Advanced

Bemanningsdirektivets likabehandlingsprincip och undantaget för lön. -Analys av genomförandet i Sverige.

Brikell, John LU (2014) JUR092 20141
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Bemanningsbranschen har under de senaste årtiondena vuxit kraftigt i Sverige och är idag en etablerad del av arbetsmarknaden. Behovet av att reglera bemanningsbranschen rättsligt insåg EU redan tidigt och efter många turer och skilda åsikter i frågan så kunde EU 2008 beslutaom bemanningsdirektivet. Direktivet skulle vara genomfört i Sverige senast 2011 men blev klart först i januari 2013 då uthyrningslagen trädde i kraft.

Forskning visar att uthyrda arbetstagare är mer utsatta för psykosociala och fysiska risker än de som anställda direkt hos den de utför arbete för. Behovet av att skapa ett skydd för uthyrda arbetstagare är också en av de bakomliggande anledningarna till bemanningsdirektivets tillkomst, parat med behovet av att... (More)
Bemanningsbranschen har under de senaste årtiondena vuxit kraftigt i Sverige och är idag en etablerad del av arbetsmarknaden. Behovet av att reglera bemanningsbranschen rättsligt insåg EU redan tidigt och efter många turer och skilda åsikter i frågan så kunde EU 2008 beslutaom bemanningsdirektivet. Direktivet skulle vara genomfört i Sverige senast 2011 men blev klart först i januari 2013 då uthyrningslagen trädde i kraft.

Forskning visar att uthyrda arbetstagare är mer utsatta för psykosociala och fysiska risker än de som anställda direkt hos den de utför arbete för. Behovet av att skapa ett skydd för uthyrda arbetstagare är också en av de bakomliggande anledningarna till bemanningsdirektivets tillkomst, parat med behovet av att utveckla flexibla arbetstillfällen. Dessa två behov kommer till uttryck i syftet med direktivet som alltså är tvådelat. Hur dessa två delar ska vägas mot varandra är oklart och delade meningar råder. Syftet presenteras i direktivets artikel 2 och lyder: ” Detta direktiv syftar till att skydda arbetstagare som hyrs ut av bemanningsföretag och förbättra kvaliteten i det arbete som utförs av dem genom att garantera att principen om likabehandling enligt artikel 5 tillämpas på dem och genom att erkänna
bemanningsföretag som arbetsgivare, med beaktande av behovet
att fastställa en lämplig ram för anlitande av arbetskraft som
hyrs ut av bemanningsföretag för att effektivt bidra till att skapa
arbetstillfällen och till att utveckla flexibla arbetsformer.”

Det finns fog för att tolka skyddet av arbetstagarna och behovet av flexibla arbetsformer som två likvärdiga syften, men det finns också fog för att se skyddet för arbetstagare som det huvudsakliga syftet. Det senare framstår enligt mig som mer sannolikt vid läsning av bla. direktivets ingress och hur syftet formulerats på andra språk. Det kommer dock vara oklart tills EU-domstolen har skapat en praxis i frågan.
Skyddet som direktivet syftar till kommer till stånd genom en likabehandlingsprincip som säger att en uthyrd arbetstagare ska ha samma grundläggande arbets- och anställningsvillkor som om hen vore direkt anställd i kundföretaget. Det är villkor som rör lön, ledighet, arbetstid, skydd för barn, unga och nyblivna mödrar samt skydd mot diskriminering.

Det svenska genomförandet i uthyrningslagen är semidispositivt och utnyttjar undantag från likabehandlingsprincipen som direktivet tillåter. I uppsatsen fokuserars främst på likabehandling vad gäller lön. Undantag från likbehandlingsprincipen får göras i kollektivavtal om avtalet respekterar det övergripande skydd som direktivet syftar till. Undantag för lön får även göras om den uthyrde är tillsvidareanställd i bemanningsföretaget och har rätt till lön mellan uppdragen, garantilön. Undantaget vad gäller lön kan sägas vara accepterat om trygghet byts mot lägre lön. Arbetstagaren traderar den högre lön under uppdrag som likabehandlingen kan ge mot tryggheten i att få lön även när hen står utan uppdrag.

För att ett EU-direktiv ska anses genomfört på ett tillfredställande sätt ska de rättigheter som det stipulerar också garanteras i praktiken. Som det svenska genomförandet ser ut idag vad gäller skyddet för lön så kan det finnas utrymme för att säga upp arbetstagare på ett sådant sätt att garantilön mellan uppdrag i princip aldrig kommer att utbetalas, samtidigt som den uthyrde inte likabehandlas under uppdragets gång. Om det svenska genomförandet med kollektivavtalet och dess undantag ändå kan anses respektera det övergripande skyddet i bemanningsdirektivet är omöjligt att besvara innan EU-domstolen har avgjort frågan. Däremot har jag svårt att se att det var tanken bakom bemanningsdirektivet och uthyrningslagen. (Less)
Abstract
The temporary agency work business has grown considerably over the last decades in Sweden. The need to regulate the business by law was recognized early on by the EU. After a long process and many divergent opinions, the Temporary Agency Work directive was finally agreed upon in 2008. The directive should have been implemented in Sweden in 2011 but the law enforcing it, uthyrningslagen, was not finalized until Januari 2013.

Research shows that temporary agency workers are more exposed to psychosocial and physical risk factors than workers who are directly employed. The need for employment protection of temporary agency workers are one of the underlying reasons for the directive, alongside with the need to develop flexible job... (More)
The temporary agency work business has grown considerably over the last decades in Sweden. The need to regulate the business by law was recognized early on by the EU. After a long process and many divergent opinions, the Temporary Agency Work directive was finally agreed upon in 2008. The directive should have been implemented in Sweden in 2011 but the law enforcing it, uthyrningslagen, was not finalized until Januari 2013.

Research shows that temporary agency workers are more exposed to psychosocial and physical risk factors than workers who are directly employed. The need for employment protection of temporary agency workers are one of the underlying reasons for the directive, alongside with the need to develop flexible job opportunities. These two reasons are expressed in the aim of the directive, which is dual. How the two parts of the aim should be weighed against one another remains unclear and opinions are divided. The aim is presented in article 2 of the directive and reads: “The purpose of this Directive is to ensure the protection of temporary agency workers and to improve the quality of temporary agency work by ensuring that the principle of equal treatment, as set out in Article 5, is applied to temporary agency workers, and by recognising temporary-work agencies as employers, while taking into account the need to establish a suitable framework for the use of temporary agency work with a view to contributing effectively to the creation of jobs and to the development of flexible forms of working.”

It can be argued that the protection of the workers and the need for flexible forms of empolyment are equally important aims. It could also be argued that the protection of the workers is the main aim of the directive. The latter opinion seems, to me, more likely to be correct when reading the directives preamble and when reading article 2 in other languages than Swedish. This will remain unclear until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided upon it.

The protection that the directive aims to create is expressed through a principle of equal treatment saying that a temporary agency worker shall receive the same basic working and employment conditions as they would if they were directly employed by that undertaking to occupy the same job. Basic working and employment conditions includes payment, right to time off, annual leave, working hours, protection of pregnant and nursing women, young people and children aswell as nondiscrimination laws.

The Swedish implementation of the directive utilizes exemptions from the principle of equal treatment that are allowed in the directive. Exemptions can be made through collective agreements if the agreement respects the overall protection of temporary agency workers aimed at in the directive. Exemptions regarding payment can also be allowed if the workers who have a permanent contract of employment with a temporary-work agency continue to receive payment inbetween assignments. The exemption regarding payment can be seen as a trade-in of income-security for lower payment during assignments.

In order for a EU directive to be considered to have been implemented in a satisfactory manner, it must grant the rights it is supposed to in reality and not only on paper. As the Swedish implementation is constructed today, regarding payment, there seems to be a possibility to cancel the workers employment in such a manner that they never will receive payment inbetween assignments, yet still receive a lower wage during the assignment. If the Swedish implementation with the collective agreement and it`s exemptions can still be considered to respect the overall protection aimed at in the directive remains to be seen. This must be clarified by the ECJ. Regardless, I cannot imagine that this was the intention of the directive or uthyrningslagen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Brikell, John LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The temporary agency work directive, its principle of equal treatment and the exemption regarding payment. – Analysis of the Swedish implementation.
course
JUR092 20141
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Bemanningsdirektivet, Arbetsrätt, Uthyrningslagen, Labour Law, Likabehandlingsprincipen, EU-rätt
language
Swedish
id
4446660
date added to LUP
2014-05-21 07:24:19
date last changed
2014-05-21 07:24:19
@misc{4446660,
  abstract     = {The temporary agency work business has grown considerably over the last decades in Sweden. The need to regulate the business by law was recognized early on by the EU. After a long process and many divergent opinions, the Temporary Agency Work directive was finally agreed upon in 2008. The directive should have been implemented in Sweden in 2011 but the law enforcing it, uthyrningslagen, was not finalized until Januari 2013.

Research shows that temporary agency workers are more exposed to psychosocial and physical risk factors than workers who are directly employed. The need for employment protection of temporary agency workers are one of the underlying reasons for the directive, alongside with the need to develop flexible job opportunities. These two reasons are expressed in the aim of the directive, which is dual. How the two parts of the aim should be weighed against one another remains unclear and opinions are divided. The aim is presented in article 2 of the directive and reads: “The purpose of this Directive is to ensure the protection of temporary agency workers and to improve the quality of temporary agency work by ensuring that the principle of equal treatment, as set out in Article 5, is applied to temporary agency workers, and by recognising temporary-work agencies as employers, while taking into account the need to establish a suitable framework for the use of temporary agency work with a view to contributing effectively to the creation of jobs and to the development of flexible forms of working.”

It can be argued that the protection of the workers and the need for flexible forms of empolyment are equally important aims. It could also be argued that the protection of the workers is the main aim of the directive. The latter opinion seems, to me, more likely to be correct when reading the directives preamble and when reading article 2 in other languages than Swedish. This will remain unclear until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided upon it.

The protection that the directive aims to create is expressed through a principle of equal treatment saying that a temporary agency worker shall receive the same basic working and employment conditions as they would if they were directly employed by that undertaking to occupy the same job. Basic working and employment conditions includes payment, right to time off, annual leave, working hours, protection of pregnant and nursing women, young people and children aswell as nondiscrimination laws.

The Swedish implementation of the directive utilizes exemptions from the principle of equal treatment that are allowed in the directive. Exemptions can be made through collective agreements if the agreement respects the overall protection of temporary agency workers aimed at in the directive. Exemptions regarding payment can also be allowed if the workers who have a permanent contract of employment with a temporary-work agency continue to receive payment inbetween assignments. The exemption regarding payment can be seen as a trade-in of income-security for lower payment during assignments.

In order for a EU directive to be considered to have been implemented in a satisfactory manner, it must grant the rights it is supposed to in reality and not only on paper. As the Swedish implementation is constructed today, regarding payment, there seems to be a possibility to cancel the workers employment in such a manner that they never will receive payment inbetween assignments, yet still receive a lower wage during the assignment. If the Swedish implementation with the collective agreement and it`s exemptions can still be considered to respect the overall protection aimed at in the directive remains to be seen. This must be clarified by the ECJ. Regardless, I cannot imagine that this was the intention of the directive or uthyrningslagen.},
  author       = {Brikell, John},
  keyword      = {Bemanningsdirektivet,Arbetsrätt,Uthyrningslagen,Labour Law,Likabehandlingsprincipen,EU-rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Bemanningsdirektivets likabehandlingsprincip och undantaget för lön. -Analys av genomförandet i Sverige.},
  year         = {2014},
}