(29 May 2009, Spain) Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Alejandro Cercas (pictured right with EPSU General Secretary Carola Fishcbach-Pyttel, and Stephen Hughes MEP), has today slammed the European Commission’s attempts to get an ’under the table deal’ on working time. The MEP had discovered that the Commission was preparing to launch an initiative on working time, but which would exlude the key topic of the so-called ’individual opt-out’. EPSU has received the full text of an interview with Mr. Cercas, which reveals the level of frustration with the Commission’s closed door tactics.

Mr Cercas has received full support from his Socialist colleagues who released a strongly worded message on the Commission tactics.

The PES release states that; ""Any new Commission proposal on such a crucial matter for European workers must involve both legislative arms of the EU, the Parliament and the Council, " and goes on to say that the Commission is attempting to ’bypass’ the Parliament. Mr. Cercas commented that; "The same people who said that 421 votes is a small majority now try to bypass the EP behind closed doors".

The European Parlimanet voted, by an absolute majority, for an end to the individual opt out in December 2008.

Interview with Alejandro Cercas, Rapporteur on the Working Time Directive of the European Parliament

The Socialist Group just issued a press release in which they warn President Barroso over the Working Time Directive. Mr. Barroso is told by the Socialists not to try to seek any deal behind closed doors in Brussels during the time MEPs are busy campaigning in their home countries. Negotiations broke down in April over the revision of this health and safety legislation and the legislative process was put to a halt. It is now the Commission’s task to take those Member States to Court, which do not respect the Directive in force. The Commission also needs to make a new proposal, once the European Parliament has been reconvened. However, in the meantime, the Socialist Group got the information that the Commission is having informal negotiations in order to propose different scenarios which could include a recast proposal, that is intended in order to limit the powers of the European Parliament.

’Foul Play’

Why does your Group attack Barroso’s initiative? Because we believe, that the Commission is trying to take advantage of the absence of the MEPs from Brussels. In the negotiations in spring, the Commission failed to broker an agreement between the two co-legislators. This failure for the Commission means that they now have to take ALL Member States to the European Court of Justice, because all Member States failed to implement the current Directive correctly. These infringement procedures were stopped during the revision period. However, this did not put any pressure on the Member States to find an agreement. It is very obvious that the Commission made promises to the Member States that even in case of failure, no infringement procedure would be carried through. This is foul play!

But doesn’t the Commission have the right to initiative in this case?

Yes they do, but this is a very particular issue. No conciliation has broken down since the introduction of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. This is a very delicate issue of crucial political importance to European workers, especially in the times of the economic crisis, which threatens their rights. I am shocked at the Commission sending the message to the electorate that they will continue carry out laws during the absence of the MEPs and try to bypass the strong position of the European Parliament. The same people who said that 421 votes is a small majority now try to bypass the EP behind closed doors!

So what is their strategy?

In order to create different scenarios, they are trying informal consultation with the social partners; they are trying to create positions which would then bind the hands of the next Parliament, but without respecting the position of the outgoing one. Had we not found out about this trick, the outgoing Commission would bind the new incoming Commission and the incoming Parliament into a proposal which has not been thoroughly and transparently discussed. If Mr. Barroso believes that he would become again President of the Commission with such a strategy, he should think twice.