Limitation of working time: a longstanding trade union demand

Setting a limit on the number of hours workers must work is one of the oldest and most fundamental trade union demands, dating back to the struggles of the 1880s and earlier. In 1919, the very first international convention on working conditions established the eight-hour working day and the 48-hour week.

The European Union has acknowledged these principles since its foundation. The European Social Charter of 1961 obliged Member States to ensure “reasonable daily and weekly working hours”, and to a progressive reduction in the length of the working week, while the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) declares that “every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours”. at the heart of its action and expression.

The Directive

The 1993 Working Time Directive (93/104/EC) was a major step forward, setting a 48-hour maximum working week and laying down requirements for rest and leave periods.

The Directive’s main objective is to promote health and safety at work, given the clear evidence that people who work long hours run higher risks of illness and accidents.

It binds all 25 Member States of the EU. The ETUC regards this legislation not only as a basic cornerstone of workers’ well being, but also as an indispensable feature of the social dimension of the internal market, especially in light of enlargement.

Its main provisions cover:

 Maximum weekly working time of 48 hours on average, including overtime

 At least four weeks’ paid annual leave

 A minimum rest period of 11 hours in each 24, and one day in each week

 A rest break if the working day is longer than six hours

 A maximum of eight hours’ night work, on average, in each 24.

Scope: the Directive excluded workers in air, road and rail transport, fishing and activities at sea, and doctors in training. It allowed for the average working week to be calculated over a longer ‘reference period’ of up to four months, or up to 12 months by collective agreement, and gave member states some leeway to define terms such as ‘rest period’ and ‘night work’ through national legislation, which had to be in place by November 1996.

The 2000 Amendment: Directive 2000/34/EC

The amendment extended the law to cover non-mobile workers in areas that were previously excluded. In addition, agreements in sectors such as maritime (1998) and civil aviation (2000) subsequently became law, while a new Directive in 2002 gave protection to mobile workers in the road transport industry.
Member states had until August 2003 to apply the amendment, or August 2004 in the case of trainee doctors.

The risks from long working hours

Research  [1] has established a clear link between long hours, inducing work-related fatigue, and the increased risk of industrial accidents due to loss of concentration.
Furthermore, workers who regularly put in more than 48 hours’ work a week suffer a higher risk of heart disease, stress-related and mental illness, diabetes and bowel disturbances, and are more likely to smoke or drink.

The benefits of working shorter hours

Evidence from the International labour Organisation [2] indicates that limited working hours are linked to greater flexibility and higher productivity.

In addition, a limit on working time is vital to enable working parents to combine their jobs and family responsibilities, and allow women to exploit their full potential in the workplace - one of the key elements of the EU’s Lisbon Strategy for growth.

Why is the Directive being revised?

The original Directive incorporated two far-reaching derogations, allowing for almost unlimited extension of working hours:

 The ‘opt-out’ clause, permitting Member States not to apply the maximum 48-hour limit at all, on the basis of voluntary agreements with individual workers (Article18).

 The four-month reference period for calculating average working time can be extended to one year, although only in specific cases, on the basis of collective bargaining. (Article 17).

Furthermore, in the last five years, three important rulings by the European Court of Justice (the SIMAP, Jaeger and Pfeiffer cases), have confirmed that ‘on-call working time’ - when the employee must be available in the workplace - should be defined as working time under the terms of the Directive. Compensatory rest time must be available immediately after the working period. Some Member States have resisted these judgements and used them as a pretext for applying the opt-out, especially in the health sector, to doctors working on call in hospitals for example.

The Commission was under a legal obligation to re-examine the two derogations within seven years of the Directive’s implementation. In December 2003, it published a Communication launching a consultation on revision of the Directive, focusing particularly on these three aspects.

The opt-out clause was included in the 1993 Directive largely to satisfy the UK government. It enables employers to get round the maximum 48-hour working week under certain conditions:

 Workers must sign individual opt-out agreements, and must not suffer any penalty if they refuse to do so;

 Employers must keep records of staff who work more than 48 hours a week, and make them available to the appropriate authorities.

Working time in the UK

Over the last ten years, the opt-out has been widely abused in the UK. Research indicates that two-thirds of British workers are unaware of the 48-hour limit. In addition, two-thirds of long-hours workers say they have not signed an opt-out, and one-third of those who have, say they were given no choice.
People in the UK work the longest hours in the EU-15 Member States. Full-time workers put in some 44 hours a week on average, compared with around 40 in other countries of the EU-15. Some 4 million people work more than 48 hours a week.

Far from boosting British competitiveness, long-hours working leads to reduced productivity and poor management. The UK is only tenth in the EU-15 in terms of productivity per hour, and studies show that long hours create tired workers, producing lower, poorer quality output, and more mistakes.
They are also a barrier to workers’ education and training, perpetuating an underskilled and underproductive workforce [3]. .

The Commission’s proposal

In May 2004, the Commission put forward its initial revision proposals, comprising:

•Keeping in place the individual ‘opt-out’, whereby employers can agree with individual workers not to apply maximum working hours;
•Defining so-called inactive parts of on-call duty as not being working time, even when the worker has to be available in the workplace;
•Extending the reference period for counting the average maximum working week of 48 hours from four to 12 months, without any safeguard provisions.

The ETUC’s position

The ETUC finds the Commission’s proposals unacceptable and questions their legal validity.

Opt-out: The ETUC, in line with the majority of the European Parliament, insists that the Directive must be revised to phase out the individual opt-out as soon as possible.
On-call duty: The ECJ rulings are clear and binding, and cannot simply be put aside. The ETUC has found no convincing evidence that Member States cannot implement them, and has repeatedly demanded proposals that respect the ECJ judgements, promote balanced solutions on the basis of collective bargaining, and guarantee workers the right to adequate rest periods.
Reference periods: The ETUC demands that the existing four-month reference period remains in place. Longer reference periods, up to 12 months, should be allowed only on the basis of:

1. collective bargaining, or

2. additional legal safeguards and conditions that guarantee information and consultation of workers and/or their representatives and adequate protection of their health and safety.

The vote of the European Parliament

In May 2005, the European Parliament adopted far-reaching amendments to the Commission’s original proposals. MEP Alejandro Cercas’ report - backed by the ETUC - gained the support of a clear and convincing majority from across the spectrum of political groups. Parliament voted in favour of phasing out the opt-out within three years, and recognising on-call time as working time, in line with the ECJ rulings.

The current stalemate

The ETUC called strongly on the European Council and the Commission to accept the compromise agreed by the democratically elected European Parliament. However, at the Employment Council in June 2005, the Commission failed to come up with a satisfactory proposal, and a minority of governments, led again by the UK, blocked progress.

In June 2006, the Employment Council under the Austrian Presidency unsuccessfully sought an acceptable political agreement to break the stalemate, and further efforts under the Portuguese Presidency have also failed, with the UK Government refusing to move on its position.

There has been intense pressure on those governments that have upheld workers’ rights, to soften their position in order to reach a compromise. This would undermine the Directive’s role as a minimum safeguard against long and irregular working hours in EU Member States.

The ETUC is calling on European leaders to listen to the wishes of the EU’s democratically elected Parliament, and of working people, expressed through the European trade union movement, and to agree on a revised Directive that protects the health, safety, and family life of workers in Europe.

Useful links:
ETUC Resolutions on Working Time Directive