91999E0253

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0253/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Redundancies at the Nuovo Pignone company (Florence)

The Nuovo Pignone company which is based in Florence and is controlled by the General Electric company has stated its intention of making 400 of its 3 100 staff redundant on the basis of the special "mobilità" procedure.

The company has had a profit margin of between 14 % and 20 % over the past few years (ITL 800 billion over a four-year period) and the orders it has taken recently will enable it to maintain a dominant position in large sectors of the market.

Florence City Council made an extremely substantial contribution - in the region of several billion lire - towards the training centre set up for the company's staff.

Furthermore, Nuovo Pignone has also received various Community grants for staff training.

Given the above, does the Commission intend to take action to prevent Nuovo Pignone's management from making such a large number of the company's staff redundant?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Decisions to lay off staff must comply with the provisions of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1).

The main purpose of the Community instrument is to reinforce the protection of workers in the event of collective redundancies, by seeking to reduce the existing differences between national legislations as regards the "practical arrangements and procedures" and through measures designed to alleviate the consequences of these redundancies for the workers.

Hence, Article 2 of the Directive provides that employers contemplating collective redundancies must begin consultations with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement. These consultations must cover ways and means of avoiding collecting redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected and of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant.

There is nothing to indicate that the Community provisions and the associated national rules have been infringed. At any rate, it is primarily for the national courts and administration to address the legal consequences arising from this case.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.