Europaudvalget 2020-21
KOM (2020) 0682 Bilag 3
Offentligt
Summary of statement from the Committee on the Labour Market 2020/21:AU6
Subsidiarity check of the Commission’s proposal for a directive on
adequate minimum wages in the European Union, COM (2020) 682
Summary
The Committee on the Labour Market proposes that the Riksdag submit a reasoned opinion to the
Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in accordance with Chapter
10, Article 3 of the Riksdag Act. The Committee considers that the Commission’s proposal conflicts
with the principle of subsidiarity.
The Committee unanimously maintains that measures concerning wage formation are best regulated at
national level.
The position of the Committee
The Committee notes, firstly, that the Commission states that the proposed directive is based on
Article 153.1 (b) of the TFEU. According to this article, the EU shall support and complement
activities of member states in such areas as working conditions to achieve the objectives stated in
Article 151, which include improvements to living and working conditions. The provisions shall
however not be applied to wage conditions, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to
impose lock-outs (Article 153.5). The Committee further notes that the Commission takes the view
that the proposal respects the limits for EU competences as it does not contain a call for measures that
directly influence wage levels.
The Committee finds this interpretation remarkable. The Treaty is clear when it states that it is the
member states themselves that regulate matters in the area of wage conditions and that the EU lacks
the authority to legislate in this area. Since parts of the directive are proposed to be binding for all
member states, this is an encroachment on national models for wage formation. In the opinion of the
Committee, there is no doubt that minimum wages fall within the framework of what the Treaty
expresses as wage conditions.
For these reasons, in the opinion of the Committee, a measure at EU level already has limited
possibilities to help make wages reasonable and adequate in an efficient and accurate way at national
level.
The Committee will now move on to the question of the principle of subsidiarity in the proposal,
which is the object of the Committee’s examination. The Committee notes that the subsidiarity check
can only apply to existing proposals of the Commission that have been sent, which is something that
the Committee on the Constitution has clarified in other contexts (for example in an opinion on the
forms of reasoned opinions regarding subsidiarity checks, see Record of the Committee on the
Constitution 2011/12:27). According to the principle of subsidiarity, the EU shall take a measure only
in cases where the objectives of the measure cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states
themselves. In other words, taking the measure should entail added value at EU level.
In the opinion of the Committee, an important starting point in this context is that the member states of
the EU have different models for dealing with matters relating to wage formation. Whereas some
countries have collective agreement models, others have statutory minimum wages. There are also
differences between countries who have similar models. One precondition to ensure that the Swedish
labour market model should function is for example that the parties to the labour market are free to
negotiate without interference from the state. Wages in such a labour market model will be reasonable
since they are negotiated between two equally strong parties, the trade union and the employer. If the
EU interferes with these matters, there is a risk that models such as the Swedish model will be
 kom (2020) 0682 - Bilag 3: Begrundet udtalelse af 8. december 2020 af den svenske Rigsdags Arbejdsmarkedsudvalg vedr. Kommissionens forslag om passende mindstelønninger i Europa.
undermined. Furthermore, the member states have different economic and social conditions, which
affect labour markets and wage levels.
The differences that exist between member states make the Committee strongly question whether the
objective of the planned measures can be better achieved at EU level rather than at national level. It is
difficult to find accurate measures at EU level that work for all member states. Furthermore, there is
no clear transnational dimension to the issues that are intended for regulation.
The Commission’s justification for the proposal is primarily that measures at EU level will help
safeguard equal terms in the internal market. These aspects are not unimportant, but since the objective
of the proposal is stated as being to improve working and living conditions in the EU, the above
arguments have no place in this context. The arguments that are used for a subsidiarity check should
be based on such arguments that aim to meet the objective of the proposed measure. In addition to this,
the Committee shares the Government’s assessment that the proposal, contrary to Commission's
assessment, runs the risk of increasing the differences between minimum wage levels in the member
states.
The proposed directive also contains definitions of concepts such as minimum wages, collective
bargaining and collective agreements. The Committee agrees with the Government that such central
concepts relating to labour law are best elaborated in relation to the distinctive natures of different
systems existing at national level.
The Committee wishes to point out that the parties to the Swedish labour market, both the employees’
and the employers’ organisations, have expressed great anxiety and frustration that the Commission is
proceeding with a proposal concerning binding rules regarding minimum wages. The Committee notes
that the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise stood behind Business Europe in the consultation
procedure and was extremely critical towards there being a directive in this area. The trade union
organisations in Sweden, together with their colleagues in Norway, Denmark and Iceland, sent an
open letter to the Commission in connection with the first consultation and another letter in connection
with the second. In the letters, the Nordic trade unions complained that the European Trade Union
College had expressed its support for measures concerning minimum wages and expressed particular
criticism towards binding legislation at EU level. The Nordic trade unions declared that they
considered that there were no legal grounds for EU legislation in this area and that a directive would
be a serious threat to the Nordic labour market models.
There is thus broad and extensive consensus in Sweden that wage formation is a national matter which
must be vigorously safeguarded. The Swedish model for wage formation which is built upon
negotiations between trade unions and employers must also be recognised as an adequate way of
achieving adequate minimum wages. The significance of a smoothly functioning system of wage
formation must be in focus when new measures are being discussed.
The Committee further considers that the consequences of the proposal are very difficult to foresee.
Ultimately, it is the Court of Justice of the European Union that interprets the directives adopted by the
EU, and it is therefore not possible to predict how this particular directive will be applied in different
situations. The proposal constitutes a real threat to the Swedish labour market model since it will be
possible for both wages in Sweden and the Swedish collective agreement model to be examined by the
Court of Justice of the European Union.
The Committee is also concerned about the fact that such an extensive interpretation of the EU’s
powers according to the TFEU as the Commission is now making in this particular case can result in
the Commission also continuing to propose common measures in the area of labour law. The
Committee wishes to stress that it is crucial for the authority of member states to be safeguarded in EU
work in this area. This has been a cornerstone of the Swedish approach to the EU since we joined the
Union. The basic premise must thus be, both now and in the future, that issues lacking a clear
transnational dimension within the area of labour law should primarily be dealt with at national level.
 kom (2020) 0682 - Bilag 3: Begrundet udtalelse af 8. december 2020 af den svenske Rigsdags Arbejdsmarkedsudvalg vedr. Kommissionens forslag om passende mindstelønninger i Europa.
In summary, it is the Committee’s definite view that measures concerning wage formation are best
regulated at national level. The objective of the directive is to ensure that employees receive wages
that allow a reasonable standard of living wherever they work in the EU. In the opinion of the
Committee, this can be achieved to a sufficient extent by the member states themselves, as the
preconditions and systems for wage formation are so markedly different between the various member
states. Furthermore, there is no clear transnational dimension to the issues that are intended for
regulation. There is thus no added value to be gained from measures at EU level for matters relating to
wage formation.
The Committee has previously pointed out how important it is that negotiations on proposed legal
instruments are not begun before the time limit for subsidiarity checks has expired (Committee Report
2017/18:AU17). This has also been pointed out by the Committee on the Constitution (Committee
Report 2017/18:KU5). The Committee has not changed its opinion on this matter and regrets that
negotiations in the Council on adequate minimum wages have already begun – that is long before the
member states’ subsidiarity checks have been completed.
The Committee considers in light of this that the Commission’s proposal conflicts with the principle of
subsidiarity and proposes that the Riksdag submit a reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission in accordance with Chapter 10, Article 3 of the Riksdag
Act.