European Works Councils (EWCs)—more than 1,200 of them in the European Union—are bodies representing employees within companies operating in at least two Member States and have at least 1,000 employees. They are set up on the initiative of at least 100 employees from two Member States, and their composition and operation depend on the type of company and a signed agreement between the management and the employees’ representatives. EWCs are responsible for keeping employees properly informed of all important decisions at the European level that could affect their employment or working conditions, and for ensuring consultation between employees and management on the progress of the business of the company in question.

The Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council was last recast in 2008 and ten years later, the Commission’s evaluation reports concluded that European Works Councils have been a key factor in improving access to a broader scope of information available to employees in transnational companies, while safeguarding jobs during restructuring processes. Yet, alongside the positive effects, this report also identifies some gaps in guaranteeing workers’ rights which, when the rights are implemented in a fragmented fashion, create an unequal situation for employees of the same company in different Member States. The report also identifies a lack of enforcement of the Directive in some Member States.

That is why the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, of which I am a full member, drafted a legislative report which was adopted by a large majority in today’s plenary session of the European Parliament.

The adopted text calls on the Commission to carry out a revision of the EWC Directive with a view to clarifying its objectives, definitions and procedures, as well as strengthening the right of employee representatives to information and consultation. It is necessary to ensure that EWCs are stronger in the future and better able to enforce employees’ rights, while at the same time to raise the awareness and visibility of EWCs by mobilising companies that meet the criteria for setting up a EWC to actually set them up. And, above all, it is necessary to clearly demonstrate the added value of EWCs to employees’ representatives and company managements through the involvement of social partners from various sectors and national labour market institutions.

The text further addresses the importance of timely and meaningful consultation on matters of transnational character, especially those affecting jobs and working conditions, which is an important factor in maintaining worker satisfaction in the light of the green and digital transitions, when many companies across Europe are exploring and implementing new working methods. At the same time, a provision was adopted requiring company managements to take the opinions of EWCs into account when making important decisions.

The Commission’s evaluation reports have in some cases found breaches of the Directive (cases where workers’ rights haven’t been enforced), which is why the adopted text includes the introduction of effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties. EWCs will thus have the right to suspend—or even reject—a decision taken by the company management where the provisions of the Directive are breached.

The text also calls on the Member States to end the exemptions for all agreements concluded before the adoption of the Directive, as we want to ensure that all EWC agreements are governed by the same rights and obligations, in order to ensure equal treatment of workers, access to the application of high Union standards, and legal certainty through the regulatory conditions for the operation of the EWCs as laid down in the Directive.

We have called to ensure effective access to justice by providing EWCs with access to the courts or the competent national labour market authorities. In this respect, Member States will have to ensure that administrative and judicial procedures are facilitated, and they are also tasked with setting up specific negotiating bodies and specifying the legal status of the EWCs. While guaranteeing the right to due process, the adopted legislative report provides that the burden of judicial costs, legal representation, subsistence and travel expenses of the workers’ representative shall be borne by the company’s central management. The penalties to be imposed on undertakings in the event of established infringements depend on the individual Member State and the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement. In the case of serious infringements, in addition to being fined, the company shall also be excluded from an entitlement to some or all public benefits, aids and subsidies, both at the national and European level.

I wish to point out that the Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council is the only piece of legislation addressing at a supranational EU level the rights of workers in transnational companies. It does that by putting in place a legal framework to promote the organisation of information and consultation within companies. It is therefore crucial that the revised directive, which this legislative report calls for, continues to provide such a legal framework at the EU level, while providing both the EWCs and employees with adequate legal protection, including with appropriate penalties in the event of infringements in the application of the Directive. The adopted text truly brings us a step closer to guaranteeing workers’ rights.

On Thursday, 12 January 2023, MEP Irena Joveva took part in a voluntary Slovenian language teaching activity at Slovenian Philanthropy. The participants were mostly from Ukraine. The MEP expressed her pleasure to have been given the opportunity to participate in a project that supports integration into a new environment. “I am happy to be part of your stories. Your lives are anything but easy and your willingness to learn is enviable,” said Ms Joveva.

The course was very interactive, and the way it is run is that everyone converses in Slovenian from the very start.

In her short address, Joveva remarked that over the past year, the war in Ukraine has been a major issue the European Parliament has dealt with. She clearly condemned any military aggression. She expressed her support to all volunteers and course participants and pledged to continue to do everything in her power to ensure that the EU helps all refugees and other people in need as best as it can.

She also expressed her awareness of the difficult situation in which Ukrainian citizens found themselves after the onset of the war and that it is hard to adjust to a new way of life. She stressed that she has the utmost respect for their experience, their courage and all that they have had to go through.

Finally, she wished all participants good luck and much success and thanked them again for inviting her to participate in the course.

During the course, she took part in the MEP Job Shadowing activity, which is part of the Citizen Engagement for Recovering – Volunteering Solidarity (CERVIS) project, co-funded by the European Commission through the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme.

The idea is that an MEP and a selected volunteer symbolically change jobs for one day, or help each other in their work. It is expected that next month, one of the selected volunteers will join the MEP in her work.

During the interactive debate on media freedom (Medijska svoboda? Bo, da!), , which was hosted by MEP Irena Joveva in early December 2022, young people discussed the upcoming European Media Freedom Act. The workshop critically discussed the current state of the media in the European Union and the measures proposed by the Act, and offered solutions for how to increase media freedom and in particular how to ensure that this legislation does not become another in a series of toothless tigers.

Young people welcome the proposed Act, because they believe that media freedom should be given greater attention as it has been neglected for too long. They think the proposal is well conceived, but too general and does not go far enough in actually addressing the most problematic issues regarding media freedom in the European Union. In the debate, they divided up into thematic groups to explain their views and propose solutions.

With respect to independent public service media and their pluralism, young people emphasise that building society’s trust in these media is key. They believe that the media should be independent, not least financially. They stress the importance of (self-)regulation on the basis of ethical standards developed by representative organisations working towards regulated, quality and independent journalism. In their view, the media landscape would benefit from an independent regulatory body to oversee the pluralisation and protection of media of special interest, for which criteria for state (co-)funding would need to be determined. Young people would also devote due care to online media, including in relation to foreign investment, for which they propose a publicly accessible single information system.

With respect to protecting editorial independence and transparency of media ownership, young people point to the vagueness of the Act. They propose the development of more common European norms for the appointment, dismissal and tenure of editors in public service media and to cover their running costs. They mention the possibility of trying to influence a media outlet through an ownership stake and therefore foresee the disclosure of all (in)direct media owners. The same is proposed for advertisers and their share in a media outlet’s funding.

Young people also want clearer rules on viewership and state advertising, including an obligation for the European Commission to issue guidelines. They advocate that national regulatory authorities should help to draw up guidelines on viewership methodology and that the methodologies and the rating themselves be publicly available (including in digital form). Young people propose abandoning the concept of territorial entities of one million inhabitants, as it is too broad for smaller countries such as Slovenia, and add the importance of local authorities and municipalities. As regards state advertising, they advocate transparency and more precise instructions for state-controlled entities.

They also press for the protection of online content and appropriate media services in the digital environment. In their view this area relies too much on national legislation and there is not enough communication between platforms and national institutions, for which they propose a direct channel of communication between the big platforms and the competent authorities. They mention the under-staffing of existing online safety bodies and poor definition of self-regulation. They thus propose the creation of basic national norms across Member States, with their own independent bodies, on the basis of which minimum common European standards would be drawn up (as a bottom-up approach). They also mention minimum standards for journalists and online media, with independent bodies stripping those who would abuse their status as journalists or media of their verification/vetting. Rather than punishing offenders, young people see the solution in  stimulating compliance with the code of ethics and (self-)regulation through state subsidies. The same should apply to non-digital media. An additional solution would be to design strict rules requiring a clear declaration in the headline as to whether the piece is an opinion or news. For the latter, the criteria for compliance would be stricter.

With respect to the currently envisaged regulatory body at the European level, the European Board for Media Services young people propose certain mechanisms to ensure that the Committee is not a toothless tiger and that Member States actually follow the rules laid down in the Act. They suggest that the Committee could report an offending country to the European Commission, which could then take the Member State to the Court of Justice of the EU. When appointing representatives to the Committee, they stress that they should be selected without influence from the ruling parties, but, say, by representative organisations. As regards the national regulatory authority, young people also point to the lack of leverage; they propose powers similar to those of the Competition Protection Agency. They also propose a single media inspection service covering the entire media sector. Furthermore, they point to the importance of a precise definition of terms, as this will determine what power and leverage these bodies will really have.

The young people concluded their reasoning with the thought that even if this Act is expected only to set a framework for media freedom, it will have to be as defined, robust and ambitious as possible. You can read more about young people’s views and ideas on the European Media Freedom Act here.

A shorter video of the event can be found here. 

The interactive workshop was preceded by a panel discussion with MEP Joveva, Asta Vrečko, Minister of Culture, Lenart J. Kučić, Media Adviser to the Minister, and Marko Milosavljević, professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences. They presented their views on media freedom and its current state and, of course, discussed the current draft of the Act. You can read more here.

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA):

EMFA is a proposal from the European Commission containing a new set of rules to protect media pluralism and independence in the EU, aimed at strengthening the internal media market so that media – public and private – can operate more easily across borders in the EU internal market, without undue pressure and taking into account the digital transformation of the media landscape. The text of the Act will shortly be taken up by the European Parliament and the Council.