The agreement signed by the social partners on harassment: a language problem?

(B2) The European social partners - John Monks for ETUC (trade unions), Philippe de Buck for BusinessEurope (private employers), Rainer Plassmann for CEEP (public employers) and Hans-Werner Müller for UEAPME (SME) - have signed, on April 26, an autonomous framework agreement to combat harassment and violence at work.

The agreement obliges companies to clearly state that harassment and violence in the workplace are not tolerated, and specifies the procedure to be followed.
- When a case of harassment or violence is proven, appropriate measures must be taken against the person in charge. This may include disciplinary action or dismissal.
- The victim must receive support and, if necessary, help for their reintegration.
- The necessary discretion must be maintained to protect everyone's dignity and privacy.
- No information should be disclosed to persons not involved in a dispute.
- Any complaint must be followed up with an investigation and a solution without delay.
- All parties involved must be heard impartially and receive fair treatment.
- Any false accusation should not be tolerated and disciplined.
The agreement recognizes that the responsibility for determining, reviewing and monitoring appropriate measures rests with the employer, in consultation with workers and/or their representatives.

The social partners are not asking for this agreement to be transposed by means of a directive. They preferred, in accordance with Article 139 of the EC Treaty, to undertake to apply it, in accordance with the specific procedures and practices of social dialogue in their country, within three years of the signing of the agreement, i.e. before April 2010. The parties also agreed to evaluate and see this agreement within 5 years (2012). The negotiations started following an official consultation, in January 2005, of the social partners by the Commission.

A language problem. The agreement was negotiated and signed in English. It is only available in this language. This poses a problem: both the validity of the agreement. As part of the political legitimacy of the European Treaty and its legal framework, it would seem logical that the social partners cannot free themselves from its rules and that translation be provided at least in several languages. It is a question of legal validity, political legitimacy and social courtesy. The European social partners defend themselves by arguing that translation into languages ​​is the responsibility of the social partners at national level. The argument, however practical it may be, does not correspond to European habits and customs: a directive, a European decision, are translated and validated by lawyer linguists at European level, the question of translation is moreover an intrinsic to an agreement. And the Member States do not have the competence to translate the text as they see fit. It is contrary to a certain understanding of Europe by citizens. Why would the social partners have the authority to free themselves from this rule to which governments comply?