UK reaction to European Commission working time proposals

The European Commission’s September 2004 proposal for amending the working time Directive met with a critical response from both employers and trade unions in the UK.

On 22 September 2004, the European Commission adopted a formal proposal for a Directive amending certain key provisions of the existing working time Directive. Of particular importance in the UK context is the Commission’s aim to tighten the conditions under which individual employees may opt out of the 48-hour limit on average weekly working time. UK law currently allows the use of such opt-outs on a general basis. However, if the Commission’s proposed amendments are adopted:

• individual employees would only be able to agree with their employer to opt out of the 48-hour limit where this is expressly allowed by a collective agreement or an agreement between the two sides of industry (this would not apply where there is no collective agreement in force and there is no workers’ representation empowered to reach such an agreement);

• an individual opt-out agreement would be valid for no more than one year, though it may be renewed;

• opt-outs would not be allowed at the time workers sign their contracts of employment or during any probation period;

• workers would not be able to work more than 65 hours in any one week; and

• employers would have to keep records of the number of hours actually worked.

Echoing its reaction (UK0406101N) to an earlier Commission consultation document on revising the Directive (EU0406203F), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) pledged that Britain’s business community would fight 'tooth and nail' against the Commission’s proposal. John Cridland, CBI deputy director-general, said: 'This is an attempt to broker a compromise that has completely backfired ... It is good that the Commission is allowing the opt-out to remain, but it is quite wrong to give trade unions a veto over what should be an individual decision. The proposal would undermine the individual’s right to choose the hours they work.'

Similarly, the manufacturers’ organisation EEF feared that the proposal 'could allow a dangerous precedent to be set whereby trade unions could prevent employees signing individual opt-out agreements'.

For the Trades Union Congress (TUC), general secretary Brendan Barber said that the Commission’s proposal was 'a disappointing decision that will satisfy no-one'. He added: 'People at work will get some slight extra protections against bosses who try to force them to opt out of a 48-hour working week. And union members will be able to negotiate a limit to their maximum hours. But these limited reforms show that the Commission has failed to grasp the scale of the UK’s long hours culture ... British bosses will still be able to rely on pressuring staff to work long hours instead of adopting safe, efficient and productive working practices.' The TUC is seeking an end to the opt-out provision altogether.

The UK government’s response to the Commission’s proposed amendments on this issue is as yet unknown, but is likely to be influenced by responses to its own recent consultation exercise on ways to improve the operation of the opt-out, which closed on 22 September 2004 (UK0407103N).