Concrete Cases

Better and Worse Practices

This document is elaborated on the basis of stories and concrete experiences, transmitted in during the execution of project and result of the concrete application of the Directive 2002/14/CE or the provisions that consecrate its transposition into the Domestic law. We present, following, some notes that deserve prominence:

• Unhappily we cannot include in the present chapter any illustrative example or even if is grounded in a good practice, in the scope of the application of the provision in analysis.

• Even so, and according with some reported examples, we can point out the fact that some companies declare that inform the workers, as well ask for their opinion on certain issues.

• The most pointed out difficulty consigns the lack of grounds or the lack of information that is given; the information is given with a minimum content, with not more than a few lines.

 

• When facing some reaction to this situation, the companies lean more on the situation and resend some additional information (several).

 

• The trade union representative develops a process of information and consultation, but during the process the company develops any other action that, clearly, should have been object of information and consultation (as it is the case of the Philips company), without the intervention of the trade union representatives.

 

• The lack of synchrony between the given information and the action carriedy through by the company.

 

• There are cases where the company does not answer, purely and simply, to any request for information and consultation (as it is the case of the Hutchsinson company, in Portalegre).

 

•  There is a great confusion between the given information, within the information and consultation process in the scope of the Directive 2002/14/CE and the information given in the scope of the European Works Councils - EWC.

 

• The company develops, in a clear way, an action foreseen in the scope of the Directive on information and consultation but it does not initiate such process (as it is the case of the closures of the companies Cablagens do Ave and Bombardier).

 

• There is a gap in the text of the Directive in the case of companies' closures (Bombardier and Cablagens do Ave, having in the first example been presented a request for information and consultation).

 

• Unawareness of the Directive and transposition law.

 

• Inspection mechanisms that are inefficacious and inconstant in order to compel to carry out what is foreseen in the Directive and in the law.

 

• Recognized absence of trade union structures, present or recognized at the companies.

 

• The lack of an adjusted procedural, as well the lack of clear sanctions.

 

• The employees' representatives accept information that is not, in an evident way, enough and without grounds.