We are no strangers in the UK to part-time work, temp agencies, fixed term and zero hours contracts, sub-contracting, and self-employment, bogus or otherwise, but for many other EU members these are recent phenomena. Now the EU Commission wants to update laws which assume that full-time permanent employment by one employer is the norm.

The traditional model of employment assumes permanent, full-time relationships regulated by labour law, with the contract of employment as the pivot and the presence of a single entity accountable for the obligations placed upon employers. However, in countries like Spain and the UK and, increasingly, throughout the EU, what actually happens in the workplace belies tradition. According to a recent Commission Green Paper: the percentage of the EU work force engaged in what is known as ‘atypical work’ increased from 36% in 2001 to 40% in 2005, part-time employment has gone up from 13% to 18% in the last 15 years and ‘60% of new jobs created since 2000 have been part-time’ while 31 million workers are now counted as self-employed. Although these atypical posts can provide stepping stones into the economy for marginalised groups, the Commission says ‘part of the workforce gets trapped in a succession of short-term, low quality jobs with inadequate social protection leaving them in a vulnerable position’.
The Green Paper asks a number of questions designed to spark a public debate but also advances ideas of its own on how to update the law. If nothing is done the future will resemble that outlined in the ‘Kok report’ of 2003: ‘a two-tier labour market … divided between permanently employed "insiders" and "outsiders”’. The outsiders would include disproportionate numbers of women and ethnic minorities. It therefore puts forward the ‘flexicurity’ approach where workers are protected, rather than specific jobs, and life-long learning and flexible social security provisions enable all to keep up with new skills so that they can switch employment. Member States must also co-ordinate social inclusion policies to ensure worker mobility.

The public has until 31st. March to respond at:

http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=labourlaw&lang=en

Seniority not always its own justification

British trade union Prospect has claimed victory in a case before the ECJ concerning pay seniority. Bernadette Cadman was an inspector employed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for thirteen years when, in 2001, she found out that her annual pay was £5,000 to £9,000 less than her male colleagues on the same grade. The HSE accepted that she was doing the same work as the men but pointed out that they had been employed for longer and therefore benefited from a seniority award. She argued that as women were more likely to have a shorter length of service than men, this was indirect discrimination. The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that previous ECJ judgments allowed employers to use length of service as a pay determinant without having to justify it. However the European court has ruled that, if an employee can show that the job is not performed any better because a worker has been employed for longer the employer must provide an objective justification for extra pay. Prospect is expected to bring about 50 cases before UK courts based on this judgment.

Vaxholm/Laval case to be heard

The famous action brought by the Latvian building company Laval against the Swedish trade union Byggnads is to be heard by the ECJ early this year. Despite the election of a centre-right government, Sweden is expected to back the union as a defence of the principle that Swedish collective agreements apply in Sweden even if they conflict with other EU principles like free movement of labour. If the union loses the repercussions would be severe for the whole system of labour relations in Sweden and the Nordic countries.