The majority rejected the objection of unconstitutionality for Article 7 of the labor bill, which relates to arrangements on the “working limits” submitted by the Greek solution.

The ND was opposed to unconstitutionality, and all opposition parties supported it.

The parliamentary spokesman for the Greek solution Konstantinos Chitas argued that Article 7 of the bill abolishes 8 hours and allows up to 13 hours of continuous work on the same employer, a regulation that contradicts fundamental protective provisions of the Constitution, as he said, and said: State. ” Article 5 (1) on the “protection of personal freedom and free personality of man”. Article 21 par. Oh, for the “protection of the family” as well as Article 22 that adopts “protection of labor”.

The Minister of Labor and Social Security, Niki Kerameos, rejected the objection of unconstitutionality that all opposition parties supported, saying that “it is another politically disagreement with a bill, which is completely legitimate and fertile, and to argue that there are any provisions.” The minister noted that after four long meetings in the Commission and 13 hours yesterday, the debate on the bill in plenary, the opposition parties for the first time discovered and suddenly alleged that there is a question of unconstitutionality. Mrs Kerameos observed that this draft law, before being submitted to Parliament, was legally evaluated by KEEN, which consists of CoE advisers and law professors, who did not raise any issues of unconstitutionality in its provisions. At the same time, there is no observation in the multi -page report by the Scientific Committee of the House.

The minister stressed that in general, “Article 7 of the bill does not change the time limits that are already in force today. That is to say, up to 13 hours of employment daily for one employee, 150 hours overtime per year. “And those that are still not judged by any court as unconstitutional.

In particular, Article 2 of the Constitution providing for “the respect and protection of man as the primary protection of the state. Prohibits work and behavior that affects human dignity “, Mrs Kerameos reacted that” Article 7 does not change the Code of Labor Law that provides for a legal daily hours of 8 hours, up to 150 hours overtime per year. ” On the contrary, he said, “reinforces the position of the employee” as it is possible to do what if an employee wants to do by working up to 13 hours daily to two employers, this can do so to an employer and even without having to move, but also with a surcharge of 40% of his fee. ” At the same time, Article 7, the Minister added, provides for greater protection to the employee. As he said, it was reinforced by the proposals of the opposition parties and the bodies, added by legislative addition. “They are coming and further reinforcing the employee’s overtime status, as it provides legislatively, explicitly, the right of the employee to refuse to provide overtime, as well as that his refusal may not be the reason for the termination of the immunity contract or to cause harmful or harmful behavior. And even the burden of proof is the employer. “

The Minister rejected that Article 7 violates Article 5 of the Constitution on “free development of personality” by saying that “this protection is not affected by the time it is not obliged to provide overtime. Employment in one or more employers is a matter of choice of the employee with a maximum of 13 hours a day. “

Concerning Article 21 of the Constitution on “Protection of Family Life”, Mrs Kerameos reiterated that “nothing from the overtime existing. On the contrary, anyone who chooses to work for up to 13 hours, instead of doing so in two employers, can do so in one, saving the hassle of travel, with a 40% increase in his pay.

Finally, in the objections that Article 7 of the bill concludes that Article 22 of the Constitution “for protection at work” the Minister said that in this case, the employee is protected, as the right to refuses to refuse.

Mrs Kerameos, in conclusion, said that Article 7 of the bill “does not offend any constitutional right”.

ND parliamentary spokesman Notis Mitarakis, at the same length as the Minister of Labor, rejected the unconstitutional objection, saying that in contrast to the projected, “this bill gives rights to workers in prosperity and social mobility” noting that “more”. The ability to work up to 13 hours a day, Mr Mitarakis said, “is nothing new in Greek labor law. It comes as amended by Law 2784/2000, which has established PASOK, with these same principles and conditions for overtime, which has not been considered unconstitutional for 25 years. ” On the contrary, with the amendment made by Article 7 of the draft law, “more options are provided to the employee and with more safety valves”.

In contrast, opposition parties were in favor of unconstitutionality.

PASOK parliamentary spokesman Dimitris Mantzos supported his unconstitutionality, “because our attitude is always political”, “even if the provisions of the bill move on the outskirts of the constitutional provisions” as “we insist that this plan should not withdraw, Fundamental rights and conquests of labor law. ” For the provision of Article 7 he said that the 13 -hour work rests the core of the constitutional protection of labor. The state, he said, “cannot invoke the” consensus “of the employee when it is exercised under conditions of dependence and fear of losing his work.” He pointed out that “another dependent work and another is the employment of the self -employed. The employer is generally stronger financially, and therefore negotiating against the employee. That is why there is a need to protect the worker from labor law (individual and collective) throughout Europe and our country. ” Mr Mantzos said the 13 -hour reversal of the 11 -hour rest provided by the European Directive. It doesn’t even favor demographic.

SYRIZA parliamentary spokesman Christos Giannoulis said that “through the provisions of the labor bill and with four-five benefits, the government is trying to wash away dozens of articles of real rewarding reform”. We insist, he said, “the most reliable, brave and honest solution is to withdraw the bill. The defense of the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure, “he added,” it is a continuous and constant effort of all of us to maintain the foundations of a rule of law “and stated that” despite the imperfections of the proposal of unconstitutionality, we will vote for it so that we do not have any crime. “

KKE parliamentary spokesman Nikos Karathanassopoulos argued that “in a class society, the Constitution cannot be disordered, as it protects the interests of the ruling class.” If the bourgeois constitution, he said, “actually protected the rights of the workers and the people, then there would be no poverty and poverty.” The invocation of the Constitution, he noted, “is a” empty shirt “and disorientates, concealing the core of the government’s anti -labor bill”, that is, the satisfaction of the interests of the business groups “in every way”. The KKE, however, said, will support the proposal of unconstitutionality, as it is a whole bill “a monster, which turns the working man into a machine, destroys his health and life, leads him to exhaustion, destroys his personality, and destroys his personality, and testifies.

New left -wing market Efi Achcioglou said that the provision is in a series of constitutional principles, stressing that the protective provision of the “worker’s consent is not actually an expression of free will or free choice, and those who have no basic knowledge of the labor market is unaware of the labor market. The employer and employee relationship is not a relationship of equal parts. “

The 13 -hour period, Ms Achsioglou said, offends the free development of personality, affects family protection, health protection, the right to work. He also added that it is obvious that working conditions are degraded. He noted that the social right to work – in addition to the obligation to improve it to improve it – certainly sets a threshold for its degradation and retreat from those already conquered. And once we take a step back relative to the 8 -hour, it is obvious that the right to work, the European Social Charter and the Functioning of Collective Negotiations, and Directive 391 of ’89, concerning health and safety at work, is also offended.

The parliamentary spokesman for Niki Aspasia Kouroupakis, in favor of the unconstitutionality of the provision, saying that “this is not an exaggeration” but “comes in direct conflict with Article 22 of the Constitution that protects the right to work, not only as a financial relationship, but as a core of the human being, A registered limit of health and rest. ” The provision of Article 7, he said, is also “contrary to Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament providing for the minimum 11 -hour rest of an employee incorporated into our national law”.

The parliamentary spokesman for Freedom Freedom Eleni Karageorgopoulou, for her part, in support of the objection of unconstitutionality, said that “this bill is attempting to circumvent a series of human rights in life, the free development of personality, health, health and safety of workers”. Ms. Karageorgopoulou added that “Article 28 of the Constitution, through which the provisions of International Labor Conventions, as regulated under the Council of Europe, the United Nations, of ILO, are also violated.” The MP said that “labor law has been acknowledged that the employee is not an equal trading with the employer over time.”