¹ The term „temporary work“ is actually used more often than agency work, inter alia by the EU institutions. However, this vocabulary unduly stresses the temporary character of agency work, although agency work based on an indefinite contract of employment is certainly the socially more desirable model. The term “temporary work” may even lead to confusion of agency work and fixed term work, as both terms are used interchangeably in legal English (see e.g. Murray, J. Normalising Temporary Work, 26 Industrial Law Journal (1999), 269, discussing the EU Directive on Fixed Term Work) For these reasons, we will use the terms “agency work” (not temporary work or temporary agency work), “works agency” (not temporary works agency or “employment agency”) and “agency worker” (not temporary workers) in the following.Google Scholar

² See Storrie, D.: Temporary Agency work in the European Union. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2002, at 5–12; Feuerborn, Europäischer Vergleich, in: Schüren, P./ Feuerborn, A./ Hamann, W., Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz. Kommentar. 2nd ed. München: Beck 2003, 119–125. This summary also relies on the country reports given at the Pontignano Seminar 2004 on 24 and 25 July 2004 (F. Scarpelli: Relazione al Seminario di diritto del lavoro comparato – Pontignano XXI;“Agency Work” (unpublished, 2004); Luisa Corazza: Italian Report Pontignano XXI;"Agency Work” (unpublished, 2004); M.C. Rodríguez-Piñero Royo: Temporary work and the information society: Spanish Report, Pontignano XXI; „Agency Work” (unpublished, 2004); C. Sachs-Durand & S. Robin-Olivier: French Report, Pontignano XXI;“Agency Work” (unpublished, 2004); T. Jaspers: Dutch Report, Pontignano XXI;“Agency Work” (unpublished, 2004).Google Scholar

³ See Storrie, op. cit., at 33-34.Google Scholar

⁴ Storrie, op. cit., at 59.Google Scholar

⁵ This latter aspect is mentioned in interviews with agency workers from Denmark, see Storrie, op. cit. at 53.Google Scholar

⁶ Storrie, op. cit., at 54-56. However, in a situation of labour shortage, agency work may also be used to provide a higher-pay sector without altering the collective agreements prematurely. According to Storrie, this is one aspect of agency work in nursing in Sweden and Denmark (op.cit., at 54, with notes 79 and 80).Google Scholar

⁷ Similar hopes are expressed by Storrie, op. cit., at 33.Google Scholar

⁸ Notably the UK, Ireland, Finland and Denmark (see COM (2002) 149 final, at 4), and the Netherlands since the 1970's.Google Scholar

⁹ This was the case in Italy until 1997 and in Spain until 1994; information from the national reports delivered by M. Rodriguez-Pinero Royo, Scarpelli and Castrozzo, op. cit at note 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰ On the role of agency work in the knowledge and information society see Blanpain, R. & Graham, R. Temporary Agency Work and the Information Society, The Hague et al: Kluwer International Law, 2004Google Scholar

¹¹ ECJ case 279/80 (Webb) [1981] ECR 3305, concerning the question whether the owner of an English works agency that was in possession of the relevant permit required under English law may be obliged under Dutch law to obtain a second permission if its main economic activity consists of the provision of agency work for the Dutch market. The Court held that this was possible, with a view to the differences in the labour market.Google Scholar

¹² ECJ Case 493/99 (Commission v Germany) [2001] ECR I-8163.Google Scholar

¹³ The same requirement also applied to some other cases, for example for the sake of misapplication of the general prohibition of seconding of workers in the construction industry (§ 5 AÜG).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Short reference to this is made in the explanatory memorandum to the newly proposed directive, COM (2002) 149 final, at. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The latest successor dates from 1990, COM (90) 228 final, OJ 1990 C 224/8.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Zappalà, L. The Regulation of Temporary work in the light of Flexicurity: Between Soft law and hard law, Centro Study di Diritto del Lavoro Europeo, Massimo d'Antona, Catania, Working Paper 21/2003, at.2-4.Google Scholar

¹⁷ All the citations in the last lines are from recitals 3, 4 and 11 of the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on temporary work, COM (2002) 701 final.Google Scholar

¹⁸ CIETT-Europe. This organisation had – after the social dialogue between the ETUC for the employee side and UNICE, CEEP and UEAPME for the employer side had been suspended due to insurmountable disagreement – initiated its own social dialogue with a European Union of Agency Workers (Uni-Europe), the result of which was a positive common position with the aim of inciting the Commission to provide a new proposal for a directive, refraining from including principles such as equal treatment (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2001/oct/201_de.html).Google Scholar

¹⁹ 2512th Council meeting Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs, Luxembourg, 2 and 3 June 2003, Agenda Part A, Temporary Agency Work: Public Deliberation.Google Scholar

²⁰ The Employment Guidelines 2002 (2002/117/EG, OJ L 60/60) demanded from the Member States to provide for a modernisation of organisation of work by providing for a variety of flexible employment in their legislation (OJ L 60/67 under III No 14). The Employment Guidelines 2003 (2003/578/EC, OJ L 197/13) repeat the same aim under different headings. In order to “Address Change and Promote Adaptability and Mobility in the Labour Market”, Member States are again encouraged to promote “a diversity of contractual and working arrangements” that provide for “a better balance (…) between flexibility and security” (OJ L 197/18, under 3.) and the design of “innovative and sustainable forms of work organisation” (OJ L 197/19, top). Especially as regards “Job Creation and Entrepreneurship”, Member States are still encouraged to “simplify and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens” (OJ L 197/18, under 2).Google Scholar

²¹ 2003/C 221/12, [2003] OJ C 220/50, No 3.3.6., fifth indent (page 59).Google Scholar

²² See Keller, B., The Hartz Commission Recommendations and Beyond: An Intermediate Assessment, 19 The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 2003, 363–386.Google Scholar

²³ This national character does not always prevail in relation to EU labour law, as is witnessed by the numerous cases before the ECJ in relation to the Gender Equality Directives and the necessity for the Commission to start proceedings against Germany because it failed to implement on time Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC relating to equality of persons irrespective of race, ethnic origin, religion and believe, sexual orientation, age and disability.Google Scholar

²⁴ General source: Schüren, Einleitung, No 20-76, in: Schüren et al, AÜG, 2003 (op cit note 2).Google Scholar

²⁵ 4 April 1967, BVerfGE 21, 265.Google Scholar

²⁶ Of 7 August 1972, BGBl. I, S. 1393.Google Scholar

²⁷ The public employment offices’ monopoly on job placement had been reinforced by the Arbeitsförderungsgesetz (Employment Promotion Act – AFG), which had been passed along with the AÜG in 1972 as the successor of the AVAVG.Google Scholar

²⁸ With hindsight, it appears almost as unbelievable, that in 1974 a number of 0.9 million unemployed persons was perceived as scandalous.Google Scholar

²⁹ ECJ C-41/90, [1991] ECR I-147.Google Scholar

³⁰ BetrVG Reformgesetz vom 23.7.2001, BGBl. I, S. 1852.Google Scholar

³¹ Act of 23 December 2002, BGBl. I, 4607.Google Scholar

³² Act of 23 December 2003, BGBl. I, 2848.Google Scholar

³³ ECJ C-493/99 (Commission versus Germany), [2001] ECR I-8163, cf. supra [20].Google Scholar

³⁴ Repeal of § 291 para. 1 and § 293 para. 1 1st sentence of SGB III (Social Code Book III, the successor of the AFG) through Gesetz zur Vereinfachung der Wahl der Arbeitnehmervertreter im Aufsichtsrat vom 27.3.2002, see for a detailed analysis Spellbrink, W., Wandlungen im Recht der Arbeitsvermittlung – oder: Viel Lärm um wenig? 51 Die Sozialgerichtsbarkeit (SGb) 2004, 75-142, 153-159 (81-82).Google Scholar

³⁵ See Garhammer, M. Temporary Agency Work: National reports. Germany. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2002, 25–27.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Federal Civil Court 3 July 2003, 58 Betriebsberater (BB) 2003, 1015.Google Scholar

³⁷ Benkert, D., Änderungen im Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz durch Hartz III, 59 BB 2004, 998-1001, at 1000, considering a fee of two or three monthly salaries as excessive.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Raab, T., Europäische und nationale Entwicklungen im Recht der Arbeitnehmerüberlassung, 34 Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (ZfA) 2003, 389-447, at 426.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Wank, R., Der Richtlinienvorschlag der EG Kommission zur Leiharbeit und das „Erste Gesetz für moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt“, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (NZA) 2003, 14-19, at 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Exceptions to this rule were the exception from the need to obtain permission under § 1 and §1 b AÜG and the obligations of the works agency to inform the agency worker not only of the contents of his or her contract of employment, but also of the details of the permission, specific remuneration for times without assignment and of the contents of the AÜG in the language the employee requires (§ 11 AÜG).Google Scholar

⁴¹ BAG 7 ABR 53/02, Der Betrieb (DB) 2003, 2128.Google Scholar

⁴² Garhammer, Temporary agency work national reports Germany, 2002.Google Scholar

⁴³ Deutsche Angestelltengewerkschaft – white collar union. DAG is now merged with other unions to VERDI.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bundesverband der Zeitarbeitsunternehmen (Federal Association of work agencies; a member of CIETT).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Schüren, in: Schüren et al (2003, op cit note 2) § 9 nos. 222-225.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Böhm W., Billig-Tarifverträge in der Zeitarbeit. Risiken für Kunden. DB 2003, 2598–2599.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Buchner, H., Leiharbeit: Ablösung der Verpflichtung zur Gewährung der im Entleiherbetrieb geltenden Arbeitsbedingungen (§ 10 Abs. 4 AÜG) durch Tarifregelungen, –DB 2004, 1042–1044.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Böhm, op. cit.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Bayreuther, W., Die Vorschläge der Harz-Kommission, NZA Sonderbeilage 1/2004, 1-12, at. 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Until the end of 2003, there were 13 collective agreements intended to legalise exceptions from the principle of equal pay for agency workers. One series of collective agreements consists of framework agreement, framework agreement for remuneration and actual agreement on remuneration; the latter may be differentiated for western and eastern Germany. Accordingly, the relatively high number of 13 boils down to three clusters of collective agreements (From: Smidt, E., Tarifverträge und veränderte Bedingungen für Leiharbeitnehmer. Diplomarbeit Universität Oldenburg, 2003, 92-155). They can be sketched as follows: (See chart on next page)Google Scholar

⁵¹ Waas, B., Das Spannungsverhältnis von Tarifvertrag und Gesetz beim Grundsatz der Entgeltgleichheit im neuen AÜG, 58 BB 2003, 2175-2178, at 2177.Google Scholar

⁵² Bothfeld S./Kaiser, L., Befristung und Leiharbeit: Brücken in reguläre Beschäftigung? WSI-Mitteilungen 2003, 484-493, at 490. According to the statistics of the Federal Labour Office (http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/detail/a.html), from January to June 2003 237,000 workers had been dismissed by work agencies. Of these, 29,993 had been employed for less than a week, 104,249 between 1 week and 3 months and 103,038 more than 3 months. This latter number reveals that duration of employment and duration of assignment does not differ very much.Google Scholar

⁵³ Bellmann, L., Zur Entwicklung der Leiharbeit in Deutschland. Theoretische Überlegungen und empirische Ergebnisse aus dem IAB-Betriebspanel, 53 Sozialer Fortschritt 2004, 135-141, at 140.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Schüren, 2003 (op cit note 2), no. 34 to § 9.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Schiek, D., Das neue Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz – ein Beispiel für Europäisches Arbeitsrechts auf Grundlage einer Sozialpartnervereinbarung, 35 Kritische Justiz 2002, 18–42.Google Scholar