or confidentiality of the enterprise, is a prerequisite for the development of trust between workers and their employers. The positive effects in terms of increased industrial peace, as international experience illustrates, far outweigh any misconceptions which may exist regarding the desirability of such measures.

Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism

36.The Department in its submission to the Joint Committee expresses the view that, as regards information about a company, employees would be treated more favourably than other interested parties. The information to be disclosed to employees is, in the Department’s view, more extensive and would have to be made available more frequently than companies generally are required to report to shareholders and others. In the case of public companies, there is the possibility of price-sensitive information (ie, that likely to affect the share price) being available to employees before it is available to shareholders generally. The Department is also concerned at the impact which the implementation of the Directive would have on future investment and employment creation in this country.

E. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

37.The Joint Committee in its examination of the revised draft Directive on employee information and consultation attempted to reconcile two diametrically opposed viewpoints which were highlighted in the submissions received.

Overseas Investment

38.The Joint Committee in common with the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism would be concerned at the impact which the implementation of the Directive would have on future investment and employment creation in this country. Ireland depends to a very large extent on foreign investment, much more so than any other country in the European Communities.

Our employment needs demand continued success in attracting manufacturing companies from overseas. Consequently we must continue to maintain a policy of attracting such investment. Because of the ever increasing competition between countries for new industry, even a small reduction in the available pool of internationally mobile projects would have a disastrous effect on our ability not only to increase but to maintain the existing level of investment.

39.There has been very strong opposition expressed against the proposed Directive - most notably by American and Japanese industrialists and their representative organisations. The Federated Union of Employers have informed the Joint Committee that American businesses and legislators have strongly opposed the introduction of the proposed Directive. Several Bills seeking to counter the operation of such legislation have been tabled in the US Congress.

40.Japanese industry, which is becoming a more significant source of overseas investment in Ireland, opposes the introduction of the proposed Directive as Community law. In addition, during the visit of the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to Japan in 1983, the Joint Committee was informed that he was particularly struck by the strength of this opposition. The Japanese Federation of Economic Organisations (Keidanren) has indicated that the introduction of the Directive could seriously impede Japanese investment in the Community at a time when such investment is on the increase. The Keidanren is of the opinion that the draft Directive lacks cognisance of the actualities of business management, that it could de-stabilise labour/management relations, that it runs counter to the decentralisation of business operations and that it would hamper the essential flexibility of business management and impose an excessive burden on businesses.

41.In 1973 foreign-owned firms employed about 22,000 people in manufacturing in Ireland - this was about 27 per cent of total employment in manufacturing in that year. By 1981 these figures had increased to over 81,840 and to 35.32 per cent, respectively. In 1983 there were over 850 overseas sponsored firms in Ireland employing almost 81,000 people. This represents a decline of over 1.5% with the losses arising principally from layoffs rather than closures.

42.Ireland has, and will continue to have, a very strong interest in maintaining an attractive investment climate for investors from overseas. This is particularly true in respect of American enterprise. In 1973 US firms employed 13,622 in Ireland; by 1981 this figure had risen to 36,000. This is no less than 43.4 per cent of all jobs provided by foreign-owned companies operating in Ireland. In 1983 US firms again increased their employment and now employ almost 37,000. Thus the US remains the largest employer of the overseas sector with the UK accounting for 17,600 and German firms employing 8,350. More than half of the total overseas employment is in large firms (200+).

43.Whilst Ireland has benefited enormously from foreign investment this is counterbalanced by the benefits accruing to multinationals including a low 10% corporate tax. Although Ireland in 1983 accounted for little more than 7% of US direct investment in the EEC up to and including that year, US affiliates operating in Europe declared over 30% of their income here. The practice of repatriating profits also contributes to a net outflow of funds from this country.

44.Closure of large foreign-owned firms in recent years have culminated in massive numbers of redundancies. Examples include the following:-⁽¹⁾

In many of these cases there was little, if any, forewarning to the employees involved. Many closures were the result of arbitrary decisions taken by a parent company and did not relate to the viability of the Irish subsidiary. Whilst compulsory consultation and information rights of employees might not have prevented such closures it appears to the Joint Committee that the absence of such rights may have facilitated particular decisions reached. It is for the very reason that we are so dependent on multinational firms that the Vredeling proposal has so much to offer to Irish workers. However, a balance must be maintained between the adoption of any measures that might reduce this country’s attractiveness for new investment, and protecting the rights of existing workers. It must, however, be remembered that, as a location for consideration by third countries, Ireland is often in competition with other Member States who would also have to implement the provisions of this Directive, if adopted. Also, of the new overseas projects approved by the IDA in 1984 (see Appendix 3), more were from the Member States than third countries. Many of these countries themselves have strict codes relating to employee consultation and information.

Indigenous Industry

The Joint Committee is also concerned that the draft Directive could have implications for competitiveness in trade and for confidence in the business and commercial sector. Its requirements would impose considerable administrative burdens on companies with consequent increases in the costs of their products or services and could cause delays in implementing commercially important decisions, including those urgently required when a company is in financial difficulty.

Voluntary Codes of Practice

45.A number of Member States have their own domestic legislative framework establishing employee rights to information and consultation on decisions affecting them. The ICTU claims that the guidelines of the UN, OECD and ILO on information disclosure are unknown or unused by employers in Ireland. Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency or harmonisation in the national standards applicable in other Member States. The draft Directive, as proposed, enshrines many of the provisions of the OECD guidelines and of the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Transnational Enterprises. The major difference, however, would be the Vredeling proposals’ obligatory nature under Community law. The OECD guidelines are reproduced in Appendix 2.

46.The Joint Committee has been informed that this country has not at present any general domestic legislative framework establishing employee rights to information and consultation on decisions affecting them. There are, however, two specific areas of legislation, ie

(i) EC (Safeguarding of Employees’ Rights on transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 1980 implementing an EEC Directive which lays down that, where an undertaking is being transferred or merged, the employees’ representatives must be given information as to the reason for the transfer or merger, the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer or merger for the employees and the measures envisaged in relation to the employees;

(ii) the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 which gives effect to the EEC Directive on collective redundancies and which provides for consultation and information in writing to the representatives of employees who are to be made redundant. Accordingly if the Vredeling proposals are adopted as a Directive by the EEC Council of Ministers, legislation will be necessary to implement them in this country.

47.The Joint Committee welcomes the stated support of the CII for a voluntary code of practice. However, the fact that the Confederation has been endeavouring to formulate broad guidelines on which voluntary codes of practice can be developed at enterprise level indicates the almost total absence of such procedures at present. Furthermore, codes of conduct cannot be effectively enforced. There are no mechanisms for enforcing the practices set out in the few voluntary codes that do exist at present. In any event a code of practice serves only as a criterion against which to judge the behaviour of a company once a problem has arisen.

48.There is undoubtedly an imbalance in the draft Directive between the interests of the employers and employees, in that the obligations under the draft Directive are placed on employers only without comparable duties on the part of employee representatives except in relation to “secret” information. The Joint Committee, therefore, welcomes the new approach advocated by the Ad Hoc Working Group and congratulates Dr. Mary Redmond on her work.

F. CONCLUSION

49.Since the revised Vredeling proposal was published in mid-1983, the Joint Committee believes that in the light of the world economic recession this proposal has become more rather than less important. In a democratic society, people naturally want to monitor, give an opinion on and if possible take part in the decisions which affect their lives. This is clearly the case for workers, who not only depend on an industry for their livelihoods but spend a large part of their lives in their workplace.

50.Europe, in common with the rest of the world, is undergoing profound economic changes: higher energy costs, the development of new technologies. The repercussions on industry and its methods have been enormous: the recession has brought widespread closures of factories and reductions in their level of activity. To survive or expand companies have been forced to restructure and to conclude agreements or take part in mergers across international frontiers. As a result, ‘multinationals’ account for an increasing proportion of manufacturing industry.

51.The existence of the European Community has itself produced structural changes, resulting from the creation of a single market stretching from Dublin to Athens, and Copenhagen to Palermo. In the development of the Community, the rights of workers cannot be ignored.

52.Progress toward adoption of the Vredeling proposal is slow and will involve a considerable amount of further consultation between the social partners. The Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 13 June 1985 held a policy debate on action to be taken on the draft Directive and established:

-that the implementation of the Directive would pose fundamental problems for certain Member States, as in those Member States the matters involved were exclusively governed by collective agreements; and

-that a solution should be found to this problem of principle before continuing to examine the proposal.

The Joint Committee urges that every step be taken to bridge the chasm that exists between the protagonists in this debate.

A. INTRODUCTION

Acknowledgements

Consultations

B. HISTORY AND SCOPE OF COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Scope

C. DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Definitions

Scope

Information Provisions

Consultation Provisions

Representation of Employees “at a higher level”

Secrecy Provisions

Harmonisation with other Directives

Exemptions

D. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

Confederation of Irish Industry

Federated Union of Employers

Department of Labour

Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism

E. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Overseas Investment

Indigenous Industry

Voluntary Codes of Practice

F. CONCLUSION