National Action Plan for employment not yet in force

Download article in original language : LU9812182FFR.DOC

In late 1998, a commission of Luxembourg's Chamber of Deputies drew up an amended version of draft legislation implementing the country's National Action Plan for employment, which is likely to win a majority of votes in the Chamber. However, following a critical opinion on the draft law from the Council of State, raising points which will have to be satisfactorily resolved, the Plan was unlikely to come into force on 1 January 1999, as planned.

In April 1998, the Tripartite Coordination Committee (Comité de Coordination Tripartite) agreed a National Action Plan (NAP) on employment (LU9805157F), in response to the EU Employment Guidelines for 1998 (EU9805107N). Draft legislation to implement the NAP was submitted by the government in August 1998, and subsequently analysed by a special Chamber of Deputies commission. It was intended that the wording of the NAP would be finalised and ready for implementation on 1 January 1999 (LU9811174F). However, the Plan was at the centre of controversy over October-November 1998.

The draft law on the NAP provides for a LUF 850 million reduction in the taxes payable by craft and commercial establishments to local authorities. On 3 November, the Association of Luxembourg Towns and Municipalities (Syndicat des Villes et des Communes Luxembourgeoises, SYVICOL), representing all local authorities, issued a press release formally protesting against this "act of piracy" and demanding financial compensation. If not, the authorities are threatening a mass resignation. A large number of members of the national Chamber of Deputies are also local authority representatives, and the Prime Minister therefore held a meeting with SYVICOL on 17 November and proposed two forms of financial part-compensation, to be discussed by local authority leaders.

As developments triggered by SYVICOL took their course, the two representative trade unions - the Luxembourg Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (Onofhängege Gewerkschafts-Bond Lëtzebuerg, OGB-L) and the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Lëtzebuerger Chrëschtleche Gewerkschafts-Bond, LCGB) - announced that they were demanding a rapid transposition of the NAP, adding that transposition should follow the document agreed by the Tripartite Coordination Committee as closely as possible.

Amendments and points of opposition

On 16 November, in the presence of the Minister of Labour, the special Chamber of Deputies commission recommended 21 amendments to the government's draft legislation implementing the NAP. One of the amendments concerns working hours, defining the notion of "overtime hours" more precisely. Furthermore, the four-week reference period for averaging-out working hours may no longer be introduced by employers without restriction - it is now open only to seasonal enterprises and in the event of exceptional economic circumstances, in which case employees' representatives must be consulted first. It is also made clear that the NAP is to be largely funded by a LUF 1 per litre increase in the price of petrol.

The Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) has a duty to examine all draft laws before they are voted on by the Chamber of Deputies. On 25 November, the Council published a highly critical 100-page opinion on the NAP legislation.

The legislative procedure provides that, where the Council of State agrees in principle with a draft law, the Chamber of Deputies hold only one vote on a draft law. Where the Council of State is opposed, the Constitution provides for a second vote which cannot take place for another three months. Accordingly, although the Chamber of Deputies has sovereign powers, it often happens that it has to incorporate criticisms from the Council of State, which has always been deemed to have considerable competence in legislative matters.

In the case of the NAP, the Council of State has unusually put down 11 "formal points of opposition". Although the Council of State approves the law's overall objectives, it has made serious criticism of the introduction of "paid leave for family reasons", instead proposing up to five days' unpaid leave. The Council has also criticised clauses providing "positive discrimination" for women, the proposal to raise the price of petrol to fund the NAP, and particularly the introduction of parental leave (LU9805160N).

Prime Minister regrets delays

At its meeting on 26 November, the Council of Ministers examined the draft legislation dealing with the NAP with the aim of drawing up a new text on the basis of the amendments by the Chamber of Deputies commission, and incorporating the Council of State's criticisms as far as possible.

The Prime Minister, who also holds the labour and employment portfolio, stated that the Council of State's opinion is only partly up-to-date, insofar as it relates to documents that have been altered in the meantime both by the government and by Parliament through amendments. The result is that some of the formal points of opposition are no longer relevant.

The Prime Minister describes some of the Council of State's other points of opposition as "petty" and also criticises a number of "incongruities". The government takes the view that the draft legislation on parental leave is not simply a matter of transposing the the 1996 EU Council Directive on parental leave (96/34/EC) into national law, but also involves adopting a guideline agreed at the November 1997 European Council Jobs Summit during the Luxembourg Presidency (EU9711168F). The government thus does not believe it will have to repeat the whole legislative exercise because of the large number of formal points of opposition presented by the Council of State. Accordingly, the Prime Minister was due to meet the Employers' Liaison Committee (Comité de liaison patronal), trade union representatives and the parliamentary group of the Democratic Party (the main opposition party) for further consultation in early December 1998.

Crisis meeting

Following the opinion of the Council of State, the Minister of Labour organised a crisis meeting with the draft law's two parliamentary co-rapporteurs to analyse the NAP's future.

It was agreed that there is nothing to be gained for the time being by having a vote on the draft as amended by the parliamentary commission and that, in the light of the Council of State's demands, it may also prove necessary to seek a compromise so as to avoid a double vote in Parliament. One danger of the double-voting procedure, which includes a three-month period for consideration, is that no vote might be taken on the draft until the next legislative elections scheduled for 13 June 1999. It is therefore almost certain that the measures relating to parental leave and leave for family reasons will not come into effect on 1 January 1999. The same is true of working hours flexibility and the four-week reference period for working time variations.

Commentary

Observers predicted a negative opinion from the Council of State, but they probably did not expect so many formal points of opposition. However, it does seem that the country's "key players", which are also represented on the Council of State, have again recommenced discussions. A dominant theme appears to be emerging from recent developments: it is that the National Action Plan for employment is in danger of being overshadowed in the run-up to the election if the government is unable to propose a draft in the very near future that is acceptable to all parties. (Marc Feyereisen, ITM)