SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
OPINION
Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving and enforcing working conditions of trainees and combating regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (‘Traineeships Directive’)
(COM(2024) 132 final – 2024/0068 (COD))
Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
(COM(2024) 133 final)
Rapporteur: Nicoletta MERLO
1.RECOMMENDATIONS
Concerning the proposal for a directive, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):
1.1underlines that apprenticeships and traineeships are two distinct work practices entailing learning and training, and should not be mixed up. The reference in recital 17 to overlap between the two should therefore be removed.
1.2recommends that the definitions laid down in Article 2 not entail any obligation for Member States to classify traineeships as an employment relationship where, according to the regulations in the Member States, this work practice falls outside the definition of ‘trainee’ set by the directive.
1.3proposes including a list in Article 3 of working conditions that cannot be derogated, to ensure better protection of trainees’ interests while preserving the autonomy of the social partners when it comes to regulating the conditions of traineeships in the open market, e.g. through collective agreements.
1.4emphasises the importance for Member States to provide sufficient human and financial resources to the competent authorities in charge of control and inspection according to article 4, and to formally recognise the important role that social partners can play in control, monitoring and enforcement efforts, taking into account existing national practices.
1.5suggests, without prejudice to the assessment of whether the trainee has an employment relationship according to national practices and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, that the elements listed in Article 5, as amended, be considered indicative of the existence of a regular employment relationship, in order to make the article clearer and more consistent.
Concerning the proposal for a Council Recommendation, the EESC:
1.6recommends defining minimum quality criteria for each type of traineeship throughout the EU and suggests including a list of illustrative justifications on objective grounds for derogation, without prejudice to existing national approaches, in order to ensure high standards and a common basic framework in all Member States.
1.7believes it is crucial to gather data and collect and share examples of good national practices for each type of traineeship at EU level, as part of the review and implementation process.
1.8stresses the importance of fair compensation which also takes into account the possible costs of participating in the training activity and the related living requirements, in order to ensure equal access to the traineeship experience for all.
1.9calls for the inclusion of trade union representatives in both proposals where reference is made to workers’ representatives, and for provisions that ensure that they can always act to safeguard trainees, even if the traineeship does not constitute an employment relationship.
2.EXPLANATORY NOTES
The EESC emphasises that traineeships are first and foremost a training and learning experience to develop skills and competences (especially those of young people) leading to improved employability and job prospects, and contributing to the formation of an entrepreneurial mindset.
The EESC shares the objective of improving the quality of traineeships across the EU (in particular with regard to learning and training content and working conditions), with the aim of facilitating the transition from education, unemployment or inactivity, and of ensuring that traineeships are genuine and not used to disguise employment relationships.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on improving and enforcing working conditions of trainees and combating regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (‘Traineeships Directive’)
Argument in support of recommendation 1.1
2.1Possible overlaps between traineeships and apprenticeships (recital 17): The proposal suggests that the proposed Traineeship Directive could possibly cover certain aspects of the Recommendation on Quality and Effective Apprenticeships. However, the EESC underlines that apprenticeships and traineeships are two distinct work practices with different aims and different regulations in the Member States, and should not be mixed up. The principles contained in the Council Recommendation on Quality and Effective Apprenticeships sufficiently address aspects related to the quality and effectiveness of the instrument. The reference to an overlap should be removed from the draft directive.
Argument in support of recommendation 1.2
2.2Definitions (Article 2) and personal scope: The directive’s scope of application is determined through the definitions of ‘trainee’ and ‘traineeship’. The first is based both on the national definition of ‘employee’ and on the definition adopted by the EU Court of Justice. The definition of ‘traineeship’ seems to be broader and include any kind of traineeship, making no reference to the type of contract or employment relationship, and speaks only of work practice that includes a significant training component. While ‘traineeship’ is predominant in the section devoted to disguised employment relationships, the section on enforcement is built around the notion of ‘trainee’. More clarity on how the two notions interact with regard to the different provisions would be needed.
Furthermore, taking into account that many Member States consider traineeships to be genuinely outside of employment, and regulate them as such, it should be clarified at least in the recitals that the directive does not commit Member States to transforming their regulatory models towards the employment one. Since the directive is mainly aimed at stopping the use of traineeships to disguise employment relationships, Member States adopting those models should be called on to respect the recommendation, to adapt their regulation to better assess when an employment relationship is disguised, and to foster the enforcement of the rights of the ‘disguised trainee’.
Argument in support of recommendation 1.3
2.3Principle of non-discrimination (Article 3): Considering that the trainee, for the purposes of the directive, is a worker engaged in a learning experience and, consequently, that this situation can be distinguished from that of skilled and specialised workers, the definition of objective reasons justifying a derogation from the principle of non-discrimination is supported. In order to better specify the limits of such derogations, however, the EESC suggests including a list of working conditions that should be considered non-derogable.
Argument in support of recommendation 1.4
2.4Measures to combat regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (Article 4): Effective controls and inspections conducted by the competent authorities play a key role in combating regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships. In this regard, Member States should be required to support these authorities with sufficient human and financial resources, tailored to the needs of the national context, to enable them to perform this crucial task. Alongside the competent authorities, the EESC emphasises that the social partners, if relevant according to national legislation and practice, can play an important role in control, monitoring and enforcement efforts.
Argument in support of recommendation 1.5
2.5Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (Article 5): This article lists a number of elements to be considered in the assessment of a purported traineeship. The wording of the provision is vague regarding the kinds of mechanisms it establishes and, specifically, the roles that the different elements play. The EESC considers that the provision should be rephrased to specify that the occurrence of one or more of the listed elements is indicative of a regular employment relationship, without prejudice to the assessment of the existence of an employment relationship for the trainee according to national practice and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Recital 26 should be amended accordingly. In addition, the absence of a supervisor should also be included among the elements to be taken into consideration (Article 5(1)(a)) and, similarly, the information to be provided by the employer (Article 5(2)) should also include information on the existence of a supervisor. Finally, the conditions legitimising an excessive duration or repetition of a traineeship with the same employer should be better specified (Article 5(3)(a)), including the possibility to derogate from this where justified under existing national conditions.
Additional comments
2.6Procedures on behalf or in support of trainees (Article 8): According to this article, workers’ representatives should be entitled to engage in procedures on behalf or in support of trainees. On the one hand, the use of the term ‘trainee’ risks preventing workers’ representatives from intervening in support of those working in positions disguised as traineeships if they are not under a contract of employment (see Article 2(b)). On the other hand, in many cases trainees are not inclined to exercise their rights for fear of losing a future employment opportunity. Allowing workers’ representatives to act only with the explicit consent of the trainee or trainees largely limits the space for union intervention and fails to consider that employing workers under disguised traineeships has an impact on the working conditions of the other workers at the company, on other candidates for job positions and on competition between companies. The fight against employment relationships being disguised as traineeships pursues broader aims and has implications beyond the single traineeship. The provision could be framed in a way that ensures that, at least in national contexts where trade unions act without the need for the consent of the worker concerned, to protect the collective interest they pursue, workers’ trade union representatives may act even without trainees’ consent.
2.7Protection against adverse treatment and consequences (Art. 9): This article is to be understood as applying where there are no protections applicable to trainees as workers in the Member States’ legal systems that guarantee an adequate level of protection on this point.
Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.6
2.8The proposal aims to cover all the different types of traineeships, but it does not take adequate account of the differences between the various types of traineeships and their different applications in the Member States. The EESC recommends defining minimum quality criteria for each type of traineeship throughout Europe, in order to ensure high standards and a common basic framework in all Member States.
2.9Objective and scope (2): The scope of the recommendation is very broad. While the provisions are quite flexible, the proposal only considers the different nature of traineeships as far as trainees in an employment relationship are concerned. Other differentiations are considered only in the context of the various recitals (e.g. duration, in recitals 24-26). More attention could be paid to the matter in order to provide guidance to the Member States on the application of the principles and measures established in different situations.
2.10Objective grounds for derogations: Certain recommended measures could be derogated on objective grounds: reasonable duration, consecutive traineeships and previous work experience. This general clause could be interpreted in numerous ways within the Member States, and it may be appropriate to include a list of illustrative justifications, without prejudice to existing national approaches.
Argument in support of recommendation 1.7
2.11As part of the review and implementation process, in the light of the heterogeneous nature of the instrument, the different scopes it can serve and its different applications in the Member States, the EESC believes it is crucial to gather data and collect and share examples of good national practices for each type of traineeship at EU level, especially open market traineeships.
Argument in support of recommendation 1.8
2.12Fair compensation (6): In response to requests from some sectors to ban unpaid traineeships, the Commission has recommended that traineeships be fairly paid, ‘taking into account elements such as the trainee’s tasks and responsibilities, the intensity of the trainee’s work, and the weight of the learning and training component’. In this regard, and except in cases where the traineeship is considered an employment relationship (which is covered by the proposed directive), it might be appropriate to use the term ‘compensation’ instead of pay and to link this support to the possible costs incurred by the trainee to participate in the traineeship, as well as the associated living requirements (e.g. travel, food, accommodation, etc.) and to provide it in the form of a participation allowance. Possible differentiations in compensation could be considered due to the different types of traineeships. This seems to be a balanced approach that recognises that a traineeship is framed in the context of work experience with a strong training component, and that the tasks performed are not the same and are not on the same level as those performed by regular employees, but at the same time ensures equal access to traineeships opportunities for all.
Arguments in support of recommendation 1.9
2.13Channels for reporting malpractice (15): The channels for reporting malpractice should be available to trainees, trade unions and workers’ representatives in accordance with national rules and practices.
2.14Role of representatives of workers (33): see above on trainees’ consent (point 2.6).
Additional comment
2.15Role of employment services and other providers of career guidance (20): Where involved in the promotion of traineeship activities, their role could be extended to include assessing the quality of the traineeship opportunity by analysing vacancy notices and information on advertisements, especially when financed with public money (e.g. the Youth Guarantee).
3.PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on improving and enforcing working conditions of trainees and combating regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (‘Traineeships Directive’)
Amendment 1
linked to recommendation 1.1 and 1.2
Recital 17
Modify
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
EESC amendment
|
|
(17) Work-based learning programmes falling under the definition of traineeship vary significantly across Member States. Hence, apprenticeships may fall within the scope of this Directive, insofar as apprentices fall under the notion of ‘worker’ as defined by the law, collective agreements or practices in force in the Member States, with consideration to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
|
(17) Work-based learning programmes falling under the definition of traineeship vary significantly across Member States. Despite the definition of trainee foreseen in this proposal, Member States that do not consider traineeships as an employment relationship and regulate them accordingly do not have to transform their regulatory models into employment ones. In such cases, this proposal should be applied by Member States to better assess when an employment relationship is disguised and to promote the enforcement of the rights of the ‘disguised trainee’.
|
|
Reason
|
|
See point 2.1 and 2.2.
|
Amendment 2
linked to recommendation 1.4
Article 4
Modify
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
EESC amendment
|
|
Article 4
Measures to combat regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
Member States shall provide for effective controls and inspections conducted by competent authorities to detect and take enforcement measures against practices where a regular employment relationship is disguised as traineeship with the effect of granting lower levels of protection, including working conditions and pay, than the worker concerned would be entitled to under Union or national law, collective agreements or practice.
|
Article 4
Measures to combat regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
Member States shall provide for effective controls and inspections conducted by competent authorities to detect and take enforcement measures against practices where a regular employment relationship is disguised as traineeship with the effect of granting lower levels of protection, including working conditions and pay, than the worker concerned would be entitled to under Union or national law, collective agreements or practice.
The social partners, if relevant according to national legislation and practice, can play an important role in control, monitoring and enforcement efforts.
|
Amendment 3
linked to recommendation 1.5
Article 5
Modify
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
EESC amendment
|
|
Article 5
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
1.
In order to determine whether a purported traineeship constitutes a regular employment relationship, competent authorities shall make an overall assessment of all relevant factual elements. That assessment shall take into account, among others, the following indicative elements:
(a)
the absence of a significant learning or training component in the purported traineeship;
(b)
the excessive duration of the purported traineeship or multiple and/or consecutive purported traineeships with the same employer by the same person;
(c)
equivalent levels of tasks, responsibilities and intensity of work for purported trainees and regular employees at comparable positions with the same employer;
(d)
the requirement for previous work experience for candidates for traineeships in the same or a similar field of activity without appropriate justification;
(e)
a high ratio of purported traineeships compared with regular employment relationships with the same employer;
(f)
a significant number of purported trainees with the same employer who had completed two or more traineeships or held regular employment relationships in the same or similar field of activity, prior to taking up the purported traineeship.
2.
To enable competent authorities to carry out the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the employer shall, upon request, provide those authorities with the following information:
(a)
the number of traineeships and regular employment relationships
(b)
the duration of traineeships;
(c)
the working conditions, including pay, tasks and responsibilities of purported trainees and of regular employees at comparable positions;
(d)
the descriptions of the learning and training components of traineeships;
(e)
the vacancy notices for traineeships.
3.
To facilitate the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall:
(a)
define a time limit indicating excessive duration of a traineeship and of repeated, including consecutive, traineeships with the same employer;
(b)
require employers to include information on the expected tasks, working conditions, including pay, social protection, learning and training elements in the vacancy notices and advertisements for traineeships.
Member States may provide for exceptions to the time-limit in point (a) in cases where a longer duration is justified by objective grounds.
|
Article 5
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
1.
In order to determine whether a purported traineeship constitutes a regular employment relationship, competent authorities shall make an overall assessment of all relevant factual elements. The occurrence of one or more of the following elements shall be considered indicative of the existence of a regular employment relationship:
(a)
the absence of a significant learning or training component in the purported traineeship and the absence of a supervisor;
(b)
the excessive duration of the purported traineeship or multiple and/or consecutive purported traineeships with the same employer by the same person;
(c)
equivalent levels of tasks, responsibilities and intensity of work for purported trainees and regular employees at comparable positions with the same employer;
(d)
the requirement for previous work experience for candidates for traineeships in the same or a similar field of activity without appropriate justification;
(e)
a high ratio of purported traineeships compared with regular employment relationships with the same employer;
(f)
a significant number of purported trainees with the same employer who had completed two or more traineeships or held regular employment relationships in the same or similar field of activity, prior to taking up the purported traineeship.
2.
To enable competent authorities to carry out the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the employer shall, upon request, and unless the same information is directly accessible to the authorities, provide those authorities with the following information:
(a)the number of traineeships and regular employment relationships
(b)the duration of traineeships;
(c)the working conditions, including pay, tasks and responsibilities of purported trainees and of regular employees at comparable positions;
(d)the descriptions of the learning and training components of traineeships;
(e)the presence of a supervisor;
(f)the vacancy notices for traineeships.
3.
To facilitate the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall:
(a)
define a maximum time limit for a traineeship and establish the exceptional conditions that justify its repetition or extension with the same employer;
(b)
require employers to include information on the expected tasks, working conditions, including pay, social protection, learning and training elements in the vacancy notices and advertisements for traineeships.
Member States may provide for exceptions to the time-limit in point (a) in cases where a longer duration is justified by objective grounds.
|
Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Amendment 4
linked to recommendation 1.8
Point 6
Modify
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
EESC amendment
|
|
6. ensure that trainees are fairly paid, taking into account elements such as the trainee’s tasks and responsibilities, the intensity of the trainee’s work, and the weight of the learning and training component.
|
6. ensure that trainees are fairly compensated, taking into account elements such as the trainee’s tasks and responsibilities, the intensity of the trainee’s work, and the weight of the learning and training component, as well as the possible costs incurred by the trainee to participate in the traineeship, including the associated living requirements (e.g. travel, food, accommodation, etc.).
|
The president of the Section Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Cinzia DEL RIO
*
*
*
N.B.:
Appendix overleaf.
APPENDIX to the OPINION
of the
Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 60(2) of the Rules of Procedure):
|
AMENDMENT 7
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
The EESC emphasises that traineeships are first and foremost a training and learning experience to develop skills and competences (especially those of young people) leading to improved employability and job prospects, and contributing to the formation of an entrepreneurial mindset.
The EESC shares the objective of improving the quality of traineeships across the EU (in particular with regard to learning and training content and working conditions), with the aim of facilitating the transition from education, unemployment or inactivity, and of ensuring that traineeships are genuine and not used to disguise employment relationships.
|
The EESC emphasises that traineeships are first and foremost a training and learning experience to develop skills and competences (especially those of young people) leading to improved employability and job prospects, and contributing to the formation of an entrepreneurial mindset.
The EESC shares the objective of improving the quality of traineeships across the EU (in particular with regard to learning and training content and working conditions), with the aim of facilitating the transition from education, unemployment or inactivity, and of ensuring that traineeships are genuine and not used to disguise employment relationships. This calls for a consistent and simplified legal framework that does not create a patchwork of rules for different segments of people in employment relationships. Existing tools and instruments at EU and national level should be used to this effect and with due regard to national education and training realities and industrial relations systems, and the role of social partners therein, across the Member States. Furthermore, the EESC underlines that traineeships require considerable investment from companies and entrepreneurs in terms of time and resources dedicated to training of trainees.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
46
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 8
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2.3
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
Principle of non-discrimination (Art. 3): Considering that the trainee, for the purposes of the directive, is a worker engaged in a learning experience and, consequently, that this situation can be distinguished from that of skilled and specialised workers, the definition of objective reasons justifying a derogation from the principle of non-discrimination is supported. In order to better specify the limits of such derogations, however, the EESC suggests including a list of working conditions that should be considered non- derogable.
|
Principle of non-discrimination (Art. 3): Considering that the trainee, for the purposes of the proposed directive, is a worker engaged in a learning experience and, consequently, that this situation can be distinguished from that of skilled and specialised workers, the definition of objective reasons justifying a derogation from the principle of non-discrimination is supported. This can be considered a fair approach that protects the interests of trainees while simultaneously recognising that a traineeship is first and foremost a learning experience and, therefore, that a trainee should be distinguished from someone operating as a qualified and skilled employee. It is also important to respect social partners autonomy when it comes to regulating the conditions for open- market traineeships, for example through collective agreements.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
51
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
AMENDMENT 9
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2.4
Insert new point
Position: After existing point - Lower level
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
|
A crucial point for improving the current draft directive is to include a specific provision on the role of social partners. In line with diverse collective bargaining realities across Europe, the draft directive should allow the social partners to jointly set working conditions for trainees, which includes the possibility for them to derogate from the equal treatment principle on objective grounds relating to the distinct nature of open market traineeships compared to employment relationships.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
51
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
AMENDMENT 10
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2.5
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (Art. 5): This article lists a number of elements to be considered in the assessment of a purported traineeship. The wording of the provision is vague regarding the kinds of mechanisms it establishes and, specifically, the roles that the different elements play. The EESC considers that the provision should be rephrased to specify that the occurrence of one or more of the listed elements is indicative of a regular employment relationship, without prejudice to the assessment of the existence of an employment relationship for the trainee according to national practice and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Recital 26 should be amended accordingly. In addition, the absence of a supervisor should also be included among the elements to be taken into consideration (Article 5(1)(a)) and, similarly, the information to be provided by the employer (Article 5(2)) should also include information on the existence of a supervisor. Finally, the conditions legitimising an excessive duration or repetition of a traineeship with the same employer should be better specified (Article 5(3)(a)), including the possibility to derogate from this where justified under existing national conditions.
|
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships (Art. 5): This article lists a number of elements to be considered in the assessment of a purported traineeship. This should be without prejudice to the assessment of the existence of an employment relationship for the trainee according to national practice and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Having an indicative common understanding of what constitutes the misuse of traineeships is useful to help ensure that all relevant actors, especially employers, trainees, and regulatory authorities, have an objective set of criteria against which to assess the conduct of a traineeship. This would also have the benefit of circumventing subjective views and perceptions that can distort the reality, thereby bringing a more evidence-based perspective to future discussions around the quality of traineeships. There should be sufficient space left for overall assessment of all appropriate relevant factors by national competent authorities. In addition, the absence of a supervisor should also be included among the elements to be taken into consideration (Article 5(1)(a)) and, similarly, the information to be provided by the employer (Article 5(2)) should also include information on the existence of a supervisor. Finally, the conditions legitimising an excessive duration or repetition of a traineeship with the same employer should be better specified (Article 5(3)(a)), including the possibility to derogate from this where justified under existing national conditions.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
52
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
AMENDMENT 11
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2.6
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
Procedures on behalf or in support of trainees (Art. 8): According to this article, workers’ representatives should be entitled to engage in procedures on behalf or in support of trainees. On the one hand, the use of the term ‘trainee’ risks preventing workers’ representatives from intervening in support of those working in positions disguised as traineeships if they are not under a contract of employment (see Article 2(b)). On the other hand, in many cases trainees are not inclined to exercise their rights for fear of losing a future employment opportunity. Allowing workers’ representatives to act only with the explicit consent of the trainee or trainees largely limits the space for union intervention and fails to consider that employing workers under disguised traineeships has an impact on the working conditions of the other workers at the company, on other candidates for job positions and on competition between companies. The fight against employment relationships being disguised as traineeships pursues broader aims and has implications beyond the single traineeship. The provision could be framed in a way that ensures that, at least in national contexts where trade unions act without the need for the consent of the worker concerned, to protect the collective interest they pursue, workers’ trade union representatives may act even without trainees’ consent.
|
Procedures on behalf or in support of trainees (Art. 8): According to this article, workers’ representatives should be entitled to engage in procedures on behalf or in support of trainees. As stated in the directive proposal, it is essential that trainees give their approval before workers’ representatives engage on their behalf. However, the provision could be framed in a way that ensures that, in those national contexts where national legislation/practices allow trade unions act without the need for the consent of the worker concerned, to protect the collective interest they pursue, workers’ trade union representatives may act even without trainees’ consent.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
32
|
|
Against:
|
55
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 12
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2.8
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
The proposal aims to cover all the different types of traineeships, but it does not take adequate account of the differences between the various types of traineeships and their different applications in the Member States. The EESC recommends defining minimum quality criteria for each type of traineeship throughout Europe, in order to ensure high standards and a common basic framework in all Member States.
|
The proposal aims to cover all the different types of traineeships, but it does not take adequate account of the differences between the various types of traineeships and their different applications in the Member States. The EESC recalls that the quality principles of the 2014 Quality Framework Recommendation for traineeships were considered valid and takes note of the quality principles as indicated in the proposal for Council Recommendation and recommends that these must be applied without prejudice to existing national approaches.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
31
|
|
Against:
|
52
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 13
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 2.9
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
Objective and scope (2): The scope of the recommendation is very broad. While the provisions are quite flexible, the proposal only considers the different nature of traineeships as far as trainees in an employment relationship are concerned. Other differentiations are considered only in the context of the various recitals (e.g. duration, in recitals 24-26). More attention could be paid to the matter in order to provide guidance to the Member States on the application of the principles and measures established in different situations.
|
Objective and scope (2): The scope of the recommendation is very broad and should not include those traineeships that take place as part of formal education and training. While the provisions are quite flexible, the proposal only considers the different nature of traineeships as far as trainees in an employment relationship are concerned. Other differentiations are considered only in the context of the various recitals (e.g. duration, in recitals 24-26). More attention could be paid to the matter in order to provide guidance to the Member States on the application of the principles and measures established in different situations.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
30
|
|
Against:
|
54
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 15
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
COM(2024) 132 final – 2024/0068 (COD)
EESC amendment 1
Recital 17
Amend
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
|
(17) Work-based learning programmes falling under the definition of traineeship vary significantly across Member States. Hence, apprenticeships may fall within the scope of this Directive, insofar as apprentices fall under the notion of ‘worker’ as defined by the law, collective agreements or practices in force in the Member States, with consideration to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
(17) Work-based learning programmes falling under the definition of traineeship vary significantly across Member States. Despite the definition of trainee foreseen in this proposal, Member States that do not consider traineeships as an employment relationship and regulate them accordingly do not have to transform their regulatory models into employment ones. In such cases, this proposal should be applied by Member States to better assess when an employment relationship is disguised and to promote the enforcement of the rights of the ‘disguised trainee’.
|
(17) Work-based learning programmes falling under the definition of traineeship vary significantly across Member States. Despite the definition of trainee foreseen in this proposal, Member States that do not consider traineeships as an employment relationship and regulate them accordingly do not have to transform their regulatory models into employment ones. Nevertheless, the Directive includes a list of indicative elements that can be considered by competent authorities when carrying out an overall assessment of whether there is a misuse of traineeships.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
30
|
|
Against:
|
54
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 16
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
COM(2024) 132 final – 2024/0068 (COD)
New EESC amendment
Amend
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
|
Article 3
Principle of non-discrimination
Member States shall ensure that, in respect of working conditions including pay, trainees are not treated in a less favourable manner than comparable regular employees in the same establishment, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds, such as different tasks, lower responsibilities, work intensity or the weight of the learning and training component.
Where there is no comparable regular employee in the same establishment, the comparison shall be made by reference to the applicable collective agreement, or where there is no applicable collective agreement, in accordance with national law or practice.
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
|
Article 3
Principle of non-discrimination
Member States shall ensure that, in respect of working conditions including pay, trainees are not treated in a less favourable manner than comparable regular employees in the same establishment, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds, such as different tasks, lower responsibilities, level of experience, work intensity or the weight of the learning and training component.
Where there is no comparable regular employee in the same establishment, the comparison shall be made by reference to the applicable collective agreement, or where there is no applicable collective agreement, in accordance with national law or practice.
This is without prejudice to the autonomy of social partners to jointly set working conditions for trainees, including the possibility for them to derogate from the equal treatment principle on objective grounds relating to the distinct nature of open market traineeships compared to employment relationships.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
51
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
AMENDMENT 17
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
COM(2024) 132 final – 2024/0068 (COD)
EESC amendment 3
Article 5
Amend
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
|
Article 5
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
1.
In order to determine whether a purported traineeship constitutes a regular employment relationship, competent authorities shall make an overall assessment of all relevant factual elements. That assessment shall take into account, among others, the following indicative elements:
(a)
the absence of a significant learning or training component in the purported traineeship;
(b)
the excessive duration of the purported traineeship or multiple and/or consecutive purported traineeships with the same employer by the same person;
(c)
equivalent levels of tasks, responsibilities and intensity of work for purported trainees and regular employees at comparable positions with the same employer;
(d)
the requirement for previous work experience for candidates for traineeships in the same or a similar field of activity without appropriate justification;
(e)
a high ratio of purported traineeships compared with regular employment relationships with the same employer;
(f)
a significant number of purported trainees with the same employer who had completed two or more traineeships or held regular employment relationships in the same or similar field of activity, prior to taking up the purported traineeship.
2.
To enable competent authorities to carry out the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the employer shall, upon request, provide those authorities with the following information:
(a)
the number of traineeships and regular employment relationships
(b)
the duration of traineeships;
(c)
the working conditions, including pay, tasks and responsibilities of purported trainees and of regular employees at comparable positions;
(d)
the descriptions of the learning and training components of traineeships;
(e)
the vacancy notices for traineeships.
3.
To facilitate the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall:
(a)
define a time limit indicating excessive duration of a traineeship and of repeated, including consecutive, traineeships with the same employer;
(b)
require employers to include information on the expected tasks, working conditions, including pay, social protection, learning and training elements in the vacancy notices and advertisements for traineeships.
Member States may provide for exceptions to the time-limit in point (a) in cases where a longer duration is justified by objective grounds.
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
Article 5
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
1.
In order to determine whether a purported traineeship constitutes a regular employment relationship, competent authorities shall make an overall assessment of all relevant factual elements. The occurrence of one or more of the following elements shall be considered indicative of the existence of a regular employment relationship:
(a)
the absence of a significant learning or training component in the purported traineeship and the absence of a supervisor;
(b)
the excessive duration of the purported traineeship or multiple and/or consecutive purported traineeships with the same employer by the same person;
(c)
equivalent levels of tasks, responsibilities and intensity of work for purported trainees and regular employees at comparable positions with the same employer;
(d)
the requirement for previous work experience for candidates for traineeships in the same or a similar field of activity without appropriate justification;
(e)
a high ratio of purported traineeships compared with regular employment relationships with the same employer;
(f)
a significant number of purported trainees with the same employer who had completed two or more traineeships or held regular employment relationships in the same or similar field of activity, prior to taking up the purported traineeship.
2.
To enable competent authorities to carry out the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the employer shall, upon request, and unless the same information is directly accessible to the authorities, provide those authorities with the following information:
(a)
the number of traineeships and regular employment relationships
(b)
the duration of traineeships;
(c)
the working conditions, including pay, tasks and responsibilities of purported trainees and of regular employees at comparable positions;
(d)
the descriptions of the learning and training components of traineeships;
(e)
the presence of a supervisor;
(f)
the vacancy notices for traineeships.
3.
To facilitate the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall:
(a)
define a maximum time limit for a traineeship and establish the exceptional conditions that justify its repetition or extension with the same employer;
(b)
require employers to include information on the expected tasks, working conditions, including pay, social protection, learning and training elements in the vacancy notices and advertisements for traineeships.
Member States may provide for exceptions to the time-limit in point (a) in cases where a longer duration is justified by objective grounds.
|
Article 5
Assessment of regular employment relationships disguised as traineeships
1.
In order to determine whether a purported traineeship constitutes a regular employment relationship, competent authorities shall make an overall assessment of all relevant factual elements. That assessment shall take into account, among others, the following indicative elements:
(a)
the absence of a significant learning or training component in the purported traineeship and the absence of a supervisor;
(b)
the excessive duration of the purported traineeship or multiple and/or consecutive purported traineeships with the same employer by the same person;
(c)
equivalent levels of tasks, responsibilities and intensity of work for purported trainees and regular employees at comparable positions with the same employer;
(d)
the requirement for previous work experience for candidates for traineeships in the same or a similar field of activity without appropriate justification;
(e)
a high ratio of purported traineeships compared with regular employment relationships with the same employer;
(f)
a significant number of purported trainees with the same employer who had completed two or more traineeships or held regular employment relationships in the same or similar field of activity, prior to taking up the purported traineeship.
2.
To enable competent authorities to carry out the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the employer shall, upon request, and unless the same information is directly accessible to the authorities, provide those authorities with the following information:
(a)
the number of traineeships and regular employment relationships
(b)
the duration of traineeships;
(c)
the working conditions, including compensation, tasks and responsibilities of purported trainees and of regular employees at comparable positions;
(d)
the descriptions of the learning and training components of traineeships;
(e)
the presence of a supervisor;
(f)
the vacancy notices for traineeships.
3.
To facilitate the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall:
(a)
define an indicative time limit for a traineeship and indicate examples of the conditions that could justify its repetition or extension with the same employer;
(b)
require employers to include information on the expected tasks, working conditions, including compensation, social protection, learning and training elements in the vacancy notices and advertisements for traineeships.
Member States may provide for exceptions to the time-limit in point (a) in cases where a longer duration is justified by objective grounds.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
32
|
|
Against:
|
51
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 18
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
COM(2024) 133 final
EESC amendment 4
Point 6
Amend
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Text proposed by the European Commission
|
|
6. ensure that trainees are fairly paid, taking into account elements such as the trainee’s tasks and responsibilities, the intensity of the trainee’s work, and the weight of the learning and training component.
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
6. ensure that trainees are fairly compensated, taking into account elements such as the trainee’s tasks and responsibilities, the intensity of the trainee’s work, and the weight of the learning and training component, as well as the possible costs incurred by the trainee to participate in the traineeship, including the associated living requirements (e.g. travel, food, accommodation, etc.).
|
6. ensure that trainees are fairly compensated, taking into account elements such as the trainee’s tasks and responsibilities, the intensity of the trainee’s work, and the weight of the learning and training component.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
31
|
|
Against:
|
55
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 1
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 1.3
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
proposes including a list in Article 3 of working conditions that cannot be derogated, to ensure better protection of trainees’ interests while preserving the autonomy of the social partners when it comes to regulating the conditions of traineeships in the open market, e.g. through collective agreements.
|
proposes including in Article 3 also level of experience as an example of objective grounds for different treatment as well as a reference to preserving the autonomy of the social partners when it comes to regulating the conditions of traineeships in the open market, e.g. through collective agreements.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
51
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
AMENDMENT 2
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 1.4
Insert new point
Position: After existing point - Lower level
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
|
proposes, in line with diverse collective bargaining realities across Europe, that the draft directive should allow the social partners to jointly set working conditions for trainees, which includes the possibility for them to derogate from the equal treatment principle on objective grounds relating to the distinct nature of open market traineeships compared to employment relationships.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
51
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
AMENDMENT 3
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 1.5
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
suggests, without prejudice to the assessment of whether the trainee has an employment relationship according to national practices and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, that the elements listed in Article 5, as amended, be considered indicative of the existence of a regular employment relationship, in order to make the article clearer and more consistent.
|
notes, without prejudice to the assessment of whether the trainee has an employment relationship according to national practices and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, that the elements listed in Article 5 are intended to be indicative elements to be taken into account in the assessment of the existence of a regular employment relationship and emphasises the importance of leaving space for overall assessment of all appropriate relevant factors by national competent authorities. The application of this article should not lead to excessive administrative burden.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
33
|
|
Against:
|
52
|
|
Abstentions:
|
1
|
|
AMENDMENT 4
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 1.6
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
recommends defining minimum quality criteria for each type of traineeship throughout the EU and suggests including a list of illustrative justifications on objective grounds for derogation, without prejudice to existing national approaches, in order to ensure high standards and a common basic framework in all Member States.
|
recalls that the quality principles of the 2014 Quality Framework Recommendation for traineeships were considered valid and takes note of the quality principles as indicated in the proposal for Council Recommendation and recommends that these must be applied without prejudice to existing national approaches.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
31
|
|
Against:
|
52
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
|
AMENDMENT 5
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 1.8
Amend as follows
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
stresses the importance of fair compensation which also takes into account the possible costs of participating in the training activity and the related living requirements, in order to ensure equal access to the traineeship experience for all.
|
stresses the importance of fair compensation, in order to ensure equal access to the traineeship experience for all and notes that compensation varies between different types of traineeships and national systems and practices.
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
29
|
|
Against:
|
57
|
|
Abstentions:
|
3
|
|
AMENDMENT 6
SOC/805
Traineeship Directive and a Reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships
Point 1.9
Delete point
|
Tabled by:
BLIJLEVENS René
DANISMAN Mira-Maria
MINCHEVA Mariya
POTTIER Jean-Michel
SCHWENG Christa
|
|
Draft opinion
|
Amendment
|
|
calls for the inclusion of trade union representatives in both proposals where reference is made to workers’ representatives, and for provisions that ensure that they can always act to safeguard trainees, even if the traineeship does not constitute an employment relationship.
|
|
Outcome of the vote:
|
In favour:
|
32
|
|
Against:
|
55
|
|
Abstentions:
|
2
|
_____________
