Establishment and Termination of Employment Relationship Standardization Act
-
Full support.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I do like the idea of standardising employment contracts and rights however I do fear this may have an issue of which I may consider an amendment for. This as it stands could possibly prevent sacking a CEO or manager if the company is failing or if allegations come against them of wrongdoing, or some sort of reputation issue to company is at stake. We must have the freedom as employers to change our CEO's and CFO's if needed, I do admit I come from this as a major employer and as an employer who values employees I support strong workers rights and representation even in the termination process but there must be freedom to get rid of employees if they cause risk to reputation or fail to perform to targets which seemingly would fall foul of this act. A good example would be if one was to be accused of rape. Regardless of whether there is a conviction at the time I'd at least want to suspend the contract and pay until a trial proves innocent or guilt and have to option to fire if one is declared not guilty on technicality since keeping one on at my company is a risk to my employees, customers and reputation of the company.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe I believe the proposed Act already contains most of your concers. If a company is economically failing the employer has the right to terminate Employment Contracts to avoid bankruptcy as is stated in Section III. Point VIII. Rules and Conditions for termination are to be included in the Employment Contract, here the employer and the employee may agree on how to protect the reputation of the employer's undertaking, and if the employee violates those rules, the employer may terminate the Employment Contract. On the other hand I think presumption of innocence must be respected even in the field of employment. To terminate a contract to a potentially innocent person, who hasn't been found guilty by a court, to take away income from a person who may not have committed any crime and their family is something that I can't agree with. Terminating a contract to an employee who has been found innocent by the court is likewise something that I can't agree with. The decision of who is guilty and who is innocent can't be placed in the hands of an employer.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
I do agree presumption of innocence is ideal but unfortunately reality dictates its not always possible or optimal. A classic example is an alleged sex offender who gets off on a technicality. Frankly I don't want them working for Roscoes once accused unless they are cleared by an not guilty plea not on a technicality as it potentially paints my business as a haven for sex offenders for example. There are issues around the edges that could be reason to fire , another example is if someone is alledged to have said a racist remark , its likely but cannot be proved entirely, then I would frankly rather not have that type of person at my business. Its easy to say innocent until proven guilty but there are certain instances such as bullying, racism, misogyny, homophobia and areas such as sexual offenses where I may need to suspend or even fire before guilt or not is established. I know this is difficult for those outside of business to understand but this is the world business operates in if a sexual assualt happens at work with an employee involved who was on bail pending trial then I am on the hook and I will be blamed .
Therefore standard policy at Roscoes is any offenses in the categories above lead to instant suspension without pay or dismissal for that very reason with a possibility of reinstatement if proven innocence. However even then it can be an unfair burden on a business. I can pay two people for the 2 years it can take for a trial to finish. What happens if its small coffee shop with 5 employees, that extra person they have to hire or overtime they have to pay in my country could send them under leaving dismissal before proof of guilt as the only option to save the other 4 jobs. This is not an easy issue but employers must have the right to sack for the reasons above before proof of guilt , even a big business like mine will take a big hit at store level if I have to pay an extra person , for a small business that could be entirely unfeasible economically. None of us like to sack people , indeed we recently introduced primarily automatic checkouts but only so we could reassign staff to the floor to help people and do more productive jobs but sometimes you just need to dismiss without a cause that is either fault of the employee or for the reasons above to protect your reputation. The public often do not see suspension for things like rape or leaked videos of bigoted comments for example as acceptable and want an immediate sacking not allowing us to do that puts us in a situation where a whole company reputation is at risk or the behaviour is seen as acceptable since everyone knows someone got away with a crime due to bad justice system decision.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies
-
Surely this would be a violation of a contract, however?
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I propose the following ammendment:
IX. An employer may immediately terminate an Employment Contract, by giving their employee a notice of termination in a written form only for any of the following reasons:
(i.) the employee is proven to be unqualified for employment during their trial period;
(ii.) the employee has breached some rule that was agreed upon by the Employment Contract, or has neglected their work performance in an especially gross manner;
(iii.) the employee has been sentenced, under an official verdict, with a criminal offence to a term of unconditional imprisonment.
iv.the employee is accused of racism, sexism, harassment, bullying , homophobia , religious hatred or any crimes of sexual nature, the employer may suspend the employee without pay until such a time a not guilty verdict as long as it is not a not guilty verdict on a technicality is established or innocence is established after investigation.If found not guilty compensation or restoration of the job shall be required. -
I see no reason to micromanage in this way, so to speak. A business could very well place these in its contract, and thus suspend them anyways.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Thank you councillor Tilkanas you are absolutely correct.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
Yet another ingenious proposal by our dear Premier Commissioner. The Premier Commissioner's commitment to the people of the European Union continues to be unwavering, and her vision for an equitable and prosperous European Union is as grand as ever. This proposal is not only just and necessary, but it is so expertly and cleverly written, it's almost as if it was delivered by the workers of heaven itself. This Act has my full support.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
Debate on this shall CONTINUE until 22:20 GMT on December 26th, 2021. I have decided to give a 4-day-long debating period as I believe none of us will be here for Christmas.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
First of all I would like to welcome the Premier Commissioner, Sofie Čikarová, to the European Council and thank her for making this proposal, even if I disagree with it, but really helps when it comes to get the European Council moving and working, something I have been trying to do while substituting Speaker Michel on his duties.
However, Ms. Čikarová, thanking you for this proposal does not mean that I am supportive of it, in fact I am not. I believe that this is some sort of interference in the labour policies all around the European Union, and correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe this is an attempt from the European Commission to impose their beliefs on how labour should be managed by member states. We should be even more concerned when an Eurosceptic Councillor, in our case Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, supports a bill that will only arise Euroscepticism around the Union, as more and more people will join those movements that, in one moment or another, will end up winning enough power so they cannot be stopped.
Once again, I applaud the efforts the Commission is making to protect workers rights, but this Act just adds more and more burocracy to states that, like the Kingdom of Spain, are really concerned. Thinking on an European perspective, of course this act would benefit people in countries where workers' rights are not respected or do not even exist, but shouldn't we push towards achieving fair laws all around Europe when it comes to workers' rights, country by country, instead of damaging those countries who have made enough efforts?
Donald Tusk
Acting Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Mr. Deputy Speaker the objective of this proposal is, as was already stated, the protection of one of the basic human rights, the right to work. And I believe that basic human rights such as right to life or the right to work, which has so far been over looked, should be protected by the Union.
I fully understand that we should push towards achieving fair laws around the Union, which is what this proposal aims to do. I don't see any way in which passing fair basic rules could damage any member states.
I would also appreciate it, if we could focus more on actual issues instead of focusing on which Councillor supports what, when considering proposed legislation.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
I absolutely understand the desire for national laws to be respected but protection from unfair dismissal is an essential right. I do have some reservations from some sections as an employer myself but these can be worked around. I do believe it is the right place to protect labour rights at a European level and it is one of the limited areas the EU should be involved in since any other levle of legislation could lead to a race to the bottom as countries try and make it easier for big selfish corporations to fire at will and degrade conditions. Only by preventing the playing off nations against each other by having common standards can this be prevented. If countries are already good enough much like the Neurodivergent act then there should be no issue with this passing.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies
-
I would like to request a debate extension.
If I may, I would like to address some of the points raised by some Councillors. The EU enshrines gay marriage, clean water, and net neutrality as rights, among many other things. These are just as imposing, if not more so, than the legislation presented to us.
There was an argument made regarding bureaucracy, but not a single institution is established by this act, and regardless it should not be as difficult to enforce as such equally important things as gay marriage, clean water, and net neutrality.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on amendments. There is ONE amendment, which has been proposed by Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe. The amendment is thus:
Amendment I - Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe
SECTION III. - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
IX. An employer may immediately terminate an Employment Contract, by giving their employee a notice of termination in a written form only for any of the following reasons:
(i.) the employee is proven to be unqualified for employment during their trial period;
(ii.) the employee has breached some rule that was agreed upon by the Employment Contract, or has neglected their work performance in an especially gross manner;
(iii.) the employee has been sentenced, under an official verdict, with a criminal offence to a term of unconditional imprisonment.
(iv.) the employee is accused of racism, sexism, harassment, bullying , homophobia , religious hatred or any crimes of sexual nature, the employer may suspend the employee without pay until such a time a not guilty verdict as long as it is not a not guilty verdict on a technicality is established or innocence is established after investigation.If found not guilty compensation or restoration of the job shall be required.
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 14:23 GMT on January 3rd, 2022.
I vote FOR the amendment.
Donald Tusk
Acting Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
-
Voting on amendments has concluded. With 2 votes FOR and 6 votes AGAINST, Amendment I has been REJECTED.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 19:11 GMT on January 6th, 2022.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this act.
Donald Tusk
Acting Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this Act.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this act,
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies -
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAİNST this Act.
Nicholas Benfield
