Weber, Tina

In the days prior to the European Council summit meeting in Vienna on 11-12 December 1998, the European-level social partners in the cleaning industry - the European Regional Organisation of the International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (Euro-FIET) and the European Federation of Cleaning Industries (EFCI) - signed a joint declaration calling for an end to undeclared work in the sector.

At a December 1998 sectoral social dialogue meeting, the European Committee of Food, Catering and Allied Workers' Unions within the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (ECF-IUF) and the European Committee of Sugar Manufacturers (Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre, CEFS) signed a joint declaration on vocational training in the sugar industry.

The 1999 Employment Guidelines put forward by the European Commission in draft form on 14 October 1998 emphasised the need for continuity and called on Member States to build on the progress made under the 4 main pillars of action:

Meeting on 16 October 1998, the council of presidents of the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) again rejected the European Commission's invitation to enter into negotiations on information and consultation of workers at national level. Emilio Gabaglio, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) called the decision "regrettable but not unexpected".

Meeting on 8-9 October 1998, the executive committee of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) adopted a statement on Europe and the global crisis [1], which outlines the response ETUC would like the European Union and the Member States to adopt to limit the negative impact of the economic crisis in Asia on European businesses and employment. [1] http://www.etuc.org/Exec/Resolutions/English/decang1.cfm

Since the initial adoption of the Council Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time (93/104/EC) [1] in 1993, the European Commission has emphasised its desire to review the situation in relation to the sectors and activities excluded from the Directive (such as transport or junior doctors etc). In July 1997, the Commission launched a White Paper on sectors and activities excluded from the working time Directive [2] (EU9707138N [3]).. [1] http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31993L0104&model=guichett [2] http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/labour/white/whiteen.htm [3] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/commission-publishes-white-paper-on-sectors-and-activities-excluded-from-the-working-time-directive

Three legislative proposals adopted by the Commission on 22 July 1998 aim to update and clarify the rights of EU citizens in relation to freedom of movement within the Union in order to take up work. The first two proposals modify and update the two core pieces of legislation which have guaranteed freedom of movement for the past 30 years; Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 on freedom of movement of workers within in the Community; and Directive 68/360/EEC on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families.

On 22 July 1998, the European Commission adopted a "framework" which seeks to improve transparency in the area of state aid granted to companies for training their workers, by clarifying which publicly funded training falls under the competition rules regarding state aid. It also defines the criteria the Commission will use to ascertain whether this aid is compatible with the common market.

On 17 June 1998, the European Court of Justice handed down its judgment in case T-135/96, /UEAPME vs Council of the European Union/. The case arguably attracted relatively little wider attention, but was of great significance for the legal standing of Directives conceived under the Maastricht social policy Agreement and Protocol [1], whereby agreements reached by the EU-level social partners are implemented by a Council of Ministers Directive. The European Association of Craft and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) had brought the case, seeking principally the annulment of the June 1996 EU Directive on parental leave (96/34/EC), or secondarily the annulment of the Directive's applicability to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME s). [1] http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/obj/treaties/en/entr8i.htm

The new president of the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), Georges Jacobs of Belgium, has indicated a willingness on the part of European employers to reconsider their decision not to negotiate on workers' rights to information and consultation at the national level. In November 1997, the European Commission had opened a second round of consultations with the EU-level social partners on the content of possible EU legislation on this issue, on the basis of the social policy Agreement and Protocol annexed to the Maastricht Treaty (EU9711160N [1]). The social partners had an opportunity to seek an agreement on the subject at this stage, thus forestalling a Directive, but UNICE decided in March 1998 not to open talks (EU9803192N [2]). [1] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/commission-launches-second-phase-of-consultations-on-national-information-and-consultation [2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/unice-rejects-negotiations-on-information-and-consultation