The European social partners in the road transport sector failed to reach an agreement on working time in their sector, ending its exclusion from the "EU working time Directive", before the deadline of 30 September 1998. The Commission will now bring forward its own proposals. These developments follow an international day of action organised by transport unions on 8 September to highlight working time problems facing lorry drivers.
The road transport industry is one of the sectors excluded from the 1993 Council Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time (93/104/EC), whose provisions include a maximum working week of 48 hours, adequate rest breaks and four weeks' paid annual leave. At the time the Directive was framed, Pádraig Flynn, the Commissioner responsible for employment and social affairs, made it clear that the European Commission would revisit the issue in respect to the sectors excluded from the Directive. In July 1997, the Commission accordingly issued a White Paper on sectors and activities excluded from the working time Directive (EU9707138N). Subsequently, in March 1998, the Commission initiated a second round of consultations with the EU-level social partners on the content of future legislation to amend the Directive, with the aim of including the excluded sectors and activities. The issue of working time has dominated social dialogue discussions in the Joint Committee on Road Transport in 1997 and 1998 (EU9808122F), with the aim of reaching an agreement which would end the exclusion of the sector from the Directive, in an acknowledgment of the dangers resulting from fatigue associated with long working hours in the industry.
The International Day of Action
On 8 September 1998, the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the European Union (FST) coordinated an "International Day of Action" by transport workers worldwide. The decision to launch the day of action was taken by delegates attending the ITF road transport workers section meeting in March 1998, where 70 delegates from 28 countries backed the plans for an international campaign. The timing of the day of action served to highlight the issues of the working time debate at the European level, but is also part of a long-standing campaign at the international level to focus attention on the dangers associated with long working hours in the sector.
The aim of securing effective and fair regulations on drivers' working hours has been on the ITF agenda for over 20 years. Indeed, the campaign for regulation in this area preceded the EU working time Directive of 1993, and the ITF was applying pressure for international standards in the 1970s. In 1979, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted Convention No. 153 on hours of work and rest periods (road transport). This lays down health and safety protection for professional drivers, including a stipulation of a maximum working week of 48 hours. The ITF has made it clear that it would like the Convention to constitute the worldwide minimum standard for the road transport industry. However, only seven countries have so far ratified the Convention (Conventions are binding only for countries which ratify them), with Spain being the only EU country. As part of its renewed campaign in this area, the ITF more recently decided to support the revision of Convention No. 153 to include public urban passenger transport.
The new campaign, under the banner Fatigue kills, aims to highlight the hazards associated with long working hours faced by workers in the road transport sector, in respect of their own health and safety, as well as road safety in general. The transport unions underline the extent of the problem by attributing a "significant percentage" of road accident deaths in the industry to fatigue. Working hours of up to 100 hours a week are argued to be commonplace, leading to a range of health problems including depression, back complaints and heart disease.
At European level the campaign has focused on demands to extent the provisions of the working time Directive to workers in the industry, and was tied in with the agenda of negotiations on working time taking place in the framework of the Joint Committee on Road Transport.
Activities on the day of action varied considerably from country to country, with drivers in France, Luxembourg and Belgium blocking key border points, thus causing major disruptions to cross-border traffic. Action in other countries was largely limited to go-slow convoys - for example by drivers in Austria and Germany- leaflet distribution campaigns, and lobbying of national transport authorities.
The day was heralded as a resounding success by the ITF general secretary David Cockcroft, who said that: "the health and welfare of passenger and freight drivers and that of other road users must be protected. Key to improved safety on the world's roads is the 48-hour working week."
For further details on the day of action, especially in France, see FR9809128F.
The social partners' working time negotiations
The European Commission has been pressing for discussions on working time between the social partners in the road transport sector since the initial adoption of the working time Directive in 1993. On 16 June 1995, both Commissioner Flynn, and the Commissioner for transport, Neil Kinnock, encouraged the social partners within the framework of the Joint Committee on Road Transport to present their proposals on how best the principles of the Directive could be applied in the sector. Following a report by the road transport social partners in December 1995, concerning aspects of the organisation and enforcement of working and driving time regulations in the sector, debate was further stimulated in 1997 by the launch of the Commission White Paper on excluded sectors and activities.
The White Paper addressed the issue of working time in the sectors not covered by the 1993 Directive and set out four possible approaches to incorporating the sectors and workers excluded. Out of the four approaches, the Commission expressed a preference for the "differentiated approach", which was perceived to offer the greatest degree of operational flexibility. This approach implies extending the full provisions of the Directive to all non-mobile workers and making basic provisions in respect of working time to all mobile workers, including four weeks' annual paid leave, health assessments for night workers, and providing a guaranteed rest period and a maximum number of hours to be worked annually. In addition, the White Paper argued that regulation was necessary to harmonise rules on working time, as current divergences were seen to lead to distortions of competition. It was argued that the high number of industrial disputes in the sector was related to these distortions.
After initial responses were given in the first consultation phase on the White Paper, the Commission launched a second round of consultations with the social partners on 31 March 1998.
As mentioned above, discussions on ending the exclusion of the sector from the Directive dominated the activities of the road transport Joint Committee during the latter part of 1997 and in 1998. In early July 1998, the partners had drafted a joint text on working time in the industry. Subsequent discussions indicated a convergence of views favouring a similar approach to that taken by the German implementation legislation. Under these regulations, while non-driving time is taken into account for the purposes of pay, it is not counted for the purposes of calculating working time under the Directive. The draft accord was to be finalised and agreed at a meeting on 18 September 1998. However, the optimism expressed by both sides prior to the meeting that a final accord could be reached was confounded when last-minute disagreements emerged over a number of general principles contained in the draft. Another meeting was arranged with the aim of breaking the deadlock prior to the deadline of 30 September set by the Commission.
In a press release of 18 September 1998, FST's acting general secretary, Romolo Vivarelli, stated that "due to our responsibility to road users we will do our very best in order to reach agreement and avoid being forced to call for industrial action" on the issue. However, the FST expressed pessimism with regard to the likelihood of reaching an accord at the meeting scheduled for 30 September.
The contention between the parties is based upon the employers' objection to the wording of the text regarding the "more favourable provisions and safeguarding clause" which is designed to protect national standards where they are higher than the general agreement. In addition, there is disagreement concerning the employers' proposal to make it possible to derogate at national level from the provisions of the agreement. This would, in the FST's opinion, render the agreement useless. It is also argued by the FST that, by adopting a position whereby progressive national standards are not protected, then steps towards reaching an agreement are going backwards as opposed to forwards. Mr Vivarelli argued that "the failure to reach agreement today is a very serious issue. It is evident that the Action Day on 8 September was necessary and I hope that we will not be obliged to ask the affiliates to organise further action."
Commissioners Kinnock and Flynn expressed disappointment at the inability of the social partners to reach an agreement. In a joint statement, they commented: "A great opportunity has been missed. If there is no agreement on 30 September, the Commission will table its own proposals on working time in the excluded sectors. The specific legislation for the road sector will of course take account of the elements of convergence reached during the recent discussions".
Legislative action to follow
Not unexpectedly, the meeting of 30 September failed to break the deadlock, in the light of insurmountable differences relating to the inclusion of derogations, the "more favourable provisions and safeguarding clause" and the definition of working time (employers argued that this should include periods such as loading time).
The two Commissioners reiterated their disappointment at the failure of a negotiated solution: "We are greatly disappointed that the health and safety benefits secured in the rail and maritime sectors today [working time agreements were concluded in these sectors on 30 September] could not be extended to road transport. The social partners have passed up an important opportunity to resolve the key issues that have provoked uncertainty and unrest in the sector. The Commission will now rapidly prepare for legislation."
The package of measures now proposed by the Commission for the excluded sectors will centre on a proposal to extend the general working time Directive to all non-mobile workers within the sectors concerned, plus the extension of some general provisions of the Directive to cover mobile workers, including mobile workers in the railways sector. This is to be accompanied by:
- a proposal for a single Directive covering the working time of all mobile workers in road transport;
- a proposal under the social policy Agreement and Protocol annexed to the Maastricht Treaty on European Union to adopt into EU law the agreement of the social partners in maritime transport on seafarers' working time (EU9802182F), which was officially signed on 30 September 1998; and
- a draft Council Recommendation for Member States to ratify ILO Convention No. 180 on seafarers' hours of work and the manning of ships, so that similar rules enter into force for all international maritime traffic.
The Commission will also bring forward proposals to cover mobile workers in civil aviation, sea fishing and other work at sea.
Commentary
The failure by the social partners to reach an agreement on working time in the road transport sector came as a surprise in the light of the proximity of the Commission deadline. Details of what a Commission proposal in this area might contain are not yet known, but the employers' refusal to agree to the draft text which has been under discussion for several months appears to indicate a belief that any provisions tabled by the Commission would contain the possibility for derogations that the employers have been pressing for. In one of the sectors where long working hours are clearly a key factor behind serious health hazards to drivers and the public in general, it remains difficult to reach accord on how these hours should be calculated and limited to ensure safe driving conditions. (Tina Weber, ECOTEC Research and Consulting)