No 10 downplays role of EU directive
By Alex Stevenson
Downing St appeared keen to downplay the role of the contentious posted workers directive (PWD) as it sought to explain its stance on wildcat strikes today.
Unions are angry with the government for allowing foreign workers to “undercut” British ones at the Lindsey oil refinery, owned by Total, in Lincolnshire.
In a statement Total rejected the claim it has discriminated against British workers. Employment dispute organisation Acas is now arbitrating the row.
Business secretary Peter Mandelson has said in recent days the PWD is not necessarily related to the Lindsey strikes, apparently prejudging the Acas ruling.
“Lord Mandelson was expressing his view on the basis of a statement from Total,” the prime minister’s spokesman explained this morning.
“We have no reason not to believe the Total statement.”
No 10 is refusing to accept any link between the EU directive and the wildcat strikes in Britain, insisting the PWD dispute predates the current argument.
The PWD was introduced in 1996 in order to allow European companies employ its staff on a temporary project in another EU state – providing the company sticks to local working conditions.
It is not yet clear whether this is the case in the Total case. The prime minister’s spokesman added: “We’re not going to operate on the basis of rumour and counter-rumour.”
Until specific evidence that European law is being subverted this position is unlikely to change.
The PWD is currently being looked at by Europe-wide union and employer groups.
This follows an agreement it required closer examination at the December meeting of the Council of Europe.
The British government believes it is doing all it should to address the issue by monitoring the progress of the PWD.
