MADRID, 1 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Economic and Social Council (CES) has denounced the lack of time and the lack of social dialogue that has taken place around the bill that modifies the revised text of the Workers’ Statute and other labor provisions for the transposition of the directive on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union.
In the opinion issued by the CES on these regulations at the request of the Ministry of Labor, the body, in which unions, employers and third sector organizations are represented, recalls that the aforementioned European directive aims to improve working conditions through the promotion of employment that offers greater transparency and predictability, while ensuring the adaptability of the labor market.
The CES, which claims to share these objectives, points out that the preliminary draft submitted for opinion, provides in several sections of a single article for the modification of various matters of the Workers’ Statute, as well as Royal Decree 1659/1998, of July 24, which develops the information that the worker must receive about the essential elements of his employment contract.
For the CES, this preliminary draft “cannot be considered one more transposition of community directives” given the importance of the affected matter, for which it understands that it would have been “advisable” to address the normative preparation for the transposition of this directive in the framework of the dialogue between the government and the social partners.
This, alleges in his opinion, “would have allowed the consideration and debate with the necessary time of its objectives, its implications and its connections with the labor legal system as a whole, as well as consistency with the lines followed in previous agreements”.
“Probably, this previous debate would have avoided the divergence of opinions in the CES in relation to the scope of the transposition, on whether the draft lacks any reference that could be obligatory or if it incorporates others that could not be. Especially when the term granted to the CES to issue its opinion has been fifteen days, insufficient to seek a consensus when addressing this matter, “he exposes.
Likewise, it points out that the consultation with the most representative union and business organizations carried out within the urgent period of seven days, “cannot be considered a sufficient channel to address a matter of these characteristics and relevance.”
The CES reminds the Government on this point of all the agreements that have been reached within the framework of social dialogue in recent years, such as the reform of the labor market or the so-called ‘Rider Law’.
With regard to the body of the preliminary draft, the CES believes that the wording of certain legal provisions and their relationship with contractual figures such as the fixed-discontinuous indefinite-term contract could raise “interpretative doubts”.
In this sense, in relation to the obligations of information to these workers, the CES considers that the draft should make it clear that it is not about labor relations with totally or mostly unpredictable work patterns, regardless of whether the work periods may be indeterminate.
On the other hand, the agency understands that some difficulties in understanding the draft are due to the lack of a definition of what is a provision of services subject to a totally or mostly unpredictable work pattern.
“If the pre-legislator considers that the non-inclusion of this definition is based on the fact that in our labor system there are no totally or mostly unpredictable work patterns, it would be advisable for the draft bill submitted for opinion to clarify it in order to avoid interpretation doubts that could give rise to a margin for legal insecurity in the application of the rule”, he points out.
Likewise, the ESC sees it necessary to also recognize the right of workers with a civil servant and statutory relationship, to whom the European directive also recognizes such right, to be informed about the essential elements of their professional relationship in terms comparable to those established by the bill in relation to wage earners.
